Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council Meeting Agenda

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, March 6th, 2019 Township Council Chambers 47 Wilmot Street South, Drumbo 4:00 p.m.

1. Welcome

2. Call to Order

3. Approval of the Agenda

4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

5. Adoption of Minutes

a. February 20, 2019 Minutes of Council

6. Business Arising from the Minutes

7. Delegations / Presentations

None

8. Committee of Adjustment

a. Minutes

i. December 19, 2018 Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment

b. Application

i. Application for Minor Variance, A-01-19, Dayle & Dana Reibling

Recommendation:

That the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Committee of Adjustment approve Application A-01/19, submitted by Dayle & Dana Reibling for lands described as South ½ of Lot 8, Concession13 (Blandford), Township of Blandford-Blenheim, as it relates to:

1. Relief from Section 7.2.1 – Minimum Distance Separation Requirements for Livestock Barns and Structures, to reduce the minimum distance separation requirement (MDS II) for a proposed livestock barn (swine) to the nearest neighbouring Visit our website @ www.blandfordblenheim.ca

Page 1 of 90 dwelling located at 925878 Township Road 13 from 432 m (1,417.3 ft) to 198 m (649.6 ft); and,

2. Relief from Section 7.2.2 – Minimum Distance Separation Requirements for Manure Storage Structures, to reduce the minimum distance separation requirement (MDS II) for a proposed manure storage facility to the nearest neighbouring dwelling located at 925878 Township Road 13 from 432 m (1,417.3 ft) to 198 m (649.6 ft).

As the variance requested is deemed to be:

i. a minor variance from the provisions of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Zoning By-Law No. 1360-2002;

ii. desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure;

iii. in-keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Zoning By-Law No. 1360- 2002; and

iv. in-keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan of the County of Oxford.

9. Correspondence

a. General

None

b. Specific

i. Amelia Humphries, Clerk, City of Woodstock Re: Regional Reform

Recommendation:

That Council supports the resolution of the City of Woodstock in their request for the County of Oxford to facilitate and coordinate a process for developing a two tier “Made in Oxford” solution to Regional Reform.

ii. Ashley Sloan, Clerk’s Assistant, Township of South Stormont Re: Provincial Review of OMPF

Recommendation:

That Council support the resolution of the Township of South Stormont requesting that the Provincial Government complete the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) review in an expeditious manner.

10. Staff Reports Visit our website @ www.blandfordblenheim.ca

Page 2 of 90

a. Jim Borton – Director of Public Works

i. PW-19-08 – Gravel Tender Results

Recommendation:

That Report PW-19-08 be received for information;

And further that Council accept the tender submitted by Oxford Sand & Gravel Ltd. of Woodstock, ON for the supply, crushing and placement of approximately 27,000 Tonnes of granular “A” at a unit price of $11.50/tonne and 5,000 Tonnes of granular “B” at a unit price of $9.75/tonne.

ii. PW-19-09 – Monthly Report

Recommendation:

That Report PW-19-08 be received as information.

iii. PW-19-10 – ½, ¾, 1-ton Pickup Trucks Tender Results

Recommendation:

That Report PW-19-10 be received as information;

And further that Council accept the tender submitted by Woodstock Ford for the supply and delivery of a new 2019 F-150 4 x 4 pickup truck, a new 2019 F-250 4 x 4 pickup truck and a new 2019 F-350 4 x 4 pickup truck for a total amount of $146,644.57 including HST. b. Jim Harmer – Drainage Superintendent

i. DS-19-05 – Monthly Report

Recommendation:

That Report DS-19-05 be received as information. c. John Scherer – Chief Building Official

i. CBO-19-06 – Proposed Fence By-law

Recommendation:

That Report CBO-19-06 be received as information; and,

That Council review the model fence bylaw, amending if desired and to decide on the adoption of the fence bylaw and repealing of Bylaw 411-81.

ii. CBO-19-07 – Building Permit Fees

Visit our website @ www.blandfordblenheim.ca

Page 3 of 90 Recommendation:

That Report CBO-19-07 be received as information. d. Trevor Baer – Acting Manager of Community Services

i. CS-19-02 – Monthly Report

Recommendation:

That Report CS-19-02 be received as information. e. Denise Krug – Director of Finance

i. TR-19-04 – Ontario Regulation 284-09

Recommendation:

That Report TR-19-04 be received as information;

And further that report TR-19-04, with respect to Ontario Regulation 284/09 for the budget year 2019, be adopted. f. Sarah Matheson – Deputy Clerk

i. DC-19-05 – Protection and Enhancement of the Tree Canopy and Natural Vegetation Policy

Recommendation:

That Report DC-19-05 be received as information; and,

That Council approve the Protection of Tree Canopy & Natural Vegetation Policy. g. Rodger Mordue – Chief Administrative Officer / Clerk

i. CAO-19-07 – Development Charges

Recommendation:

That Report CAO-19-07 be received as information.

11. Reports from Council Members

12. Unfinished Business

13. Motions and Notices of Motion

14. New Business

Visit our website @ www.blandfordblenheim.ca

Page 4 of 90 15. Closed Session

a. Proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board

i. Economic Development

16. By-laws

a. 2125-2019

Being a By-law to regulate the height, kind and location of fences within defined areas in the township of Blandford-Blenheim;

b. 2126-2019

Being a By-law to adopt a policy with respect to the manner in which the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim will Protect and Enhance the Tree Canopy and Natural Vegetation in the Municipality; and

c. 2127-2019

Being a By-law to confirm the proceedings of Council.

17. Other

Town Hall meeting scheduled for April 16, 2019 at 6:30 pm at the Lions Hall, Plattsville.

18. Adjournment and Next Meeting

Wednesday, March 20th, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Visit our website @ www.blandfordblenheim.ca

Page 5 of 90 5. a. Township of Blandford-Blenheim Regular Council Meeting Wednesday, February 20, 2019 4:00 p.m.

MINUTES

Council met at 4:00 p.m. for their second regular meeting of the month.

Present: Mayor Peterson, Councillors Balzer, Banbury, Demarest and Read.

Staff: Baer, Borton, Harmer, Matheson, Mordue, Richardson and Scherer.

Mayor Peterson in the Chair.

1. Welcome

2. Call to Order

3. Approval of the Agenda RESOLUTION #1 Moved by – Councillor Read Seconded by – Councillor Balzer

Be it hereby resolved that the agenda for the February 20, 2019 Meeting of Council be adopted as printed and circulated. .Carried 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

None.

5. Adoption of Minutes RESOLUTION #2 Moved by – Councillor Read Seconded by – Councillor Balzer

Be it hereby resolved that the minutes of the February 6, 2019 Regular Meeting of Council be adopted, as printed and circulated. .Carried

6. Business Arising from the Minutes None. 7. Delegations / Presentations

a. Frank Gross, Manager of Transportation & Waste Management Services, Oxford County Re: Speed and Road Safety Concerns

Page 6 of 90 Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council Minutes February 20, 2019

Mr. Gross presented findings and recommendations regarding specific areas of speed and road safety concern. A number of further recommendations were discussed including, but not limited to expediting crosswalk studies and installation, specific signage, and road markings. Resident of Drumbo, Ray Symons, expressed concern regarding the type and purpose of vehicles in the data collected. Mr. Gross stated that the studies differentiate between cars and trucks. Mr. Symons expressed his wish that the 60 km/hr limits placed on village limits be changed to 50 km/hr.

RESOLUTION #3 Moved by – Councillor Read Seconded by – Councillor Balzer

Be it hereby resolved Council receive the Delegation from the County of Oxford regarding traffic speed and road safety. .Carried 8. Correspondence

a. General

None.

b. Specific

i. Drumbo Firefighters Association, Re: Co-Ed Slo-Pitch Tournament

RESOLUTION #4 Moved by – Councillor Read Seconded by – Councillor Balzer

Be it hereby resolved that whereas Regulation 389/91 of the Liquor License Act was amended in 2011; and,

Whereas Regulations require that an applicant for a Special Occasion Permit for a Public Event request the municipality to designate the event as an event of municipal significance;

Be it hereby resolved that the Drumbo Firefighters Association June 15, 2019 Tournament at the Drumbo Park be declared an event of municipal significance.

.Carried ii. Drumbo Lions Club, Re: Harvest Carnival

RESOLUTION #5 Moved by – Councillor Read

Page 7 of 90 Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council Minutes February 20, 2019

Seconded by – Councillor Balzer

Be it hereby resolved that whereas Regulation 389/91 of the Liquor License Act was amended in 2011; and,

Whereas Regulations require that an applicant for a Special Occasion Permit for a Public Event request the municipality to designate the event as an event of municipal significance;

Be it hereby resolved that the Drumbo Lions Club Harvest Carnival weekend August 16, 17 & 18, 2019 at the Drumbo Park be declared an event of municipal significance.

.Carried 9. Staff Reports

a. Rick Richardson – Director of Protective Services

i. FC-19-02 – Monthly Report

RESOLUTION #6 Moved by – Councillor Balzer Seconded by – Councillor Read

Be it hereby resolved that Report FC-19-02 be received as information. .Carried b. Jim Harmer – Drainage Superintendent

i. DS-19-04 – Petition for Drainage, Appointment of Engineer

RESOLUTION #7 Moved by – Councillor Balzer Seconded by – Councillor Read

Be it hereby resolved that Report DS-19-04 be received as information; and,

Whereas the Grand River Conservation Authority have not registered any comments to the petition for drainage work at the South Pt of Lot 14 Concession 2 from Frances and Maureen Cowan;

Be it hereby resolved that Council appoints K. Smart & Associates Ltd., 85 McIntyre Dr. Kitchener, ON, N2R 1H6, to prepare a new drainage report as per the petition in accordance with Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

Page 8 of 90 Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council Minutes February 20, 2019

.Carried c. John Scherer – Chief Building Official

i. CBO-19-04 – Monthly Report to Council

RESOLUTION #8 Moved by – Councillor Balzer Seconded by – Councillor Read

Be it hereby resolved that Report CBO-19-04 be received as information.

