AGENDA - East Zorra-Tavistockezt.ca/Portals/EastZorraTavistock/Documents_Forms/agd/...2019/05/01...

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK COUNCIL 2018 - 2022

AGENDA

for the Meeting to be held on Wednesday May 1, 2019 in the Council Chambers at the Oxford County Admin. Building, 21 Reeve Street, Woodstock, Ontario, at 9:00 a.m.

1. Call to order and opening remarks

2. Approve Agenda

3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

4. General Business: a) Confirm Minutes of Previous Meeting b) UTRCA – April 2019 FYI c) OHRC – Harmful Impact of Indigenous Themed Sports Logos (City Facilities) d) ROEDC – Appointment of Board Member (Remainder of Council Term) e) Oxford County – Consent Application B19-15-2 (Zehr) f) Oxford County – Consent Application B19-18-19-2 (Alver Farms Limited) g) Oxford County – Consent Application B19-26-2 (Gateman Homes Inc.)

5. Delegations & Appointments:

a) 9:15 a.m. – ZBA Application 2-19-03 (Findlater) b) 9:30 a.m. – Court of Revision (Tavistock Drain 1974)

6. Reports of Municipal Officers and Committees:

a) Conferences and Seminars b) County Council – Updates & Questions c) Staff Reports – Updates & Questions d) March 25, 2019 TDRFB Minutes e) April 24, 2019 HTC Minutes f) Staff Report - #BIDC2019 – 04 re: Veale Drain (Branch C) Petition/Eng. Appoint. g) Staff Report - #CBO2019 – 07 re: Building, Development & Drainage Reporting h) Staff Report - #PW2019 – 10 re: Public Works Reporting i) Staff Report - #PW2019 – 11 re: Maplewood Sideroad Tender Results j) Staff Report - #FC2019 – 06 re: Fire Department Reporting k) Staff Report - #BCO2019 – 04 re: By-law Compliance Reporting l) Staff Report - #CSM2019 – 14 re: Corporate Services Reporting

7. By-laws:

a) By-law #2019-16 – ZBA Application 2-19-03 (Findlater)

8. Other and Unfinished Business: a) Councillor Rudy – Motion for Reconsideration

(Fire Dept. UTV Service resolution from March 20/19)

May 1, 2019 Council Agenda Page Two

9. Closed to the Public Session *as authorized under s. 239 of the Municipal Act*: a) April 17, 2019 Closed Session Minutes (s. 239 (2) (c)) b) Staff Report - #BCO2019 – 04 re: By-law Compliance Reporting

(Closed Session) (s. 239 (2) (b))

10. Confirming By-law

11. Adjourn

Placeholder Page for Agenda Item 1 – Call to order and opening remarks Use this page to note any opening remarksyou wish to make.

wjaques

Typewritten Text

wjaques

Typewritten Text

wjaques

Typewritten Text

wjaques

Typewritten Text

wjaques

Typewritten Text

wjaques

Typewritten Text

wjaques

Typewritten Text

#1.

2. Placeholder Page for Agenda Item 2 – Approval of the Agenda Use this page to note items you would like added to the agenda.

3. Placeholder Page for Agenda Item 3 – Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Use this page to note any Pecuniary Interestsyou wish to declare at the meeting.

Council Meeting of Wednesday April 17, 2019 Page 33

The Council of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock met

in the Council Chambers at the Oxford County

Administration Building, Woodstock, Ontario at 7:00 p.m.

on Wednesday April 17, 2019.

Members Present: Mayor Don MCKAY, Deputy Don

EDMISTON and Councillors Matthew GILLESPIE, Margaret

LUPTON, Scott RUDY, Phil SCHAEFER and Jeremy SMITH.

Members Absent: N/A

Staff Present: CAO Karen DePrest, Clerk Will Jaques, CBO

John Scherer, Public Works Manager Tom Lightfoot and

Fire Chief Scott Alexander.

Council expressed appreciation to CAO Karen DePrest for

her presentation to the Regional Review advisors on April

16, 2019.

Approve

Agenda

1. Moved by: Margaret LUPTON

Seconded by: Phil SCHAEFER

Resolved that Council approve the agenda for the

April 17, 2019 meeting, as printed and circulated.

CARRIED.

PECUNIARY INTERESTS:

• Don McKay – Items 6(d), 7(a) & (b), 9(b)

(Strathallan)

Confirm

Minutes

2. Moved by: Matthew GILLESPIE

Seconded by: Jeremy SMITH

Resolved that Council confirm the Minutes of the

April 3, 2019 Council Meeting, as printed and

circulated.

CARRIED.

wjaques

Text Box

#4.a


Adjourn to

Closed to the

Public Session

3. Moved by: Jeremy SMITH

Seconded by: Matthew GILLESPIE

Resolved that Council does now adjourn to a

Closed to the Public Session, at 7:05 p.m., to

consider the following matters:

• March 6, 2019 Closed Session Minutes (s. 239 (2) (b))

• Purchase & Sale Agreement (Strathallan) (s. 239 (2) (c))

• Potential Property Acquisition (s. 239 (2) (c))

CARRIED.

Rise from

Closed to the

Public Session

4. Moved by: Scott RUDY


Resolved that Council does now rise from its

Closed to the Public Session at 7:14 p.m.

CARRIED.

Correspondence & Reports – No Resolutions:

• Tillsonburg – MMAH Regional Governance

Review • ERTH Corp. – Annual General Meeting 2019

• Oxford County – Public Works Report (Speed

Management, Traffic Calming & Road Safety Reviews)

Correspondence & Reports – Resolutions

Following:

Council discussed the upcoming ERTH Corporation

Annual General Meeting, to be held May 30, 2019

in Ingersoll.

Council reviewed the Oxford County Public Works

report regarding the recent speed management,

traffic calming & road safety review in various

County of Oxford communities.

Staff Report

#CSM2019 –

13 re:

Strathallan

Properties &

Road Stubs

Clerk Will Jaques presented his report to Council

regarding the conveyance of road stubs, and other

related matters, for a residential development in

Strathallan.


5. Moved by: Phil SCHAEFER


Resolved that Council approve the

recommendations in Staff Report #CSM2019-13.

CARRIED.

Public Meeting - Open

6. Moved by: Jeremy SMITH Seconded by: Matthew GILLESPIE

Resolved that Council does now adjourn to a Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the

Planning Act at 7:57 p.m. CARRIED.

Public Meeting for ZN2-19-02

– Halliday

PUBLIC MEETING – HALLIDAY ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZN2-19-02, PART LOT 22,

CONCESSION 6 (SOUTH EASTHOPE); PART

LOT 64, NORTH OF HOPE STREET AND WEST OF WILLIAM STREET, PLAN 3017; AND,

PARTS 1, 2 AND 4 ON 41R-8476, TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK.

Meghan House from the County of Oxford Planning

Department was present to comment on her report #CP2019-101, regarding a Zone Change

Application on lands owned by Elizabeth Halliday and the Estate of Bruce Halliday.

Council asked questions of the planner. The

applicant spoke favourably of the application. Council considered the comments received in

making its decision on this application.

Council Reconvene

7. Moved by: Matthew GILLESPIE Seconded by: Don EDMISTON

Resolved that the Public Meeting does now adjourn and Council reconvenes at 7:59 p.m.

CARRIED.

By-laws:

1st & 2nd

Reading

8. Moved by: Margaret LUPTON

Seconded by: Scott RUDY

Resolved that the following by-laws be read a first

and second time:

• 2019-14 – ZBA Application 2-19-02 (Halliday)

CARRIED.

By-laws:

3rd & Final

Reading

9. Moved by: Don EDMISTON


Resolved that the following by-laws be read a third

and final time:

• 2019-14 – ZBA Application 2-19-02 (Halliday)

CARRIED.


Staff Report

#CAO2019 –

01 re: Joint

Municipal

Service

Delivery

Review

CAO Karen DePrest presented her report to Council

regarding the Regional Governance Review, and

proposed Joint Municipal Service Delivery Review.



Resolved that Council approve the

recommendations in Staff Report #CAO2019-01.

CARRIED.

By-laws:

1st & 2nd

Reading


Seconded by: Margaret LUPTON

Resolved that the following by-laws be read a first

and second time:

• 2019-12 – Stop up/ Close/ Sell Roads

(Strathallan)

• 2019-13 – Road Stubs/ Structure Agreement

(Strathallan)

CARRIED.

By-laws:

3rd & Final

Reading

12. Moved by: Matthew GILLESPIE

Seconded by: Phil SCHAEFER

Resolved that the following by-laws be read a third

and final time:

• 2019-12 – Stop up/ Close/ Sell Roads

(Strathallan)

• 2019-13 – Road Stubs/ Structure Agreement

(Strathallan)

CARRIED.

Confirming

By-law



Resolved that by-law #2019-15 being a by-law to

confirm the proceedings of Council held

Wednesday April 17th, 2019 be read a first, second

and third time this 17th day of April, 2019;

And further that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby

authorized to sign the same and affix the corporate

seal thereto.

CARRIED.


Adjourn 14. Moved by: Scott RUDY


Resolved that Council does now adjourn at

8:09 p.m.

CARRIED.

Will Jaques, Clerk Don McKay, Mayor

1

Celebrate Earth Day London! Sunday, April 28, 11 am - 3 pm, Harris ParkEarth Day London 2019 Flyer

All are welcome to attend London’s Earth Day event at Harris Park, from 11 am to 3 pm. Activities will include pollinator planting, flood walks, Canadian Raptor Conservancy demonstrations, water festival activities, river art, Earth Day mandala, fish sampling demonstrations, a beaver baffler demonstration, turtle talks, face painting, and a free draw for a children’s bike.

This event is made possible through the sponsorship of the London Community Foundation, Back to the River, Dillon Consulting, the City of London, and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Please consider riding your bicycle along the path to Harris Park (bike parking available), or take London Transit bus routes #5 or #13.Contact: Steve Sauder, Marketing Specialist, or Karen Pugh, Resource Specialist

fyiwww.thamesriver.on.ca Twitter @UTRCAmarketing Facebook @UpperThamesRiverConservationAuthority

April 2019

Cover Crops for Water Quality Conservation Services staff spent the beginning of April in the

Upper Medway determining residue cover on agricultural fields. Crop residue intercepts rain drops and provides opportunities to slow down water runoff in the field, thus helping to reduce erosion.

This assessment is part of an ongoing water quality project in the Upper Medway subwatershed, which encourages farmers to plant cover crops. Cover crops add a component of living vegetation, which can increase infiltration and the soil’s water-holding capacity. As the soil absorbs more water, the likelihood of surface runoff and erosion are reduced.

A long term goal for the subwatershed is to plant cover crops on the majority of farmable acres, all while maintaining 60% residue cover in the watershed through the winter and spring months. Cover crops and residue management are Best Management Practices that contribute to improved water quality. Contact: Tatianna Lozier, Soil & Water Quality Technician

Staff estimate the percent residue cover using a knotted rope placed across the field. Each knot that is touching a piece of residue is counted, giving an estimate of total cover.

http://thamesriver.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/EarthDay2019.pdf

http://www.thamesriver.on.ca

https://twitter.com/UTRCAmarketing

https://www.facebook.com/UpperThamesRiverConservationAuthority/?eid=ARBIFOmTtbruXIFcfpEi1jascFjRpNiBehG_sRx8p5-lyY7tr2HDcQyARjfp_mmIrhMhPtv0IrAj1eIC&timeline_context_item_type=intro_card_work&timeline_context_item_source=100001718590442&fref=tag

wjaques

Text Box

#4.b

2

Focus on Flooding “Escape Room” PilotAfter many months of brainstorming, planning and constructing,

Community Education and Partnerships staff were excited to pilot a Focus on Flooding “Escape Room” with students this winter. Students in grades 5 to 8 at Nicolas Wilson PS and Knollwood Park PS were the first to participate in the new program.

Funded by the National Disaster Mitigation Program, the program is designed to teach students about flooding in a fun and engaging way. The escape room format of teaching and learning also aligns with the current direction of education, which focuses on teaching students critical thinking and problem solving, as well as collaboration and communication skills.

During the Escape Room, students work through five stations that teach them key concepts related to flooding. As the students rotate through the stations in small groups, they solve flooding related tasks which allow them to unlock boxes and earn tokens to use in the final activity. After participating in the Escape Room, the students take what they learned and produce news clips about flooding in our area.

Students and teachers alike were very excited to participate in the Escape Room experience. UTRCA staff look forward to offering the program to other students in our watershed in the future. Escape Room pilot photosContact: Karlee Flear, Community Education Supervisor

Western Ontario WISKI HubThe Western Ontario WISKI (Water Information System

KISTERS) Hub, hosted by UTRCA, is a network of member conservation authorities sharing a single database system for managing hydrometric, water quality and ecological data beyond watershed boundaries. Since its inception in 2016, the network has grown to include 10 members within southwestern and northern Ontario, with another three conservation authorities in the process of joining.

The hub has allowed for increased knowledge, resource and cost sharing among all members as well as improved data accessibility. These benefits are being highlighted in a KISTERS North America presentation, titled “The Story of Ontario Environmental Data Hubs: Pooling Resources to Improve Data Management and

Students work together to solve flood related tasks.

Unlocking a box to collect an Escape Room token.

Using the virtual reality sand table to learn about runoff and flooding.

Western Ontario WISKI Hub members

https://www.flickr.com/photos/utrca/albums/72157707381965484

3

Access,” at the Canada Water Resources Association’s 72nd Annual Conference this spring.

Additionally, UTRCA has been included as a case study for KISTERS’ Biological Monitoring brochure for our work integrating our aquatic monitoring data into KiECO (KISTERS’ Ecological Data Software) for improved data management, analysis and reporting.Contact: Laura Flynn, Water Management Data Specialist

River Safety 2019“Stay safe near rivers and streams,” are words that Fanshawe and

Wildwood Community Education staff say a lot during the River Safety program season. While having fun with hands-on activities, Grade 2 students learn how they can stay safe near waterways year round and especially during times of flooding.

Splish and Splash are two water droplet f r i e n d s i n The Journey of Splish and Splash, a story wr i t ten and i l l u s t r a t e d by staff. The two droplets share with the students the a d v e n t u r e s they encounter while travelling through the water cycle. Water safety messages from the story spill over into the other activities, including the ever-popular, interactive wooden puzzle. At the conclusion of the program, students are excited to receive a take-home activity booklet along with a Splish and Splash bookmark, highlighting the water safety messages.

Teachers are always pleased to welcome us into their classrooms each year for this important safety program. This year, our 21st, Fanshawe and Wildwood staff visited more than 2300 grade 2 students!

Our appreciation and thanks go to the following generous sponsors, without whom the River Safety program would not be possible:

• The Optimist Club of Arva & District • The Optimist Club of Bryanston-Birr • The Optimist Club of Carling Heights• The Optimist Club of Downie• The Optimist Club of Ilderton • The Optimist Club of Kirkton-Woodham• The Optimist Club of London East• The Optimist Club of London Fanshawe• The Optimist Club of London Middlesex

• The Optimist Club of London North• The Optimist Club of London Oakridge Acres• The Optimist Club of Mitchell• The Optimist Club of North Dorchester• The Optimist Club of Sebringville• The Optimist Club of Shakespeare• The Optimist Club of Thorndale• The Optimist Club of Tavistock• Highbury Pet Hospital• Ingersoll Community Foundation• Mitchell Kinettes • Rotary Club of St. Marys• Rotary Club of Stratford• Tecumseh Community School• Thamesford Lions Club

Contact: Pat McLean, Community Education Technician, or Vanni Azzano, Community Education Supervisor

Rural Landowner Workshop Draws Record Crowd

The annual UTRCA Rural Landowner Workshop was held in St. Marys at the Pyramid Recreation Centre on Tuesday, March 19. This workshop continues to grow in popularity, drawing a record crowd this year of more than 125 landowners.

The audience was treated to five presentations by local experts. Dan Breen, a dairy farmer from Putnam and winner of the 2018 Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association Soil Champion, was the keynote speaker. Dan spoke of his ongoing efforts to build soil health by including cover crops in his rotation.

The other four presentations were by UTRCA staff. John Enright spoke about local efforts to revive butternut, which is a tree species at risk. Tatianna Lozier presented information on creating wetland habitat and highlighted local examples. Craig Merkley talked about the Cade Tract, a new conservation area just outside of St. Marys. Jay Ebel concluded the evening by circulating a survey and engaging the audience in a discussion about what it would take to encourage more landowners to participate in conservation programs.

After the door prizes were handed out, many landowners stayed to talk with the speakers. The evening was very well received and staff are already planning next year’s workshop. Landowner Workshop photosContact: John Enright, Forester

Workshop participants listen to a presentation on butternut, a tree species at risk.

Community Education staff bring the River Safety message to students at Little Falls PS in St. Marys.

http://thamesriver.on.ca/wp-content/uploads//Natural%20Heritage/KiECO-2019-brochure.pdf


4

Canada helps protect London from flooding

On March 27, the UTRCA co-hosted a media event on the West London Dyke (WLD), to announce new federal funding for phases 5 to 13 of the WLD Reconstruction Project. The project will include the reconstruction of approximately 1,600 metres of the dyke, from Blackfriars Bridge north to Oxford Street West, and from the Forks west to Cavendish Park.

The work will increase the dyke elevation to better protect thousands of residents and businesses from flooding of the Thames River. Once complete, this project will improve the City’s ability to mitigate the effects of storm and flooding events, while also protecting public utilities and transportation services, and ensuring the health and well-being of residents.

The Government of Canada is contributing up to $10 million to this $25 million project, through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF). The City of London will provide the remainder of the project funding. The UTRCA will manage the project in partnership with the City.

The federal DMAF funding will significantly reduce the time needed to complete the WLD Reconstruction Project, and reduce the flood risk to more than 2600 people and 1200 structures behind

the dyke. It is estimated that without the dyke, total damages today from the Regulatory Flood (based on the April 1937 flood) would exceed $65,000,000.

Several dignitaries were on hand to announce the funding, including Marco Mendicino, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, London MPs Peter Fragiskatos and Kate Young, Mayor Ed Holder, and two UTRCA Board Members from the City of London, Chair Sandy Levin and Councillor Anna Hopkins.

DMAF is a $2-billion, 10-year program to help communities build the infrastructure they need to better withstand natural hazards such as floods, wildfires, earthquakes and droughts. DMAF announcement photosContact: David Charles, Supervisor, Water Control Structures

Oak Wilt - The Next Threat!Oak wilt appears to be the next in a long list exotic diseases to

threaten our forest cover. Oak wilt is a vascular disease caused by the fungus Bretziella fagacearun. The fungus grows on the outer sapwood of oak trees, restricting the flow of water and nutrients through the tree.

Oak wilt was first identified in Wisconsin in 1947. Since that time, it has spread across 23 States. In 2016, oak wilt was confirmed on Belle Isle (Michigan) in the middle of the Detroit River, 500 metres from the shores of Windsor. To date, oak wilt has not been found in Ontario.

While all oak species are susceptible, the red oak group (red, black and pin) appears to be the most susceptible, with mortality frequently occurring within one growing season. The fungus can be spread by nitidulid beetles (sap beetles) and through root grafting.

The many species of sap beetles are attracted to fresh wounds or pruning cuts during the active growing season. To reduce the spread of oak wilt, avoid pruning oak trees between April and August. If a tree is wounded or pruned during this period, it is recommended that the damaged area be covered immediately with a latex paint or wound dressing.

In 2019, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) will be conducting a flight trap study to get a better handle

The federal funding announcement took place on a recently reconstructed section of the West London Dyke, north of the Queens Avenue bridge over the North Thames River.

The project will include the reconstruction of approximately 1,600 m of the dyke, including this section near the Oxford Street West bridge, pictured during the February 2018 flood.

The UTRCA’s Jay Ebel, John Enright, Brenda Gallagher and Brandon Williamson with Dr. Sharon Reed (MNRF), next to a newly installed sap beetle flight trap.


5

on when the various species of sap beetles are flying. Three study locations have been chosen: the University of Guelph Arboretum, the Royal Botanical Gardens (Hamilton/Burlington), and the UTRCA’s Fanshawe Conservation Area (London). From March until November, UTRCA forestry staff will monitor three flight traps weekly, and ship sap beetles collected to the MNRF lab in Sault Ste. Marie for identification.Find out more about Oak Wilt.Contact: John Enright, Forester

Go Wild Grow WildSaturday, April 6 was Carolinian Canada’s annual “Go Wild

Grow Wild” Green Expo at London’s Western Fair District. The UTRCA had a strong presence, with displays and information on a range of topics including the Conservation Areas, native trees and plants, watersheds, flooding and more. The UTRCA’s Brandon Williamson gave a talk on the Urban Beaver, explaining the importance of this mammal to the ecosystem, the challenges beavers can create in an urban environment, and management strategies that benefit both the beaver and the community.

At a shared booth, the Friends of Stoney Creek, Friends of Medway Creek, and Dorchester Mill Pond Committee shared information about their volunteer groups. The augmented reality sandbox drew in the crowds while the children enjoyed crafting with natural materials. All three groups enjoyed the opportunity to meet new people at the event, share information about their groups, and network with one another.

This event is an excellent opportunity to spread the conservation message and make connections, with attendance in the thousands.Go Wild Grow Wild photosContact: Steve Sauder, Marketing Specialist

UTRCA staff at the Go Wild Grow Wild displays.

Three “Friends of” groups shared a display booth.

The virtual reality sand table is always popular.

The craft table attracted lots of children.

https://forestinvasives.ca/Meet-the-Species/Pathogens/Oak-Wilt


6

Wildwood CA Back Country Camping: Innovative Experience Award Finalist!

Wildwood Conservation Area’s “Back Country Camping Sites” initiative was one of three finalists for the Innovative Experience Award through Ontario’s Southwest Tourism. The award recognizes an experience, event or festival that uses new or refurbished innovative strategies to improve the tourism experience or marketing activities.

Paul Switzer, Superintendent at Wildwood CA, was invited to attend the awards ceremony on March 6th at London’s Best Western Lamplighter as part of the Ontario’s Southwest Tourism Conference where the winner was announced.

It was Paul’s vision and dedication that brought the back country sites to fruition. An avid camper himself, Paul noticed the increasing popularity of remote, “off the grid” camping as people sought truly rejuvenating experiences at campgrounds in northern Ontario. Seeing the benefits as well as the possibility of developing a similar offering in southwestern Ontario, Wildwood CA staff created four backcountry campsites at Wildwood. These sites, located on the shore of the reservoir, are for people looking for a more remote and private experience similar to what they can find in northern Ontario, but closer to home.

The two other finalists were “From Tree to Table – A Build-your-own Board Experience,” and “Regenerate-Heritage Grain Weekend.” The award went to “From Tree to Table.” Paul and his team should be extremely proud of the unique opportunity that they created for Wildwood CA visitors.

Also in attendance were Sandy Levin, Chair of the UTRCA, and staff members Dave Griffin, Ryan Mullin, Karen Sockett, Erik Fink, James Miller, Michelle Viglianti and Jennifer Howley. Back Country Campsite photosContact: Paul Switzer, Superintendent, Wildwood CA

London Farm ShowThe UTRCA’s Conservation Services Unit has had a display

booth at the annual London Farm Show for close to 50 years. The spring show draws more than 22,000 visitors each year, making it an excellent opportunity to connect with landowners from within the watershed and beyond.

This year, UTRCA staff designed a new set of display panels featuring examples of “What We Do” and “How Can We Help.” Also new this year was an “Ask The Expert” component. Several cover crop experts from around the watershed took turns at the exhibit, answering questions from visitors about their own experience with cover crops. Their expertise was a valuable addition to our cover crop information displays. The UTRCA is leading a cover crop demonstration project in the Upper Medway subwatershed.London Farm Show photosContact: Craig Merkley, Conservation Services Specialist

Curling FunspielThe 12th annual “Fish Habitat & Friends Curling Funspiel” was

held on March 23 at the Ilderton Curling Club. This bonspiel began as a way to connect with government agency staff who specialize in protecting fish habitat in southwestern Ontario. Over the years, it has grown to include various consulting firms, agency partners, First Nations, and friends.

This year, UTRCA staff (and friends) hit the ice with three curling teams. The beauty of this funspiel is that it is geared to all skill levels, so it is a fun day of networking or just plain socializing.

A back country campsite at Wildwood CA.

The UTRCA contingent at the awards dinner.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/utrca/sets/72157684183881925/with/34006014524/


7

www.thamesriver.on.caTwitter @UTRCAmarketing

Facebook @UpperThamesRiverConservationAuthority519-451-2800

While none of the UTRCA teams took home the “Big Fish” team prize, Tracey Haycock managed to swim above the experienced curlers to win the highly competitive “Hot Shot” (fish) trophy. Tracey’s win makes this the third time that a UTRCA staff member (or spouse) has taken home this very prestigious award. Congratulations, Tracey! Honourable mention goes to Mark Shifflett, who came in second at the Turkey Shoot.Contact: Karen Winfield, Land Use Regulations Officer

Board of Directors - On the AgendaThe next Board of Directors meeting will be on April 23, 2019,

at the Watershed Conservation Centre, located in Fanshawe Conservation Area. Agendas and approved minutes are posted on our “Board Agendas & Minutes” page at www.thamesriver.on.ca.

Please note that a brief Source Protection Authority meeting will precede the Board of Directors meeting.