.Carried ii. CBO-19-05 – Year End Report to Council

RESOLUTION #9 Moved by – Councillor Balzer Seconded by – Councillor Read

Be it hereby resolved that Report CBO-19-05 be received as information.

.Carried d. Jim Borton – Director of Public Works

i. PW-19-01 – Tandem Truck/Snow Equipment Tender Results

RESOLUTION #10 Moved by – Councillor Banbury Seconded by – Councillor Demarest

Be it hereby resolved that Report PW-19-06 be received as information;

And further that Council accept the tender submitted by Metro Freightliner, Brantford, ON for the supply of a new 2020 Freightliner 114 SD chassis including Viking-Cives dump/sander and related snow plow equipment as specified for a total amount of $297,303.00 including HST.

.Carried 10. Reports from Council Members

Page 9 of 90 Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council Minutes February 20, 2019

Councillor Balzer expressed the need for public health and mental health awareness such as links, phone numbers resources be circulated through Township channels. Further, Balzer expressed the need to promote proper insurance coverage for home, vehicle and contents. Mayor Peterson directed staff to arrange dates for an upcoming Town Hall Meeting. Councillor Banbury attended the Annual Heritage Day with Grand River Conservation Authority at the City of Brantford and spoke of the Woodlands Cultural Centre.

11. Unfinished Business

None.

12. Motions and Notices of Motion

None.

13. New Business

None.

14. Closed Session

a. Proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board i. Economic Development

ii. Capital Project

RESOLUTION #11 Moved by – Councillor Banbury Seconded by – Councillor Demarest

Be it hereby resolved that Council move into Closed Session under the authority of Section 239 of the Municipal Act at 5:20 p.m. to discuss;

- Proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board: i. Economic Development

ii. Capital Project

- Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees.

Page 10 of 90 Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council Minutes February 20, 2019

.Carried

RESOLUTION #12 Moved by – Councillor Banbury Seconded by – Councillor Demarest

Be it hereby resolved that Council does now adjourn from Closed Session and resume into Open Session at 6:39 p.m.

.Carried

15. By-laws RESOLUTION #13 Moved by – Councillor Demarest Seconded by – Councillor Banbury

Be it hereby resolved that a first and second reading be given to the following By- laws:

− By-law 2122-2019, Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law Number 1360- 2002, as amended (2133179 Ontario Inc);

− By-law 2123-2019, Being a By-law to adopt the estimates of all sums required for 2019 for Township purposes; and,

− By-law 2124-2019, Being a By-law to confirm the proceedings of Council.

.Carried

RESOLUTION #14 Moved by – Councillor Demarest Seconded by – Councillor Banbury

Be it hereby resolved that a third and final reading be given to the following By- laws:

− By-law 2122-2019, Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law Number 1360- 2002, as amended (2133179 Ontario Inc);

− By-law 2123-2019, Being a By-law to adopt the estimates of all sums required for 2019 for Township purposes; and,

− By-law 2124-2019, Being a By-law to confirm the proceedings of Council.

.Carried 16. Other Business

Page 11 of 90 Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council Minutes February 20, 2019

None.

17. Adjournment and Next Meeting RESOLUTION #15 Moved by – Councillor Demarest Seconded by – Councillor Banbury

Whereas business before Council has been completed at 6:41 p.m.;

Be it hereby resolved that Council does now adjourn to meet again on Wednesday, March 6th, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. .Carried

______Mark Peterson, Mayor Rodger Mordue CAO / Clerk Township of Blandford-Blenheim Township of Blandford-Blenheim

Page 12 of 90 8. a. i.

Township of Blandford-Blenheim Committee of Adjustment Meeting Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:01 p.m.

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim Committee of Adjustment met at 4:01 p.m.

Present: Mayor Peterson, Members Balzer, Banbury, Demarest and Read.

Staff: Baer, Borton, Harmer, Krug, Matheson, and Mordue.

Others: Rebecca Smith, Planner, Oxford County.

Mayor Peterson in the Chair

Minutes i. November 21st, 2018 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment

Moved by – Councillor Bruce Seconded by – Councillor Balzer

Be it hereby resolved that the Minutes of the October 3, 2018 Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adopted, as printed and circulated.

Applications

i. Minor Variance Application A10-18, submitted by Tilly & Abe Entz

The Planner presented the report, recommending approval. The applicant was present and spoke in favour of the application. No one spoke for or against the application.

For application A10-18, submitted by Tilly & Abe Entz, the decision was signed as approved.

ii. Minor Variance Application A11-18, submitted by Nicolle Chessum & Travis Wright

The Planner presented the report, recommending approval. The applicant was present. No one spoke for or against the application.

Page 13 of 90 For application A11-18, submitted by Nicolle Chessum & Travis Wright, the decision was signed as approved.

The Committee adjourned at 4:12 p.m. and the Open Council meeting resumed.

Page 14 of 90 8. b. i.

Community and Strategic Planning P. O. Box 1614, 21 Reeve Street Woodstock Ontario N4S 7Y3 Phone: 519-539-9800  Fax: 519-421-4712 Web site: www.oxfordcounty.ca

Our File: A-01/19

APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE

TO: Township of Blandford-Blenheim Committee of Adjustment MEETING: March 6, 2019 REPORT NUMBER: 2019-61

OWNERS: Dayle & Dana Reibling 925873 Township Road 13, Bright ON, N0J 1B0

VARIANCES REQUESTED:

LOCATION:

The subject lands are legally described as the South ½ of Lot 8, Concession 13 (Blandford), Township of Blandford-Blenhiem. The lands are located on the north side of Township Road 13, between Oxford Road 5 and Blandford Road, and are municipally known as 925873 Township Road 13.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

COUNTY OF OXFORD OFFICIAL PLAN:

Schedule “C-2” County of Oxford Erosion Hazard Land Development Constraints Plan

Schedule “B-1” Township of Blandford-Blenheim Agricultural Reserve and Open Land Use Plan Space

Page 15 of 90 File No. A-01/19 Report No. 2019-61 Page 2

TOWNSHIP ZONING BY-LAW NO. 1360-2002: General Agricultural Zone (A2)

SURROUNDING USES: Predominately agricultural, with a number of existing non-farm rural residential lots in the vicinity

PLANNING REVIEW:

(a) Purpose of the Application

The applicants are seeking relief from the above-noted provisions of the Township Zoning By- law to facilitate the construction of a new livestock barn (swine) and indoor manure storage facility. As indicated by the applicant, the proposed manure storage will be located under the floor of the proposed barn.

The proposed barn will comprise approximately 1,709.4 m2 (18,400 ft2) and be capable of housing a total of 1,200 swine, for a total of approximately 147 nutrient units. The applicant has completed a Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS) for the proposed operation, which has been approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

As indicated by the applicant, the proposed location is most appropriate as it will limit the amount of agricultural land that is removed from production, provide a sufficient setback from the municipal drain that runs through the property, and ensure ventilation is directed appropriately.

It is also important to note that the proposal will facilitate the establishment of a humane swine operation. In light of this, in comparison to a traditional operation, more area is required for each livestock unit, thereby reducing potential odour impacts.

The subject property comprises approximately 39.8 ha (98.5 ac) and is currently occupied by an existing barn, containing 20 sheep, a shop and accessory farm dwelling.

Plate 1, Existing Zoning & Location Map, shows the location of the subject property and the existing zoning in the vicinity.

Plate 2, Aerial Map (2015) with Existing Zoning, provides an aerial view of the subject lands, detailing the required and proposed MDS setbacks relative to the nearest neighbouring dwelling.

Plate 3, Applicants’ Sketch, shows the location of the existing and proposed buildings/strcutures on the property.

(b) Agency Comments

The application was circulated to a number of public agencies considered to have an interest in the proposal. The following comments were received.

The Township Chief Building Official has confirmed the MDS II setback requirements that were provided by the applicants’ Nutrient Management consultant.

Page 16 of 90 File No. A-01/19 Report No. 2019-61 Page 3

The Township Drainage Superintendent has no concern with the proposal as the proposed barn will be located a sufficient distance from the Kuntze Drain. It should be noted that the open tile drainage that is located in the area of the proposed barn will need to be removed.

The Township Director of Protective Services, County Public Works Department and Southwestern Public Health had no concerns regarding the proposal.

Public Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners on February 22, 2019. At the time of writing this report, no comments or concerns had been received from the public.

(d) Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

The subject property is primarily designated ‘Agricultural Reserve’, with a small portion designated ‘Open Space’, according to the Land Use Plan for the Township of Blandford- Blenheim, as contained in the County Official Plan. The ‘OS’ designation is reflective of the floodplain associated with the Kuntze Drain, of which is also identified as ‘Erosion Hazard Lands’.

In the Agricultural Reserve, lands are to be developed for a wide variety of agricultural land uses, together with farm buildings and structures necessary to the farming operation, and accessory residential uses required for the farm.

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 supporting the needs of the agricultural community by permitting land uses which are complementary to and supportive of agriculture. The application of the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) guidelines, as established by the Province of Ontario, is considered a key mechanism through which municipalities reduce and minimize potential conflicts through the provisions of the Township’s Zoning By-law.

The Official Plan states that where the establishment of a new or expanded livestock structure or manure storage facility is proposed, the Minimum Distance Separation Formula II (MDS II) must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Open Space areas are intended to maintain and enhance important ecological functions. Areas within the ‘OS’ area include Conservation Authority lands and areas within regulatory flood plains. As mentioned, the area that is designated ‘OS’ has also been identified as ‘Erosion Hazard Lands’. Very limited development is permitted within ‘Open Space Areas’, including, but not limited to, passive recreational uses and structures that are accessory or ancillary to the Open Space use. The proposed livestock barn will be located outside of the ‘OS’ area.