• Response to March 12, 2019 St. Marys Letter• Correspondence from Perth East and Perth South• Deferred Motion to Rescind Budget Vote• Board Representation Report• Conservation Ontario Report Regarding Streamlining and

Client Services• Finance & Audit Committee – Open Position• Conservation Authorities Act Review• Administration and Enforcement – Section 28• New Funding Summary• Quarterly Financial Report• Reserves Board Report• Environmental Planning & Regulations Presentation

Contact: Michelle Viglianti, Administrative Assistant

Tracey Haycock with her Hot Shot trophy!

http://www.thamesriver.on.ca

https://twitter.com/UTRCAmarketing

https://www.facebook.com/UpperThamesRiverConservationAuthority/?eid=ARBIFOmTtbruXIFcfpEi1jascFjRpNiBehG_sRx8p5-lyY7tr2HDcQyARjfp_mmIrhMhPtv0IrAj1eIC&timeline_context_item_type=intro_card_work&timeline_context_item_source=100001718590442&fref=tag

http://thamesriver.on.ca/board-agendas-minutes/

Ontario Human Rights Commission Office of the Chief Commissioner 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 900 Toronto ON M7A 2G5 Tel.: (416) 314-4537 Fax: (416) 314-7752

Commission Ontarienne des Droits de la Personne Bureau du Commissaire en Chef 180, rue Dundas ouest, bureau 900 Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2G5 Tél. : (416) 314-4537 Téléc. : (416) 314-7752

April 15, 2019 Mayor Don McKay Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Box 100, 90 Loveys Street Hickson, ON N0J 1L0 Dear Mayor Don McKay: RE: Harmful impact of Indigenous-themed sports logos in city facilities

We are writing to urge all municipalities in Ontario to engage Indigenous communities about the use of Indigenous-themed logos and team names in their sports arenas. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recently intervened in an Application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) which alleged that the use and display of Indigenous-themed logos and team names in the City of Mississauga sports arenas was discriminatory. The OHRC conducted extensive outreach with Indigenous peoples to learn more about the impact of this use, and heard directly from youth across the province through the Indigenous Youth Council of the Ontario Federation of Friendship Centres. We intervened in the case to amplify the perspectives and voices of Indigenous youth and to highlight the harmful impact of stereotypes on youth. The OHRC reached a settlement with the City of Mississauga and the Applicant. In the settlement, the City of Mississauga committed to:

1. Remove from its sports facilities all Indigenous-themed mascots, symbols, names and imagery related to non-Indigenous sports organizations.

2. Develop a policy on the use of Indigenous images and themes at its sports facilities, in collaboration with different groups such as the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, the Peel Aboriginal Network, the Indigenous Youth

wjaques

Text Box

#4.c

2

Council of the Ontario Federation of Friendship Centres and Indigenous Sport and Wellness Ontario.

3. Supplement its Diversity and Inclusion training with expanded material addressing reconciliation and Indigenous peoples.

The OHRC is now contacting municipalities in Ontario to ask that they follow suit. This is in keeping with the OHRC’s mandate to identify, prevent, and eliminate discrimination, and to promote human rights within the province using a range of powers under the Human Rights Code. Harmful Impact of Stereotypes on Indigenous Youth

Sports are drivers of social inclusion; they bring communities together and help youth develop their self-esteem. We recognize that municipalities are committed to providing environments that promote healthy and active lifestyles in the most inclusive manner. To this end, the OHRC and municipalities have a shared goal of actively removing barriers to participation in sports for Indigenous youth. The OHRC recognizes that the use of Indigenous-themed names and logos by sports teams has been a long-standing norm in our society. However, it is time to revisit these pervasive images. One of the purposes of Ontario’s Human Rights Code (Code) is the “creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community.” As service providers, municipalities have obligations under the Code to provide a service environment free of discrimination. Human rights law has found that images and words that degrade people because of their ancestry, race, color and ethnic origin, among other grounds, violate the Code. Derogatory images and words can have a significant impact on the ability of affected individuals and groups to participate and benefit equally in services such as participating as a member of a sports team or attending games as a spectator. There can also be broader social and psychological impacts on such individuals and groups, including how they are viewed and treated in their community. The American Psychological Association is among over 100 professional organizations that have adopted formal resolutions recommending the immediate retirement of Indigenous-themed names and logos by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams and organizations. These resolutions are based on a growing body of empirical

3

evidence that demonstrate the harmful effects of these images. The scientific literature shows that Indigenous-themed names and logos:

1. Misuse cultural practices and sacred spiritual symbols; 2. Deny Indigenous peoples control over social definitions of themselves; 3. Perpetuate stereotypes of Indigenous people; 4. Create hostile environments for students and others; 5. Negatively impact the psychological functioning of Indigenous people (decreased

self-esteem and community worth). This research is summarized in Appendix A, the expert report of Dr. Jesse A. Steinfeldt, a sports psychologist. In 2015, the Honourable Murray Sinclair and Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) noted the profound impact that stereotypes in sports have on young Indigenous people. The TRC Final Report documents the challenges Indigenous youth face in forming their identities and the important role of sports in developing self-esteem. One of the TRC’s Calls to Action includes a call to ensure that sport policies and programs are inclusive of Indigenous peoples. Additionally, the TRC calls for Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination to be integrated into civic institutions in a manner consistent with the principles norms and standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Indigenous Youth Council of The Ontario Federation of Friendship Centres has stated: “For too long Indigenous peoples have been branded by communities other than our own… We are the ones who can best create images of identity for our people”. Indigenous communities must have ownership over their own images. Next Steps

In our strategic plan, the OHRC committed to using our mandate and powers to engage in sustained trusting relationships with Indigenous communities that are built on dignity and respect, and by working to advance reconciliation and substantive equality. The OHRC urges the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock to take the first step in removing barriers to participation for Indigenous peoples by collaborating with diverse Indigenous communities to develop a policy on the use of Indigenous-themed logos and

4

names in their sports facilities and arenas. We have copied the N’Amerind Friendship Centre. We have identified the following non-Indigenous sports organizations that use Indigenous-themed names and/or logos: Tavistock Braves. We believe that the City of Mississauga is taking important steps to show leadership and a commitment to reconciliation. The above-noted settlement sets a positive path forward for other municipalities to follow. In keeping with the OHRC’s commitment to public accountability and its duties in serving the people of Ontario, this letter and the response received may be made public. Thank you for considering this matter. Sincerely,

Renu Mandhane, B.A., J.D., LL.M. Chief Commissioner Ontario Human Rights Commission CC: Clerk’s Office

N’Amerind Friendship Centre

Expert Report of

Jesse A. Steinfeldt, Ph.D., CC-AASP

Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology

Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology

Indiana University

Psychologist at Assessment, Sport and Performance Psychology Services (ASPPS), LLC

Bloomington, IN

October 25, 2018

Introduction

The use of Indigenous culture and images by sports teams is a practice that has a longstanding history and tradition in our society. The omnipresence of these Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos (e.g., Indians, Redskins, Fighting Sioux) gives members of mainstream society the (mis)perception that this is an acceptable practice that honors and respects the Indigenous communities that are depicted. However, there is emerging evidence indicating that this is not the case. Because of this misperception, it is important to include scientific peer-reviewed research in order to provide empirical insight into this issue. An empirically informed perspective can help people have a productive and civil dialogue about a practice that is hegemonically woven into the fabric of our society, yet has the potential to negatively impact the psychological functioning of Indigenous people.

To provide context to this report, it is necessary to report that I have a dual professional identity as a psychologist and as an associate professor of Counseling Psychology at Indiana University. In addition to having experience providing psychological services to Indigenous communities, I have conducted empirical research that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that addresses the psychological implications of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos. My research productivity in this area, combined with my clinical experiences and my knowledge of the psychological literature, allows me to provide informed perspectives on this issue. Furthermore, I am in a unique position to testify about how this practice impacts the psychological functioning of Indigenous people, as a biracial man of Oneida heritage. I am tribally recognized as Descendent status, and my father is an enrolled Tribal Member of the sovereign Oneida Nation of Wisconsin. My clinical work with Indigenous populations was conducted at the Oneida Behavioral Health Center on the Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin. As such, I have heard first-hand accounts of the impact that these stereotypic images can have on the psychological functioning of Indigenous patients in a mental health setting. This dynamic compounds an existing problem because Indigenous communities are disproportionately impacted by serious mental health issues (e.g., depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide). Subsequently, a racially hostile environment wherein Indigenous people are readily stereotyped can contribute to the onset and entrenchment of these mental health issues. In addition to the misinformation and stereotypes produced by Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos, “an increase in accurate information about Native Americans is viewed as necessary for the achievement of other goals such as poverty reduction, educational advancements, and securing treaty rights” (King, Staurowsky, Baca, Davis, & Pewewardy, 2002, p. 392).

In 2005, my primary professional organization, the American Psychological Association (APA), produced a formal resolution recommending the immediate retirement of Indigenous-themed mascots, symbols, images and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams, and organizations (APA, 2005). To date, over a hundred additional professional organizations (e.g., American Counseling Association, Society of Indian Psychologists, United States Commission on Civil Rights) have produced similar resolutions condemning this practice. These professional organizations—which represent groups that speak on behalf of large volumes of people and professionals— have based their resolutions on the categorical assertions that, among other reasons, Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos:

(a) misuse cultural practices and sacred spiritual symbols; (b) deny Indigenous people control over societal definitions of themselves; (c) perpetuate stereotypes of Indigenous people (e.g., the noble savage; the bloodthirsty

savage; a historic race that only exists in past-tense status; one singular pan-Indian culture); (d) activate/create a racially hostile environment for students and others; (e) negatively impact the psychological functioning of Indigenous people. These categorical assertions are situated within an emerging body of scientific research

that has empirically demonstrated the existence of stereotyping and harassment that accompanies Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos. Much has been written about this issue from a conceptual perspective across a variety of interdisciplinary fields (e.g., sociology of sport, indigenous philosophy, law, anthropology; Baca, 2004; Fenalon, 1999; King et al., 2002; King, 2004; Russel, 2003; Staurowsky, 2007; Vanderford, 1996; Williams, 2007), which provide valuable insight and context into the deleterious nature of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos. While I will include aspects of these conceptual pieces in my report, I will focus the attention primarily upon empirical research that has appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Doing so can increase the validity of the emerging understanding of the negative psychological impact of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos in order to further demonstrate the applicability of these psychological research findings in the United States and in Canada.

As I begin this report, it is also important to clarify terminology. The terms mascots, nicknames, and logos are often used interchangeably to describe the Indigenous-themed images used by sports teams. These terms generally describe a similar dynamic, but there are subtle differences. While the term mascot more specifically refers to a costumed character that parades along the sideline or in the audience (e.g., University of Illinois now retired mascot, Chief Illiniwik), the term mascot has been generally used as the default term for Indigenous-themed images used in sport, and the term mascot is often attached to a logo (i.e., mascot logo) or a nickname (i.e., mascot nickname). The term logo generally refers to the image of a team that appears on uniforms, walls, programs and other places (e.g., see Figure 1 for examples of mascot logos in Mississauga; see Figure 2 for examples of mascot logos that were used in scientific studies cited in this report), and the term nicknames refers to the verbal terms used to identify teams (e.g., Redskins, Indians, Warriors; e.g., see Figure 1 for examples of mascot nicknames in Mississauga; see Figure 2 for examples of mascot nicknames that were used in scientific studies cited in this report). While much of the research has indicated that overall, the use of Indigenous-themed images in sport impacts the psychological functioning of Indigenous people, in this report, I will attempt to provide the reader with clarity by using the definitions outlined above in regard to which type of term was used in each study, largely based on stimuli images (i.e., mascot logo) or stimuli words (i.e., mascot nickname) that were evaluated in the study.

Misusing Cultural Practices and Sacred Spiritual Symbols;

Denying Indigenous People Control over Social Representations of Themselves

Popular culture is inundated with stereotypic representations that appropriate Indigenous culture. One need not look further than the aisles of a grocery store (e.g., Land o’ Lakes Butter), the local YMCA (e.g., Y-Princess camps), Halloween costumes (e.g., Indian warriors), cars on the street (e.g., Jeep Cherokee), the floor under one’s feet (e.g., Mohawk carpet), or on

television, to see the highlights of the Washington Redskins or Cleveland Indians games. This use of cultural and spiritual iconography is largely done without compensation to or consent from Indigenous communities (Merskin, 2001). To this point, the eagle feather is a considered a sacred spiritual item to many Indigenous people, so its presence on a football helmet is out of place and potentially problematic. According to Steinfeldt and Steinfeldt (2012), this practice would be analogous to having rosary beads or a crucifix used in a sporting context (e.g., a mascot named Father Guido dancing and genuflecting on the sidelines of a football game for a team named the East High School Catholics), something that Christians would likely protest and advocate for its removal because using these sacred images in this manner would constitute appropriating and misusing sacred spiritual iconography.

The misuse of these images not only prevent Indigenous people from having effective control over how they are societally portrayed, but these omnipresent images also perpetuate misinformation and stereotypes about Indigenous people, particularly because there is an imbalance of presentation of images. That is, for many people, sports mascots and other comparable stereotypic representations of Indigenous people are often the only images they have of Indigenous people. Empirical research (e.g., Fryberg et al., 2008) suggests that Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos have a negative psychological impact not only because they are inherently stereotypic in nature, but also because there are relatively few alternative characterizations of Indigenous people in the contexts in which these images appear. As such, these mascots, nicknames, and logos become powerful communicators of what Indigenous people should look like and how they should behave. And concurrently, these stereotypic images remind Indigenous people of the limited way in which others see them, which in turn has the internalizing impact of limiting the number of ways in which Indigenous people can see themselves (Fryberg et al., 2008).

In an empirical research study examining implicit attitudes on this subject, Chaney, Burke and Burkley (2011) assessed whether people could differentiate between Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames and actual Indigenous people. Using the Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT) to control for social desirability and to assess implicit beliefs that people hold toward subjects, results demonstrated that participants not only held implicitly negative biases against Indigenous-themed mascots, but study participants also perceived Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames to be effectively interchangeable with Indigenous people. This result indicates that stereotypic images of Indigenous people in society may serve as de facto sources of information about how Indigenous people should look and act. This is potentially problematic given the presence of the caricatured image of the Cleveland Indian’s Chief Wahoo (i.e., big nosed, red faced, caricatured stereotypic image), when watching the half time dance of the University of Illinois’ former mascot, Chief Illiniwik (i.e., perpetuating the stereotype of the noble savage), or when listening to sport broadcasts (i.e., “the Indians are on the warpath”). When combined with the limited number of accurate portrayals of Indigenous people in popular culture, the results of this study indicate that not only do people have an implicitly negative view of Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames, but people may also have difficulties differentiating mascot nicknames from real Indigenous people, subsequently transferring these negative views toward mascot nicknames into negative biases toward real Indigenous people.

Perpetuating Stereotypes: Stereotype Activation and Stereotype Application

In addition to empirical evidence illustrating negative implicit beliefs that equate Indigenous mascots with Indigenous people, emerging scientific research has attempted to address the nature of the stereotype-generating process that Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos can elicit. These studies have examined both stereotype activation (i.e., how accessible the stereotype is in a person’s mind) and stereotype application (i.e., extent to which the person uses the stereotype to judge a member of a stereotyped group). Stereotype activation is considered an automatic cognitive process that is implicitly activated, whereas stereotype application is considered a more controllable cognitive process that involves people making judgments about an individual member of a stereotyped group. When a group of people is actively stereotyped, their psychological functioning is negatively impacted.

In assessing stereotype activation, Kim-Prieto, Goldstein, Okazaki, and Kirschner (2010) conducted two experimental studies to determine if stereotypes about Indigenous people that were potentially elicited by Indigenous-themed sport mascot logos would be extended to other marginalized groups, even if the other group was not directly targeted by the stereotypic representation. The authors used an Indigenous-themed mascot logo (e.g. Indigenous person portrayed as a bloodthirsty savage warrior) as a primer to determine if these images increased stereotyping of another racial group (e.g., Asian Americans as socially inept). Results indicated that participants who were exposed to the Indigenous-themed mascot logo (see Figure 2) endorsed significantly more stereotypes of Asian Americans than the control group. The results were consistent across two conditions—one condition used an unobtrusive prime, and the other condition used a more engaged exposure. In both conditions, simply seeing an Indigenous-themed mascot logo appeared to activate a stereotype-generating process about Asian-Americans among participants. These results suggest that exposure to stereotypic representations (i.e., an Indigenous-themed mascot logo) can increase the likelihood that people will endorse stereotypes of other groups, even when the stereotypes are different. Kim-Prieto et al. (2010) concluded that the use of American Indian images in sports serves to activate a stereotype-generating process within people, creating a racially hostile environment for all parties who are exposed to stereotype-inducing Indigenous-themed sport mascot logos.

Burkley, Burkley, Andronde, and Bell (2016) conducted a research study to assess dynamics related to stereotype application as it relates to exposure to Indigenous-themed sports mascot logos. The researchers found that the effect of exposure to an Indigenous-themed mascot logo existed, and that this effect was also moderated by participants’ attitudes toward Indigenous people. That is, participants with more prejudicial attitudes toward Indigenous people were significantly more likely to judge an Indigenous person as more aggressive when exposed to an image of an Indigenous-themed mascot logo (e.g., Fighting Sioux, Indians, Redskins; see Figure 2 for illustrations of these logos). This same effect did not occur when participants were exposed to an image of a White mascot logo (e.g., Fighting Irish, Vikings, Pirates) or a neutral image (e.g., carrot, cupcake, hamburger). Additionally, this effect was not observed when participants were asked to judge the behavior of a non-Indigenous person engaging in the same behavior as an Indigenous person. As a result, the presence of Indigenous-themed mascot logos facilitates the stereotype application process by which people selectively make negative and harmful evaluations of Indigenous people, particularly when they hold pre-existing prejudicial attitudes. Taken together, the results of these empirical investigations indicate that Indigenous-themed sports mascots logos and nicknames can not only activate a stereotype generating process, it can

also facilitate the process by which people selectively apply pejorative judgments based on these stereotypes to Indigenous people, a process that creates a racially hostile environment and threatens their psychological functioning.

Creating a Racially Hostile Environment

In conjunction with the psychological research of my colleagues on this issue, the results

of empirical research studies that I have conducted and published in scientific peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Steinfeldt, Foltz, Kaladow, Carlson, Pagano, Benson, & Steinfeldt, 2010; Steinfeldt, Foltz, LaFollette, White, Wong, & Steinfeldt, 2012; Steinfeldt & Wong, 2010) indicate that the presence of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos not only perpetuates stereotypes, but its presence can also create a racially hostile environment that can threaten the psychological well-being of Indigenous people. This research attempts to identify domains wherein the racially hostile environments exist (e.g., online), while also attempting to provide explanatory theoretical frameworks to conceptualize the dynamics of racism and invalidation that flourish within these contexts.

In one study, Steinfeldt and Wong (2010) examined the relationship between color-blind racial attitudes and the awareness of Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames among a group of counseling graduate students. Similar to the later work of Neville, Yeung, Todd, Spanierman, and Reed (2011), this study attempted to link the rationale of mainstream society for maintaining racialized mascots to the beliefs underlying colorblind racial attitudes (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000). Conceptualized as the denial, distortion, or minimization of race and racism (Neville, Spanierman, & Doan, 2006), the adoption of colorblind racial attitudes among White Americans reflects an attempt to reduce the dissonance associated with a sincere desire to believe in racial equality (Neville, Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001). While this contemporary ideology appears egalitarian on the surface, colorblindness ignores the role of power in society, it invalidates the experiences with racism that racial/ethnic minority group members endure, and it serves to maintain the societal status quo wherein members of racial/ethnic minority groups have inequitable access to societal resources. To this point, research has established significant relationships between colorblindness and a wide range of social attitude indexes, including negative attitudes toward affirmative action (Awad, Cokley, & Ratvich, 2005), increased racial prejudice (Neville et al., 2000), and lower multicultural counseling competencies (Neville et al., 2006).

The results of Steinfeldt and Wong’s (2010) study demonstrated that awareness of the offensiveness of Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames was significantly inversely related to color-blind racial attitudes That is, the more a person indicated that Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames were problematic, the less likely (s)he was to endorse color-blind racial ideologies. Individuals with color-blind racial attitudes endorse the belief that “race should not and does not matter” (Neville et al., 2000, p. 60), and supporters of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos suggest that tradition and honor—and not race—are the primary reasons for supporting this practice (King et al., 2002; Russel, 2003; Staurowsky, 2007). Thus, both colorblindness and supporting Indigenous-themed mascots nicknames serve to minimize the role of racism in society, a dynamic that can threaten the psychological functioning of members of racial minority groups. Furthermore, the authors asserted that the belief that Indigenous-themed mascots honor Indigenous people may serve as an ego defense that helps preserve an individual’s sense of egalitarianism, while simultaneously masking the destructive and genocidal acts of White

Americans toward Indigenous communities, both in past and contemporary times (Grounds, 2001). In short, the use of Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames can invalidate the reality of Indigenous people, while giving White Americans the perception of a false sense of unity with Indigenous people (Black, 2002). Steinfeldt and Wong (2010) concluded that colorblind racial attitudes may serve as the glue that binds this false union, serving to facilitate resentment, disempowerment, and subjugation among Indigenous people who are exposed to a racially hostile environment.

Another study (Steinfeldt et al., 2010) analyzed 1699 online forum comments that appeared in newspapers in a community with a college team with an Indigenous-themed mascot nickname and logo. These comments were coded over a two-year period, and results indicated that the majority of these comments expressed negative attitudes toward Indigenous people. These online forum comments were categorically organized within themes of: (a) surprise about how the nickname/logo could be construed as negative; (b) power and privilege exerted in defending the nickname/logo; (c) trivialization of issues salient to Indigenous people; and (d) denigration and vilification of Indigenous communities. The results indicated that Indigenous people were subjected to not only continued societal ignorance and misinformation about their culture, but they are also being actively excluded from the process of prioritizing which issues needed to be addressed. Results also indicated that a critical mass of online forum comments represented ignorance about Indigenous culture and even disdain toward Indigenous people by providing misinformation, by perpetuating stereotypes, and by expressing explicitly racist attitudes toward Indigenous people. While some online forum comments examined in the study did contain the words honor and respect, the results indicated that the sentiment underlying and surrounding these comments did not reflect a genuine sense of honor or respect—instead, these comments expressed sentiments of entitlement, privilege, power, and even subjugation and oppression.

The findings of this study were interpreted within the tenets of Two-Faced Racism (Picca & Feagin, 2007), an established theoretical model for conceptualizing dynamics of contemporary racism. According to this framework, boundaries for the expression of racial attitudes exist within shifting social contexts. Subsequently, racial ideologies—particularly those about members outside of the dominant culture (e.g., Indigenous people)—exist, but the expression of these ideologies take place in private (i.e., backstage) settings rather than public (i.e., frontstage) settings. Because public opinion has shifted to condemn blatant racist attitudes and behaviors in public settings (Picca & Feagin, 2007), explicit expressions of racist attitudes have begun to find a home in electronic communication formats (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Melican & Dixon, 2008). As it relates to the findings of the Steinfeldt et al. (2010) study, the relative anonymity afforded to online forum participants provided the privacy experienced in traditional backstage settings. Results suggested that expressing these ideas in contemporary backstage settings (e.g., weblogs, online forums) allowed people to avoid the scrutiny and negative social consequences that these attitudes might otherwise receive in physical frontstage settings. For example, an online forum commenter might more readily call an Indigenous person a derogatory name in an online forum comment, but it is likely that (s)he might not say the same thing aloud at a social gathering, for fear of social repercussions. Subsequently, due to the omnipresence and power of the internet, the presence of an Indigenous-themed nickname and logo can facilitate the posting of virulent racist rhetoric in online forums. And because these types of racist messages are able to electronically spread out with greater ease to a larger audience, the daily ritual of reading the newspaper can subject an Indigenous person to content that can negatively impact his/her

psychological well-being. The results of this study suggests that Indigenous-themed nicknames and logos can create a racially hostile environment wherein stereotypes are allowed to flourish. In conclusion, the presence of an Indigenous-themed nickname and logo can threaten the psychological functioning of Indigenous people by providing misinformation, by activating stereotypic representations, and by facilitating the expression of explicitly racist attitudes toward Indigenous people. In assessing the impact of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos as it relates to stereotyping and creating a racially hostile environment, it is useful to examine how these images are used in the contexts in which they exist. Sports generate passionate responses from participants and fans, and rivalries generate heightened levels of passion. A few days ago, a headline about a story appeared online that illustrates this dynamic (Springer, 2016). The story describes how Dr. Dean Bresciani, President of the North Dakota State University Bison, wrote a letter in the NDSU campus newspaper asking his students to stop using “hateful” chants in football games against their rival, the University of North Dakota Fighting Hawks. UND had previously been the Fighting Sioux, but in 2012 they begrudgingly retired their Indigenous-based team nickname after fighting the NCAA’s 2005 mandate to remove their Indigenous-themed nickname and logo. Despite the change, Bison fans still routinely chant “Sioux Suck (expletive)!” when their Bison team makes a first down in the football game against the Fighting Hawks. Figure 3 shows additional ways that fans have taken to demeaning and dehumanizing uses of the Indigenous-themed mascot logo and nickname (e.g., T-shirts of a slovenly-looking Indigenous person sodomizing a Bison; T-shirts with an image of a severed head of a headdress wearing Indigenous “chief” drinking a beer bong underneath the phonetically altered Indigenous-themed nickname [and specific Tribal name] used as an adjective to describe inebriation [Siouxper Drunk]; T-shirts with a caricatured Indigenous person fellating a Bison; fans cheering and engaging Indigenous people in Red-face, an image that conjured comparisons to the racist practice of wearing Black-face). Being exposed to this use of Indigenous-themed sports nicknames and logos as a means to ridicule, mock, and dehumanize Indigenous people has a profoundly negative impact on their psychological functioning. This phenomenon of harmful appropriation of imagery in sporting events at the expense of the psychological functioning of First-Nations individuals is widespread. The image in Figure 2 of cheerleaders holding a banner for a high school football game represents a common practice where the opponents of an Indigenous-themed team find creative ways to demean their opponent. However, using race-based mascots, nicknames, or logos creates the opportunity for a marginalized group to be exposed to a racially hostile environment that can negatively impact their psychological functioning. In this particular example depicted in Figure 3 that occurred prior to a high school football game in Ohio in 2016, the cheerleaders for the McLain Tigers created a banner for their football players to run through prior to their game against the Hillsboro Indians. The banner reads, “Hey Indians, Get Ready for a Trail of Tears Part 2”, which was intended to convey the message that their football team was going to be sad by the impending defeat in the game. However, the reference to the Trail of Tears represents an objectively horrific act of government-enacted genocide, a black mark on the history of the United States. The use of this reference trivializes this traumatic event and exposes Indigenous people to potential psychological harm. While the school (i.e., Hillsboro) can assert that they institute policies that attempt to prevent their students from misusing their Indigenous-themed nickname, they cannot fully control the ways that opponents and others may choose to use that Indigenous-themed

nickname, logo, or mascot, quite often in a negative manner and at the expense of Indigenous populations. Furthermore, the impact of Indigenous-themed sports mascots, nicknames, and logos extends beyond sporting events. In an empirical study that appeared in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, Steinfeldt, Foltz, LaFollette, White, Wong, and Steinfeldt (2012) analyzed qualitative data obtained from social justice activists who advocated for the removal of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos. These people described harrowing situations where they were threatened, harassed, physically assaulted, and had their property vandalized as a result of proposing to change the Indigenous-themed sports nickname and logo in their community. The stories of the advocates illustrated the points highlighted in the Steinfeldt et al. (2010) study on online forums by demonstrating the potential for physical and psychological harm that exists in a racially hostile environment that can be created by the presence of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos in sport.