The applicants’ have indicated that alternative locations for the proposed livestock barn are not feasible due to the minimum setback distance that is required from the municipal drain that runs through the property. Further, as the proposed barn will be a humane swine operation, the applicant has indicated that the barn is required to be oriented in a north/south direction to ensure adequate ventilation can be provided. It is also important to note that in order to comply with the required MDS II setback, the proposed barn would need to be located in an area of the farm that would not make use of the existing services (i.e. driveway, hydro) or promote overall

Page 17 of 90 File No. A-01/19 Report No. 2019-61 Page 4 productivity and viability. In light of this, Staff are of the opinion that the proposed location is most appropriate, as it will avoid further fragmentation of the agricultural land base and preserve the productivity and viability of the parcel, in support of the policies of Section 3.1.1.

Further, the subject property is located in an area characterized by relatively large farm parcels that contain livestock barns and are in agricultural production (cash crop). In particular, the nearest neighbouring dwelling is located on a farm property that contains a livestock barn. With that being said, although the applicant is proposing a relatively significant deviation from the required MDS II setback, the proposed relief will permit a use that is supportive of agriculture and the surrounding agricultural community, in accordance with Section 3.1.1.

In this light of the above, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed relief is generally in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan.

(e) Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

The subject lands are zoned ‘General Agricultural Zone (A2)’ according to the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Zoning By-law. The ‘A2’ zone permits a wide range of farming uses, including livestock and regulated farm operations, as well as buildings and structures accessory thereto.

According to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2, any new livestock building or manure storage facility must meet Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) requirements. MDS is used as a tool to determine the required distance between a livestock facility and other land uses. The intent of MDS is to prevent land use conflicts and minimize nuisance complaints from odour.

The required MDS II setback between the proposed barn and manure storage and nearest neighbouring dwelling is 432 m (1,417.3 ft), while the nearest dwelling will be setback approximately 198 m (649.6 ft).

Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested relief maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The proposed livestock barn is a permitted use in the ‘A2’ zone. Further, the proposed barn will be located in an area characterized by large agricultural parcels, with varying farm operations, and only one neighbouring dwelling will be located within the required MDS II setback. Staff also note that the nearest neighbouring dwelling is located on a farm property that contains a livestock barn. In this respect, it is not anticipated that the proposed relief will create further land use conflicts.

(f) Desirable Development/Use

This Office is of the opinion that the proposed relief can be considered minor and desirable development of the subject property.

Implementation Guideline #43 of the MDS Document states that MDS II setbacks should not be reduced except in limited site specific circumstances that meet the intent of this MDS Document. The types of setback reductions that could be considered and may be appropriate are those that attempt to reduce potential odour conflicts while balancing or mitigating against other potential concerns, such as environmental impacts, public health and safety, or natural and human-made hazards.

Page 18 of 90 File No. A-01/19 Report No. 2019-61 Page 5

The MDS Document also includes a list of items to consider to determine if a reduced MDS II can be considered minor, including surrounding land uses, environmental concerns, safety and practicality. With that being said, although the proposed relief represents a fairly significant deviation from the required MDS setback, Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested relief can generally be considered minor.

The surrounding area is characterized by large farm parcels that are capable of accommodating livestock operations, only one neighbouring dwelling will be located within the required MDS II setback, and the proposed barn will be located further from the nearest neighbouring dwelling than the existing barn on the site. With respect to potential environmental concerns, the applicant has indicated that the proposed barn is located to meet the minimum required setback form the municipal drain on the property. Further, while the barn could be relocated to comply with the required MDS II setback, it may increase the need to move equipment over the municipal drain, creating more of an environmental risk. In terms of practicality, the applicant has indicated that the barn will make use of the existing services on the property, and will be well-situated to ensure proper ventilation.

To determine if the proposal is desirable and appropriate, the Committee should consider if the proposed reduction is necessary or if another suitable alternative location can be considered, and if the reduced setback will impact the type, size, intensity or flexibility of the agricultural uses in the surrounding area.

While situating the proposed barn in an alternative location was contemplated, the applicant has indicated that the proposed location is the most feasible as it will ensure the required setback from the municipal drain is maintained, minimize the amount of agricultural land that is removed from production, and ensure ventilation requirements can be achieved. Further, as the property is located in an area characterized by large farm parcels with the capability to establish similar operations, it is not anticipated that the proposed relief will negatively impact the type, size, intensity or flexibility of the agricultural uses in the surrounding area. The proposed relief will permit a use that is supportive of agriculture and the surrounding agricultural community. In light of this, Staff are satisfied that the proposal can be considered desirable and appropriate development of the subject lands.

In light of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Office that the requested relief is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the County Official Plan and Township Zoning By-law and can be given favourable consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Committee of Adjustment approve Application A- 01/19, submitted by Dayle & Dana Reibling for lands described as South ½ of Lot 8, Concession 13 (Blandford), Township of Blandford-Blenheim, as it relates to:

Page 19 of 90 File No. A-01/19 Report No. 2019-61 Page 6

Whereas the variances requested are:

(i) minor variances from the provisions of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim No.1360- 2002;

(ii) desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land;

(iii) in-keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Zoning By-law No. 1360-2002; and,

(iv) in-keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Authored by: original signed by Rebecca Smith, MCIP, RPP, Development Planner

Approved by: original signed by Eric Gilbert, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner

February 22, 2019

Page 20 of 90 Legend Parcel Lines Property Boundary Assessment Boundary Unit Road Municipal Boundary Environmental Protection/Flood Overlay Flood Fringe Floodway Environmental Protection (EP1) Environmental Protection (EP2) Zoning Floodlines/Regulation Limit 100 Year Flood Line 30 Metre Setback Conservation Authority Regulation Limit Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines Zoning (Displays 1:16000 to 1:500)

Notes

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and 0 256 512 Meters is 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 NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N January 30, 2019 Page 21 of 90 Legend Parcel Lines Property Boundary Assessment Boundary Unit Road Municipal Boundary Environmental Protection/Flood Overlay Flood Fringe Floodway Environmental Protection (EP1) Environmental Protection (EP2) Zoning Floodlines/Regulation Limit 100 Year Flood Line 30 Metre Setback Conservation Authority Regulation Limit Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines Zoning (Displays 1:16000 to 1:500) Watermain Breaks Service Breaks Watermain Production Well Active Monitoring Well

Notes

<-J pr => f ~ N e__v-> \)of"'- I Ll 0 -C>

/L.°' J · 13

Page 23 of 90 9. b. i.

Office of the City Clerk Woodstock City Hall P.O. Box1539 500 Dundas Street Woodstock, ON N4S 0A7 Telephone (519) 539-1291

February 26, 2019

Chloe Senior, Clerk County of Oxford P.O. Box 1614 21 Reeve St. Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3

Via e-mail - [email protected]

Re: Regional Reform

At the regular meeting of Woodstock City Council held on Thursday February 21, 2019, the following resolution was passed:

“That Woodstock City Council support the transfer of Consent and Subdivision approval authority to the City of Woodstock and that water distribution and waste water collection become a non-exclusive sphere of jurisdiction in Oxford County;

AND FURTHER that the following resolution be adopted by Woodstock City Council:

WHEREAS the Ontario Government has begun a Regional Reform Initiative that includes Oxford County;

AND WHEREAS the City of Woodstock opposes a one tier governance structure in Oxford County as it will not result in better decision making, will not result in improved services and will not provide cost efficiencies;

AND WHEREAS the City of Woodstock supports the continuation of a two tier governance structure and prefers to develop a “Made in Oxford” solution by looking at service rationalization and realignment;

Page 24 of 90 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Woodstock City Council requests Oxford County Council to facilitate and coordinate a process for developing a two tier “Made in Oxford” solution and that this report be circulated to all Oxford County Municipalities for consideration of endorsement;

AND FURTHER that this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Oxford Member of Provincial Parliament and the Regional Reform Special Advisors.”

The report mentioned in the resolution is attached for your reference.

Yours Truly,

Amelia Humphries City Clerk City of Woodstock cc via email: Oxford County Clerks Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ernie Hardeman, Oxford M.P.P. Michael Fenn, Special Advisor Ken Seiling, Special Advisor

Page 25 of 90 Item G-1 Chief Administrative Officer February 21, 2019

To: Members of Council

Re: Regional Reform

AIM To discuss the Regional Reform initiative, potential options and implications of Regional Reform and to provide City Council with an opportunity to submit comments on this initiative.

BACKGROUND On January 15, 2019 the Ontario Government announced that it is moving ahead with a review of Regional Government. Two special advisors have been appointed to consult broadly over the coming months and provide recommendations to improve governance, decision-making and service delivery. Recommendations to the Ontario Government in these areas are expected by early summer of this year.

The last review of municipal governance occurred approximately 20 years ago pursuant to the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996. There was significant municipal restructuring across Ontario at this time. In Oxford the County retained KPMG to undertake a restructuring and rationalization of services study. The number of County, City and Township Councillors was reduced as a result of the governance recommendations from this study. There were 11 municipal services studied as part of the rationalization of services portion of the study. These 11 services were subjected to the triple majority process and generally resulted in the migration of tourism and waste collection to the upper tier (subject to contracting for service to Woodstock and South West Oxford). The County did not properly assume the authority for waste collection which is the reason why the Municipal Act does not assign exclusive authority to the County for this service. The review also identified significant cost savings in rationalizing the dual road authority system (ie County Road Authority for County Roads and Municipal Road Authority for Local Roads). Devolution of the road program to area municipalities was estimated to generate the highest savings followed by the County contracting road maintenance for County roads to the lower tiers. Rather than implement one of these recommendations the decision was to pursue a “Cooperative and Innovative Services Model” which provides for joint purchasing, route optimizations and co-operative capital planning.