Impacting Psychological Functioning In addition to scientific research highlighting the impact of stereotypes and racially hostile environments, an emerging body of psychological research findings have demonstrated the direct psychological ramifications of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos. Fryberg et al. (2008) published a manuscript that addressed the four empirical studies they conducted that examined the impact of these Indigenous-themed mascot nicknames and logos on the psychological well-being of both Indigenous and White American participants. In their study, Indigenous high school and college students who were exposed to images of Indigenous-themed mascot logos reported significantly fewer achievement related possible selves, along with lower levels of self-esteem and community worth when compared to members of the control group who were not exposed to such images. So seeing these stereotypic representations (e.g., noble savage; the caricatured image of Chief Wahoo) can make Indigenous people feel worse about themselves and it can facilitate the internalization of negative views about their own community. Additionally, the presence of these images can contribute to Indigenous people reducing the number of future-related goals they have for themselves, thereby internalizing the narrow and prejudicial view society has of them. Doing so limits the possibilities they see for themselves. Across all of these findings, the authors concluded that these Indigenous-themed images effectively threaten the psychological functioning of Indigenous people in a variety of different ways (Fryberg et al., 2008). In another peer-reviewed study that was also published in the scientific literature, LaRocque, McDonald, Weatherly, and Ferraro (2011) also attempted to empirically assess the direct psychological impact that Indigenous-themed sports images had on Indigenous people. The authors investigated the impact of two categories of on both White participants and Indigenous participants, with experimental and control groups for each racial group. The first category of images was referred to as neutral, based on societal expectations that these images are omnipresent and readily visible (e.g., team logos that are present on uniforms, shirts, and other areas on campus and beyond; Examples can be found in Table 2). The other category of images was referred to as controversial in that they represented images and logos that depicted caricatured or demeaning images of Indigenous people and misuse of tribal names (e.g., Sioux-venirs, caricatured images of Indigenous-themed logos; Examples can be found in Table 2).

Results indicated that Indigenous participants reported significantly higher levels of psychological distress and negative affect, compared to their baseline scores, after viewing both sets of images, when compared to the control group and to the group of White participants. When compared to their own control group, White participants did report higher levels of negative affect above their baseline scores, but only after viewing the controversial images, and they reported no significant differences on neutral images. The result that the Indigenous participants reported higher psychological distress and more negative affect on the neutral images contributed to the authors determining that the term neutral was not actually applicable to these images because these “neutral” images negatively impacted the psychological functioning of Indigenous people, as demonstrated in this study and in other studies in the psychological literature. Subsequently, Indigenous students can be negatively impacted by simply walking around campus and seeing the omnipresent “neutral” Indigenous-themed sport logo, a school-sanctioned image that appears on shirts, campus buildings, and elsewhere.

Conclusion In this report, I have reviewed relevant empirical research in the scientific literature that

addresses the psychological impact of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos in sport. This emerging body of research has produced results that indicate that this practice has a negative impact on the psychological functioning of Indigenous people in number of ways, both direct (e.g., lower self-esteem, higher levels of negative affect, higher psychological distress, less possible selves, lower community worth) and indirect (e.g., stereotype activation, stereotype application, creating a racially hostile environment; generating dehumanizing images of Indigenous people). Additionally, I included relevant theoretical frameworks from the psychological literature (e.g., Two-Faced Racism, Colorblind Racial Attitudes) to provide a context to help explain the results concerning racially hostile environments. While the majority of the research cited in this report has been conducted in the United States, I do not have any reason to believe that the impact would be drastically different in Canada. The Indigenous-themed mascot logos and nicknames used in the empirical research studies I reviewed in this report are similar--and in some cases even identical--to the logos and nicknames presented in the City of Mississauga complaint (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Furthermore, the process by which people internalize stereotypes is similar in the United States and Canada (e.g., Schneider, 2003), so based on my best professional judgment, it is reasonable to assume that these Indigenous-themed images of stereotypic representations would have a comparable impact on the psychological functioning of Indigenous people in Canada.

Additionally, Indigenous people generally lack the social power and influence to effectively advocate for removal of these Indigenous-themed nicknames and logos. These images are firmly entrenched into the natural order of society (Davis-Delano, 2007), and members of the dominant culture are the most zealous defenders of this practice (Farnell, 2004). This ardent support, combined with the small population of Indigenous peoples (i.e., less than 2% of the U.S. population) and the lack of resources available to Indigenous communities (i.e., the rate of Indigenous people living below the poverty line is twice the rate found in the overall population; Merskin, 2001), help explain how Indigenous people in the United States have lacked the power that other minority groups have exerted in removing comparable racist stereotypes from the domain of social acceptability. Examples include the racist image of Frito Bandito as a stereotypic representation of Latinos and the racist image of Li’l Black Sambo as a stereotypic representation of African Americans (Steinfeldt, Hagen, & Steinfeldt, 2010; Westerman, 1989). Based on the Truth and Reconciliation Report (2015), a variety of parallels can be readily drawn

between the experience of Indigenous populations in Canada and the experience of Indigenous populations in the United States. Subsequently, it is reasonable to assume that the same level of disenfranchisement, marginalization, and invalidation experienced by Indigenous people in both countries contributes to comparably low levels of social influence, which in turn contributes to the omnipresence and entrenchment of Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos in society. In the absence of empirical scientific evidence supporting the continuation of using Indigenous-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos in sport, the arguments of history and tradition remain the primary reasons given for maintaining a practice that has the potential to inflict psychological harm on a specific group of people (Steinfeldt et al., 2011). In sum, this is an issue that warrants serious consideration, and it is important that empirical evidence be included in the discussion so that a fully informed conversation can be had that includes the psychological impact of Indigenous-themed sport mascots, nicknames, and logos.

References

American Psychological Association (2005, October 18). APA resolution recommending the immediate retirement of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams, and organizations. Retrieved October 11, 2018, from https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx

Awad, G. H., Cokley, K., & Ratvich, J. (2005). Attitudes toward affirmative action: A comparison of color-blind versus modern racist attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1384-1399.

Baca, L. R. (2004). Native images in schools and the racially hostile environment. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28, 71-78.

Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K.Y.A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590.

Black, J.E. (2002). The ‘mascotting’ of Native America. American Indian Quarterly, 26, 605-622.

Burkley, M., Burkley, E., Andrade, A., & Bell, A. C. (2016). Symbols of pride or prejudice? Examining the impact of Native American sports mascots on stereotype application. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 1-13.

Cheney, J., Burke, A., & Burkley, E. (2011). Do American Indian mascots = American Indian people? Examining implicit bias towards American Indian people and American Indian mascots. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National Center, 18, 42-62.

Davis-Delano, L. R. (2007). Eliminating Native American mascots: Ingredients for success. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31, 340-373.

Farnell, B. (2004). The fancy dance of racializing discourse. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,28, 30–55.

Fenelon, J. V. (1999). Indian icons in the World Series of racism: Institutionalization of the racial symbols of Wahoos and Indians. Research in Politics and Society, 6, 25–45.

Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Oyserman, D., & Stone, J. M. (2008). Of warrior chiefs and Indian princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 208-218.

Grounds, R. (2001). Tallahassee, Osceola, and the hermenuetics of American place-names. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 69, 287-322.

Kim-Prieto, C., Goldstein, L. A., Okazaki, S., & Kirschner, B. (2010). Effect of exposure to an American Indian mascot on the tendency to stereotype a different minority group. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 534-553.

King, C. R. (2004). This is Not an Indian: Situating claims about Indianness in sporting worlds. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28, 3-10.

King, C.R., Staurowsky, E.J., Baca, L., Davis, L.R., & Pewewardy, C. (2002). Of polls and prejudice: Sports Illustrated’s errant ‘Indian Wars.’ Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 26, 381-402.

LaRocque, A., McDonald, J. D., Weatherly, J. N., & Ferraro, F. R. (2011). Indian Sports Nicknames/Logos: Affective Difference between American Indian and Non-Indian College Students. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National Center, 18, 1-16.

Melican, D. B., & Dixon, T. L. (2008). News on the net: Credibility, selective exposure, and racial prejudice. Communication Research, 35, 151-168.

Merskin, D. (2001). Winnebagos, Cherokees, Apaches, and Dakotas: The persistence of stereotyping of American Indians in American advertising brand names. Howard Journal

of Communications, 12, 159-169. Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Brown, L. (2000). Construction and initial

validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 59-70.

Neville, H. A., Worthington, R. L., & Spaniermann, L. B. (2001). Race, power, and multicultural counseling psychology: Understanding White privilege and color- blind racial attitudes. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd Ed., pp. 257-288). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Neville, H., Spanierman, L., & Doan, B. (2006). Exploring the association between color blind racial ideology and multicultural counseling competencies. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 275-290.

Neville, H. A., Yeung, J. G., Todd, N. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Reed, T. D. (2011). Color-blind racial ideology and beliefs about a racialized university mascot. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 236-249.

Picca, L.H., & Feagin, J.R. (2007). Two-faced racism: Whites in the backstage and frontstage. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Russel, S. (2003). Ethics, alterity, incommensurability, honor. Ayaangwaamizin: The International Journal of Indigenous Philosophy, 3, 31-54.

Schneider, D. J. (2003). The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press. Springer, D. (2016, October 17). NDSU president calls for end of 'hateful' Sioux chant at Bison

football games. Retrieved online from Grand Forks Herald at http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/4138709-ndsu-president-calls-end-hateful-sioux-chant-bison-football-games

Staurowsky, E. J. (2007). “You know, we are all Indian” Exploring White power and privilege in reactions to the NCAA Native American mascot policy. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31, 61-76.

Steinfeldt, J. A., Foltz, B. D., Kaladow, J. K., Carlson, T., Pagano, L., Benton, E., & Steinfeldt, M. C. (in press). Racism in the electronic age: Role of online forums in expressing racial attitudes about American Indians. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.

Steinfeldt, J. A., Foltz, B. D., LaFollette, J. R., White, M. R., Wong, Y. J. & Steinfeldt, M. C. (2012). Perspectives of social justice activists: Advocating against Native-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 326-362.

Steinfeldt, J. A., Hagen, P. E., & Steinfeldt, M. C. (2010). Psychological Implications of Stereotyping of American Indians Through the Use of Native-themed Mascots, Nicknames, and Logos. In E. Simon (Ed.), Psychology of Stereotypes (pp. 213-228). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Steinfeldt, J. A., & Steinfeldt, M. C. (2012). Components of a training intervention designed to produce attitudinal change toward Native-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51, 17-32.

Steinfeldt, J. A., & Wong, Y. J. (2010). Multicultural training on American Indian issues: Testing the effectiveness of an intervention to change attitudes toward Native-themed mascots. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16. 110-115.

Vanderford, H. (1996). What’s in a name? Heritage or hatred: The school mascot controversy. Journal of Law and Education, 25, 381-388.

Westerman, M. (1989, March). Death of the Frito bandito: Marketing to ethnic groups. American Demographics, 11, 28-32.

Williams, D. M. (2007). Where’s the honor? Attitudes toward the “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo. Sociology of Sport Journal, 24, 437-456.

Figure 1 Mississauga Hockey League Team Nicknames and Logos:

Figure 2 Table of Indigenous-Themed Mascots, Nicknames, and Logos Used in Studies:

Study Stimuli Type (Word/Image)

Indigenous-Themed Nicknames/Logos/Images Used (Examples, not necessarily a comprehensive list)

Fryberg et al. (2008)

Images (Mascot Logos)

Kim-Prieto et al. (2010)


Steinfeldt & Wong (2010)

Words (Mascot Nicknames)

Redskins, Chiefs, Seminoles, Fighting Sioux, Braves, Indians

Chaney et al. (2011)

Words (Mascot Nicknames)

Chiefs, Redskins, Indians, Warriors, Braves, Fighting Sioux

LaRocque et al. (2011) and Steinfeldt et al (2010)


Online Forum Words (Mascot

Nicknames)

Images of University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux

Neutral Images

Controversial Images Burkley et al. (2016)


https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=chief+illiniwek+logo&view=detailv2&&id=98AC98A8023A8A0DEC14A51A8AAB0210C2BC195D&selectedIndex=0&ccid=ZDPWOQrx&simid=608055147114859652&thid=OIP.M6433d6390af1aa66d501942fd13fffa3H0



Figure 3 Images of Fan Use of Indigenous-Themed Mascots, Nicknames, and Logos

Report No: CP 2019-123 COMMUNITY PLANNING

Land Division Committee Meeting: May 2, 2019

To: Chair and Members of Oxford County Land Division Committee From: Meghan House, Development Planner, Community Planning Application for Consent B18-15-2 - Dwight and Donna Zehr REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

The application proposes to sever approximately 0.81 ha (2.0 ac), comprising an existing single detached dwelling and shed, for non-farm residential purposes. The lot to be retained comprises approximately 36.4 ha (90 ac) and contains a beef barn, silos, storage buildings, an accessory single detached dwelling and cropland.

Planning staff are not recommending that the proposed severance be approved as it is not consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the County Official Plan with respect to surplus farm dwelling severances.

DISCUSSION

Background OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Dwight and Donna Zehr 756375 Oxford Rd 5, RR 1, Bright ON N0J 1R0 LOCATION: The subject lands are described as Lot 23, Concession 17 (East Zorra), in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The property has frontage on both 17th Line and Oxford Road 5, and is located to the northwest of the intersection of Oxford Road 5 and Township Road 12 in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. The lot to be retained is municipally known as 696392 17th Line and the lot to be severed is municipally known as 756375 Oxford Road 5. OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule “E-1” Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Land Use Plan Agricultural Reserve

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ZONING BY-LAW 2003-18: Existing Zoning: General Agricultural Zone (A2) Proposed Zoning (Lot to be Severed): Rural Residential Zone (RR)

wjaques

Text Box

#4.e


Land Division Committee: May 2, 2019

Page 2 of 7

EXISTING USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Agricultural lands with farm buildings and two accessory residences

PROPOSED USES: Lot to be Severed: Non-farm residential dwelling Lot to be Retained: Farm with beef barns and an accessory dwelling SERVICES: Lot to be Severed: Existing well and septic system

Lot to be Retained: Existing well and septic system ROAD ACCESS: Lot to be Severed: County Road, paved (Oxford Road 5)

Lot to be Retained: Township Road, gravel (17th Line) PROPOSAL: SEVERED LOT RETAINED LOT Area 0.81 ha (2.0 ac) 36.4 ha (90 ac) Frontage 50.3 m (165 ft) 579 m (1,900 ft) Depth 160 m (525 ft) 630 m (2,067 ft)

The purpose of the Application for Consent is to sever approximately 0.81 ha (2.0 ac), comprising an existing single detached dwelling (circa 1870s) and shed, for non-farm residential purposes. The lot to be retained comprises approximately 36.4 ha (90 ac) and contains a beef barn, silos, storage buildings, an accessory single detached dwelling (circa 1910) and cropland. For the information of the Committee, the applicant has provided historical information regarding the property (see Attachment 1). The 1870s stone cottage (on the lot to be severed), was located on a separate lot that was purchased by Emanuel B. Zehr in 1922, who at the time also owned the adjacent farm. Subsequently both properties were sold to Edward E. Zehr in 1948. The properties merged sometime during the ownership of Edward E. Zehr and were sold together to Dwight and Donna Zehr in 1978. The property owners have applied to sever the second dwelling (1870s stone cottage) as it is surplus to the needs of the farm operation. Plate 1, Location Map with Existing Zoning, shows the location of the subject property, as well as the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity. Plate 2, Aerial Photograph (2015), provides an aerial view of the subject lands and surrounding area. Plate 3, Close-up Aerial Photograph (2015) – Lot to be Severed, provides an aerial view of the lot to be severed. Plate 4, Applicant’s Sketch - Overview, provides an overview of the proposal, as submitted by the applicant. Plate 5, Applicant’s Sketch – Details of Lot to be Severed, provides the details of the proposed lot boundary in relation to the existing structures and services on the lot to be severed.



Page 3 of 7

Application Review PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions ‘shall be consistent with’ all policy statements issued under the Act. Section 2.3 (Agriculture) directs that prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long term agricultural use. Permitted uses in prime agricultural areas include agriculture, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses. New land uses, including the creation of new lots, shall comply with the minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae. Further, Section 2.3.4 (Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments) discourages the creation of new lots in prime agricultural areas and provides only four instances where such lot creation may be permitted, as summarized below:

for agricultural uses, provided the lots are of a sufficient size for the type of production common in the area and are sufficiently large enough to maintain flexibility in adapting the operation in the future;

for agricultural-related uses; for a surplus farm residence resulting from a farm consolidation; and, for infrastructure facilities and corridors in lieu of an easement or right-of-way.

The creation of new residential lots in prime agricultural area shall not be permitted, except in accordance with policy 2.3.4.1(c), which permits a lot for a surplus residence subject to the area of the new lot being limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the uses and appropriate sewage and water services. The PPS definition of a ‘residence surplus to a farming operation’ is “an existing habitable farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation” and ‘farm consolidation’ is “the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation”. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are located within the ‘Agricultural Reserve’ designation according to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Land Use Plan in the County of Oxford Official Plan. According to Section 3.1.1, the goal of the Agricultural Reserve policies is to ensure prime agricultural lands are preserved for food and fibre production by avoiding the fragmentation of the land base, by minimizing conflict between agricultural and non-agricultural uses and by supporting the needs of the agricultural community by permitting land uses which are complementary to and supportive of agriculture. The on-going goal of the Agricultural Reserve designation is to minimize conflict with farm operations including commercial, industrial and residential developments. Further, a strategic aim of the Agricultural Reserve policies is to prevent situations of land use conflict in the agricultural designations by careful management of non-farm uses, including rural residential development, recreational uses, commercial and industrial uses and aggregate resource extraction.



Page 4 of 7

In the Agricultural Reserve, lands are to be developed for a wide variety of agricultural land uses, such as general farming, animal or poultry operations, regulated livestock farms, cash crop farms and specialty crop farms. Permitted uses also include woodlands, market gardening, tobacco farming, nurseries and orchards, together with farm buildings and structures necessary to the farming operation, and accessory residential uses required for the farm. Agricultural-related uses and secondary uses, such as home occupations, are also permitted in accordance with relevant review criteria. Section 3.1.4.4.1 – Farm Consolidation, defines ‘farm consolidation’ as “where the land being conveyed is to be legally consolidated with an abutting existing farm property, to form one parcel under identical ownership” and provides a list of criteria that must be satisfied. Section 3.1.4.5.2 - Surplus Farm Residences, states that on-farm dwellings are to be considered as part of the farm unit and consent to sever any surplus farm dwellings will not be permitted by the Oxford County Land Division Committee, unless the proposal involves a farm consolidation and/or is located within a designated settlement. According to Section 3.1.5, it is an objective of the Official Plan to only permit new non-agricultural uses where such uses do not conflict with the ‘Goal for Agricultural Policies’, as set out in Section 3.1.1. Non-agricultural uses include commercial, industrial, institutional, infrastructure, public works yards, recreational and residential uses that are not directly related to or supportive of agriculture. Non-farm rural residential development is considered to be incompatible with agriculture such that it can create conflicts with farming activities. An evaluation system has been included in the County Official Plan under Section 3.1.5.4.2 to provide an impartial and consistent method of evaluating proposals which would result in non-farm rural residential development within the Agricultural Reserve designation. Step 2 of the evaluation process includes policies regarding circumstances that would prohibit non-farm rural residential development. The policies in this section prohibit the severance of a non-farm rural residential use within the Agricultural Reserve other than for the creation of a lot for a dwelling made surplus through farm consolidation. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned “General Agricultural Zone (A2)” in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law. The A2 zone permits a variety of agriculture-related uses, including a farm, a regulated farm, and a single detached dwelling, if accessory to a farm or a regulated farm. The zone requires a minimum lot area of 30 ha (74.1 ac) and a minimum lot frontage of 100 m (328.2 ft). If the proposed severance is approved, the lot to be retained will continue to meet the provisions of the A2 zone with respect to lot area, frontage and depth. The lot to be severed is proposed to be used for non-farm rural residential purposes and would be required to be rezoned to recognize the use of the lands. The ‘Rural Residential Zone (RR)’ requires a minimum lot area of 2,800 m2 (30,139 ft2), a minimum lot frontage of 35 m (114.8 ft), and a minimum lot depth of 80 m (262.5 ft). The zone also requires a minimum front yard depth of 10 m (32.8 ft), a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 m (24.6 ft) and minimum interior side yard widths of 3 m (9.8 ft) and 1.2 m (3.9 ft), as well as a Minimum Distance from the Centreline of a County Road of 26 m (85.3 ft) outside of a designated settlement.



Page 5 of 7

The lot to be severed is proposed to have an area of 0.8 ha (2.0 ac), a frontage of 50.3 m (165 ft) and a depth of 160 m (525 ft). The existing house (circa 1870s) has a front yard depth of approximately 9.1m (30 ft) and is located a distance of approximately 18.3 m (60 ft) from the centreline of the County Road. The proposed property boundary will create interior side yard widths of approximately 16.8 m (55 ft) and 29 m (95 ft) respectively and a rear yard depth of at least 91.4 m (300 ft). The location of the existing house does not meet the minimum front yard or minimum distance from the centreline of a County road and the Township has indicated that the location of the existing house is legal non-conforming. The General Provisions of the Zoning By-law require that accessory structures in the RR zone have minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks of 1.2 m (3.9 ft) and maximum lot coverage of 10% of lot area, or 280 m2 (3,014 ft2) of gross floor area, whichever is the lesser. The applicant proposes to include a shed on the lot to be severed. The existing shed on the lot to be severed appears to meet the provisions of the By-law. The proposed lot area and location of the existing house and accessory shed relative to the new lot boundaries appear to meet the provisions for the RR zone, with the exception that the existing house does not meet the minimum required front yard depth or minimum required distance from the centreline of a County road. If the severance is approved, the deficient front yard depth and setback from a County road should be addressed in any subsequent zone change. Agency Comments The application was circulated to various agencies considered to have an interest in the proposal. Bell Canada, Hydro One, Union Gas, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Public Works Manager, and Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Fire Chief indicated that they have no comments or objections regarding the proposed severance. The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Building, Development, and Drainage Manager (Chief Building Official) indicated that the following are required:

- a drainage assessment reapportionment for the severed and retained lands; - payment of cash in lieu of parkland; and, - survey confirmation of the limits of the area regulated by the Conservation Authority on

the lot to be severed. County Public Works Department indicated that a road widening dedication is required for the lot to be severed to increase the right of way width to 15 m from the centerline of Oxford Road 5. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has indicated that the subject property is affected by GRCA regulations due to the presence of a watercourse, floodplain, steep slopes and lands adjacent to these natural heritage resources and natural hazards. As the proposal does not propose new development or site alteration within or adjacent to the area regulated by GRCA, the Authority has indicated that they do not anticipate any negative impacts to the above noted features as a result of the proposal. Public Consultation Notice of the consent application was provided to the public and surrounding property owners in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. No comments were received as of the date of this report.



Page 6 of 7

Planning Analysis The application for consent to sever proposes to create a new lot for non-farm rural residential use outside of a designated settlement area. The PPS directs that the creation of new residential lots is not permitted in a Prime Agricultural Area except in the case of a farm residence that is surplus as a result of farm consolidation. Farm consolidation under the PPS definition means the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation and a residence surplus to a farming operation means an existing habitable farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation. As additional farm parcels are not being acquired to be operated as one farm operation as part of the subject proposal, the proposal is not consistent with the PPS policies with respect to lot creation in the agricultural area. Further, the PPS requires that new land uses, including the creation of a new lot with an existing dwelling, shall comply with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I) formulae. The Provincial MDS Document requires an MDS I setback for an existing dwelling when prior to the consent, that dwelling is located on the same lot as an existing livestock facility. The estimated minimum setback from the existing beef operation on the lot to be retained is 250 m and the closest lot boundary for the proposed new lot is approximately 300 m from the existing livestock facility. Notwithstanding that the proposal is not consistent with the PPS policies with respect to lot creation in the agricultural area, the proposed lot appears to meet MDS I requirements. The County Official Plan (Section 3.1.4.4.1) policies state that farm consolidation is when land is being conveyed to be legally consolidated with an abutting existing farm property, to form one parcel under identical ownership. In the case of the subject application, no abutting parcels of land are being consolidated under identical ownership and the subject proposal does not meet the definition of farm consolidation. The existing dwelling is currently accessory to an existing farm operation and severance of the dwelling is not characterized as severance “a surplus dwelling as a result of farm consolidation”, but rather as creation of a new lot for non-farm residential use. The County Official Plan directs that non-farm rural residential development is considered to be incompatible with agriculture as it can create fragmentation of the land base and create conflicts with farming activities. The subject proposal did not proceed past Step 2 of the County’s system for evaluating proposals which would result in non-farm rural residential development within the Agricultural Reserve designation (Section 3.1.5.4.2) as the severance of non-farm rural residential lots are only permitted as a result of farm consolidation. Further the policies of the Official Plan state that on-farm dwellings are to be considered as part of the farm unit and consent to sever any surplus farm dwellings will not be permitted by the Oxford County Land Division Committee, unless the proposal involves a farm consolidation. In conclusion, Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal is not consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Official Plan regarding lot creation in the agricultural area and recommend that the proposed severance not be approved. RECOMMENDATION Whereas the application for consent is not consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement or the County of Oxford Official Plan, we are of the opinion that the application should not be given favourable consideration for the following reasons:



Page 7 of 7

1. The proposal is not consistent with Section 2.3.4 of the 2014 Provincial Policy

Statement as it relates to lot creation in Prime Agricultural Areas. 2. The proposal does not conform to Section 3.1.5.4 of the County Official Plan as it

relates to lot creation and rural residential uses in the Agricultural Reserve Policy area.