Province wide the stated objective of finding savings and efficiencies through this last municipal government restructuring was not achieved. The appended article, “Amalgamations brought fewer Ontario cities, but more city workers” by Wendy Gillis, January 13, 2014 provides observations and analysis of municipal government ten years after the amalgamations. “The conclusion is very strong: amalgamation didn’t reduce the size of municipal government” and “The results show that municipal public sector grew, both in employment and cost, and expanded at a faster rate than it had in the decade before amalgamations”.

Page 26 of 90 What can be learned from this experience is that there are certain services which are best delivered at a local scale and there are other services which can be better delivered on a wider geographical scale.

COMMENTS The current Regional Reform initiative is two pronged with the first area focusing on governance and structure and the second area on service efficiencies and service quality improvements.

Governance and Structure

Oxford County is first and foremost a rural County. The most significant force of change is the rapid growth of the City of Woodstock. The demand for growth opportunities should be expected to strengthen in the future; the difference will be that these opportunities will emerge and/or strengthen in other serviced communities in the County. This Regional Reform initiative should look ahead to the Oxford 20 years from now and what structural changes will best serve the taxpayer over these years.

Oxford County has a two tier government structure. Oxford County is a Regional Government but is essentially a servicing sharing organization that delivers services that are best managed on a larger geographical basis. One landfill for the entire County is a good example of a service that is best shared on a wider geographical basis.

Several alternative governance structures can be considered and are summarized below.

One Tier

The services delivered by the three urban municipalities and five townships are devolved to one level of government; presumably the County of Oxford under this option.

Based on the experience of amalgamations from twenty years ago, there should be no savings anticipated over the long term and any cost efficiencies related to one tier government will be eroded. This erosion will stem from the fact that some lower tier municipalities are unionized and others are not. There will be pressure to unionize with the County as one employer. Woodstock is the only municipality in the County with exclusively career firefighters and all other lower tier municipalities use volunteer firefighters. There will be similar pressure to migrate to the more costly career firefighter model.

The rural/urban service needs differ and there will be pressure to standardize services resulting in increasing cost. There is also concern that there will be pressure to standardize levels of service at a lower level than currently established in urban areas.

Decisions regarding matters such as zoning are best made at a local level where each Councillor voting on an application is elected to the community in which the application is made. Economic development is also best managed at a local level where competition drives decisions.

Page 27 of 90 The Oxford Community Police Service (OCPS) can be considered a pilot project of one tier government. OCPS provided police services to the City of Woodstock, the Township of Blandford Blenheim, the Township of East-Zorra Tavistock and the Township of Norwich. This partnership disbanded in 2009 due to concerns over service levels and service costs.

Staff do not believe that a one tier system of government is appropriate for Oxford County.

Two Tier with Possible Lower Tier Boundary Realignments

A service rationalization review with consideration for lower tier boundary realignments is an option for consideration.

Staff suggest that this option be supported for further consideration.

Separated City(s) & County Amalgamation

This option considers creating a separated City status for some or all of the urban municipalities in the County and amalgamation of the County of Oxford with the County of Elgin, County of Middlesex and/or the County of Perth. Stratford and St Marys in Perth County are separated cities as is the City of St Thomas in Elgin County and London in Middlesex County. Service sharing agreements exist in Elgin, Middlesex and Perth Counties with their urban counterparts for various services.

The County of Oxford recently devolved Public Health to a new organization that serves both Oxford and Elgin Counties. Clearly, Public Health has emerged as a local service that is better delivered on a broader geographical basis than the current County boundaries. This option takes this example one step further to consider whether there are more services offered by the County that could be better delivered if moved to a larger geographical area.

This option has merit but brings greater difficulties to implement given that Elgin. Middlesex and Perth are not currently part of the Regional Reform initiative.

Service Efficiencies and Service Quality Improvements

There has always been a practice of resource sharing, working cooperatively and partnerships in the delivery of municipal services in the County. This sharing occurs both informally and contractually. The Regional Reform Initiative is an opportunity to consider “who does what” in the context of what is best for the taxpayer having regard for what we think the needs of Oxford residents and businesses will be 20 years from now. This is a challenging, yet intriguing question and there will be different perspectives. From the perspective of the City of Woodstock Staff suggest the following as services to be considered for changes.

Consent and Subdivision Approval

Land division responsibility currents resides with the County of Oxford. Consent applications are approved by a Land Division Committee which is appointed by County Council. Subdivision planning applications are approved by County Council. Public

Page 28 of 90 meetings for both consent and subdivision applications occur at the City and then duplicated at either Land Division Committee or during Committee of the Whole at County Council. The public perceives that the public meeting held at the City is the statutory public meeting, but it is not. A local municipality is the decision making authority for zoning bylaw changes and Staff see no reason that Land Division decisions (consent or subdivision) should be different.

Staff suggest that these authorities should be transferred to the lower tier municipalities.

Water Distribution and Wastewater Collection Services

The City recommends consideration be given to affecting a shared authority to the City for water distribution and wastewater collection services within the City. The City currently provides maintenance services and capital replacement under contract to the County. The intent is to affect the following functions by granting shared authority to the City of Woodstock to: • Independently approve wastewater collection and water distribution infrastructure to support economic development opportunities. • Independently fund the cost of extensions to these systems. • Independently approve operating and capital budget for this infrastructure. • Pass a development charge bylaw for such infrastructure. • Implement a one window approach to development approvals. • Have the same status as other lower tier municipalities.

Successful economic development often hinges on the ability to provide information, servicing and upgrades in a guaranteed timely fashion. It is one of the most important development tools available.

Staff suggest that wastewater collection and water distribution be considered for non- exclusive status in the Municipal Act.

County Roads

The KPMG study undertaken by the County during the last governance and service review in July of 2000 estimated savings of approximately $1.2 million if the County contracts road maintenance to area municipalities. Intuitively this estimate seems conservative considering the savings from eliminating the duplication of road patrol yards and equipment. This operational model exists in Elgin County and in the urban municipalities of Oxford County. Capital road reconstruction remains a county responsibility under this model.

The additional responsibility of County roads for a Township will result in more staff for the Township and less staff for the County. Township staff deliver services beyond roads and these additional staff will help support Township services when needed unlike a County roads employee. Staff suggest that a devolution of County roads maintenance to all area municipalities be considered and that Lower Tier Municipal Councils request reports from their staff exploring the pros and cons of providing maintenance services on County roads under contract to the County.

Page 29 of 90 RECOMMENDATION That Woodstock City Council support the transfer of Consent and Subdivision approval authority to the City of Woodstock and that water distribution and waste water collection become a non-exclusive sphere of jurisdiction in Oxford County;

AND FURTHER that the following resolution be adopted by Woodstock City Council:

WHEREAS the Ontario Government has begun a Regional Reform Initiative that includes Oxford County;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Woodstock City Council requests County Council to facilitate and coordinate a process for developing a two tier “Made in Oxford” solution and that this report be circulated to all Oxford County Municipalities for consideration of endorsement;

AND FURTHER that this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Oxford Member of Provincial Parliament and the Regional Reform Special Advisors.

David Creery, M.B.A., P. Eng., Chief Administrative Officer

Page 30 of 90 Amalgamation brought fewer Ontario cities, but more city workers, report finds Page 1of5

News / GTA Amalgamation brought fewer Ontario cities, but more city workers, report finds New analysis finds local governments actually grew bigger, faster, after Mike Harris's so-called Common Sense Revolution, which massively restructured Toronto and other cities with the aim of reducing costs.

JOHN MAHLER FILE PHOTO New research by a professor at Western University shows that the Common Sense Revolution espoused by former Ontario premier Mike Harris, seen here in a portrait from 1994, was unsuccessful in reducing the size of municipal government.

By: Wendy Gillis News reporter, Published on Mon Jan 13 2014

It was dubbed the Common Sense Revolution - Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris's 1995 campaign to slash the province's bloated public sector through massive municipal government restructuring, to the tune of $250 million in taxpayer savings.

But new analysis has found that while amalgamation technically decreased the number of municipalities in Ontario - down from 850 to 445 - and 23 per cent of elected official positions were axed, more people than ever are working in Ontario's municipal governments.

"The conclusion is very strong: amalgamation didn't reduce the size of municipal government," said Timothy Cobban, political science professor at Western University and lead researcher.

Cobban and his team crunched government data, including Statistics Canada numbers for 15 years before and after the provincial amalgamation, to determine just how much sense Harris's plan made in the long run.

The results show the municipal public sector grew, both in employment and cost, and expanded at a faster rate than it had in the decade before amalgamation.

Page 31 of 90 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01 /13/amalgamation_brought_ fewer_ ontario _cities .. . 1/14/2014 Amalgamation brought fewer Ontario cities, but more city workers, report finds Page 2of5

From 1981to1996, Ontario's municipal governments grew by 23.9 per cent overall, adding 39,191 jobs. During the 15 years post-amalgamation, from 1996 to 2011, they grew by 38.8 per cent, adding 104,200 jobs. In total, about 270,000 people work in the municipal public sector in Ontario today, compared with 160,000 people in 1995.

That has translated into a sizeable spending spike: in 1981, Ontario spent just under $200 million on local government salaries and wages. By 2011, that number had increased to $750 million.

The rising number of government workers is not explained by population growth, Cobban says: The statistics show that in 1990, there were 15.8 municipal workers per thousand residents, while in 2010 there were 20.9 workers per thousand.

Cobban attributes this expansion to several other factors.

First, when municipalities merge, there will inevitably be jobs created in some fields. For instance, if suburban and urban areas merge, new firefighters will probably need to be hired, because the suburb may have previously had a part-time or volunteer department.

"Typically, as they get merged into a city, you end up with a full-time fire department and various other services," said Cobban. "There's upward pressure on services as people in one area of a city will understandably demand comparable services as people on other sides of the city."

Amalgamation also tends to hike wages for public-sector employees, since merging of collective bargaining units usually means compensation is harmonized upwards, Cobban said.

Growth can also be partly explained by the so-called "downloading" of provincial responsibilities onto municipalities that occurred under the Harris government, including social assistance, public housing and public health.

For instance, in 1991, just 3-4 per cent of Ontario's municipal government workers were employed in social services. By 2011, that number had more than doubled, to 7.8 per cent.

But numbers also increased in areas unaffected by downloading, including administrative roles such as clerks and treasurers, Cobban found.

"This is a significant finding because the ( Common Sense Revolution ) platform sought to reduce the number of administration roles ... by reducing the number of municipalities, but this did not occur,'' Cobban wrote in a preliminary report on the research, prepared for a recent presentation to Hamilton's city council.

The findings don't necessarily mean amalgamation as a whole was a failure, Cobban said. Though it's clear it didn't achieve its stated goal, it may have produced municipalities that are stronger and better run, he said.

"We're agnostic about the conclusion, about whether it's good or bad on its own," he said.

Andrew Sancton, Western University professor and author of Merger Mania: The Assault on Local Government , said he was not surprised by the findings.

Page 32 of 90 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/13/amalgamation_brought_ fewer_ ontario_cities... 1/14/2014 Amalgamation brought fewer Ontario cities, but more city workers, report finds Page 3of5

Sancton was hired by the pre-amalgamation city of Toronto to prepare a rebuttal to the province's report, prepared by KPMG, which said the changes suggested in the Common Sense Revolution would save money.

Based on academic research and real-world examples of other amalgamated cities, Sancton's report found that there wasn't a strong argument to be made for economies of scale - that is, that costs decrease when operations grow. Sancton found that there weren't many economies of scale in services that were not already amalgamated in Toronto and other cities.

It also foreshadowed Cobban's findings, saying wage and service levels were likely to increase.

"All the evidence was that there was little or no prospect of saving money," he said.

Chris Stockwell , a member of the Harris government during amalgamation, said he was opposed to it from the beginning. He claims there was little discussion about its implications before the idea was launched into the public realm during the 1995 election.

"Listen, I'm a big fan of the Harris government; we made some good decisions, but this one ... it just came out of the air," Stockwell said.

A politician who worked in local, regional and then provincial government, Stockwell felt government grew less connected to constituents the bigger it got, and that small governments are the most efficient.

Doug Holyday, former Toronto deputy mayor and now the MPP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, was Etobicoke's mayor during the push for amalgamation, and was in the minority among GTA mayors when he did not oppose it.

At the time, it seemed there was logic in fusing the numerous clerical offices, fire departments and more, and he was seeing similar moves in the corporate world.

"There were companies amalgamating throughout the world that were doing it, for good reason, and I thought those good reasons should apply here," he said. But he's not surprised to learn the size and cost of municipal governments in Ontario is larger than ever. "I watched it happen," he said.

A major problem was the lack of political will on the part of municipal leaders, who did not strongly enforce cuts in the number of jobs in their offices by getting rid of redundant positions, he said.

"Bureaucracy just by its nature grows, unless it's fought with," Holyday said.

Cobban's team also found that Ontario has more municipal government workers than any other province. Forty-three per cent of all municipal employees in Canada work in Ontario - a disproportionately large share, says Cobban, since Ontario has only 38 per cent of the country's population.

Page 33 of 90 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/13/amalgamation_brought_ fewer_ ontario _cities... 1114/2014 Amalgamation brought fewer Ontario cities, but more city workers, report finds Page 4of5

Researchers also found a shift in government employment in Canada in general. In 1981, the largest portion of government workers were federal, followed by provincial workers, then municipal. By 2000, that structure had become bottom heavy, with 43 per cent of public-sector employees in Canada working for municipal governments, followed by the federal then provincial governments.

Amalgamation, by the numbers

Number of municipal workers in Canada in 1981: 270,000

Number of municipal workers in Canada in 2011: 580,000

Percentage of Canadian municipal workers employed in Ontario: 43

Percentage of Canadian population living in Ontario: 38

Local government employees per 1,000 people in 1990, in Ontario: 15.8

Local government employees per 1,000 people in 2010, in Ontario: 20.9

Page 34 of 90 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/13/amalgamation_ brought_fewer_ ontario _cities... 1114/2014 Amalgamation brought fewer Ontario cities, but more city workers, report finds Page 5of5

Post-amalgamation views The Tory government in the late nineties pushed amalgamation on several communities in Ontario, including Toronto, arguing the move would cut the size of government. But a Western University study has found that while amalgamation lowered the number of municipalities in Ontario it did not cut the number of public sector employees.

Local general government employment in Canada, by province TOTAL NU MBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED 300,000

250,000 Ontario

200,000

150,000

100,000 __" ___...,. ______...... ------...... ~ 50,000

0 Other I I I I I I I' l I f I i I I I I J ' I ~ l 11 1 f '81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 'OS '07 '09 '11

Local general government employees per 1,000 persons AVERAGE CANADIAN PROVINCES ttttttttt' 9.2 tttttttttttttt; 14.1 ONTARIO ttttttttttttttt;i[s iiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiitt• ~s

SOURCE: Statistics Canada; Timothy Cobban, Western Unive rsity

--- --~------Note - January 13, 2014: This article was edited from a previous version.

Page 35 of 90 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/13/amalgamation_ brought_ fewer_ ontario _cities... 1/ 14/2014 9. b. ii.

From: Sarah Matheson To: Rodger Mordue Subject: FW: Township of South Stormont Council Resolution - Provincial Review of OMPF Date: February 26, 2019 4:17:06 PM Attachments: image001.jpg image002.png image003.gif

Sarah Matheson Deputy Clerk Township of Blandford-Blenheim Ph. 519-463-5347 [email protected]

Good afternoon,

In light of the review of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) announced by the Provincial government, the Council of the Township of South Stormont passed the following resolution at its meeting of February 20, 2019:

Resolution Number: 047/2019 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Smith Seconded by: Councillor Guindon

Whereas the Provincial government announced it was conducting a review of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF), which provides annual funding allotments to municipal governments to help offset operating and capital costs;

And whereas Municipalities were further advised that the overall spending envelope for the program would decrease having a significant impact on future budgets and how funds are raised by Municipalities as funding will be reduced by an unspecified amount;

Page 38 of 90 And whereas if allocations to municipalities are reduced, Councils will need to compensate with property tax increases or local service reductions;

And whereas, the 2018 South Stormont allocation was $821,700, which is equivalent to 14% of the Township’s municipal property tax revenue;

And whereas, a 14% increase in the municipal property tax rate would increase the municipal component of property taxes paid for an average household by $129 per year;

And whereas the Township of South Stormont prides itself on efficient and value for money practices every day;

Now therefore be it resolved that although an interim payment has been received, Council of the Township of South Stormont expresses grave concern with the potential reduction and/or loss of the OMPF allotment in future years;

And further, Council petitions the Provincial government to complete the OMPF review in an expeditious manner as future financial consideration ensures municipal sustainability;

And furthermore, that this resolution be circulated to the Premier, Ministers of Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, our local MPP and all Ontario municipalities for their endorsement and support. CARRIED

Your endorsement and support of this resolution would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ashley Sloan Clerk’s Assistant Marriage Officiant south-stormont

Come see for yourself! Township of South Stormont 2 Mille Roches Rd., P.O. Box 84 Long Sault, ON K0C 1P0 Email: [email protected] Office: 613-534-8889 ext. 204 Fax: 613-534-2280

Like Us On Facebook

This e-mail originates from the Township of South Stormont e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.

Page 39 of 90 10. a. i.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

Jim Borton To: Members of Council From: Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue Date: February 28, 2019 Council Subject: 2019 Gravel Tender Results March 6, 2019 Meeting Date: Report #: PW-19-08

Recommendation:

That Report PW-19-08 be received for information;

Background:

Six Contractors were invited to tender for the supply, crushing and placement of approximately 27,000 Tonnes of granular “A” and 5,000 Tonnes of granular “B” for our gravel resurfacing in the South end of the Township and Base Improvement on Township Rd 2 between Oxford Rd 3 and Blenheim Rd. this spring.

As was discussed in 2018 we have switched back to A gravel from the smaller M that was used in 2014-2017. The larger stone in the A gravel is more prevalent and will give the gravel roads more stability.

Analysis/Discussion:

One bid was received for the supply, crushing and placement for our spring gravelling program. Oxford Sand & Gravel Ltd. submitted the bid of $11.50/tonne for granular “A” for a total of $310,500.00 plus HST and $9.75/tonne for granular “B” for a total of $48,750.00 plus HST.

The breakdown for placement is; 22,000 tonnes for the gravel roads in the South end of the Township at an application rate of 210 tonnes per KM. Township Rd. 2 between Oxford Rd. 3 and Blenheim Rd. will receive the 5,000 tonnes of B and 5,000 tonnes of A. This is in preparation to ensure it has a good road base before hard surfacing in 2020.

Page 40 of 90 Report PW-19-08 - 2 - March 6, 2019

Financial Considerations:

Net Cost $365,572.80

Budget amounts are:

Resurfacing: $250,000.00 Projected cost: $257,452.80

Township Rd 2: $150,000.00 Projected cost: $108,120.00 (The balance of $41,880.00 will be used for culvert repairs/replacement and ditch work)

This is a $2.15/per tonne price increase from 2018. When I asked why the larger than expected increase, I was told that the gravel extraction fee has increased for 2019, the cost of transportation has seen an increase and the industry has seen an increase as a whole because of an increase in demand with the depletion of stock in the west region.