SIGNATURES Authored by: "Original Signed By" Meghan House, MCIP, RPP Development Planner Approved for submission: "Original Signed By" Gordon K. Hough, RPP, Director

February 8, 2019

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site andis for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be

accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey

Legend

5120

Notes

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N

256 Meters

Parcel LinesProperty BoundaryAssessment BoundaryUnitRoadMunicipal Boundary

Environmental Protection/Flood Overlay

Flood FringeFloodwayEnvironmental Protection (EP1)Environmental Protection (EP2)

Zoning Floodlines/Regulation Limit

100 Year Flood Line30 Metre SetbackConservation Authority Regulation LimitRegulatory Flood And Fill Lines

Zoning (Displays 1:16000 to 1:500)

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

mhouse

Text Box

Oxford Road 5

mhouse

Text Box

17th Line

mhouse

Text Box

Township Road 12

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 1: Location Map with Existing Zoning File No: B19-15-2 - Zehr Lot 23, Concession 17 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 696392 17th Line/756375 Oxford Rd 5

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Text Box

Township of Blandford-Blenheim

February 8, 2019



Legend

3070

Notes


154 Meters







mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Text Box

Oxford Road 5

mhouse

Text Box

Township Road 12

mhouse

Text Box


mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Text Box

17th Line

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 2: Aerial Photograph (2015) File No: B19-15-2 - Zehr Lot 23, Concession 17 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 696392 17th Line/756375 Oxford Rd 5

April 16, 2019



Legend

510

Notes


26 Meters







mhouse

Text Box

Plate 3: Close-up Aerial Photograph (2015) - Lot to be Severed File No: B19-15-2 - Zehr Lot 23, Concession 17 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 696392 17th Line/756375 Oxford Rd 5

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

mhouse

Text Box

Oxford Road 5

mhouse

Text Box

Township Road 12

mhouse

Text Box


mhouse

Text Box

Plate 4: Applicant's Sketch - Overview File No: B19-15-2 - Zehr Lot 23, Concession 17 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 696392 17th Line/756375 Oxford Rd 5

mhouse

Rectangle

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 5: Applicant's Sketch - Details of Lot to be Severed File No: B19-15-2 - Zehr Lot 23, Concession 17 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 696392 17th Line/756375 Oxford Rd 5



To: Chair and Members of Oxford County Land Division Committee From: Meghan House, Development Planner, Community Planning Applications for Consent B19-18-2 & B19-19-2 – Alver Farms Limited REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Application B19-18-2 proposes to sever a parcel comprising approximately 40.5 ha (100 ac)

of vacant agricultural land to create a new agricultural lot with frontage along 10th Line. Application B19-19-2 proposes to sever a parcel comprising approximately 40.5 ha (100 ac)

of agricultural land containing an existing barn and well to create a new agricultural lot with frontage along 10th Line.

The lot to be retained comprises approximately 40.5 ha (100 ac), with frontage on 10th Line,

and contains several farm storage buildings, an accessory single detached dwelling and cropland.

Planning staff are recommending that the proposed severances be approved as they are

consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Oxford County Official Plan with respect to severances for agricultural purposes.

DISCUSSION

Background OWNER/APPLICANT: Alver Farms Limited 495688 10th Line, Woodstock ON N4S 7V7 LOCATION: The subject property is described as Lots 11, 12 & 13, Concession 9 (East Zorra), in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The property is located on the east side of 10th Line, between County Road 33 and Braemar Sideroad, and is municipally known as 495650 10th Line. OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule “E-1” Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Agricultural Reserve Land Use Plan

wjaques

Text Box

#4.f



Page 2 of 7

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ZONING BY-LAW 2003-18: Existing Zoning: General Agricultural Zone (A2) SERVICES: Lot to be Severed B19-18-2 – none Lot to be Severed B19-19-2 – private well Lot to be Retained – private well and septic system ROAD ACCESS: Township Road (gravel), 10th Line PROPOSAL:

SEVERED LOT B19-18-2

SEVERED LOT B19-19-2

RETAINED LOT

Area 40.5 ha (100 ac) 40.5 ha (100 ac) 40.5 ha (100 ac) Frontage 600 m (1,968.5 ft) 600 m (1,968.5 ft) 600 m (1,968.5 ft) Depth 688 m (2,257.2 ft) 688 m (2,257.2 ft) 688 m (2,257.2 ft)

Application B19-18-2 proposes to sever a parcel comprising approximately 40.5 ha (100 ac) of vacant agricultural land to create a new agricultural lot with frontage along 10th Line. Application B19-19-2 proposes to sever a parcel comprising approximately 40.5 ha (100 ac) of agricultural land containing an existing barn and well to create a new agricultural lot with frontage along 10th Line. The lot to be retained comprises approximately 40.5 ha (100 ac), with frontage on 10th Line, and contains several farm storage buildings, an accessory single detached dwelling and cropland. Plate 1, Location Map with Existing Zoning, shows the location of the subject property, as well as the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity. Plate 2, Aerial Photograph (2015), provides an aerial view of the subject lands and surrounding area. Plate 3, Applicant’s Sketch, provides an overview of the proposal, as provided by the applicant. Application Review 2014 Provincial Policy Statement The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions shall be consistent with all policy statements issued under the Act. Section 2.3 (Agriculture) directs that prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long term agricultural use. Permitted uses in prime agricultural areas include agriculture, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses.



Page 3 of 7

Further, Section 2.3.4 (Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments) discourages the creation of new lots in prime agricultural areas and provides only four instances where such lot creation may be permitted, as summarized below:

for agricultural uses, provided the lots are of a sufficient size for the type of production common in the area and are sufficiently large enough to maintain flexibility in adapting the operation in the future;

for agricultural-related uses; for a surplus farm residence resulting from a farm consolidation; and, for infrastructure facilities and corridors in lieu of an easement or right-of-way.

Section 2.3.3.3 of the PPS further states that new land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. Section 2.1 states that natural features shall be protected for the long term and that the diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features, and ground water features. Section 2.1.5 states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant woodlands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Furthermore, Section 2.1.8 states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.5 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Official Plan The subject lands are designated Agricultural Reserve according to the County Official Plan. In the Agricultural Reserve designation, lands are to be developed for a wide variety of agricultural land uses, including general farming, animal or poultry operations, regulated livestock farms, cash crop farms and specialty crop farms together with farm buildings and structures necessary to the support the farming operation, and accessory residential uses required for the farm. Section 3.1.4.4 of the Official Plan provides policies related to severances for farming purposes. The objectives of the policies are to provide for parcel sizes appropriate to the type of agricultural uses common to the area and to ensure flexibility for farm operators to engage in differing types of viable agricultural operations; ensure that new farm parcels are capable of sustaining viable agricultural operations; minimize farmland fragmentation and minimize the creation of irregularly shaped agricultural parcels; and ensure that Minimum Distance Separation Formula II is satisfied. The Official Plan provides criteria in Section 3.1.4.4.2 for the creation of new farm parcels as follows:

farming or conservation must be the intended use of the land being conveyed and the land being retained;

the requirements of Minimum Distance Separation Formula II must be satisfied; farm parcels must remain sufficiently large to maintain flexibility and permit a change in

the commodity produced, scale of operation, diversification or intensification; the farm parcel size and configuration must be suitable to the type of agriculture common

in the area as well as the farm parcel size typically associated with the type of agriculture proposed;



Page 4 of 7

the severance should not result in further fragmentation of Class I to III agricultural capability soils;

regard shall be had for the site specific criteria including: o the amount of workable land in comparison to total parcel size; o the size and configuration of the proposed parcels for tillage or livestock

purposes; o the presence of farm buildings or structures to support the proposed use; and, o the farm parcel shall have frontage on a public road maintained year round at a

reasonable standard of construction. proposals may be required to demonstrate that nearby parcels of a similar size are

unavailable; woodlands are to be maintained as part of a farm parcel and should not be severed

unless the woodland is to be acquired for preservation or conservation purposes; compliance with the policies in Section 3.2, Environmental Resource Policies; and, the parcel to be severed and the parcel to be retained shall satisfy the provisions of the

General Agricultural Zone as contained in the Township Zoning By-law. The woodlots on the subject property have been identified as being significant in the Oxford County Natural Heritage Study (2006), as well as in the updated Natural Heritage Systems Study (Draft 2016). Section 3.2 of the Official Plan provides Environmental Resource Policies and Section 3.2.4.1.1 provides permitted uses within and adjacent to Environmental Protection Areas, including permitting the continuation of established agricultural activities on existing cleared areas and the use of woodlands for the production of maple syrup and honey and harvesting of timber in accordance with food forestry management practices and the Woodlands Conservation By-law. Furthermore, lot creation in agricultural areas is permitted for farming purposes in accordance with the policies of Section 3.1.4.4 (Severances for Farming Purposes). Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned ‘General Agricultural Zone (A2)’ in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law No. 2003-18. The A2 zone permits a variety of agriculture-related uses, including a farm, a regulated farm, and a single detached dwelling, if accessory to a farm or a regulated farm. The A2 zone requires a minimum lot area of 30 ha (74.1 ac) and a minimum lot frontage of 100 m (328.2 ft). The lots to be severed and the lot to be retained would appear to meet the provisions of the A2 zone if the proposed severances are approved. Agency Comments The application was circulated to various agencies considered to have an interest in the proposal. Bell Canada, Hydro One, and the Township Fire Chief indicated no comments or objections to the proposed severance. The Township Building, Drainage and Development Manager (Chief Building Official) has indicated that a drainage assessment reapportionment is required. The Township Public Works Manager has indicated that any changes to existing entrances or additional entrances will require approval as per the Township’s entrance policy.



Page 5 of 7

County of Oxford Public Works has indicated that a 5 m road widening is required along Oxford Road 33, as well as a 15 m by 15 m sight triangle at the intersection of Oxford Road 33 and 10th Line. The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) noted that portions of the subject property are subject to regulation by the Authority. In addition, the woodlands located on the subject property have been identified as Significant in the Oxford County Natural Heritage Study (2006), as well as in the updated Natural Heritage Systems Study (Draft 2016). As no new development is proposed within or adjacent to the regulated areas or woodlands, UTRCA indicated that they have no objection to the proposed severances. Public Consultation Notice of the consent application was provided to the public and surrounding property owners in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. No comments were received as of the date of this report. Planning Analysis Section 2.3.4 of the PPS states that lot creation may be permitted in prime agricultural areas for agricultural purposes provided that the lots are of a sufficient size for the type of production common in the area and sufficiently large to maintain flexibility in adapting the operation in the future. For the subject proposal, both lots to be severed and the lot to be retained would be approximately 40.5 ha (100 ac) and this is considered to be sufficiently large for the type of agriculture common in the area, being primarily cash crops and livestock, and to maintain flexibility in adapting to another type of farming in the future. Further the identified woodlots on the property are proposed to be maintained as part of the farms, which will maintain the long-term ecological function and linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas and no new development is proposed that is anticipated to adversely impact the natural features or their ecological functions. Further to the Official Plan criteria (Section 3.1.4.4.2) for the creation of new farm parcels, farming is the intended use of the land being conveyed and the land being retained and the land parcels will be large enough to be suitable for the type of agriculture common in the area, as well as to maintain flexibility for future agricultural uses. The PPS and Official Plan policies indicate that the requirements of Minimum Distance Separation Formula must be satisfied for the creation of new farm parcels. The lot to be retained contains farm storage structures and an accessory single detached dwelling. The lot to be severed by B19-18-2 is vacant and the lot to be severed by B19-19-2 contains a vacant bank barn, which may be capable of housing livestock. The closest intensive livestock facilities appear to be over 1,000 m from likely building sites on the severed lots (i.e. along the frontage of the lots). There is an existing licensed aggregate extraction operation to the north and across the road from the subject lands (approximately 250 m from the existing barn on the lot to be severed by B19-19-2). It appears that sufficient distance would be available for any future new dwelling on the lots to be severed to be meet the requirements of MDS I, as well as maintain a distance of at least 500 m from the licensed gravel pit. Further, it appears that any future new barn(s) on the lots to be severed would be able to meet the requirements of MDS II for separation from the existing dwelling on the lot to be retained and other surrounding dwellings (i.e., ‘Type A’ land uses). The Braemar Valley RV Park, which may be characterized as a more sensitive ‘Type B’ land use due to a higher density of human occupancy, habitation or activity, is approximately 420 m from the



Page 6 of 7

nearest lot line for the lot to be severed by B19-19-2 and approximately 650 m from the existing barn. Depending on the type and number of livestock proposed, it appears that the existing barn could be used and/or a new barn could be located to meet the requirements of MDS II. There are no other Type B land uses within the immediate surrounding area. The lots to be severed and the lot to be retained exceed the minimum lot area of 30 ha (74.1 ac) required in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law for the A2 zone. The lot to be severed by B19-18-2 contains a woodlot with an area of approximately 6.1 ha (15 ac) and the new lot would have approximately 34.4 ha (85 ac) of workable land. The lot to be severed by B19-18-2 contains a woodlot with an area of approximately 4 ha (10 ac) and an approximately 1.2 (3 ac) portion of a second woodlot and the new lot would have approximately 35.2 ha (87 ac) of workable land. The lot to be retained contains a woodlot with an area of approximately 6.5 ha (16 ac) and would have approximately 34 ha (84 ac) of workable land. The woodlots on the subject property have been identified as being significant in the Oxford County Natural Heritage Study and the northerly woodlots are affected by the UTRCA Regulation Limit and also comprise significant wetland features. The Official Plan policies require that woodlands be maintained as part of a farm parcel and that severance proposals demonstrate compliance with the policies in Section 3.2, Environmental Resource Policies. The proposed lot boundaries reflect the boundaries of the original 100 acre parcels and the woodlots will be maintained on each of the severed farm parcels. However, the proposed lot boundaries will result in a 1.2 (3 ac) portion of the centrally located woodlot being located in the southwest corner of the most northerly lot (B19-19-2). While not ideal from a woodland fragmentation perspective, it is anticipated that this smaller portion of woodlot will be maintained as part of the farm and will also be protected as part of the area subject to the UTRCA Regulation Limit and the Woodlands Conservation By-law. No new development is currently proposed within or adjacent to the identified natural heritage resources and no impacts are anticipated as a result of this application. In addition, UTRCA indicated that they have no objection to the proposed severances. Furthermore, both the severed lots and retained lots are regularly shaped, with no significant topographical or drainage constraints that would result in inappropriate fragmentation of agricultural land or adversely affect the capability of the lands for crop production or livestock purposes, and each parcel will have frontage on a public road maintained year round. Planning staff are recommending support for the applications as the proposal is generally consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the County Official Plan, with respect to severances for agricultural purposes.

RECOMMENDATION Whereas the applications for consent are consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, comply with the County of Oxford Official Plan and the lands are appropriately zoned, we are of the opinion that the applications are acceptable from a planning perspective, and should be granted, subject to the following conditions: Application B19-18-2 1. The certificate for Application B19-19-2 be issued, the Transfer be registered, and a

copy of the registered Transfer be provided to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Land Division Committee, prior to the issuance of the certificate for Application B19-18-2.



Page 7 of 7

2. A road widening of 5 m (16.4 ft) along Oxford Road 33 for the entire frontage of the

lot to be retained abutting said Oxford Road 33 and a sight triangle of 15 m x 15 m (49.2 ft x 49.2 ft) at the intersection of Oxford Road 33 and 10th Line be dedicated to the County of Oxford, free of all costs and encumbrances, to the satisfaction of the County Director of Public Works.

3. Drainage assessment re-apportionment be undertaken, pursuant to Section 65 of

The Drainage Act, R.S.O., 1990, at the owner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

4. If required, the owner shall enter into a standard Severance Agreement with the

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, to the satisfaction of the Township. 5. The Clerk of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock advise the Secretary-Treasurer

of the Land Division Committee that all requirements of the Township, financial and otherwise, have been complied with.

Application B19-19-2 1. Drainage assessment re-apportionment be undertaken, pursuant to Section 65 of

The Drainage Act, R.S.O., 1990, at the owner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

2. If required, the owner shall enter into a standard Severance Agreement with the

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

3. The Clerk of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock advise the Secretary-Treasurer


SIGNATURES Authored by: "Original Signed By" Meghan House, MCIP, RPP Development Planner Approved for submission: "Original Signed By" Gordon K. Hough, RPP, Director

February 27, 2019



Legend

8190

Notes


409 Meters







mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed (B19-18-2)

mhouse

Text Box


mhouse

Text Box

11th Line

mhouse

Text Box

10th Line

mhouse

Text Box

Oxford Road 33

mhouse

Text Box

Zorra / East Zorra-Tavistock Line

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 1: Location Map with Existing Zoning File Nos: B19-18-2 & B19-19-2 - Alver Farms Limited Lots 11, 12 and 13, Concession 9 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 495650 10th Line

April 12, 2019



Legend

7680

Notes


384 Meters







mhouse

Text Box

Plate 2: Aerial Photograph (2015) File Nos: B19-18-2 & B19-19-2 - Alver Farms Limited Lots 11, 12 and 13, Concession 9 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 495650 10th Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Text Box

10th Line

mhouse

Text Box

Oxford Road 33

mhouse

Text Box

Zorra / East Zorra-Tavistock Line

mhouse

Text Box


mhouse

Text Box


mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 3: Applicant's Sketch File Nos: B19-18-2 & B19-19-2 - Alver Farms Limited Lots 11, 12 and 13, Concession 9 (East Zorra), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known as 495650 10th Line



To: Chair and Members of Oxford County Land Division Committee From: Meghan House, Development Planner, Community Planning Application for Consent B19-26-2 – Gateman Homes REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

The application proposes to sever 4.43 m2 (47.7 ft2) containing part of a shed, deck and pool to be added to the adjacent property to the immediate north. The purpose of the application is to rectify the encroachment of existing structures.

Planning staff are recommending that the proposed severance be approved as it is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Oxford County Official Plan with respect to low density residential uses in a settlement area.

DISCUSSION

Background OWNER: Gateman Homes (Blaire Gateman) 90 Frobisher Drive, Waterloo ON N2V 2A1 APPLICANT: GSP Group Inc. (Jennifer Gaudet/Chris Pidgeon) 201-71 Victoria Street South, Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9 LOCATION: The subject lands are described as Part of Lot 28, East Side of Woodstock Street and North Side of Hope Street, Plan 307; Part 1, Plan 41R9308; Part 6, Plan 41R5024, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The subject lands are located at the easterly terminus of Jacob Street East and are municipally known as 140 Jacob Street East, in the Village of Tavistock. The lot to be enlarged is municipally known as 192 Westwood Avenue, in the Village of Tavistock.

wjaques

Text Box

#4.g



Page 2 of 5

OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule “C-3” Settlement Strategy Plan Serviced Village Schedule “E-1” Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Settlement (Tavistock) Land Use Plan Schedule “E-2” Village of Tavistock Land Use Plan Low Density Residential TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ZONING BY-LAW 2003-18: Existing Zoning (Lot to be Severed): Special Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-6) Existing Zoning (Lot to be Retained): Special Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-6 & R2-6(H)) Existing Zoning (Lot to be Enlarged): Residential Type 2 Zone (R2) SERVICES: Lot to be Severed – none Lot to be Retained – municipal water and wastewater

Lot to be Enlarged – municipal water and wastewater PROPOSAL: SEVERED LOT RETAINED LOT ENLARGED LOT Area 4.43 m2 (47.7 ft2) 14,767 m2 (3.65 ac) 418.3 m2 (4,502.5 ft2) Frontage Irregular 10 m (32 ft) 9.1 m (30 ft) Depth Irregular Irregular 46 m (151 ft)

The application proposes to sever 4.43 m2 (47.7 ft2) containing part of a shed, deck and pool to be added to the adjacent property to the immediate north. The lot to be retained comprises 14,767 m2 (3.65 ac) of vacant land intended to be developed for a residential subdivision (File Nos: OP18-02-2; SB18-03-2; ZN2-18-03). The lot to be enlarged comprises 418.3 m2 (4,502.5 ft2) with frontage on Westwood Avenue and contains an existing semi-detached dwelling, a shed, deck and pool. The purpose of the application is to rectify the encroachment of existing structures associated with the residential use on the lot to be enlarged onto the subject property. Plate 1, Location Map with Existing Zoning, shows the location of the subject property, as well as the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity. Plate 2, Aerial Photograph (2015), provides an aerial view of the subject lands and surrounding area. Plate 3, Applicant’s Sketch, provides an overview of the proposal and an inset showing details of the lot to be severed and existing structures.



Page 3 of 5

Application Review 2014 Provincial Policy Statement The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions “shall be consistent with” all policy statements issued under the Act. Section 1.1.1 states that healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term and cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. Further, Section 1.1.3.2 directs that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land and resources and existing infrastructure and public service facilities. A range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment should also be promoted where it can be accommodated in settlement areas. Official Plan The subject lands are located within the Village of Tavistock, which is designated as ‘Settlement’ on Schedule ‘E-1’ – Land Use Plan for East-Zorra Tavistock, and identified as a ‘Serviced Village’ according to Schedule ‘C-3’ - Settlement Strategy Plan for the County of Oxford. The lands are also located within the ‘Low Density Residential’ designation according to Schedule ‘E-2’ - Village of Tavistock Land Use Plan. Section 4.2.2.4 directs that Serviced Villages are settlements characterized by a broad range of uses and activities which have been developed or are proposed for development on centralized waste water and water supply facilities. Furthermore, Section 6.2.2 directs that Low Density Residential areas in Serviced Villages are those lands that are primarily developed or planned for a variety of low-rise, low density housing forms consisting of single detached, semi-detached, duplexes, converted dwellings and street fronting townhouses. Zoning By-law The subject lands are currently zoned ‘Special Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-6)’ and ‘Special Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-6(H))’ according to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law. The lot to be enlarged is zoned ‘Residential Type 2 Zone (R2)’. The R2 zone permits a duplex dwellings, a semi-detached dwellings and a single detached dwelling and related uses such as home occupations and garden suites. For semi-detached dwellings, the R2 zone requires a minimum lot area of 270 m2 (2,906.3 ft2) per dwelling, a minimum lot frontage of 9 m (29.5 ft) per dwelling, and a minimum lot depth of 30 m (98.4 ft), where the property is served by both sanitary sewers and public water supply. It appears that the lot to be enlarged meets the requirements of the R2 zone.



Page 4 of 5

The Zoning By-law requires that accessory structures in residential zones have a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 m (3.9 ft), a minimum rear yard setback of 1.2 m (3.9 ft) and a maximum gross floor area of 10% of lot area, or 100 m2 (1,076.4 ft2) of floor area, whichever is the lesser. Unenclosed swimming pools and at-grade decks are excluded when determining total lot coverage. A setback of 0.3 m (0.98 ft) has been provided from the existing structures (shed, deck and pool) to the proposed new property line and the provisions of the Zoning By-law will not be met. The R2-6 and R2-6(H) zones permit all uses permitted in the R2 zone and provide special provisions to facilitate the proposed plan of subdivision. If the severance is approved, it appears that the lot to be retained and the lot to be enlarged will continue to meet the provisions of the R2, R2-6 and R2-6(H) zones as applicable, with the exception that the lot to be enlarged will not have adequate setbacks from existing structures to the property line. The consolidated property will also have ‘split zoning’ and should be rezoned to apply consistent zoning across the entire property. Agency Comments The application was circulated to various agencies considered to have an interest in the proposal. Bell Canada, Union Gas, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), Township Public Works Manager, Township Building, Development and Drainage Manager (Chief Building Official) and the Township Fire Chief indicated that they had no comments or objections regarding the proposal. Public Consultation Notice of the consent application was provided to the public and surrounding property owners in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. No comments were received as of the date of this report. Planning Analysis The proposed severance will facilitate the enlargement of an existing residential lot to rectify the encroachment of existing structures on an adjacent property and will not compromise the proposed development of a draft approved plan of subdivision on the lot to be retained. The subject lands are within a serviced settlement area, and the proposal will continue to promote an efficient use of land, existing infrastructure and public service facilities. As such, Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with Sections 1.1.3.3 and 1.3.1 of the PPS, respecting development within Settlement Areas. The lot to be enlarged will continue to be used for residential purposes, which is in keeping with the policies of the Low Density Residential designation and other relevant policies of the Official Plan. The lot to be retained is proposed to be developed for a residential subdivision and the lot to be severed is within an area that is proposed to contain an underground municipal drain and subject to an easement in favour of the Township. The proposed severance does not appear to compromise the development of the plan of subdivision or the proposed stormwater management system.



Page 5 of 5

It appears that, if the severance is approved, the lot to be retained and the enlarged lot will continue to meet the provisions of the R2 and R2-6 zone as applicable, with the exception that adequate setbacks from existing structures to the property line will not be provided even after consolidation of the lot to be severed with the lot to be enlarged. Further, the enlarged lot will have ‘split zoning’. Accordingly the lot to be severed should be rezoned to recognize the deficient setbacks and apply consistent zoning across the entire consolidated property. No objections or concerns were raised during agency circulation. All relevant comments have been addressed in the recommended conditions for approval. In light of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Office that the proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS and in keeping with the intent of County Official Plan. As such, Planning staff are satisfied that the application can be given favourable consideration, subject to the recommended conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Whereas the application for consent is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and complies with the County of Oxford Official Plan, we are of the opinion that the application is acceptable from a planning perspective, and should be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The parcel to be severed be appropriately zoned. 2. The parcel intended to be severed be conveyed to the abutting landowner to the

immediate north and be consolidated with said owner's existing property. Any additional transactions with regard to the severed parcel must comply with Section 50(3) & (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, as amended, and be reflected on the certificate.

3. The Clerk of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock advise the Secretary-Treasurer


SIGNATURES Authored by: "Original Signed By" Meghan House, RPP, MCIP Development Planner Approved for submission: "Original Signed By" Gordon K. Hough, RPP, Director

March 29, 2019



Legend

1020

Notes


51 Meters







mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Enlarged

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 1: Location Map with Existing Zoning File No: B19-26-2 - Gateman Homes 140 Jacob Street East, Village of Tavistock, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

March 29, 2019



Legend

260

Notes


13 Meters







mhouse

Polygon

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Enlarged

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

mhouse

Text Box

Westwood Avenue

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 2: Aerial Photograph (2015) File No: B19-26-2 - Gateman Homes 140 Jacob Street East, Village of Tavistock, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

mhouse

Polygon

43.6

147.1

26.5 58.1

44.2

64.3

108.3

46.3

45.3

BENEFITING PARCELAREA: 418.3

9.2

Ex. BUILDING

15.6

LOT TO BE RETAINEDAREA: 14,767.6m2

Jacob St

Westwood Ave

2.7 0.6 3.2 2.7

0.7

2.85.9

DECKSHED

LOT TO BE SEVEREDAREA: 4.43m2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Project No.: 17171

Drawn By: MN

Scale: 1: 800

Date: March 20, 2019

CONSENT SKETCH

140 Jacob Street East

REVISIONS

Dwg. File Name: cs17171b.dwg

GSPgroup

PLANNING I URBAN DESIGN I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

gspgroup.ca

SEE SEVERANCE DETAILS

SEVERANCE DETAILS

PLAN OF SURVEYOF PART OF

LOT 28

REGISTERED PLAN 307FORMERLY VILLAGE OF TAVISTOCK

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCKCOUNTY OF OXFORD

NOW THE

(EAST OF WOODSTOCK STREET AND NORTH OF HOPE STREET)

March 28, 2019

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 3: Applicant's Sketch File No: B19-26-2 - Gateman Homes 140 Jacob Street East, Village of Tavistock, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock


Council Date: May 1, 2019

To: Mayor and Members of East Zorra-Tavistock Council From: Meghan House, Development Planner, Community Planning Zone Change Application ZN 2-19-03 - Ronald and Patricia Findlater REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

The purpose of the Application for Zone Change is to rezone the subject lands from ‘Limited Agriculture Zone (A1)’ to ‘Rural Residential Zone (RR)’ to facilitate the severance and development of a new residential lot in a Rural Cluster settlement.

The related Application for Consent was approved by the County Land Division Committee on March 7, 2019 (File No. B18-83-2) with the condition that the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained be appropriately zoned.

Planning staff are recommending approval of the application as the proposal to create a

new residential lot within an existing settlement area is generally consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the purpose and intent of the County Official Plan and the Township Zoning By-law.

DISCUSSION

Background OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Ronald & Patricia Findlater

684754 Oxford Road 2, Woodstock ON N4S 7V7 LOCATION: The subject lands are described as Part Lot 28, Concession 1 (North Oxford), in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The lands are located on the south side of Oxford Road 2, lying between 10th Line and 11th Line, and are municipally known as 684754 Oxford Road 2. OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule “C-3” County of Oxford Settlement Rural Cluster Strategy Plan Schedule “E-1” Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Rural Cluster Land Use Plan

wjaques

Text Box

#5.a

Report No: CP 2019-130 COMMUNITY PLANNING Council Date: May 1, 2019

Page 2 of 5

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ZONING BY-LAW 2003-18: Existing Zoning: Limited Agricultural Zone (A1), with Regulatory Flood and Fill Lines Requested Zoning: Rural Residential Zone (RR) PROPOSAL: The purpose of the Application for Zone Change is to rezone the subject lands from ‘Limited Agriculture Zone (A1)’ to ‘Rural Residential Zone (RR)’ to facilitate the severance and development of a new residential lot in a Rural Cluster.

The related Application for Consent was approved by the County Land Division Committee on March 7, 2019 (File No. B18-83-2) with the condition that the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained be appropriately zoned. The purpose of the Application for Consent is to sever a vacant lot comprising approximately 3,902 m2 (0.96 ac), with frontage along Oxford Road 2. The lot to be retained comprises approximately 7,060 m2 (1.74 ac) and contains an existing single detached dwelling and detached accessory building. Both the severed and retained lots are proposed to be used for rural residential purposes. Plate 1, Location Map with Existing Zoning, shows the location of the subject property, as well as the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity. Plate 2, Aerial Photograph (2015), provides an aerial view of the subject lands and surrounding area. Plate 3, Applicant’s Sketch, provides the details of the proposed lot boundaries and location of existing structures on the lot to be retained. Application Review PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions shall be consistent with all policy statements issued under the Act. The PPS states that the vitality of settlement areas is critical to the long-term economic prosperity of Ontario’s communities and it is in the interest of all communities to use land and resources wisely to promote efficient development patterns, protect resources, promote green spaces, ensure effective use of infrastructure and public service facilities and minimize unnecessary public expenditures. Section 1.6.6.4 of the PPS states that where municipal sewage and water services are not provided, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. In settlement areas, these services may only be used for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development.


Page 3 of 5

The PPS further states that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject property is designated as Rural Cluster according to the Land Use Plan for the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock in the County Official Plan. In order to accommodate anticipated growth, the Plan promotes the location of non-agricultural uses within rural settlements as a means of protecting agricultural lands and natural areas, avoiding scattered development and maximizing the efficiency of municipal services. The Plan promotes appropriate infill development and intensification of land and buildings in rural settlement areas, consistent with the level of municipal services available. Within the Rural Cluster designation, the principle use of the land will be for low density residential purposes. It is an objective of the Plan to provide for a supply of residential land that is sufficient to accommodate the projected demand for the anticipated range of new dwelling types over the planning period. Notwithstanding this, Low density residential areas in Rural Clusters do not permit multiple unit residential development involving more than two units. Section 6.2.2.1 of the Official Plan provides that back yard infill and street oriented infill will be supported in Rural Clusters. The County land Division Committee and Area Council will be guided by the following policies when considering proposals for infill development in Low Density Residential areas: Section 6.2.2.1.1 of the Official Plan states that the introduction of new residential housing into an established streetscape pattern will only be permitted if the proposal is consistent with the characteristics of existing development in the immediate area. In order that street oriented infill projects are sensitive to the continuity of the existing residential streetscape, the Area Council and the County Land Division Committee will ensure that:

The proposal is consistent with the street frontage, setbacks, lot area and spacing of existing development within the immediate residential area;

For proposals involving more than two dwelling units in the Serviced Villages, the exterior design in terms of height, bulk, scale and layout of the proposed building is consistent with present land uses in the area.

Street-oriented infill proposals will comply with the requirements of Section 6.2.2.1.4 - All Infill Proposals. In addition to the specific infill policies of this Section, the following criteria will apply to all proposals for infill development:

Stormwater run-off from the proposal will be adequately controlled and will not negatively affect adjacent properties;

Adequate off-street parking and outdoor amenity areas will be provided; The location of vehicular access points, the likely impact of traffic generated by the

proposal on public streets and potential traffic impacts on pedestrian and vehicular safety and surrounding properties is acceptable;

Existing municipal services or private services and community facilities will be adequate to accommodate the proposed infill project;


Page 4 of 5

The extent to which the proposed development provides for the retention of any desirable vegetation or natural resources that contribute to the visual character of the surrounding area;

All infill proposals will be evaluated as to the environmental impacts and constraints associated with the proposed development in accordance with Section 3.2, as well as to the potential effect of the development on heritage resources (Section 3.2.7.5); and

Compliance of the proposed development with the provisions of the Zoning By-law of the Area Municipality and other municipal by-laws.

ZONING BY-LAW The lots to be severed and retained are currently zoned ‘Limited Agricultural Zone (A1)’ according to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law. A portion of the property contains ‘Regulatory Flood and Fill Lines’. Both the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained are proposed to be used for non-farm rural residential purposes and the appropriate zone is ‘Rural Residential Zone (RR)’. The RR Zone requires a minimum lot area of 2,800 m2 (30,139 ft2), a minimum lot frontage of 35 m (114.8 ft), and a minimum lot depth of 80 m (262.5 ft). The RR zone also requires a minimum front yard depth of 10 m (32.8 ft), a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 m (24.6 ft) and a minimum interior side yard width of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) for dwellings. The lot to be severed is proposed to have an area of 3,902 m2 (0.96 ac), a frontage of 48.7 m (164 ft), and a depth of 128 m (420 ft). The lot to be retained is proposed to have an area of 7,060 m2 (1.74 ac), a frontage of 57.6 m (189 ft), and a depth of 122 m (400 ft). Both the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained appear to meet the provisions of the RR Zone. A portion of the lot to be served contains Regulatory Flood and Fill Lines. UTRCA has indicated that any new development must be located outside of the floodplain and any development within the Regulated Area will be subject to permit requirements. There appears to be adequate area outside of the floodplain to permit construction of a new dwelling and associated infrastructure, subject to UTRCA review and permits as necessary. Agency Comments The application was circulated to various agencies considered to have an interest in the proposal. The Township Building, Development and Drainage Manager (Chief Building Official), Township Public Works Manager and Township Fire Chief indicated that they have no comments or objections regarding the proposal. County Public Works provided the following comments on the severance application:

- An entrance permit is required for the new entrance to the County road for the lot to be severed; and,

- A road widening across the frontage of the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained is required.

These comments were addressed in the conditions attached to the severance approval by the Land Division Committee.


Page 5 of 5

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) has indicated that the lot to be severed is affected by an area of floodplain. While UTRCA does not object to the applications for severance and zone change, any new development, such a house, and associated septic system, well, etc., would need to be located outside of the floodplain and any development within the Regulated Area will be subject to permit requirements. Public Consultation Notice of the zone change was provided to the public and surrounding property owners in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. No comments were received as of the date of this report. Planning Analysis The Zone Change application is intended to facilitate the creation of a new lot for rural residential use in the Rural Cluster settlement located near the intersection of Highway 2 and the 10th Line. The PPS promotes efficient development patterns and ensuring effective use of infrastructure and public service facilities. Further, the PPS states that individual sewage and water services may be used in settlement areas for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development. The proposed new lot has frontage on an existing public road and represents infilling and minor rounding out of development of land that is within an existing settlement area. Further, the proposal is in-keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan with respect to street oriented infill within Rural Clusters. The proposed lot to be severed and the lot to be retained meet the provisions of the RR zone and it appears that sufficient space will be provided to accommodate private water and wastewater services, off-street parking, private amenity space and drainage. In addition, the size of the lot to be severed and future development of a single detached dwelling is anticipated to be consistent with existing development along Highway 2. In light of the foregoing, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Township Zoning By-law. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock approve the zone change application submitted by Ronald and Patricia Findlater, whereby the lands described as Part Lot 28, Concession 1 (North Oxford), Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, known municipally as 684754 Oxford Road 2, are to be rezoned from ‘Limited Agricultural Zone (A1)’ to ‘Rural Residential Zone (RR)’.

SIGNATURES Authored by: Original signed by Meghan House, MCIP, RPP Development Planner Reviewed by: Original signed by Eric Gilbert, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner

December 18, 2018



Legend

4090

Notes


205 Meters







mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained and Rezoned RR

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed and Rezoned RR

mhouse

Text Box

10th Line

mhouse

Text Box

Oxford Road 2

mhouse

Text Box

CNR

mhouse

Text Box

CPR

mhouse

Text Box

Thames River

mhouse

Text Box

Beachville Road

mhouse

Text Box

Township of South West Oxford

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 1: Location Map with Existing Zoning File No: ZN 2-19-03- Findlater Part Lot 28, Concession 1 (North Oxford), known as 684754 Oxford Road 2, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

mhouse

Text Box

Valleyfield Drive

February 19, 2019



Legend

670

Notes


33 Meters







mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

mhouse

Polygonal Line

mhouse

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

mhouse

Text Box

Oxford Road 2

mhouse

Text Box

CPR

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 2: Aerial Photograph (2015) File No: ZN2-19-03 - Findlater Part Lot 28, Concession 1 (North Oxford), known as 684754 Oxford Road 2, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

aager

Polygon

mhouse

Text Box

Plate 3: Applicant's Sketch File No: ZN2-19-03 - Findlater Part Lot 28, Concession 1 (North Oxford), known as 684754 Oxford Road 2, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Prior to adjourning to the COR, East Zorra-Tavistock will appoint two (3) members, and name a Chairperson for the COR.

AGENDA for COURT OF REVISION Tavistock Drain 1974

1. Court opens (by resolution)

2. Written appeals received to the drain (Clerk)?

3. Chair Asks Engineer for comments

If there are verbal appeals:

4. Court must pass a resolution to accept any late appeals, or any verbal/written appeals from landowners present

• Asks landowner(s) to state concerns • Asks Engineer for comments

5. After all appeals are heard (if any): • Deliberation by members of COR • Clarification from appellants or Engineer, if required to make

decision

6. Court determines how appeals will be settled • Accept recommendation of Engineer?

• Members agree on alternate recommendation? If no verbal appeals:

7. Resolution(s) passed to adopt recommendations, amend assessments, etc.

8. Chair informs appellants that if they are not satisfied with the decision of the COR, they have 21 days in which to appeal to the Drainage Tribunal. (last day to submit appeal to the Clerk will be May 22, 2019)

If no appeals:

9. Resolution passed to sustain assessments.

10. Court adjourns and Council reconvenes (by resolution).

wjaques

Text Box

#5.b

Understanding Gourt of RevisionProcedures Under the Drainage Act

Sharon McGartan, OMAFRA

INTRODUCTIONThe Coutt of Revision is an appeal body established underthe Drainage Âct and adminjstered by the localmunicipality. The Court of Revision allows landowners tochallenge their drainage assessments quickly andinformally. Unlike the Dtainage Tribunal or the DrainageRefetee, the Court of Revision has one po\¡/er - to re-allocate funds rn a drainage assessment schedule.

To leatn more about assessments under the Drainage Act,refet to fact sheet Agdex 557 Order # 92-035,"Understanding Drainage Assessments."

THE ROLE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT OFRR/tSrON. Members of the Corut may hear appeals on three

grounds:t¡ Land or road has been assessed too high or low.zlLand or road should have been assessed but has not.:¡ Due consideration has not been given to the land's

use.

. The members of Court must hea¡ these appeals anddecide whether they are valtd. The members mustcomply with the Statatory Pouer¡ Prowdare Act, and theymust conduct themselves fatÃy and without bias.

. The Court only has authority to change the scheduleof assessments; they cannot make changes to thetechnical aspects ofthe repott and they cannot referthe report back to the engineer for mod-ifications.

. Total costs of the ptoject must remain thesame, which means that if the Court reducesan âssessment, the Court re-allocates theshortfall among other assessed propetyownefs.

. If the Cout is considering adding to theassessment of one ot more ptopetties whoseov/ners are not in attendance, the court mustadjoutn and send notice to assessed propertyowners who were not at the Court of Revisionat the time of the re-allocation. This allowsthe re-assessed landowners to appeal theirnew assessments.

FEBRUARY 2O1O

THE ROLE OF THE APPELLANT, If a landowner feels an assessment against

their lands is too low, that land should havebeen assessed but has not, ot thatconsideration has not been given to land use,

they can file an appeal with the Cowt ofRevision.

. Appeals must be fìled with the cletk at least10 days before the date of the Court ofRevision.

. If z landowner wishes to appeal, but misses

the date For fiLing the appeal, they can appe lat the first sittrng of the Court of Revision andrequest to have their appeal heard.

. ,{.t the sitting of the Coutt, the list ofappellants will be read out and the Engìneerwill grve evidence. \Vhen his or het time topresent their case comes, the appellant mustexplain their reasons fot appealing theassessment schedule.

. After the Court of Revision pronounces theitdecision, affected propefiy owners have 21.

days to appeal this decision to the Agricultute,Food and Rural Affai¡s Appeal Tnbunal andthe Tribunal's decision on this appeal is finai.

COMPOSITION OFTHE COURT OF REVISION. If a drainage works only affects the initiating

municipality, the initia ting municipality'scouncil appoints 3 to 5 members to make upthe Court of Revision.

. If a dtainage works affects two or moremunicipaliries, the council of the iniuatingmuaicipahty appoints two members of theCoutt; and every othet involved murucipalityappoints one person to be a membet. One ofthe members appointed by the initiatingmunicþality is the chai¡ of the Court of Revision.

' To be eligrble to sit as a Court of Revision member,the individual must be eligibte to seek election as amember of council.

' Members of council may be appoìnted as members ofthe Court. However, the two toles must be keptseparate - if a council member wishes to hearinformation or pass resolutions outside of the scope ofthe Coutt of Revision, they must close the Court, thenopen a new councjl meeting.

SUGGESTED PROCEDURE. Opening of the Court of Revision. Oaths

o Members may take an oath, but it is not legallyrequired.

o Members are still legally requted ro act fuúy andtmpartially, whether they declare this publicly as anoath or not.

. Otder of Appealso The appeals and the order in which they will be

held are read out.. Engineer Gives Evidence

o The engineer gìves his or her evidence regardingeach appeal before the Court, pet s. 55 of the Act.

. Appellants Present their Case

o The landowners orally make a case for why therland was improperþ assessed befo¡e the membersof court.

o The engineer may rebut the landov¡ner's case.. Late Appeals

o If the Cout of Revision members choose, theyagree to entertain lare appeals, per s. 52(2) of the,{,ct.

' Deliberationso The Cout of Revision members should retreat to

deliberate these appeals and make decisions i¡private.

o If court is considering reducing an assessment andadding it to a property whose owner is notptesent, then they must adjoum the Court ofRevision, send notice to the absent parties toallow them to appeal the change, then reconvene,per s. 53 of the Act.

Closing the Court of Revision and Rendering a

Decision

" The Court of Revision may give otal decisions oneach appeal but this oral decision should befollowed up with a decision in wdting.

Choosing which schedule to adopt

o The Court of Revision should documentwhether they decided to adopt an alteredversion of the assessment schedule, orwhether they chose to adopt the scheduleas presented by the engineer.

\\server\ksdata\Data\2018\18-269\Engineering\18-269-Tavistock 1974_Report.doc

ENGINEERING REPORT

TAVISTOCK DRAIN 1974 RECONSTRUCTION 2019

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

County of Oxford

March 4, 2019

File No. 18-269

K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED Kitchener Sudbury


CONTENTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING DRAINAGE HISTORY .................................................................................................................................. 2

i) Tavistock Drain 1974 ........................................................................................................................................ 2 ii) Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 2 iii) Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 ................................................................................................................. 2 iv) Stan Erb Drain 2016 ......................................................................................................................................... 3 v) Thames River Drain 2013 ................................................................................................................................. 3

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED DRAIN WORK ................................................................................................... 3 ON-SITE MEETING ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 GATEMAN HOMES SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT HISTORY ....................................................................................... 5 AREA REQUIRING DRAINAGE AND SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION ............................................................................ 6 CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

a) Environmental Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 6 b) Sizing Considerations ....................................................................................................................................... 7 c) Outlet Considerations........................................................................................................................................ 7 d) Soils Considerations ......................................................................................................................................... 7 e) Utilities .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 f) Analysis of Subdivision Development on Surface and Piped Flows .................................................................. 8

INFORMATION SENT TO LANDOWNERS ................................................................................................................... 8 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 PRIVACY OF LANDS .................................................................................................................................................... 9 PLAN .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 PROFILES AND OTHER DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................................... 9 COST ESTIMATE ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

a) Allowances ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 b) Construction Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................ 10 c) Engineering Cost Estimate (K. Smart Associates) .............................................................................................. 11 d) Construction Supervision and Eligible Administration Costs Estimate ................................................................ 11

ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 BYLAW PASSAGE AND CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................... 17 GRANTS ON MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................................................... 17 CHANGES TO DRAIN AFTER BYLAW IS PASSED AND BEFORE COST IS LEVIED .............................................. 17 Schedule A (Schedule of Assessments) ..................................................................................................................... 19 Table 1 (Reapportionment schedule for Tavistock Drain 1974) ................................................................................... 20 Table 2 (Reapportionment schedule for Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006) ................................................................... 21 Table 3 (Reapportionment schedule for Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995) ............................................................ 22 Table 4 (Reapportionment schedule for Stan Erb Drain 2016) .................................................................................... 23 Appendix A – Explanatory Note Sent to Landowners SPECIFICATIONS:

- Section 200 (General Conditions) - Section 300 (Special Provisions)(See Drawings 7 & 8) - Section 400 (Standard Specifications for Construction of Drains) - Section 420 (Standard Specifications for Tile Drains)

DRAWINGS 1 to 8


K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 85 McIntyre Drive Tel: (519) 748-1199 Kitchener ON N2R 1H6 Fax: (519) 748-6100 E-Mail: [email protected] March 4, 2019 File No. 18-269

TAVISTOCK DRAIN 1974 RECONSTRUCTION 2019

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK To Mayor and Council Township of East Zorra-Tavistock SUMMARY This is a drainage report pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of the Drainage Act, RSO 1990 as amended. The report was prepared in accordance with instructions from the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock pursuant to a Council resolution dated September 19, 2018 appointing the Engineer to prepare a survey, plan and report on the petition by Gateman Homes Inc. The petition identified the required work to be the relocation of an existing municipal drain. The drain was identified as the Tavistock Drain 1974 in Pt. Lot 28, Plan 307 in the community of Tavistock in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The work involved with the preparation of this report has followed the normal procedures of the Drainage Act which have involved an on-site meeting, review of the site, survey work, drafting and design work, and the preparation of a report to include plan and profile, specifications, assessment and future maintenance schedules, cost estimate and miscellaneous paragraphs regarding the description of the work, etc. The purpose of this Report is to provide for the relocation a portion of the Tavistock Drain 1974 to accommodate the proposed development of a small subdivision in the community of Tavistock. The subdivision will ultimately consist of 19 residential lots with a mix of single-family and semi-detached homes. All lot and road drainage of the subdivision will be discharged into the Tavistock Drain 1974. The proposed subdivision will effect approx. 118m (387 ft.) of the Main Drain which flows southeasterly as it crosses through the former Ontario Refrigerated Services (Roll No. 020-07700) and 900975 Ontario Ltd. (Roll No. 020-16800) properties. This stretch of the drain will be relocated to the northern and eastern limits of these properties, and will connect with the existing alignment along the eastern and northern limits of the properties. Along with the relocation, this section of the Tavistock Drain 1974 will be upgraded from a 1050mm diameter pipe to a 1350mm diameter pipe. This upgrade is a requirement of the Township in order to have the Tavistock Master Storm Drainage System Plan (R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited, 2007) recommendations addressed. It is recognized by this report that the construction work involved with the drain relocation will be a part of the subdivision servicing contract but with inspection also by Township staff and the Engineer. However the relocation work can only be undertaken if authorized by an adopted Engineer’s Report pursuant to the Drainage Act. This constitutes the required Report. This Report contains estimates of the costs pursuant to the Drainage Act to address the Tavistock Drain 1974 work. Only items of work directly affecting the Tavistock Drain 1974 are costed here. This report recognizes the majority of the actual work involved will be tendered by, and that all costs will be paid by, the developer. The subdivider will also be assessed the engineering costs in

T a v i s to c k D r a i n 19 7 4 R eco n s t r u c t i o n 2 01 9 Pa g e 2 T w p o f E a s t Z o r r a - T a v i s to c k


connection with this Report, including the background studies and processing of this Report. Any municipal administration and supervision costs involved will also be borne by the subdivider. The Subdivision Agreement to be executed by the subdivider and the Township will also require that the subdivider pay all costs related to this report. The preliminary estimate of the engineering, construction and administration costs related to the Tavistock Drain 1974 is approximately $253,385. This estimate is based on this Engineer’s estimate, and does not include any engineering incurred by the Subdivider’s Engineer. Schedule A of this report shows the total estimate of cost associated with the drain relocation which is to be assessed fully to the subdivider. The schedule is based on the estimated costs but whatever actual costs result from construction or engineering will be the cost to be paid by the Subdivider, in accordance with Schedule A. Schedule A can be found on Pages 19. Tables 1, 2, 3and 4 herein are the respective reapportionment schedules for the Tavistock Drain 1974, Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006, Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 and Stan Erb Drain 2016, and they can be found on Pages 20 to 23 of this Report EXISTING DRAINAGE HISTORY i) Tavistock Drain 1974 The Tavistock Drain 1974 was constructed in accordance with a Report by a K. A. Smart, P. Eng. (Kelly and Smart Ltd.) dated April 18, 1974. The report provided for the installation of 5,300ft of 30” to 54” (1615m of 750mm to 1350mm) diameter pipe. The drain commenced upstream west of Woodstock St. and proceeded downstream across lots north and east of Jacob St. to Hope St. and then easterly along the north side of Hope St. E. to an outlet in the Shakespeare Drainage Works which outlets into the Stan Erb Drain shortly downstream. The work was a reconstruction of the Tavistock Drains 3 and 6. ii) Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006 A 2006 report by W. J. Dietrich P. Eng. (Dietrich Engineering Ltd.) addressed many of the surface and subsurface drainage issues resulting from development in the community of Tavistock over the years and the resultant overloading of the Tavistock Drain 1974. The Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006 was constructed around the northeast limits of the community, and eventually continued downstream to an outlet in the Stan Erb Drain. It greatly reduced the amount of surface water in the Tavistock Drain 1974 watershed that could cross Hope Street in a heavy runoff event. This drain also provided a second outlet for the Tavistock Drain 1974. iii) Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 The Shakespeare Drainage Works was originally an Award Drain as constructed in 1919. The Award Drain was incorporated, reconstructed and extended in 1975 in accordance with a report entitled “Shakespeare Drainage Works 1975” by E. H. Uderstadt, O.L.S. and dated March 4, 1975. The 1975 work commenced, at the Stan Erb Drain and continued upstream to the CNR in the north part of Lot 21, Concession 2 (South Easthope Twp). A further Report titled Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 by R. Walton, P. Eng. (R.J. Burnside Associates Ltd.) dated February 10, 1995 provided for limited construction work and two spot repairs. The 1995 Report also provided for a new Schedule of Assessment for Maintenance for all of the Shakespeare Drainage Works from the outlet at the Stan Erb Drain to the south side of the CNR. The Engineers on the Shakespeare Drainage Works 1975 and 1995 did assess the Tavistock Drain 1974 watershed as part of those reports. The Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 implemented a Block Assessment approach to assess the built-up areas of Tavistock, Shakespeare and Sebastopol.