Staff will reduce the amount of gravel applied by 650 Tonnes to bring us within the budgeted amount for 2019.

Attachments:

None

Respectfully submitted by:

______Jim Borton Director of Public Works

Page 41 of 90 10. a. ii.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

Jim Borton To: Members of Council From: Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue Date: February 28, 2019 Council Subject: Monthly Report March 6, 2019 Meeting Date: Report #: PW-19-09

Recommendation:

That Report PW-19-09 be received as information.

Road Crew Activities

• See Attached

Capital

• Township Road 12, Bridge 20 – Contract awarded to CoCo Group. All documentation has been signed. Pre-construction meeting scheduled for March. • Tandem Dump truck has been approved. Metro Freightliner has placed the order. • The Tender for the pickup trucks closes on February 28 a report with results will be brought to council on March 6th. • Murray St. extension – This project is in the 2019 Capital budget. Staff and Council have had some discussion on the project. Staff would like direction on this project. • Princeton – Staff, County and K Smart had a meeting regarding layouts. Preliminary drawings have been started. County is on board with preliminary design of storm sewer location, road construction and sidewalk repairs/replacements. • Surface Treatment – County is doing a joint tender with area municipalities that are requiring work. Tender will be released in early March, results will follow.

Page 42 of 90 Report PW-19-09 - 2 - March 6, 2019

County Shared Service/Road Association/Training

• Shared Services meeting – We met on Feb. 14th in Tillsonburg. The group discussed the condition of the gravel roads and brain stormed on what was working and what wasn’t. Training for the spring was also discussed. • Road Association – The OGRA conference was on February 24-27. There were some good sessions on rural roads, Joint and Several Liability reform, Proposed Excess soil management regulations, winter maintenance and weather. I also attended the AORS board of directors meeting and the AORS AGM that were held during the conference. • Training – Staff has done some training with the new GPS system. The next staff training will be in the spring in preparation for the construction season and at the OGRA Roads school in May.

Other

• Attended management meeting. • Conducted summer student interviews. • Met with Union Gas regarding working around pipelines and the importance of locates. • Met with supplier reps regarding current and new products.

Attachments: • Road Supervisors Report

Respectfully submitted by:

______

Jim Borton Director of Public Works

Page 43 of 90 Monthly Activities for February 2019

Task Completed -winter snow event activities (plowing and sanding and salting and ice blading)

-trackless plowing and snow blowing off all sidewalks in villages and salting mains and approaches to meet MMS.

-ice blading on all gravel roads

-pick up road side garbage through out township

-winter patrol

-maintain regulatory signs

-daily, weekly and monthly road inspections

-preventative maintenance on Township equipment

-pick up trees from wind storm that fell onto roads

-put salt away in dome

-ordered more sand to get through the last few winter months

-plow and salt parking lots in Drumbo, Plattsville and Princeton

General Information -Had numerous times throughout the month with rain having issues on gravel roads forming ice on them. Had a very strong wind storm with snow where visibility was zero at times and brought down trees onto roads. Had numerous storms with snow where crews plowed and sanded & salted township. Crews worked hard again this month ice blading and plowing all township roads and sanding & salting to make roads safe and to meet MMS standards. Very strong winds this month which created numerous drifts throughout township.

Projects Being Worked On -training Shawn on Township plow routes

-inspect all winter maintenance equipment after each use for damage

-safety meetings for employees

Future Projects

-on going preparation still for winter months (training, equipment checks)

Page 44 of 90 10. a. iii.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

Jim Borton Director of Public Works To: Members of Council From: Rick Richardson Director of Protective Services Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue Date February 28, 2019 ½, ¾, 1-ton Pickup Trucks Council Subject: March 6, 2019 Tender Results Meeting Date: Report #: PW-19-10

Recommendation:

That Report PW-19-10 be received as information;

Background:

Five area dealers were invited to tender for the ½, ¾ & 1-ton pickup trucks. Two bids were returned for the ½ ton pickup truck and only 1 for the ¾ & 1-ton pickup trucks.

The ½ ton truck will replace the 2016 Director of Public Works vehicle. The ¾ ton pickup truck will replace the Chiefs 2011 vehicle and the new 1-Ton pickup truck will be added to the Drumbo Fire fleet. The 2016 truck will be moved to Community Services while the 2011 truck will be moved to the Plattsville Fire fleet. The 2008 truck in Community Services fleet will be taken out of service.

Analysis/Discussion:

A summary of the bids received is attached. Woodstock Ford is the low bid and meets the specification.

Page 45 of 90

I reached out to dealers that did not submit a bid but have in the past. Andersons does not have a good municipal discount this year and has a long lead time on getting the ¾ & 1-Ton trucks so they felt they would not have a chance to compete. Dodge specifications were higher than what we had asked and felt that the price they would submit for the higher specifications would not be competitive.

Financial Considerations:

Budget Tender net cost

½ Ton Pickup $35,000.00 $40,518.80

The ½ ton pickup truck is over budget. We did come under budget on the 2019 Tandem truck. Both vehicles are funded from the Public Works equipment reserve. With the ½ ton and Tandem truck purchase there will still be a surplus of approximately $25,000.00 when compared to what was budgeted.

Budget Tender net cost

¾ Pickup truck $65,000 $47,224.74

1-Ton Pickup Truck $150,000.00 $44,315.07

Fire will be adding some specialty equipment and lighting packages to these vehicles. The price received is under what was budgeted for the vehicles.

Attachments:

Summary of bids

Respectfully submitted by:

Jim Borton Director of Public Works

Rick Richardson Director of Protective Services

Page 46 of 90 ½, ¾ & 1-TON 4X4 PICKUP TRUCKS RESULTS

February 28, 2019

Bidder Make & Meets Delivery TOTAL Price NET Cost Model Specs. Woodstock Ford F150 Yes May 15 $39818.00 $40518.80 Ford, Ford F250 Yes June 15 $46407.96 $47224.74 Woodstock Ford F350 Yes June 15 $43548.61 $44315.07 Glassford 1500 No Tender Chrysler 2500 returned 3500 Gord GMC 1500 No Tender Anderson, 2500 returned Woodstock 3500 Blue Mountain 1500 No Tender Chrysler 2500 returned 3500 Woodstock 1500 No Tender Chrysler 2500 returned 3500 Searles Motor Chev 1500 Yes 10-12 weeks $40261.95 $40970.56 Products 2500 3500

- License fee extra

Page 47 of 90 10. b. i. TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

Jim Harmer Drainage To: Members of Council From: Superintendent Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue Date: February 25, 2019 Council Subject: Monthly Report March 6, 2019 Meeting Date: Report #: DS-19-05

Recommendation:

That Report DS-19-05 be received as information

Background:

Monthly activities of the Drainage Department February 25, 2018

Analysis/Discussion

1. Working on drain maintenance and various site meeting to review work required with ratepayers.

2. Working on Allocation request for Drainage Superintendent and submitted to OMAFRA

3. Working with lawyer on compliance letters.

4. 13 locates for ON 1 Call in January 2019 including 6 emergency locates.

5. Update of drainage mapping for ON 1 Call / OMAFRA / Township Web site.

6. Commenting on various planning application.

7. Attended staff meeting.

8. Asset management report for existing municipal drains in Urban areas as per Ontario Regulation 588/17 and commented on proposed Township Asset Management Strategy

9. Working with county on drainage issue at various location

10. Attended Union Gas Training re: working safely around gas lines.

Page 48 of 90 Report DS-19-05 February 25, 2019

11. Information meeting with Developer re: existing drain and what he requires to move forward with development.

12. Buck Wilson Drain appointment of Engineer for report on culvert at Cowan property. Ray Roscovich P.eng. has assigned to lead the project for K.Smart and Assoc.

13. Meeting with engineer on Mitchell Drain re: next steps. Also reviewed drainage at Oxford Rd. 8 and Trussler Rd. with County

Financial Considerations:

None

Attachments:

None

Respectfully submitted by:

______Jim Harmer Drainage Superintendent

Page 49 of 90 10. c. i.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

John Scherer, CBO/ To: Members of Council From: Manager of Building Services Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue, CAO/Clerk Date: February 21, 2019 Council Subject: Proposed Fence Bylaw March 6, 2019 Meeting Date: Report #: CBO-19-06

Recommendation:

That council review the model fence bylaw, amending if desired and to decide on the adoption of the fence bylaw and repealing of Bylaw 411-81.

Background:

During the December 5, 2018 meeting of Council and as a result of a delegation, Council directed staff to look into amendments to the existing fence bylaw. Staff collected the bylaws of various municipalities in the area and have produced a basic Fence Bylaw.

Discussion:

The Township currently has a fence bylaw specifically for Pools and an older Fence Bylaw (from 1981). The current fence bylaw on file does not speak to the maximum height of a fence and requires, generally, to be a minimum of 4’ and be made of new material.

There is no requirement to impose fencing restrictions on private property owners. The typical complaints the Township receives revolve around the fences location and the financial burdens associated with fence building. While the Township receives these complaints, this is little to nothing the Township can do with these issues, staff do not locate property lines and the cost to build a fence is usually shared if both parties are willing.

The proposed bylaw is a very basic fencing bylaw that, in the opinion staff, covers the main areas of concern such as height, material and prohibited location. It should be noted

Page 50 of 90 CBO-19-03 Proposed Fence Bylaw – March 6, 2019 that if there is a conflict between a fence bylaw and other bylaws such as a zoning bylaw, the bylaws that are required by an ‘act’ will supersede.

In addition to the above, Council should be aware that staff do not currently issue permits for fences (pools excluded) and do not inspect fences (pools excluded). Although this bylaw adoption is not seen as overly onerous on staff time, Council should be aware that the enforcement of a fence bylaw will impact staff time. Since bylaw is split among different departments, all bylaw enforcement is triaged during certain times of the year.