iv) Stan Erb Drain 2016 Both the Tavistock Drain 1974 and the Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006 ultimately outlet through the Shakespeare Drainage Works into the Stan Erb Drain 2016. The Stan Erb Drain was constructed in accordance with a report by H. M. Gibson, P. Eng. (H.M. Gibson Ltd.) dated March 6, 1968. The report provided for the construction of the Main Drain and the Ruby Branch. Both drains were open ditches and had a total combined length of 12,476’ (3,803m). The Stan Erb Drain was given a new maintenance schedule in a Report of K. A. Smart, P. Eng. (K. Smart Associates Ltd.) dated July 12, 2106. This report also provided for repairs and improvements to multiple culverts and crossings. The Engineer assessed as Block Assessment Areas, the built up area of Tavistock (Township of East Zorra-Tavistock) and the built-up areas of Sebastopol and Shakespeare (Township of Perth East). v) Thames River Drain 2013 The Stan Erb Drain 2016 outlets into the Thames River Drain 2013. At present, the Thames River Drain is a 12.1 km open channel flowing southeasterly from the south side of Perth/Oxford Road in Lot 36, Concession 8 to its outlet in on the west side of the 16th Line in Lot 25, between Concessions 15 and 16. The Thames River Drain was originally reported on by F.J. Ure in 1914, 1942 and again in 1951. The Thames River Drain was reconstructed in part pursuant to a Report by John Kuntze, P. Eng. and K. A. Smart, P. Eng. in 1984. A further report entitled “Thames River Drain 2013” was prepared by K. A. Smart, P. Eng. (K. Smart Associates Ltd.) dated November 19, 2013. This report contains the governing Schedule of Assessment for Maintenance of the Thames River Drain, which replaced the need to refer to the 1984 report for assessment maintenance costs. Tavistock, Sabastopol and Shakespeare were assessed as block assessment areas in the schedules for maintenance. BACKGROUND The drainage petition was submitted to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock on September 12, 2018 by Gateman Homes Inc., and it was signed by Blaire Gateman as President of the company. The purpose of the petition was to have a portion of the Tavistock Drain 1974 relocated to provide for the development of a small subdivision in the community of Tavistock. The engineer was appointed by resolution of Council on September 19, 2018. The required on-site meeting was conducted on October 11, 2018. At the on-site meeting the petition of Gateman Homes was deemed sufficient for the reconstruction works. From September, 2018 to December, 2018 the engineering drawings for the proposed subdivision were completed by the Subdivider’s Engineer (WalterFedy) and were reviewed by K. Smart Associates Limited staff. Proposals for the Tavistock Drain 1974 were reviewed together with the subdivision work. Preliminary report, drawings and assessment and future maintenance schedules for this drain report were also developed in this period. This report (including the drawings, assessment schedules and revised/reapportioned Schedule of Assessments for Future Maintenance, Tables and the specifications) was then finalized and is herein being submitted. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED DRAIN WORK This Report recognizes that the proposed subdivision consists of 19 lots with a mix of single-family and semi-detached homes as shown on Drawing 3 of 8. The three properties being developed are shown in the Tavistock Drain 1974 report as being owned by K. Brunk, by McConnell Nursery Co. Ltd. and by J.G. Fields Co. Ltd. These three properties are shown in the Tavistock Municipal Drain



2006 report as being owned by R. Kropf (Roll No. 020-06300), by Ontario Refrigerated Services (Roll No. 020-07700) and by 900975 Ontario Ltd. (Roll No. 020-16800). The primary function of this Report is to reconstruct approx. 118m of the Main Drain of the Tavistock Drain 1974. This stretch of 1050mm diameter pipe will be relocated (removed and replaced) to the northern and eastern limits of the development site with 134m of 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer pipe or SRPE). The relocated stretch will reconnect with the existing 1974 drain via manholes at the northern and eastern limits of the development site. As stated above, the pipe diameter will be upgraded from a 1050mm diameter to 1350mm diameter. This is in accordance with the sizing recommendations of the Tavistock Master Storm Drainage System Plan (R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited, 2007) which reported that the existing Tavistock Drain 1974 is undersized due to previous and ongoing development in the community of Tavistock. This upgrade may provide some minor drainage improvement for the upstream lands in the form of flood storage. However, the main reason for the upgrade is to facilitate any downstream improvements in the future. The relocated drain will be located within a 5m wide easement along the northern and eastern limits of the development site. The grounds in this easement will be constructed as a swale to capture and convey local runoff and upstream flows in excess of the drain capacity. This swale is recognized in the lot grading plan, but it is not to be part of the Tavistock Drain 1974. The swale will convey surface flows from the northern portion of the subdivision into a SWM feature on Township property (Roll No. 020-47006) in the same fashion as the pre-development condition. The system will have a comparable discharge rate and volume to the pre-development condition, since much of the land being developed was previously commercial land. It is recognized that the proposed subdivision is to be developed without storm water management (SWM). As outlined in the Functional Servicing Report (WalterFedy, April 2018) and Servicing and SWM Report (WalterFedy, September 2018), the subdivision development will increase the permeability of the site when compared to the former refrigeration operation. Therefore, no SWM is required and/or planned for the site. ON-SITE MEETING Attendees: Blaire Gateman (Gateman Homes Inc.) Mitchell Heighway (Oxford County) Dan Ferguson (WalterFedy Engineering) Ray Roscovich (K. Smart Associates) Karren Winfield (UTRCA) Connor Occleston (Twp. of EZT) Imtiaz Shah (UTRCA) On October 11, 2018, the on-site meeting for the Section 4 appointment was held at the proposed Gateman Homes development site, and those in attendance are listed above. The Engineer explained that this meeting was a required step in the Drainage Act process, and that the petition brought forward would be evaluated for sufficiency. The meeting was also explained to be for information gathering purposes, and the attendees were asked to speak about the development plans and concerns. The subsequent comments and discussions are described below. Mr. Gateman described his plan to develop the former refrigeration company site. The building and work yard/parking area of the operation has been demolished and removed, and he has been working with the Township on a residential development which includes approx. 18 lots (plus 1 future lot). He understood that the Tavistock Drain 1974 ran through the property and that the Township would not allow development on top of the drain. Mr. Gateman signed the petition so that the drain could be relocated along a route to suit the Gateman Homes development plan.



The Township indicated that the Tavistock Drain 1974 was undersized according to the Tavistock Master Storm System Drainage Plan (R.J. Burnside, 2007), and the developer would be required to increase the pipe size to meet these recommendations upon relocation of the drain. The Township also stated that all costs to relocate the drain through an Engineer’s report would be assessed to the developer. Mr. Gateman agreed to these conditions. The UTRCA had no concerns with the proposed drain relocation as it is, and will remain, a closed drain. The Authority inquired about the SWM plan for the development, and why a retention area is not in the plan. Mr. Ferguson explained that the proposed development is less impervious than the former refrigeration operation (large roof area and gravel yard), and the storm runoff will be lower than it was pre-development. The Authority accepted this answer but will require SWM model results to support the claim. Since the sanitary system for the proposed subdivision would not be near the relocated drain, the County had no concern with the project. Once it was confirmed that Mr. Gateman had signing authority for Gateman Homes Inc., the Engineer advised that the petition was in accordance with the requirements of the Drainage Act. The Engineer informed Mr. Gateman that a letter would be issued to all of the ratepayers in the Tavistock Drain 1974 watershed. The purpose of the letter would be to inform everyone that an approved alteration to the drain would be occurring, and that the developer would be solely assessed for the Engineer’s Report. The attendees were informed that a survey crew would be out in the near future, and that a second informal meeting could be conducted once the Engineering Report was sufficiently completed to estimate the costs/assessments to the owner. GATEMAN HOMES SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT HISTORY Gateman Homes engaged the services of WalterFedy Engineering to prepare the design and engineering drawings for the proposed 1.63 ha (4.03 acres) subdivision. The development site consisted of 3 assessment parcels (Roll No.’s 020-06300, 020-07700 & 020-16800) that are to be subdivided/severed into 18± residential lots (plus 1 future lot) at the east end of Jacob St. East. These lots would consist of a mix of single-family and semi-detached homes. All lot and road piped drainage of the subdivision would be discharged into the Tavistock Drain 1974. Engineering drawings were submitted to K. Smart Associates Limited for review on three separate occasions. Each of the submissions was reviewed and comments relating to servicing plans, removal plans, grading plans and plan and profile drawing were provided. The first of these submissions was a “Draft Plan of Subdivision” on September 21, 2018. The second subdivision proposal submission was dated November 2, 2018, and the third submission was dated December 19, 2018. Only minor alterations remained after the third submission and the subdivision design work was sufficiently completed that this Drainage Report could be prepared. The Draft Subdivision Agreement with 72 conditions was prepared by K. Smart Associates Limited, and a copy of the agreement was submitted to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock on February 15, 2019, The Subdivision Agreement as drafted sets out the “Obligations of the Subdivider” re the Drainage Act. Condition 4 d) states that the owner shall be “responsible for the relocation of the Municipal Drain on this property … The relocation plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified drainage engineer, to the satisfaction of the Township”. The Township, to enact this condition, has required



the subdivider to file a petition to allow the appointment of an Engineer to provide a report for the relocation. Condition 18 of the Agreement reads: 18. Drainage Act Costs a) The Subdivider agrees that the Township may prepare at the Subdivider's cost a drainage

report pursuant to the Drainage Act RSO 1990, and upon the registration of the Plan, that provides for distribution amongst the lots and roads created in this and previous phases, the drainage assessments to be borne by the said lands in total for the repair and maintenance of any existing municipal drain(s). The report would be prepared pursuant to Section 4 of the Drainage Act. The Engineering costs of the Township will be taken from the security provided in accordance with Section 22 and if there should not be sufficient funds the Subdivider shall pay such additional costs to the Township.

b) To pay in full and when billed all Municipal Drain assessments, if in accordance with the Drainage Act, R.S.O., 1990 or its successors that may be assessed by the report of an Engineer on any or all lands or streets of the said lands, regardless of whether the assessments are on an individual lot basis and such lots have been individually sold to others, if such report is adopted as a by-law prior to the final assumption of the public services. Where lots are sold prior to the levying of any assessment the Subdivider shall reimburse to the lot purchaser his assessment or may pay such assessment on behalf of the lot purchaser.

c) The Drainage Report for distributing assessment for maintenance as provided in Section 18(a)

shall be required upon the completion of the works required by this agreement. The Subdivider shall notify each lot (part lot) purchaser that there will be an obligation of each lot (part lot) to pay maintenance costs on the Municipal Drains serving the said lands after the issuance of the Final Certificate of Release. The Subdivider agrees that he is responsible for all maintenance costs prior to the preparation of the revised maintenance schedules.

AREA REQUIRING DRAINAGE AND SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION From a review of the petition, the area requiring drainage was determined to be the petitioner’s (Gateman Homes Inc.) proposed subdivision lands in the area of Pt. Lots 28, Plan 307 in the community of Tavistock in the watershed of the Tavistock Drain 1974. The petition is signed by Blaire Gateman as President of Gateman Homes Inc. With Mr. Gateman jurisdiction/signing authority for Gateman Homes Inc. lands, the petition is therefore deemed sufficient in accordance with Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Drainage Act. CONSIDERATIONS a) Environmental Considerations The Tavistock Drain 1974 is fully enclosed downstream to its outlet in the Shakespeare Drainage Work open channel. It primarily traverses developed (commercial and residential) lands. There are no known environmental constraints in the watershed. However downstream erosion and sedimentation and impacts to fisheries have to be addressed. Erosion and sediment control features will be implemented along with the construction work all in accordance with drawings of the subdivider that are to be approved by the agencies involved. The Subdivider’s Engineer will attend to the approvals necessary and will oversee the construction of the erosion and sediment control features. Copies of this 2019 report including the specifications will be submitted to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for their review. The approval pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act is to be obtained by the subdivider. Communication has already occurred between the subdivider and the Authority. Contact with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to confirm



the absence of any Species at Risk within the watershed will also be the responsibility of the Subdivider. Also any contact with DFO will be the responsibility of the Subdivider. b) Sizing Considerations Preliminary discussions between the Township and the subdivider determined that the Tavistock Drain 1974 on the development property should be upgraded from a 1050mm diameter pipe to a 1350mm diameter pipe to bring it up to the recommended 5 year storm service, in accordance with the Tavistock Master Storm Drainage System Plan (R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited, 2007) recommendations. Both upstream and downstream sections of the drain will remain as 900mm dia. and 1050mm dia. pipes respectively until worked on in the future at which time it is anticipated they too will be increased in size as recommended. Although it is generally not good design practice to reduce a drains capacity in the downstream direction, it was felt that this upgrade would be beneficial if downstream improvements were made in the future. Furthermore, the transition between pipe sizes will occur at manhole structures, and no adverse upstream effects will be created. c) Outlet Considerations The Functional Servicing Report (WalterFedy, April 2018) and Servicing and SWM Report (WalterFedy, September 2018) identifies the pre-development lands as having more impervious area than the proposed subdivision. In turn, the SWM modeling shows that peak storm water runoff (surface and subsurface) rates from the site will be reduced when compared to the pre-development conditions. Therefore, the drain relocation will have no adverse impact on the downstream portion of the Tavistock Drain 1974 and its outlets, the Tavistock Municipal Dain 2006, Shakespeare Drainage Works, the Stan Erb Drain and then the Thames River Drain. d) Soils Considerations The proposed subdivision location has a long history as a developed site, so it is unlikely that the soils here are entirely native. The Oxford County Soils Map shows the Village of Tavistock is surrounded by Huron clay loam and Perth clay loams with good to imperfect drainage and few stones. In April of 2018 a geotechnical investigation of the subdivision site was completed by Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. The investigation included seven boreholes drilled and sampled to depths of 5.03 m below the ground surface, and it determined that the fill material and topsoil on the surface were underlain by a clayey-silt to silt-and-clay type soil with some sand and trace gravel. As a result of the soils mapping and the 2018 geotechnical report, it is our opinion that the proposed works should be able to proceed without any great delays or expense due to poor soil conditions. Pockets of poor soil conditions could be encountered, especially if ground water levels are high at the time of construction. Should poor soil conditions exist which require the installation of a crushed stone bedding for the affected part of the drain, additional costs may be encountered. e) Utilities The site is currently serviced by hydro, gas, telephone, and communication cables. An existing overhead hydro connection extends from the hydro line running along Jacob Street East connecting to the dwelling located at 133 Jacob Street East. Underground direct-buried telecommunications cable exists along the southern limit of the site, as well as two Bell pedestals on the subject property. The Contractor will be recommended to contact all utilities and landowners along the proposed drain route to determine the existence of all underground utilities.



Locates will be required to determine precise locations of the underground utilities prior to construction. f) Analysis of Subdivision Development on Surface and Piped Flows The Functional Servicing Report and Servicing and SWM Report prepared by the Subdivider’s Engineer (WalterFedy) contain hydrologic analysis and modeling results for the development site. These reports have been submitted to, reviewed, and accepted by the County of Oxford. The reports state:

The storm water generated on the development site will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing Tavistock Drain 1974 at the eastern limit of the site, rather than to the upgraded and relocated section of the drain.

Pre-development lands have more impervious area than the proposed subdivision. Peak storm water runoff (surface and subsurface) rates from the site will be reduced when

compared to the pre-development conditions. Therefore, the drain relocation will have no adverse impact on the downstream portion of the

Tavistock Drain 1974 and its outlet, the Tavistock Municipal Dain 2006. The undersigned accepts these findings, and is satisfied that the Tavistock Drain 1974 will continue to perform as-well or better than it did prior to the development. INFORMATION SENT TO LANDOWNERS An explanatory note and an overall plan drawing (Drawing No. 3) will be sent to all landowners in the watershed of the Tavistock Drain 1974. This note will accompany the required report consideration meeting notice distributed by the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The note is intended to summarize the drain relocation work proposed in this Report, to advise of the proceedings, and to give direction on how to view this Report. The explanatory note is included in this Report as Appendix A. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the surveys, the design and the discussions with the developer’s Engineer (WalterFedy Engineering) and with the Township, the following is the recommended drain construction. As indicated, the costs of all work are the responsibility of Gateman Homes Inc. The recommendations listed here are primarily only those that pertain to the Tavistock Drain 1974 and its relocation. This is a piped (closed) drain. The overflow channel and its appurtenances that is to be built is not listed in these recommendations even though it parallels much of the recommended work. It is for surface drainage only and is not to be part of the drain. a) Works Part of Tavistock Drain 1974 (Note: Once these listed works have been constructed/completed, they are to be recognized/incorporated as part of the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 for maintenance purposes.) Gateman Homes Inc. (Roll No. 020-16800) Construct 3000mm dia. DIMH at eastern limit of property (Sta. 30+50± 1974 report). Connect existing 1050mm dia. 1974 drain to east wall and connect new 1350mm dia. drain to

north wall of new DIMH. Existing 1050mm dia. 1974 drain to the west to be removed (approx. 118m) Install 25m of 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer, HDPE or SRPE) to the north. Construct new 3000mm dia. MH in northeast corner of property. Connect new 1350mm dia. drain to south wall and connect new 1350mm dia. drain to west wall

of new MH.



Install 45m of 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer or SRPE) to the west. Construct new 2400mm dia. MH along northern property line. Connect new 1350mm dia. drain to east wall and connect new 1350mm dia. drain to west wall

of new MH. Gateman Homes Inc. (Roll No. 020-07700) Install 30m of 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer or SRPE) to the west. Construct new 2400mm dia. MH along northern property line. Connect new 1350mm dia. drain to east wall and connect new 1350mm dia. drain to west wall

of new MH. Install 8m of 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer or SRPE) to the northwest. B. Wettlaufer (Roll No. 020-00700) Install 26m of 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer or SRPE) to the northwest. Remove existing DIMH and construct new 2400mm dia. MH (Sta. 34+44 1974 report). Connect new 1350mm dia. drain to southeast wall and connect existing 900mm dia. 1974 drain

to northwest wall of new MH. b) Payment of Report Costs The developer, Gateman Homes Inc. is to pay all engineering and administration costs involved with the preparation of this report. This report is prepared pursuant to the Drainage Act and these costs are thus to be considered as Drainage Act costs, as per the proposed subdivision agreement. c) Engineering and Administration Costs All engineering and administration costs of the Township associated with the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 are to be paid by the developer when and as invoiced by the Township. d) Revised/Reapportioned Schedules of Assessment for Future Maintenance Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been prepared as revised/reapportioned Schedules of Assessment for Future Maintenance for the Tavistock Drain 1974, Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006, Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 and Stan Erb Drain 2016 and are included in this 2019 report PRIVACY OF LANDS Even though a Municipal Drain exists/is being relocated across the lands of three landowners, there still is no right of any landowner to enter onto another owner's lands. Only the Township Drainage Superintendent as part of maintenance of the drain or the Engineer (or Engineer’s assistants, i.e. survey and inspection crew) appointed by the Township as part of work with respect to this report plus the selected/approved contractors for construction and future maintenance of the drain, have the right to enter onto privately owned lands of others in connection with this drainage project. PLANS The Tavistock Drain 1974 and the affected downstream drains are shown on Drawing No. 1 of 8. The overall location of the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 and the affected properties are shown on Drawing No. 2 of 8 included with this report. The heavy solid line indicates the location of the proposed drain work. The heavy broken (dashed) line indicates the approximate watershed boundaries for the drain. Drawing No. 3 of 8 is a plan enlargement in the Tavistock area showing the location of the proposed work of the Gateman Homes Subdivision, the other small lots and streets surrounding the subdivision, the affected roll numbers and landowners. The numbers adjacent to the line are station numbers which indicate in meters the distance along the drain. Drawing 3 also shows the Tavistock Drain 1974 stations (in feet). PROFILES AND OTHER DRAWINGS The profile for the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 is on Drawing No. 4 of 8. The profile shows the grade of the proposed new pipe, and surface swale. Note the surface swale is not part of the drain but is shown for information. The upper thin dashed line represents the existing ground level. Drawing No. 5 of 8 contains details for the relocation work to be done. Drawing No. 6 of 8



contains the manholes details and typical cross-sections. Drawing 7 of 8 and 8 of 8 contain the Special Provisions (Specific Notes, General Notes, Construction Notes and the Specifications). COST ESTIMATE The cost estimate on this project consists of the allowances required to be made to the owners having work on their properties, the construction cost estimate including contingency items, the engineering cost estimate, and an estimate of the construction supervision and eligible administration costs and includes the Net HST (1.76%)). The Estimated Cost Summary is also shown. The cost estimate for the proposed Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 is outlined in detail in the following sections: a) Allowances i) Section 29 of the Drainage Act can provide for the payment of allowances to landowners who have a portion of a new drain or branch drain on their property. This allowance can compensate owners for land used to accommodate the drain and for the right-of-way along the drain used for maintenance. However, since all of the work on this project will be on lands alongside the existing drainage route, no new Section 29 allowances are provided. ii) Section 30 of the Drainage Act provides for allowances to be made for access routes. On this project, since all work subject to this report will be part of the work constructed during subdivision servicing, no access route allowances will be made for any work on the subdivision lands. Section 30 of the Drainage Act also provides for the payment of allowances to landowners where lands or crops on lands are damaged by the construction of the drain. These allowances can compensate an owner for damages caused by the construction equipment and for the placement of the drain. Section 30 (Damages) allowances are provided on this project in accordance with the rates as shown in the table below. Type of Land Crop Value Cultivated Farm Lands (Corn/Beans, etc.) $ 1,500/ha Residential $ 3,000/ha Payment to the owners for these allowances will be made on completion of the work. The allowances are a fixed amount. Allowances can only be changed if the report is modified prior to adoption of the report by bylaw or in accordance with the paragraph in this report that deals with changes to the drain after the bylaw is passed and before cost is levied. Allowances will be paid out by the Municipality and the cost of the allowances is part of the cost of the project. The allowances payable to the owners entitled thereto on this project are as follows: Roll No. Damages Con Lot (32-38-) Owner (Sec 30)

5 Pt W½ 19 020-020-00700 B. Wettlaufer $ 150 5 Pt W½ 19 020-020-07700 Gateman Homes Inc. $ 140 5 Pt W½ 19 020-020-16800 Gateman Homes Inc. $ 320

TOTAL ALLOWANCES: $ 610 b) Construction Cost Estimate This construction estimate is based on the review of past projects and the estimate to construct the new work. The Subdivider’s Engineer is also to prepare an estimate of this work for purposes of the Subdivision Agreement. These two estimates of construction may differ but such will not impact this Report since the work is to be paid by the Subdivider/Landowner regardless of what actual tender is received.



Sta. Item Cost Works to be Part of Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction. Once constructed, these items will be part of the Tavistock Drain 1974 for future maintenance purposes (Stations in brackets refer to stationing in 1974 report). 0+000 (30+50±) - Locate existing 1974 drain at property line $ 15,000 - Construct new 3000mm dia. DIMH including connections and removal of approx. 118m of existing 1050mm dia. tile to the west. 0+000 to 0+025 - Install 25m of new 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer $ 23,750 or SRPE**) 0+025 - Construct new 3000mm dia. MH including connections $ 12,000 0+025 to 0+070 - Install 45m of new 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer $ 42,750 or SRPE) 0+070 - Construct new 2400mm dia. MH including connections $ 12,000 0+070 to 0+100 - Install 30m of new 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer $ 28,500 or SRPE) 0+100 - Construct new 2400mm dia. MH including connections $ 12,000 0+100 to 0+134 - Install 34m of new 1350mm dia. pipe (concrete sewer $ 32,300 or SRPE) 0+134 (34+44) - Remove and dispose of existing DIMH and construct new $ 12,000 2400mm dia. MH including connections Lump Sum Contingency Allowance (10%) $ 19,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION: $ 209,300 c) Engineering Cost Estimate (K. Smart Associates) Report Preparation Set up file, obtain background information, preparing for and attending meetings including the on-site meeting, site examination, field surveys including GPS surveys, fly levels and cross-sections, preparing profiles and details, reviewing subdivision drawings, preparing comments on subdivision drawings (related to drain) conduct discussions with subdivider and affected landowners and authorities, preparing for and attending other meetings, cost estimates, review watersheds, prepare assessment schedules, prepare revised/reapportioned future maintenance schedules, specifications, report writing and typing, complete drawings, and preparing for and attending two public meetings (Consideration of Report and Court of Revision). - Report Preparation $ 20,400 - Preparation of revised/reapportioned future maintenance schedules for the Tavistock Drain 1974 and the affected downstream drains 3,000 - Attend Consideration of Report meeting 1,500 - Attend Court of Revision meeting 1,500 TOTAL ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE: $ 26,400 The cost for report preparation is usually not altered at the conclusion of a project unless the report is referred back or the report is appealed to the Drainage Tribunal, which would be additional costs. The amounts shown for meetings are estimates. Final costs will be based on time required for meetings. d) Construction Supervision and Eligible Administration Costs Estimate i) Construction Supervision (Estimate) The construction supervision estimate is prepared on the basis that the Subdivider’s Engineer will tender, award and supervise all work related to the Tavistock Drain 1974. The Township (this

** SRPE mean steel reinforced polyethylene



Engineer) will only make periodic reviews of the work related to the Tavistock Drain 1974 on the Gateman Homes lands. The estimates for work to attend pre-construction meeting, to perform construction review, to prepare as-built drawings, to attend final inspection meeting and to do post construction follow-up. Total Construction Supervision (Estimate): $ 10,000 The estimate shown for Construction Supervision is based on past experience and assumes good construction conditions and a Contractor who completes the construction in an efficient manner. The final (actual) cost for construction supervision/review will vary as per the actual time spent during the construction stages. ii) Eligible Administration Costs (Estimate) Section 73 of the Drainage Act indicates that specific administration costs incurred by a municipality in carrying out the Drainage Act process are eligible as a cost of the drain. Section 73(1) lists the following eligible costs: cost of any application, reference or appeal and the cost of temporary financing. Sections 73(2) and 73(3) indicate that costs of elected and staff personnel are not eligible. This administration cost estimate may not be adequate to cover any legal or engineering costs incurred by or assessed to the municipality should the project be appealed beyond the Court of Revision though such costs may form part of the final drain cost. The OMAFRA Agricultural Drainage Infrastructure Program policies (applicable where the provincial grant is made) indicate that municipal costs for photocopying and mailing required to carry out the required procedures under the Drainage Act can also be included as eligible administrative costs on a drain. The Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) will apply to most costs on this project (allowances are excluded). However, the Municipality is eligible for a refund of a portion of the HST paid. Therefore, the cost estimate in this report does include a dollar allowance equivalent to a net tax (Net HST) in the amount of 1.76%. The Net HST has been rounded off. It is also shown as an eligible administration cost. The eligible administration costs and net HST estimate thus is as follows: - Printing of reports $ 600 - Interest Estimate $ 1,000 - Permits and Applications Allowance $ 500 - Unforeseen $ 600 Total Eligible Administration Costs (Estimate): $ 2,700 e) Net HST (1.76%) (Estimate) $ 4,375 Estimated Cost Summary Allowances $ 610 Construction Cost Estimate $ 209,300 Engineering Cost Estimate $ 26,400 Construction Supervision & Eligible Administration Costs Estimate $ 12,700 Net HST (Estimate) $ 4,375 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $ 253,385



ASSESSMENTS The Drainage Act requires that the total estimated cost, as identified in a report, be assessed to the affected lands and roads under the categories of benefit (Section 22), outlet liability (Section 23), injuring liability (Section 23), special benefit (Section 24) and/or special assessment (Section 26). On this project the assessment made is to be a “Special Benefit”. All work in this report only benefits the proposed subdivision and the undersigned has determined it is a special benefit. Although an improved outlet is provided to some properties, the undersigned has elected to assess only the parcel being subdivided. This decision is supported since the subdivision agreement being developed will require that the party involved with the development (the developer) pay all of the costs of this report (project). The developer of the subdivision is also the landowner. The costs are therefore to be assessed to the landowner/developer, Gateman Homes Inc., using the category of Special Benefit. The undersigned has determined there are to be no assessments for benefit, outlet liability, injuring liability or special assessment. i) Special Benefit Assessments (Section 24)(Estimated) The work related to the Tavistock Drain 1974 as identified by this Report is considered a special benefit for the landowner (Gateman Homes Inc.). The special benefit assessment for the work will include the allowances to be made, the engineering involved with the preparation and processing of this report, the applicable construction costs, the applicable supervision and administration costs of the Township plus the applicable net HST. The following table illustrates the calculation of the estimated Special Benefit Assessments: Construction

Work (Estimate)

Engineering Costs

(Estimate)

Construction Supervision (Estimate)

Admin. Costs

(Estimate)

Net HST (1.76%)

(Estimate)

Allow. to Landowners

(Fixed)

Total Special Benefit

(Estimated)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

$ 209,300 26,400 10,000 2,700 4,375 610 $ 253,385

The actual special benefit assessment to be levied to the landowner/developer will be calculated in accordance with this table. However, it is to be noted that: Actual costs of construction are to be used in Column 1. If the developer attends to, and pays

directly, any or all of the construction items listed in the cost estimate of this report, only the actual costs of any items that are attended to by the Township will be used for final special benefit calculations.

At this time, there are no construction items expected to be attended to by the Township. The Engineering costs shown in Column 2 should not vary significantly unless Drainage Act

appeals have to be dealt with. Actual engineering costs will be used. The construction supervision costs in Column 3 will be the actual construction supervision costs

as invoiced by this Engineer. These costs will include any tendering necessary for construction items to be attended to by the Township, the on-site inspection costs, and construction meeting and payment certificate costs.

The administration costs in Column 4 will be the actual eligible administration costs incurred by the Municipality as defined on Page 12 of this Report.

Net HST in Column 5 will be calculated on actual construction, engineering and any applicable administration items.

Allowances in Column 6 are fixed as per Page 10 of this report. These allowances will be paid by the Municipality to the owners and the amount collected pursuant to the Special Benefit billing will be used to reimburse the Municipality.



ii) Assessment Summary Schedule A on Page 19 shows how the estimated assessment for the Tavistock Drain 1974 relocation work is to be levied to the subdivider. Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 on pages 20 to 23 show the respective reapportionments for the Tavistock Drain 1974, Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006, Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 and Stan Erb Drain 2016. MAINTENANCE The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock under Section 74 of the Drainage Act is required to maintain all drains constructed by bylaw under the Drainage Act. Any open ditch or closed drain constructed pursuant to the Drainage Act may require periodical repair or periodical maintenance work or occasional minor improvements. Examples of future work possibly necessary include pipe repairs, manhole and catchbasin cleanouts, ditch cleanouts and riprap repairs. The cost of the maintenance is to be assessed to all upstream lands and roads pro rata with the applicable future maintenance schedule provided for in the Engineer’s report in the current Bylaw for the drain. Therefore, in order to keep the existing drain maintenance assessment schedules for the Tavistock Drain 1974, Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006, Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 and Stan Erb Drain 2016 up-to-date, the Township requires reapportionments/revisions of assessment schedules that apply for future maintenance. These revisions are authorized by Sections 65 or 76 of the Drainage Act. For this project, there are four (4) municipal drain schedules that will require reapportioned or revised Schedules of Assessment for Future Maintenance. A fifth drain is involved (Thames River Drain) but it does not require a reapportionment. They are described as follows: a) Tavistock Drain 1974 (Report dated April 18, 1974) This drain report contained only one schedule: Schedule of Assessment. This schedule

was to be used as both a schedule of assessments and as a future maintenance schedule with maintenance costs being assessed “in the same relative proportion.”

This Schedule of Assessment will need to be reapportioned for the former K. Brunk,

McConnell Nursery Co. Ltd. and J.G. Fields & Co. Ltd. properties (now Gateman Homes Inc.). The J.G. Fields property was previously severed into parcels 020-30000335 and 020-16800 but no split in maintenance assessments occurred. As a result, this report also attends to this split in maintenance assessments. It is to be noted that since parcel 020-30000335 is downstream of Gateman Homes it will not be responsible for any maintenance costs on Gateman Homes lands.

Table 1 has been prepared for this reapportionment, and it is attached to this report following

Schedule A. It is to be noted that Table 1 would only come into effect once the subdivision is

constructed/completed and the Registered Plan of the Gateman Homes subdivision has been registered and Roll numbers, etc. have been assigned for each property/lot and the roads have been assumed by the Township.

The reapportioned lots (1 through 19) in Table 1 refer to the lots shown on Drawing No. 3 of

this 2019 report. If the numbering system at the time of subdivision registration differs, the assigned Roll Numbers should correspond to the lots shown on Drawing No. 3 of this report.

Copies of Table 1 should be placed in the Township’s files for the Tavistock Drain 1974. This table is prepared in accordance with Section 65 of the Drainage Act.

The word “Maintenance” is used but it also includes “repairs” and “minor improvements”.



Table 1 will not change the division of costs to other properties when maintenance occurs.

Notification of other owners in the Tavistock Drain 1974 watershed is not necessary since their shares for maintenance are not altered.

b) Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006 (Report dated December 22, 2006) The Tavistock Drain 1974 outlets in part into the Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006. This drain

report contained only one schedule: Schedule of Assessment. This Schedule of Assessment is also to be used as the future maintenance schedule with the exception that benefit assessments are to be excluded, and “using the outlet liability assessment only and in the same relative proportions.”

This Schedule of Assessment will need to be reapportioned for the former R. Kropf (Roll No.

020-06300), Ontario Refrigeration Services (Roll No. 020-07700) and 900975 Ontario Ltd. (Roll No. 020-16800) properties (now Gateman Homes Inc.).

Table 2 has been prepared for this reapportionment, and it is attached to this report following

Schedule A. It is to be noted that Table 2 would only come into effect once the subdivision is


The reapportioned lots (1 through 19) in Table 2 refer to the lots shown on Drawing No. 3 of

this 2019 report. If the numbering system at the time of subdivision registration differs, the assigned Roll Numbers should correspond to the lots shown on Drawing No. 3 of this report.

Copies of Table 2 should be placed in the Township’s files for the Tavistock Municipal Drain

2006. This table is prepared in accordance with Section 65 of the Drainage Act. Table 2 will not change the division of costs to other properties when maintenance occurs.

Notification of other owners in the Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006 watershed is not necessary since their shares for maintenance are not altered.

c) Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 (Report dated February 10, 1995) The Tavistock Drain 1974 outlets into the Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995, which outlets

into the Stan Erb Drain 2016. The Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 report provided for block assessments of built up areas in Tavistock (East Zorra-Tavistock), Sabastopol (Perth East) and Shakespeare (Perth East).

Although the Gateman Homes subdivision will not increase the block assessment area (57.4

Ha) for Tavistock, it will increase the road area. This is due to greater area of roads versus lots in the new subdivisions.

Page 5 of the 1995 report shows a table with the portion (%) of future maintenance

assessments that should be charged to the roads in Tavistock, Sabastopol and Shakespeare. The portion of a block assessment to the roads in Tavistock is 11%. The addition of approx. 0.35 Ha of road area with the Gateman Homes subdivision brings the portion of a block assessment to the roads up to 11.5%.

Table 3 has been prepared to replace the table on page 5 of the 1995 report, and it is

attached to this report following Schedule A.



It is to be noted that Table 3 would only come into effect once the subdivision is


Copies of Table 3 should be placed in the Township’s files for the Shakespeare Drainage

Works 1995. This table is prepared in accordance with Section 65 of the Drainage Act. Table 3 will not change the division of costs to other properties when maintenance occurs.

Notification of other owners in the Shakespeare Drainage Works 1995 watershed is not necessary since their shares for maintenance are not altered.

d) Stan Erb Drain 2016 (Report dated July 12, 2016) The Shakespeare Drainage Works outlets into the Stan Erb Drain 2016, which outlets into

the Thames River Drain. The Stan Erb Drain 2016 report provided for block assessments of built up areas in Tavistock (East Zorra-Tavistock), Sabastopol (Perth East) and Shakespeare (Perth East).

Although the Gateman Homes subdivision will not increase the block assessment area (59.4

Ha) for Tavistock, it will increase the road area. This is due to greater area of roads versus lots in the new subdivisions.

Page 31 of the 2016 report contains a table showing the portion (%) of future maintenance

assessments that should be charged to the roads in Tavistock. The 2016 table shows a road area of 8.3± Ha and a block assessment portion of 14%. The addition of approx. 0.35 Ha of road area with the Gateman Homes subdivision brings the portion of the block assessment to the roads up to 14.5%.

Table 4 has been prepared to replace the table on page 31 of the 2016 report, and it is

attached to this report following Schedule A. It is to be noted that Table 4 would only come into effect once the subdivision is


Copies of Table 4 should be placed in the Township’s files for the Stan Erb Drain 2016. This table is prepared in accordance with Section 65 of the Drainage Act. Table 4 will not change the division of costs to other properties when maintenance occurs.

Notification of other owners in the Stan Erb Drain 2016 watershed is not necessary since their shares for maintenance are not altered.

e) Thames River Drain 2013 (Report dated November 19, 2013) The Stan Erb Drain 2016 outlet into the Thames River Drain 2013. The Future Maintenance

Schedules of the Thames River Drain recognize Tavistock as a block assessment. No significant change to this block assessment will arise from the Gateman Homes subdivision development, so no reapportionment schedule has been prepared for the 2013 report. Thames River Drain maintenance assessments should continue to be assessed at 91.5% to lands and 8.5% to roads in accordance with Schedule 2 of the 2013 report.



f) General Any dollars shown in a maintenance schedule are not amounts to be paid at this time. They are only to be used to create the percentage or portion that each parcel (property) and road will pay for any actually incurred future repair, maintenance costs or minor improvement costs. In some cases dollars are not shown and the percentages only are provided.

The owners of the private lands, on which any part of the drain (branch) is located, have to make an access to and a right-of-way along the drain available to the Township at all reasonable times to allow for repair and maintenance of the drain in the future.

All parties affected by the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 are encouraged to periodically inspect the drain and report any visible or suspected problems to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. Repeated inspection and maintenance of the drain should allow the drain to provide a service for many years.

BYLAW PASSAGE AND CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION It is recommended that this Report be processed through all the mandatory steps of the Drainage Act (i.e. circulation, consideration, court of revision and resolution of any appeals) to the point where it could be adopted as a bylaw. However, it is further recommended that this Report not be adopted as a bylaw by giving the third reading to the provincial bylaw until such time that a subdivision agreement is executed and the Registration of the Subdivision Plan has occurred. By so waiting, the opportunity exists for the Municipality to refer the Report back to the Engineer should there be any further changes necessary due to subdivision work. Should it be referred back, then the whole process of circulation, meetings and approvals will have to be repeated. This report including drawings and specifications, once adopted in bylaw form in accordance with the Drainage Act, RSO 1990, will provide the basis for construction and maintenance of the project unless modified in whole or in part by a new and separate report as described above. Construction can be implemented upon passage of the Bylaw. GRANTS ON MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS In accordance with the provisions of Section 85 of the Drainage Act and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affair’s (OMAFRA) Agricultural Drainage Infrastructure Program (ADIP) policies, a grant not exceeding 1/3 (33-1/3%) may be available in the future on the assessments for maintenance against privately owned parcels of land which are used for agricultural purposes and which are eligible for the Farm Property Class Tax Rate (F.P.C.T.R.). There are no grants available on the Special Benefit assessment to be made related to costs of this Report since all lots are residential. CHANGES TO DRAIN AFTER BYLAW IS PASSED AND BEFORE COST IS LEVIED Should changes, deletions or extensions to the drain proposed in this report be requested or required after the bylaw is passed and the construction is completed, there may be some difficulty in attending to such. Since this drain is to be constructed in accordance with a Bylaw of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, changes to the drain cannot be undertaken without a change to the bylaw. An exception would be very minor changes which are approved by the Engineer and the Township in accordance with the General Conditions in the report. If it is desired to make a substantial addition or deletion to the drain proposed in this report, it will be necessary that a revised report be prepared and processed through the Drainage Act, or in some cases, an application to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal may be made under the Drainage Act to obtain approval for a necessary change.

March 4, 2019 Page 19File No. 18-269

SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTSTAVISTOCK DRAIN 1974 RECONSTRUCTION 2019


Plan Lot Roll No. Owner Special Benefit(32-38-) (Sec 24)

307 Pt 28 020-020-07700 Gateman Homes Inc. 126,693307 Pt 28 020-020-16800 Gateman Homes Inc. 126,692

TOTALS: 253,385

Notes:

1. The lands shown above are considered as non-agricultural.

2. The lands shown above are in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

3. Section 21 of the Drainage Act, RSO 1990 requires that assessments be made to the

affected parcel of land and road affected. The affected parcels of land have been

identified using the roll number from the last revised assessment roll for the Township.

For convenience only, the owners' names as shown by the last revised assessment roll,

has also been included.


TABLE 1REAPPORTIONMENT FOR GATEMAN HOMES DEVELOPMENT LANDS AND ROADS

TAVISTOCK DRAIN 1974

Approx.Reg. Reg. Plan Roll No. Ha

Plan Lot Plan Lot No. Owner Affected Benefit Outlet Total

Previous Assessments - Schedule of Assessment (April 18, 1974)* Plan 307 Pt. 28 Kenneth Brunk 0.10 160 7 167* Plan 307 Pt. 28 McConnell Nursery Co. Ltd. 0.91 320 63 383* Plan 307 Pt. 28 J.G. Fields & Co. Ltd. 1.31 320 91 411

Totals: 2.32 800 161 961

Reapportioned Assessments - Schedule of Assessments (April 18, 1974)Lands

* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 1 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.07 28 4 32* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 2 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 25 3 28* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 3 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.08 32 5 37* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 4 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.08 32 5 37* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 5 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.04 18 2 20* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 6 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 21 2 23* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 7 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 25 3 28* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 8 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.09 35 5 40* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 9 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 25 3 28* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 19 (Future) T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 21 2 23* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 10 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.04 18 2 20* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 11 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.04 18 2 20* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 12 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 25 3 28* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 13 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 21 2 23* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 14 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 21 2 23* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 15 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 25 3 28* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 16 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.07 28 4 32* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 17 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.10 38 6 44* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 18 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.10 38 6 44* 307 Pt. 28 307 Pt 28 020-30000335 M. Pletsch 0.76 184 49 233

RoadsStreet A (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.30 103 42 145Street B (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 18 6 24

Totals: 2.32 800 161 961

Notes:1. * Denotes non-agricultural lands.2. Owners' names shown in brackets ( ) are the 2019 owners.3. All lands are in the geographic Township of East Zorra in theTownship of East Zorra-Tavistock.4. This table was prepared for the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 report dated March 4, 2019.5. The amounts shown are not dollars to be paid at this time. These amounts are only to be used to obtain the percentage

or proportion that each parcel (property) and road will have of a future maintenance cost.6. This table will only come into effect once the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 has been constructed/completed

and the Registered Plan of the Gateman Homes Subdivision has been registered and Roll Numbers, etc. have been assigned for each property/lots and the roads have been assumed by the Township.

7. The above revised assessments and the assessments that have not been revised from the existing 1974 report schedule datedApril 18, 1974 are to be used to assess out repair and maintenance costs when incurred.

8. The above reapportioned lots (1 through 19) refer to the lots shown on Drawing No. 3 of this 2019 report. If the numberingsystem at the time of subdivision registration differs, the assigned Roll Numbers should correspond to the lots shown on drawing No. 3 of this report.

9. T.B.D. means To Be Determined

\\server\ksdata\Data\2018\18-269\Engineering\18-269-Schedule



TAVISTOCK MUNICIPAL DRAIN 2006

Approx.Reg. Reg. Plan Roll No. Ha

Plan Lot Plan Lot No. Owner Affected Benefit Outlet Total

Previous Assessments - Schedule of Assessment (December 22 , 2006)* Plan 307 Pt. 28 020-06300 R. Kropf 0.15 500 426 926* Plan 307 Pt. 28 020-07700 Ontario Refrigerated Services 0.91 800 1,316 2,116* Plan 307 Pt. 28 020-16800 900975 Ontario Ltd. 0.38 800 1,103 1,903

Totals: 1.44 2,100 2,845 4,945

Reapportioned Assessments - Schedule of Assessments (December 22 , 2006)Lands

* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 1 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 88 83 171* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 2 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 73 63 136* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 3 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 88 83 171* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 4 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.07 102 99 201* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 5 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.04 58 43 101* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 6 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 73 63 136* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 7 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 73 63 136* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 8 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.07 102 99 201* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 9 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 73 63 136* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 19 (FUTURE) T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 73 63 136* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 10 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.04 58 43 101* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 11 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.04 58 43 101* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 12 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 88 83 171* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 13 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 73 63 136* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 14 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 73 63 136* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 15 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 88 83 171* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 16 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.06 88 83 171* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 17 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.09 131 139 270* 307 Pt. 28 T.B.D. 18 T.B.D. (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.09 131 139 270

RoadsStreet A (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.30 437 1,186 1,623Street B (Gateman Homes Inc.) 0.05 72 198 270

Totals: 1.44 2,100 2,845 4,945

Notes:1. * Denotes non-agricultural lands.2. Owners' names shown in brackets ( ) are the 2019 owners.3. All lands are in the geographic Township of East Zorra in theTownship of East Zorra-Tavistock.4. This table was prepared for the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 report dated March 4, 2019.5. The amounts shown are not dollars to be paid at this time. These amounts are only to be used to obtain the percentage

or proportion that each parcel (property) and road will have of a future maintenance cost.6. This table will only come into effect once the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 has been constructed/completed


7. The above revised assessments and the assessments that have not been revised from the 2006 report schedule datedDecember 22, 2006 are to be used to assess out repair and maintenance costs when incurred.

8. The above reapportioned lots (1 through 19) refer to the lots shown on Drawing No. 3 of this 2019 report. If the numberingsystem at the time of subdivision registration differs, the assigned Roll Numbers should correspond to the lots shown on drawing No. 3 of this report.

9. T.B.D. means To Be Determined




SHAKESPEARE DRAINAGE WORKS 1995

Previous Assessments - Schedule of Assessment (February 10, 1995)i) Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Tavistock 57.4 6.3± 11.0%

Reapportioned Assessments - Schedule of Assessments (February 10, 1995)i) Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Tavistock 57.4 6.6± 11.5%

Notes:1. All lands are in the geographic Township of East Zorra in theTownship of East Zorra-Tavistock.2. This table was prepared for the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 report dated March 4, 2019.3. This table will only come into effect once the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 has been constructed/completed


4. The above revised assessments and the assessments that have not been revised from the 1995 report schedule datedFebruary 10, 1995 are to be used to assess out repair and maintenance costs when incurred.

Total Area (Ha)

Total Area Roads (Ha)

Proportion of Assessment

To be Charged To Roads (Sec

25 (2))Built up Area (Block Assessment Area)




STAN ERB DRAIN 2016

Previous Assessments - Schedule of Assessment (July 12 , 2016)i) Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Tavistock 59.4 51.1± 411 8.3± 14.0%

Reapportioned Assessments - Schedule of Assessments (July 12, 2016)i) Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Tavistock 59.4 50.8± 427 8.6± 14.5%

Notes:1. All lands are in the geographic Township of East Zorra in theTownship of East Zorra-Tavistock.2. This table was prepared for the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 report dated March 4, 2019.3. This table will only come into effect once the Tavistock Drain 1974 Reconstruction 2019 has been constructed/completed


4. The above revised assessments and the assessments that have not been revised from the 2016 report schedule datedJuly 12, 2016 are to be used to assess out repair and maintenance costs when incurred.

Total Area

Roads (Ha)

Proportion of Assessment

To be Charged To Roads

(Sec 25 (2))Built up Area (Block Assessment Area)

Total Area (Ha)

Total Area

Lands (Ha)

Approx # of Current Properties

in Area



APPENDIX A

Explanatory Note Sent to Landowners

#6.a

Placeholder page for Agenda Item 6.a – Conferences & Seminars

#6.b

Placeholder page for Agenda Item 6.b - County Council – Update & Questions

#6.c

Placeholder page for Agenda Item 6.c – Staff Reports and Questions for Staff

1 Adam St., P. O. Box 988, Tavistock, Ont. N0B 2R0 (519) 655-2102 / Fax (519) 655-3560 e-mail: [email protected]

MINUTES

for the meeting of the Tavistock & District Recreation Facilities Board held in the Tavistock & District Recreation Centre Board Room on March 25th, 2019 at 7:00pm.

Present: Phil Schaefer, Margaret Lupton, Don Mckay, Brett Zehr, Kristen Cook, Ron Wiffen, Ken Wettlaufer. Absent: CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING REMARKS

• Margaret Lupton called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1- APPROVE AGENDA Moved by – Brett Zehr Seconded by – Phil Schaefer “resolved that the Agenda for the March 25th, 2019 meeting be approved as printed and

circulated and further that the following items be added to the Agenda for this meeting.” CARRIED.

DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

• None. GENERAL BUSINESS

2- CONFIRM MINUTES Moved by – Phil Schaefer Seconded by – Ron Wiffen “resolved that the Board confirm the Minutes of the Feb 25th, 2019 meeting as printed and

circulated.” CARRIED.

3- APPROVE PAY VOUCHER Moved by – Kristen Cook Seconded by – Brett Zehr “resolved that the Board approve the Tavistock & District Recreation Facilities Cheque

Distribution Report for February in the amount of $34,513.18.” CARRIED.

Correspondence and Petitions - Southwestern Public Health, (Re: Act-i-pass.) They are working on a program where the Act-i-pass provides free access for grade 5 students to

Community or privately ran recreational activities. Board does not feel that we have a lot to offer as we are more focused on running facilities. Only program we would have to offer is the

wjaques

Text Box

#6.d

weekly Public Skating times. Ken will follow up with them to confirm details, and if program goes ahead we could offer Public Skating.

- Nestor Shartun, Massage Chairs in the lobby, proceeds to TAP.

Nestor has been in contact with tap and has now inquired about the possibility of placing a couple of his massage chairs in the Arena Lobby. All proceeds for the chairs would be donated to TAP. Board was okay with going ahead on a trial basis to see they receive enough use to make it worthwhile.

4- MASSAGE CHAIRS PLACED IN THE ARENA LOBBY

Moved by – Ron Wiffen Seconded by – Phil Schaefer “resolved that the Board approve placement of two Massage Chairs in the Arena Lobby. All

proceeds will go to TAP.” CARRIED.

DELEGATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS

• None

REPORTS A- Manager’s Verbal Facilities Report

1. Acid feed controller on the cooling tower has failed. Testing with prominent controls could not

determine the failure. New one was purchased for $1300 and installed by Ken 2. Cindy Brick that runs a Figure Skating Spring School in Tavistock, Has not received enough

registration for her spring session. Therefore she has cancel all her ice time which amounted to 12 hrs per week over 5 weeks. We have cancelled the last week of ice time, so the ice will now come out on May 12th. Other weeks during the spring season are going to now be lighter than last year. Hopefully we can pick up some new rentals to fill up some of the open times.

3. We have met with the Royals and confirmed details of their plans for Dressing Room #6. Discussed timing for the painting due to temperature and humidity in the Arena. They are putting together a prototype of the shelving to be put in above the existing seats.

4. We have had two Upper Hall windows broken by hockey pucks in the last month. Normally we don’t break that many, was just a coincidence that we had two break close together. An extra window was ordered so we have one in stock if it happens again.

5. Water rate increases has been confirmed with the County. It is estimated that it will be about a 2% increase over last years actual.

6. Mini goal nets have arrived, and staff will tie the mesh on and have them ready for the start of next season.

B- Arena February 2019 Financial Statements C- Memorial Hall February 2019 Financial Statements D- Queens & Bender Park February 2019 Financial Statements. E- TDRC February 2019 Management Contract Summary.

UNFINISHED AND OTHER BUSINESS

A. Board reviewed the Facilities Rental Agreement and specific rules and regulations schedule that are used when renting the various facilities. Rules and regulations sheet are attached to the rental agreement and cover details about insurance, serving of alcohol, damages, clean-up instructions etc.

LEGAL AND PERSONNEL:

None NEXT MEETING AND ADJOURN

• Next meeting is to be Monday April 22, 2019 @ 7:00pm.

5- ADJOURN Moved by – Phil Schaefer Seconded by – Don Mckay “resolved that the Board does now adjourn at 7:57 pm.”