Respectfully submitted by:

______John Scherer Manager Building Services/CBO

Page 51 of 90 10. c. ii.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

John Scherer, CBO/ To: Members of Council From: Manager of Building Services Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue, CAO/Clerk Date: February 28, 2019 Council Subject: Building Permit Fees March 6, 2019 Meeting Date: Report #: CBO-19-07

Recommendation:

That council receive the report as information.

Background:

Council was presented with a delegation regarding current building permit fees during the January 16, 2019 meeting of Council.

The Ontario Building Code Act section 7.(2) states that the total amount of fees authorized to be collected under the act must not exceed the anticipated reasonable costs of the principal authority to administer and enforce the act.

Information: Although Section 7.(2) of the Ontario Building Code Act allows for a full cost recovery model for building departments, the Act does not direct municipalities on how to achieve this.

There are three main concepts staff can use to justify cost recovery. Building department operations as a whole, sector specific and project specific. Some municipalities still charge fees based on construction value (and example is 1% of construction value on all permits received).

Project Specific

The next 3 figures show what is the actual cost of a permit vs what the cost recovery (true cost to the township) and ensure the Township recovers all costs for all projects. These are typical applications we see.

Page 52 of 90 CBO-19-06 Monthly Report to Council – March 6, 2019

Typical 1800 Sq Ft House (800 sq ft bsmt) - Current Fee $3500.00

Administration Costs/Time Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Total Approx Duty Time (Hrs) OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Cost Inspection Booking 1 $50.00 $16.50 $66.50 Final Reports, Letters, Deposits, Mailings 0.5 $25.00 $8.25 $33.25 Zone Review, Complete Application Review 0.75 $37.50 $12.38 $49.88 Permit Issuance & Packing, Copy 0.5 $25.00 $8.25 $33.25 General correspondence 0.75 $37.50 $12.38 $49.88 Reserve Building (10%) $23.28 TOTAL 3.5 $175.00 $57.75 $256.03 Plans Exam Costs/Time Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Total Approx Duty Time (Hrs) OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Cost Plans Review (Str/Truss/HVAC/Energy) 5 $300.00 $99.00 $399.00 General Correspondence 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Reserve Building (10%) $47.88 TOTAL 6 $360.00 $118.80 $1,005.48 Inspection Time/Costs (Travel + Site Time + Reports) Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Total Approx Duty Time (Hrs) OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Cost Footing 1.25 $75.00 $24.75 $99.75 Foundation 1.25 $75.00 $24.75 $99.75 Frame 1.5 $90.00 $29.70 $119.70 Basement Insulation 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Insulation 1.25 $75.00 $24.75 $99.75 Garage Insulation 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Occupancy 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Final 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Site Service 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 UGRI 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 AGRI 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Final Plumbing 0.5 $30.00 $9.90 $39.90 HVACRI 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 HVAC Final 0.5 $30.00 $9.90 $39.90 Reinspection/Failed Inspection/Fire Sep/Misc 1.5 $90.00 $29.70 $119.70 General Correspondence 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Reserve Building (10%) $133.67 TOTAL 16.75 $1,005.00 $331.65 $1,470.32 TOTAL COST TO DEPARTMENT $2,731.82

Page 53 of 90 CBO-19-06 Monthly Report to Council – March 6, 2019

Deck - Typical 250 sq ft, No Roof - Current Fee $200.00

Administration Costs/Time Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Total Approx Duty Time (Hrs) OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Cost Inspection Booking 0.3 $15.00 $4.95 $19.95 Final Reports, Letters, Mailings 0.3 $15.00 $4.95 $19.95 Zone Review, Complete Application Review 0.15 $7.50 $2.48 $9.98 Permit Issuance & Packing, Copy 0.5 $25.00 $8.25 $33.25 General correspondence 0.5 $25.00 $8.25 $33.25 Reserve Building (10%) $11.64 TOTAL 1.75 $87.50 $28.88 $128.01 Plans Exam Costs/Time Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Total Approx Duty Time (Hrs) OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Cost Plans Review 0.5 $30.00 $9.90 $39.90 General Correspondence 0.25 $15.00 $4.95 $19.95 Reserve Building (10%) $5.99 TOTAL 0.75 $45.00 $14.85 $125.69 Inspection Time/Costs (Travel + Site Time + Reports) Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Total Approx Duty Time (Hrs) OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Cost Footing 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Frame 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Final 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 General Correspondence 0.5 $30.00 $9.90 $39.90 Reserve Building (10%) $27.93 TOTAL 3.5 $210.00 $69.30 $307.23 TOTAL COST TO DEPARTMENT $560.93

Typical Farm Building @ 15000 Sq Ft - Proposed Cost $3250.00

Administration Costs/Time Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Duty Time (Hrs) Total Approx Cost OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Inspection Booking 1 $50.00 $16.50 $66.50 Final Reports, Letters, Deposits, Mailings 0.5 $25.00 $8.25 $33.25 Zone Review, Complete Application Review 1.5 $75.00 $24.75 $99.75 Permit Issuance & Packing, Copy 0.5 $25.00 $8.25 $33.25 General correspondence (pre app Meetings) 1.5 $75.00 $24.75 $99.75 Reserve Building (10%) $33.25 TOTAL 5 $250.00 $82.50 $365.75 Plans Exam Costs/Time Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Duty Time (Hrs) Total Approx Cost OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Plans Review (Str/Truss/NMS/Soils) 5 $300.00 $99.00 $399.00 General Correspondence 1.5 $90.00 $29.70 $119.70 Reserve Building (10%) $51.87 TOTAL 6.5 $390.00 $128.70 $1,089.27 Inspection Time/Costs (Travel + Site Time + Reports) Direct Cost (Wage + Indirect Cost (25% of Duty Time (Hrs) Total Approx Cost OH) ~$40-60 Direct Costs) Footing/Soils/Site Meet (mult visits) 2 $120.00 $39.60 $159.60 Foundation (mult Visits 2 $120.00 $39.60 $159.60 Rebar/Steel (Mult Visits) 2 $120.00 $39.60 $159.60 Fire Stopping/Sep 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Insulation 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Framing 2 $120.00 $39.60 $159.60 Occupancy 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Final 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 Liner Inspection 1 $60.00 $19.80 $79.80 UGRI 0.75 $45.00 $14.85 $59.85 AGRI 0.75 $45.00 $14.85 $59.85 Final Plumbing 0.5 $30.00 $9.90 $39.90 General Correspondence (inc engineers) 3 $180.00 $59.40 $239.40 Reserve Building (10%) $143.64 TOTAL 18 $1,080.00 $356.40 $1,580.04 TOTAL COST TO DEPARTMENT $3,035.06 Page 54 of 90 CBO-19-06 Monthly Report to Council – March 6, 2019

Permits issued for new houses would typically yield a profit for the township. In many municipalities this profit is applied against other projects such as decks and sheds because, as seen above, they yield a loss. The typical farm building, depending on its size, usually just breaks even and ICI building permit fees in most cases produce a profit. With the above figures, to cost recover on a permit by permit basis, fees for Agricultural buildings would remain the same, the fees for decks should triple and the fees for residential could be decreased by roughly 25%. This would leave a significant shortfall in the overall cost recovery of running the department.

Sector Specific

With the above chart we can see the following;

- Agricultural fees are typically in line with the number of permits we receive however they do account for a disproportionately higher construction value.

- ICI fees are a larger percentage of revenue based on both construction value and permits issued.

- Residential is a fairly even with the volume of permits slightly above proportional construction value and share of fees.

Based on the above if cost recovery were to be ‘sector specific’, I would suggest residential fees would stay the same, ICI fees would slightly decrease and agricultural fees would modestly increase.

The reduction of ICI and residential fees could be offset by the increase in Agricultural permit fees in order attempt revenue neutrality.

Page 55 of 90 CBO-19-06 Monthly Report to Council – March 6, 2019

Department as a whole

Historical Revenue as % Of Expenditure 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 41.1% 62.2% 82.1% 20.0% 43.7% 37.1% 55.5% 71.0% 149.0% 95.2% 78.0% % Recovered 0.0%

Year

The concept of running the building department cost recovery as a whole looks at the overall amount of permit fees and attempts to try to apply both the cost to enforce a certain type of project while recovering an appropriate portion of expenses.

If we were to modify (not charge for basements) fees to deal with the charging full permit fees for basements, the financial impact would, in general, reduce the fees per house approx. 29%. The approximate residential fee reduction, for new dwellings alone, would be about $25,000.00 based on 25 new units with 800 sq ft basements.

In 2018, this alone would have reduced the cost recovery from 78% to 67%. This only includes the fees collected from new dwellings and does not include house additions. The deficit amount would need to come from taxation.

I would suggest that fees remain unchanged for 2019. The lost revenue the reduction in residential square footage fees would generate the need to be taken on by increasing either taxes or fees. If staff is directed to look at a fee increase to offset the residential fee loss, I would be inclined to look at raising the fees for agricultural buildings as increasing ICI fees would not provide consistent revenue.

Respectfully submitted by:

______John Scherer Manager Building Services/CBO

Page 56 of 90 10. d. i.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

To: Members of Council From: Trevor Baer

Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue, CAO/Clerk Date: Jan 30 2019

Subject: Monthly Report – Feb Council Meeting Date: Feb 6 2019 Report #: CS-19-02

Recommendation: That Report CS-19-02 be received as information

Background: The following will provide Council with an update regarding the activities of the Community Services Department, for the month of January.

Analysis/Discussion Arena

Have posted Operator 1 position on ORFA, Working in Oxford, Township website. This Job posting closes Mar 1 2019. Plan is to do interviews Mar 6 2019 and have the Operator 1 Position filled by Mar 25 2018. Our CO-OP student has started with us from Huron Park Secondary School. His term will be from Feb 25 till June 17 2019. This off season at the Arena we have some Lacrosse games booked, Ball hockey, and Baseball training in the spring.