CARRIED. ___________________________ ________________________________ Margaret Lupton, Chairperson Ken Wettlaufer, Facility Manager

STAFF REPORT Report #BIDC2019-04

To: His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council

From: Connor Occleston, Building Inspector / Drainage Coordinator

Re: Veale Drain (Branch C) – Petition & Appointment of Engineer

Date: April 24, 2019

Background & Discussion:

The Township has received a petition under Section 4 of the Drainage Act for

the relocation of the Veale Drain (Branch C), located in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The request for improvements is a result of the installation

of a lagoon system on the property.

The Veale Drain (Branch C) currently begins in Lot 21, Concession 9 of the Township as a tiled drain, and outlets into an open channel known as the

Veale Drain 2007 in Lot 21 Concession 9 where it then continues as an open channel to its outlet in the Mud Creek Drain. The proposed work would

include relocating roughly 250 metres of tile.

Attachments:

• Appendix “A” - Signed Petition

• Appendix “B” - Key Map of Drain Location

Recommendations:

1. That Council accept the signed drainage petition for the relocation of the

Veale Drain (Branch C), under Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

wjaques

Text Box

#6.e

Staff Report – Veale Drain (Branch C)–Petition/Appointment Page 2

2. That Council instruct the Clerk to notify the Upper Thames River

Conservation Authority of the Township’s intention to appoint an engineerunder Section 4 of the Drainage Act to prepare a survey plan and report

for the relocation of the Veale Drain (Branch C).

3. That Council appoint K. Smart and Associates Ltd. to prepare a reportunder Section 4 of the Drainage Act for the relocation of the Veale Drain

(Branch C).

C.A.O. Reviewed: Report prepared and submitted by:

Karen DePrest

Chief Administrative Officer

Connor Occleston Building

Inspector / Drainage Coordinator

John Scherer Building, Drainage and

Development Manager

(Chief Building Official)

JAQUES, WILL

Appendix "A"

wjaques

Will's Signature

April 25, 2019



Legend

00

Notes


0 Kilometers

Civic AddressParcel Lines

Property BoundaryAssessment BoundaryUnitRoadMunicipal Boundary

Constructed DrainsOpen or UnknownClosed/Tiled

Appendix "B"

STAFF REPORT

Report #CBO2019-06


From: John Scherer, Chief Building Official

Re: Building, Development and Drainage – May 2019 Council Report


Departmental Highlights:

• AMANDA software should be ready for a May release.

Legislative Updates:

• None

Monthly Permit Activity:

No. of Permits Permit Value Permit Fees

March 2019 5 $4,515,500 $21,707.90

Year To Date – March 31, 2019 21 $9,300,090 $53,597.92

Number of Permits and Values

Building Description PERMIT_VALUE Permit Fee

Add to horse barn/Riding Arena 395,000 2,130.40

Industrial Building 3,000,000 13,400.00

SFD 583,000 3,641.25

SFD 532,000 2,186.25

Replace fire alarm control panel 5,500 350.00

4,515,500 21,707.90

wjaques

Text Box

#6.f

Staff Report – Building, Development and

Drainage Monthly Report Page 2

9

14 1518

14

8

18

27

3735

210

0 0

18

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

YTD Permit Numbers - March

Permit # Water/WW # Average Non-Water/WW

$408,500

$1,907,500

$2,474,490

$1,764,770$2,091,330$582,200

$3,804,000

$4,637,075

$8,087,733

$6,259,337

$9,300,090

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Per

mit

Val

ue

YearYTD Values Moving Average Linear (Moving Average)

YTD Permit Values - March



Status of Development Matters:

Ward 1

The Ponds

(Phase 1)

Tavistock 21 Single Family

Dwellings (SFD)

Plan 41M-295

Assumed by Township.

The Ponds

(Phase 2)

Tavistock 21 SFD Plan 41M-310

Warranty items identified

for developer.

*The Ponds

(Phase 3)

Tavistock 33 SFD Plan 41M-335

Plan 44M-68

Construction started on

95% of lots.

Loewith

(Phase 2)

Tavistock 8 SFD Staff working on final

assumption of the

development

*The Orchards (Phase one)

Tavistock 16 SFD 3 Semi Detached

39 Condo Townhouses

Plan 41M-321 Construction started on

all lots. Warranty items identified for developer.

*The Orchards (Phase Two)

Tavistock Application Received. Site Preparation Started.

2 Conditional Permits will be issued in May as allowed in the subdivision

agreement.

Gateman Homes

Tavistock Application Received.

Staff working with developer finalizing

development.

Ward 2

Development Location Nature of

Development Status/Highlights

*Hickson Estates Hickson 8 SFD Plan 41M-298 Construction commenced

on all lots.



Ward 3

Innerkip

Meadows (P1 Main St)

Innerkip 13 SFD Plan 41M-277


Innerkip

Meadows

(P2 George St)

Innerkip 20 SFD Plan 41M-293


*Innerkip

Meadows

(P3 Curtis St)

Innerkip 24 SFD +

Townhouse

Block proposed

Plan 41M-313

Townhouse Block not yet

developed. All SFD

Complete. Warranty items

noted for developer. Asphalt warranty extended 1-year Curtis, Junker top

coat replacement

*Innerkip Meadows

(P4 Lock St)

Innerkip 24 SFD Plan 41M-325 Construction started on

100% of lots. James St top coat asphalt to be

replaced.

*Innerkip

Meadows (P5 Queen &

Curtis St)

Innerkip 25 SFD Plan 41M-

Construction started on 55% of lots.

*Innerkip Meadows

(P6 Lock St)

Innerkip 19 SFD Application received.

Majestic Homes

Development

(James / Main Street)

Innerkip 5 SFD on

James St +

Townhouse Blk on Main St

(up to 28 units)

Plan 41M-366

2 units in place (SFD).

Site Plan Control application received

(Condo Block).

ATSA Corp

Innerkip 10 SFD +

1 Semi - Detached Block

Plan 41M-288

Plan 41M-292 Staff working on final

assumption of lands.

Warranty items noted.

Oxford Road

Developments 5

Inc.

Innerkip 29 SFD +

1 Block for

Future

Development.

Application received.

Work on Township

property now complete.



Drain & Streetlight Locate Summary:

• April 2019 – Verbal Update

Status of Drainage Matters:

Drain Name Status

Hart Drain Engineer Appointed. Roberson Farm Drainage

awarded contract. Starting Spring 2019.

Facey Drain Engineer Appointed. Van Bree awarded contract. Starting mid 2019.

McLean Drain Section 78 Received. Waiting on section 40 from engineer, maintenance to be completed over spring

2019.

Tavistock 1974 &

1979

Relocation of drains proposed for new residential

developments.

Attachments:

• None

Recommendation: 1. None. For Council information only.

Reviewed by C.A.O.:

Report prepared and

submitted by:

Karen DePrest


John Scherer

Building, Drainage and

Development Manager

(Chief Building Official)

STAFF REPORT

Report #PW2019-10


From: Tom Lightfoot, Public Works Manager

Re: Public Works – May 2019 Council Report



➢ Township graders will be out when weather permits over the next couple of weeks preparing and shaping the gravel roads for the annual

gravel and dust suppressant application. Staff has tested a shoulder retriever on some of the south roads this year. We also cut some high

shoulders with the grader to regain the shape of the roadways. Staff will continue to monitor these areas to see if this helps throughout the

summer season with keeping the roads in shape. Currently we are planning on starting the application of gravel and dust suppressant the

week of May 6th. This is a little later than usual, but staff feels we need the extra time to prepare our roads for the applications.

➢ Staff issued a tender for the Maplewood Sideroad hardtop conversion

project. Staff made the changes requested by Council at the March 20th meeting including separate sections for pricing either cold lay

asphalt with a wearing course or hot mix asphalt, and guiderails could

be quoted separately. Contractors were able to quote one or all of these options. A separate report for Council is included for the May 1st

meeting.

➢ Staff will be working through the service sharing committee to join tenders for crack sealing, and winter sand supply for delivery over the

next couple of weeks. The crack sealing tender is a one-year term and in the past, the winter sand tender has been a three-year term. The

plan is to continue with these terms.

➢ Staff has completed the annual tree planting program for the year. Public works staff planted 200 trees. The trees consisted of sugar

maples, red maples and red oaks.

wjaques

Text Box

#6.g

Staff Report – Public Works Monthly Report Page 2

➢ The annual tree removal list for 2019 has been completed. This year’s

list comprised the removal of 98 trees. Council accepted the quote from Woodstock tree and Stump Removal at the April 3rd Council

meeting. The contractor is scheduled to start removal of these trees at the beginning of June.

➢ This spring has been a challenge for our paved roads. We have seen a

significant increase in potholes on our roads. This is a common issue throughout the County this year. Staff has been out patching these

locations and will do some additional hot mix repair this summer.

➢ Street sweeping of the villages will be completed later in the month. Our usual policy is to wait until the bulk of the buds have fallen from

the trees before we sweep. Following the spring sweeping, the next sweeping of streets will be in the fall.

➢ Yard waste depots have become busy now that spring has arrived. Staff will be allocating time to keep these areas cleaned up while

continuing with other spring activities.

➢ Public Works staff will be attending some training courses in the month of May. Our lead hand will be attending OGRA road school at the

beginning of May. Two equipment operators will be attending a commercial vehicle tire installer course on May 1st. This course is

required before an operator can change a tire on a commercial vehicle.


➢ At Council’s direction, Staff has been preparing for grass cutting for the upcoming season. We requested quotes from dealers to supply a

commercial grade zero-turn mower, to be used for Township grass cutting in Hickson and Innerkip this year. As per the Township’s

purchasing policy, Staff prepared a description of our requirements and delivered them to local dealers. We received multiple quotes for

gas and diesel engines. The decision was made to go with a diesel engine. Staff inspected three units at different dealers. D&S Downham

was the lowest price and met our requirements. The pre-tax cost was $16,850.00, and the draft capital budget for 2019 included $30,000.00

for this purchase. Staff will amend the draft budget to reflect this change.

Status of Significant Capital Projects:

Capital Project Current Status

Sidewalk

Replacement

Staff plan on installing a new section of sidewalk on Rudy Avenue, in conjunction with the Orchards

development. Due to construction delays, this will be done in 2019.

Street Lights Woodstock Street South infilling, pending budget

approval.



Maplewood Sideroad – 16th Line

to Oxford Road #5

(prep. for hard top)

Base reconstruction from the 16th Line to Oxford

County Road #5 is complete. The hardtop surface will be in the draft budget for 2019 completion, with

pre-budget approval granted by Council on March 20, 2019.

Bridge repair and

guiderail installation

Structures 2036 and 2038 guiderail installation in

conjunction with Maplewood Sideroad reconstruction. Rescheduled to the 2019 budget.

Jacob Street East re-construction

Top-coat to be rescheduled to the 2019 budget.

1999 Champion

Grader Replacement

Postponed in order for Staff to review with Council during the 2019 budget process.

2006 Single Axle Plow Replacement

Pending budget approval

Woodstock Street South Project

Project is substantially complete. A deficiency in the stamped concrete has been repaired.

Recommendations:

1. None. For Council information only.

Reviewed by C.A.O.:

Report prepared and submitted by:

Karen DePrest


Tom Lightfoot

Public Works Manager

STAFF REPORT

Report #PW2019-11


From: Tom Lightfoot, Public Works Manager

Subject: Maplewood Sideroad Hardtop Conversion


Background:

Over the last three years, Public Works has been working on the gravel to hardtop conversion of the Maplewood Sideroad, from the 16th Line to Oxford

Road #5. This section of roadway is four kilometres in length and the driving

surface will be 6.7 metres wide.

In preparation of switching this section of road to hardtop, we have dug out the old road base to two feet and then re-built the road with 18 inches of “B”

gravel for a base and 6 inches of “A” gravel for the driving surface, as per our standard. Public Works staff has been able to rebuild approximately 1.3

km of roadway a year. Over the last three years we have also completed the re-alignment of two curves and cut a hill down approximately three feet.

Further, Bridge #23 had its deck repaired and guiderails installed. In August 2018, as directed by Council, we did a re-alignment of the stop controls at

the intersections of the 18th and 17th Lines at the Maplewood Sideroad, giving the right of way to traffic on the Maplewood Sideroad. This roadway is

now scheduled to be paved in 2019.

Discussion:

At the March 20th meeting, Council directed Staff to proceed with issuing a tender for the Maplewood Sideroad hardtop conversion. Council directed

Staff to include an option for a cold lay asphalt base coat with a bonded wearing course. This was option “A” in the tender document. Also, an option

for hot mix asphalt was included in the tender. This was option “B” in the tender document. A provisional item was also included for the supply and

installation of guiderails for culverts #2036 and #2038.

wjaques

Text Box

#6.h

Staff Report – Maplewood Sideroad Hardtop Conversion Page 2

The Township released the tender on April 4, 2019. The tender closed April

18, 2019 at 11:00 am. Tenders where opened immediately following the closing, with Township Staff members Rod Ramseyer and Tom Lightfoot, as

well as Kevin Death from K. Smart & Associates Ltd. There were also 6 company representatives present for the opening.

There were seven tender bids received, with results as follows:

Bidder Option “A” (Cold Lay)

Including HST

Option “B” (Hot mix)

Including HST

Brantco Construction $427,592.00

Coco Paving Inc. $433,920.00

Norjohn Contracting

and Paving Limited $435,276.00

Capital Paving Inc. $534,007.32

Steed and Evans Ltd. $534,128.40

Permanent Paving Ltd. $578,865.10

Dufferin Construction $617,118.99

This project has been identified in the Capital Budget as a four-year project. Overall, the draft 2019 Capital Budget contains $500,000.00 for this work.

The current breakdown of the cost in the draft budget is $225,000.00 from taxation, $200,000.00 from grants and $75,000.00 from Development

Charges.

Also included in this tender was provisional guiderail installations at culverts

#2036 and #2038. There will also be water proofing required on Bridge #23 and Culvert #2036 before asphalt can be applied. There is currently

$175,000.00 in the draft Capital Budget, with funding coming from reserves for this portion of the tender.

As Council can see, Brantco Construction was the low bid for this contract.

Brantco has done work for the Township in the past with satisfactory results. The current draft Capital Budget can accommodate this work and allows for

staff time preparing the site and extra shouldering to be done after paving, by Township forces.

Staff Report – Maplewood Sideroad Hardtop Conversion Page 3

Recommendation:

1. That Council accept the bid from Brantco Construction in the amount of$427,592.00 (including HST), and further accept the provisional guiderail

work in the amount of $79,307.69 (including HST), as described in tender

contract #2019-04.

Reviewed by C.A.O.: Report prepared and submitted by:

Karen DePrest

Chief Administrative Officer Tom Lightfoot

Public Works Manager

STAFF REPORT

Report #FC2019-06


From: Scott Alexander, Township Fire Chief

Re: Fire & Protective Services – May 2019 Council Report


Departmental Highlights: Fire Department:

• The East Zorra-Tavistock Fire Department recruits have completed

most of their training and will be writing their first certification exam on May 1. They will be completing all written exams and practical testing by the end of May. As well, instructors from East Zorra-

Tavistock assisted the Blandford-Blenheim Fire Department with training on forcible entry, establishing safe work areas, scene lighting

and auto extrication techniques on April 26 & 27.

• There are currently several firefighters enrolled in the County School

program - 3 firefighters in NFPA 1002 Pump Ops, 2 in NFPA 1006

General Rescue and 1 enrolled in an upcoming NFPA 1041 Fire Instructor 1 session.

• Oxford County is currently without a Fire Co-Ordinator and plans are

underway to formally appoint a replacement and 2 alternates. A

meeting is scheduled for June 24 with the OFMEM to complete the

nomination process.

• The rural departments will be meeting on April 30 to begin

negotiations for an acceptable agreement for the proposed shared

Training Officer position.

• Township Fire Prevention Activities: Staff met for the second time with

the Embro & Zorra Agriculture Society and other stakeholders that are planning on holding a “Progressive Ag. Safety Day” on June 13, at

Hickson Public School. A third meeting is scheduled for May 7.

wjaques

Text Box

#6.i

Staff Report – Fire & Protective Services Monthly Reporting Page 2

• Health & Safety information was distributed through the Homewood

Health Newsletter specifically discussing the importance of vacations

and crisis management & support. Also, the Comfort Zone Newsletter

was distributed that typically discusses various personal safety and

health tips. This material was circulated to firefighters via email by

Jennifer Albrecht.

Controlled Burn Approvals:

• March 2019: 23

• Year to Date (2019): 45

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

20

18

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

20

19

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

ntr

olle

d B

urn

s

Month

Number of Controlled Burns Per Month


FIRE CALLS FOR 2019 (December 1 to February 28, 2019)

TOTALS BY TYPE-2 YEAR COMPARISON

2723

2636

27

50

HICKSON INNERKIP TAVISTOCK

Total Calls By StationDecember 1 to March 31

2019 2018

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Totals by TypeDecember 1 to March 31

2018 2019


Emergency Management:

• Oxford County CEMC – no announcement has been made to date as

far as a replacement. The part-time position was posted on March 20

and closed on April 3.

• The 2018 annual compliance is under review at this time and Staff

has submitted the supporting documentation that was requested. In

discussions with our regional field officer, it is doubtful that we will

achieve compliance for 2018. We will be meeting with our Field

Advisor on May 22.

• Emergency Preparedness Week is May 5-11. This year’s theme is “Are You Ready”. In preparation for the week, Jennifer Albrecht will be reaching out to the schools in hope of scheduling some brief visits

to share educational material. The Township will also be promoting the week through paper print and social media.

• Staff is in the process of planning the 2019 Emergency Management

Program by updating the Township Plan, developing a relevant table top exercise and preparing for multiple training sessions.


• None to report at this time



Communications System

Norwich is in the process of creating one consolidated financial report for the

communications system

Innerkip Station Tanker Sold at auction for $ 8,500 (minus selling fees)

Hickson UTV Project

Awaiting third quotation.

Applications have been submitted for 2 more

grants.


Recommendation:


Reviewed by C.A.O.:


Karen DePrest


Scott Alexander

Township Fire Chief

STAFF REPORT

Report #BCO2019-04


From: Melanie Shiell, By-law Compliance Officer

Re: By-law Compliance – May 2019 Council Report



• None to report


• None to report

By-law Compliance Activity for February and March 2019

Key Indicators for Council: Type of By-law Compliance response requests by

residents, as well as Staff success in bringing resolve to By-law Compliance requests.

OCCURRENCE TYPE

NUMBER OF NEW OCCURRENCES

(Commenced this Month)

NUMBER OF ON-GOING

OCCURRENCES (Commenced

prior to this Month)

YEAR TO DATE OCCURRENCES

Open Closed Open Open Closed

Property Standards 2 2 1 1 3

Clean Yard

Animal Control 1 1 1 2

Parking 1 1 1 1 1

Noise 1 1 1

Zoning 1 1 1 1 1

Illegal Dumping

Inquiry

Canine 1 1 3

Other 2

TOTAL 7 6 4 4 13

wjaques

Text Box

#6.j

Staff Report – By-law Compliance Monthly Reporting Page 2

Update on Significant Files: In addition to the information reported publicly for this report, an update on significant on-going files is included in the Closed Session agenda.

Attachments:

• None

Recommendation:


Reviewed by C.A.O.:

Report prepared

and submitted by:

Karen DePrest


Melanie Shiell

By-law Compliance Officer

Department Approval:

Will Jaques

Corporate Services Manager/Clerk

STAFF REPORT

Report #CSM2019-14


From: Will Jaques, Corporate Services Manager

Re: Corporate Services – May 2019 Council Report



• Development Charges Public Meeting – May 15, 2019


• Restoring Ontario's Competitiveness Act passes: The Ontario

Government passed Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act 2019. Read more here:

https://news.ontario.ca/medg/en/2019/04/ontario-passes-legislation-to-cut-red-tape-and-create-

jobs.html?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=p



2019 Capital Projects to be considered as part of the approved 2019 budget.

Status of Land Use Planning Matters:

Applicant Location Application

Type Nature of

Application Status of

Applications

Gateman Homes

130 & 140 Jacob St.

East, Tavistock

OPA ZBA

OPA and ZBA required as

part of the application

for subdivision.

ZBA process complete

https://news.ontario.ca/medg/en/2019/04/ontario-passes-legislation-to-cut-red-tape-and-create-jobs.html?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=p



wjaques

Text Box

#6.k

Staff Report – Corporate Services Monthly Reporting Page 2


Type Nature of


Applications

McKay 615899 13th Line

Severance ZBA

Severance of an existing

parcel of land.

Severance application

approved and conditions

being fulfilled. ZBA

Application Denied. LPAT

appeal withdrawn.

Schumhaven

Farms/ Schumm/

Wagler

677066 &

677050 16th Line

Severances

ZBA

Two lot

additions to support

upgrades to private

water/ wastewater

services on adjacent

properties.

Severance

applications approved and

conditions being fulfilled.

ZBA process complete.

Halliday 85 William St. N.,

Tavistock

Severances ZBA


parcel of land (creation of 4

lots), as well as associated

ZBA.

Severance applications


being fulfilled. ZBA approved

at April 17/19 Meeting.

1187688

Ontario Inc.

595459

Hwy. #59

OPA

ZBA

OPA and

Rezoning to allow for

private school and

church

ZBA approved

in principle. OPA approved

in principle by Oxford County.

Wettlaufer 516930

13th Line

Severance

ZBA

Severance of

an existing

parcel of land, as well

as associated ZBA.

Severance

application


being fulfilled. ZBA application

approved in principle.



Type Nature of


Applications

Findlater 684754 County

Road #2

Severance ZBA



as associated ZBA.

Severance application


being fulfilled. ZBA to be

considered at May 1/19

meeting.

Griffin/ Gregory Ag.

Services Ltd.

715647 County

Road #4

Severance ZBA



as associated ZBA.

Severance applications


being fulfilled.

ZBA

applications received.

Oxford

Builders Inc.

44 James

St., Innerkip

Severance

ZBA

Severance of

an existing parcel of

land, as well as associated

ZBA.

Severance

application approved and

conditions being fulfilled.

ZBA application received.

Zehr 756375 County

Road #5

Severance Severance of an existing

parcel of

land.


Alver Farms

Ltd.

495650

10th Line

Severances Severance of

an existing parcel of land

(creation of 2 lots).

Applications

received.

Apple Homes 154 Holley

Ave., Lot 48,

Tavistock

MVA Yard relief

(rear/ side yard)

Application

received.

Gateman

Homes

140 Jacob

Street E., Tavistock

Severance Severance of

an existing parcel of

land.

Application

received.



Type Nature of


Applications

Zilke Farms Inc.

616368 & 616402

13th Line

Severance Severance of an existing

parcel of land.


Rader 58 Halliday

Dr.,

Tavistock

MVA Relief to permit an

accessory

use (pool) in the required

exterior side yard.


Attachments:

• None.

Recommendation:

1. None. For Council Information.

Reviewed by C.A.O:


Karen DePrest


Will Jaques

Corporate Services Manager

THE CORPORATION OF THE


COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW #2019-16

A By-Law to amend Zoning By-Law Number 2003-18, as amended. WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock deems it advisable to amend By-Law Number 2003-18, as amended. THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, enacts as follows: 1. That Schedule "A" to By-Law Number 2003-18, as amended, is hereby amended

by changing to “RR” the zone symbol of the lands so designated “RR” on Schedule “A” attached hereto.

2. This By-Law comes into force in accordance with Sections 34(21) and (30) of the

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. READ a first and second time this 1st day of May, 2019. READ a third time and finally passed this 1st day of May, 2019.

Don McKay - Mayor

Will Jaques - Clerk

wjaques

Text Box

#7.a

P L A N 4 1 R - 3 1 3 7

P A R T 1

P L A N 2 5 9

N67°25'30"E

2.179.94

N35°

01'50

"W

0.31

NW ANGLE - LOT 3, PLAN 259N67°25'30"E

15.39

20.23

N67°25'30"E 45.72N67°25'30"E 50.37

N56°18'20"E 103.44

N22°

35'45

"W 12

1.62

140.3

3

N22°34'30"W0.30

N22°34'30"W0.30N22°34'30"W

4.57

L O T 3L O T 2

P A R T 2

HIGHWAY 2

SCHEDULE "A"PT LOTS 2 AND 3, PLAN 259

PARTS 1 AND 2, REFERENCE PLAN 41R-3137TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

AREA OF ZONE CHANGE TO RR

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS IN METRES

THIS IS SCHEDULE "A"

MAYOR

CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR

TO BY-LAW No. ________________, PASSED

THE __________ DAY OF ____________, 2019

TO BY-LAW No. ©10 0 10 20 305

METRES

#2019-16

#2019-16

1 May

L O T 2 L O T 1

C O N 1IN

GERSOLL R

D

HIGHWAY 2

BEACHVILLE RD

10th

LIN

E

11th

LIN

E

SOUTH-WEST OXFORD

EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

LO

T2

6

LO

T2

7

LO

T2

8

LO

T

29

L O T 3

LO

T 3

0

CO

N 1

0

CO

N 9

C A N A D I A NN A T I O N A L R A I L W A Y

C A N A D I A N

P A C I F I C R A I L W A Y

Cedar Creek

Thames River

South Branch999

992

9930

KEY MAP

LANDS TO WHICH BYLAW ____________ APPLIES

©250 0 250 500 750125

METRES

#2019-16

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK COUNTY OF OXFORD BY-LAW # 2019 - 17

Being a by-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Council. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: All actions and proceedings of the Council taken at its meeting held on the 1st day of May, 2019 except those taken by By-law and those required by law to be done by resolution are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out herein provided, however, that any member of this Council who has dissented from any action or proceeding or has abstained from discussion and voting thereon shall be deemed to have dissented or abstained, as the case may be, in respect of this By-law as it applies to such action or proceeding. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 1st DAY OF MAY, 2019.

_____ Don McKay, Mayor

seal

_____

Will Jaques, Clerk

wjaques

Text Box

#10

AGENDA - East Zorra-Tavistockezt.ca/Portals/EastZorraTavistock/Documents_Forms/agd/...2019/05/01...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA - East Zorra-Tavistockezt.ca/Portals/EastZorraTavistock/Documents_Forms/agd/...2019/05/01...