Seniors Centre Golden Age Active Centre

Our adult active center has seen about 27 people come and take part in them. For the month of February we held 2 in Princeton, 1 in Plattsville and 1 in Bright.

Mother Nature didn’t really cooperate the 4 times we had them scheduled. The feedback we have gotten from the ones that have shown up is let’s give it another month to get more input from others. This way we can get more ideas from others that want to come. Everyone has been really positive and have really enjoyed them so far.

Page 57 of 90 Report CS-19-02 - 2 – Feb 27

Parks

I am looking into a few different grants for new Trees in our parks. Last year there were 22 Trees planted in the parks. We are on the list to receive information if they provide this program again this year.

Have had a meeting with Drumbo Lions the host of this year’s Township Family Fun day. This year it will be in Drumbo park June 15. Also, this will be the grand opening of the Splash Pad. More info to come about this event.

Respectfully submitted by:

______

Trevor Baer

Page 58 of 90 10. e. i.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

Denise Krug To: Members of Council From: Director of Finance Reviewed By: Rodger Mordue Date: February 28, 2019 Council Subject: Ontario Regulation 284-09 March 6, 2019 Meeting Date: Report #: TR-19-04

Recommendation:

That Report TR-19-04 be received as information;

And further that report TR-19-04, with respect to Ontario Regulation 284/09 for the budget year 2019, be adopted.

Background:

The Province of Ontario passed Ontario Regulation 284/09 (O. Reg 284/09) that requires municipalities to report on whether they are budgeting for amortization expense, post- employment benefit expense and solid waste landfill closure and post-closure expenses. If municipalities do not budget for these expenses, Council must acknowledge the impact and potential consequences.

Analysis/Discussion:

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim in developing its budget for the year 2019 has included the following: 1. Transfers to reserves for tangible capital asset renewal amounts that are greater than the historical amortization of its current assets. 2. The budget contained the current year’s post-employment benefit expense for the Township’s retired employees that are eligible for this benefit. 3. The Township of Blandford-Blenheim does not have a landfill site and therefore is not subject to solid waste landfill closure and post-closure expenses.

The result of the above inclusions in the budget decreases the operating surplus as the amounts transferred to reserve for capital purposes exceed the current amortization and post- employment benefit expense required under O.Reg. 284/09.

. Page 59 of 90 Report TR-19-04 - 2 - February 28, 2019

Financial Considerations:

The exclusion of amortization from the 2019 budget and including a higher transfer to reserves and capital funds to replace the Township of Blandford-Blenheim’s tangible capital assets will result in Township assets being replaced in a timely manner without large fluctuations on the Township’s tax rate

Attachments:

None

Respectfully submitted by:

Denise Krug Director of Finance/Treasurer

Page 60 of 90 10. f. i.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Sarah Matheson, Deputy To: Members of Council From: Clerk Reviewed Rodger Mordue, CAO/Clerk Date: February 28, 2019 By: Council Protection of Tree Canopy & Subject: Meeting March 6, 2019 Natural Vegetation Policy Date: Report #: DC-19-05

Recommendation:

That Report DC-19-05 be received as information; and,

That Council approve the Protection of Tree Canopy & Natural Vegetation Policy.

Background:

In January 2017 Staff report DC-18-01 informed that the adoption of Bill 68 required the Township to draft and adopt new policies, one being a policy to protect and enhance the tree canopy and natural vegetation within the municipality.

The government is required by legislation to review the Municipal Act every five (5) years. Bill 68 received Royal Assent on May 30, 2017 and included Subsection 270 (1) requiring the municipality to adopt and maintain a policy on the protection and enhancement of our tree canopy and natural vegetation. This amendment has been proclaimed in force on March 1, 2019.

Analysis/Discussion:

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim currently has specific tools in place to protect and enhance the tree canopy and natural vegetation in the municipality, including: • Oxford County Woodlands Conservation By-law 6035-2018; • By-law 1915-2015 - Regulate Placing or Dumping of Fill or Altering Land Grade; or, • Any agreement made under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.

In accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended by Bill 68, a draft policy has been prepared to supplement the above-noted tools.

The attached draft policy does not include specific requirements regarding harvesting or the replacement of trees or vegetation on privately owned lands within Blandford-Blenheim. A land-

Page 61 of 90

owner is subject to the requirements of the Woodlands Conservation By-law if their treed area meetings the following criteria:

““Woodlands” means land, at least one hectare (2.47 acres) in area, including any unforested corridors less than 20 m (65.6 ft) in width, with at least: (i) 1000 trees of any size, per hectare; or (ii) 750 trees measuring over five (5) cm (2 in) in diameter at DBH, per hectare; or (iii) 500 trees measuring over twelve (12) cm (5 in) in diameter at DBH, per hectare; or (iv) 250 trees measuring over twenty (20) cm (8 in) in diameter at DBH, per hectare. Woodlands do not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard, a registered tree nursery or a tree plantation planted and maintained for the purpose of producing Christmas trees. The boundary of woodlands shall be defined by the ecological limit of the woodlands and not by property boundaries.”

With respect to municipal property, the Township currently has no specific requirements regarding tree planting, replacement, or preservation. The Township adheres to municipal best practice in replacing trees in public spaces that must be removed for any reason.

Our Community Services Department built a tree replacement contingency into the Princeton Park Expansion in order that we may continually beautify the municipality’s tree canopy. In 2016 the Township planted thousands of saplings received from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the purpose of creating a tree nursery to supplement replacement and enhancement of the tree canopy in all municipal public spaces.

Furthermore, the recent Princeton Park Expansion is an example of the municipality’s commitment to enhancing natural vegetation and the tree canopy. During that time, around 50 mature trees were also planted as well as the department worked with conservationists to provide natural areas including water and vegetation. Finally, last summer the department planted over 20 semi-mature trees divided between the Bright, Drumbo, Plattsville and Princeton Parks.

The provisions contained within the attached draft policy appear that they will meet the requirements of Bill 68.

Financial Implications:

None.

Attachments:

Protection of Tree Canopy & Natural Vegetation Policy

Respectfully submitted by:

Sarah Matheson Deputy Clerk

Page 62 of 90 Policies and Procedures The Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim

Department: Clerk’s Effective: Subject: Protection of Tree Canopy & Policy Natural Vegetation Policy Number: Approved by: Rodger Mordue Resolution Number: Date of Review Change: Reference Section: Review: Number:

Policy Statement

The Township and County of Oxford are committed to protecting and, where possible, improving the natural environment (including woodlands and other natural vegetation) and have implemented a range of policies, by-laws, programs and other initiatives to protect and enhance tree canopy and natural vegetation in the municipality. The Township deems the above noted Municipal Act requirement to have been addressed through the identification of the related Official Plan policies and other municipal initiatives in this policy. The summary of the initiatives provided in this policy is intended for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily comprise an exhaustive list. To determine the specific scope and direction of the initiatives outlined in this policy the originating documents should be consulted.

Further, the Township and the County are committed to regular monitoring and consideration of new and/or improved municipal initiatives to assist in the protection and enhancement of the tree canopy, woodlands and other natural vegetation, where deemed appropriate.

Purpose

Section 270 (1) (7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 requires a municipality to adopt a plan which describes how to protect and enhance the tree canopy and natural vegetation. The purpose is to offer a summary understanding of local vegetation, planting considerations and promote best practices.

Scope

This policy applies to all properties and development, on public and private lands, in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. It is a resource which can be referred to and utilized

as guiding principles for residential, commercialPage 63 of 90 and public purposes.

Definitions

Chief Administrative Officer means the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) or designate duly appointed by the Township as prescribed in Section 229 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended. Council means the Council of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. County means the Corporation of the County of Oxford. Public Tree means any tree which has fifty (50) percent or more of its main stem situated on a public park, highway or any lands owned by the Township of Blandford- Blenheim. Township means the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. Woodlands means land, at least one hectare (2.47 acres) in area, including any unforested corridors less than 20m (65.6 ft) in width, with at least; I) 1000 trees of any size, per hectare; or II) 750 trees measuring over five (5) cm in diameter at DBH, per hectare; or III)500 trees measuring over twelve (12) cm in diameter at DBH, per hectare; or IV) 250 trees measuring over twenty (20) cm in diameter at DBH, per hectare. Woodlands do not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard, a registered tree nursery or a tree plantation planted and maintained for the purpose of producing Christmas trees.

Policy

What is an Urban Tree Canopy? According to the Center for Watershed Protection, an urban tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches and stems that cover the ground when viewed from above. Essentially, it is the same as a forest canopy but in an urban context.

Benefits There are several benefits to an urban tree canopy, including:

• A mature urban tree canopy creates shade, which lowers energy consumption for a community. This is accomplished via the direct link of shading households, and a community wide impact of reducing the urban heat island effect; • Reduces air pollution; • Increases property value; • Provide shelter for wildlife; • Improves the usability of public parks; • Improves the aesthetics of properties and street lines; • Assists in stormwater management; and • Prevents erosion, especially along slopes.

The following from Water the Journal of Environmental Quality illustrates the above:

Page 64 of 90

Native Plantings When planting any vegetation, local species/native vegetation should be utilized. Some examples of are included in Schedule “A”.

Where to Plant Consideration should be given to where trees and vegetation are planted. Prior to planting a tree, property lines, utilities (power lines, buried water/sewer laterals or other 'hard' infrastructure) should be considered. The location of a tree should take into context its future size as it relates to a building’s foundation and roof.

Page 65 of 90 Shoreline Vegetation Vegetated areas adjacent to watercourses, lakes, rivers and wetlands are known as shoreline buffers. Shoreline buffers protect water from pollutants by filtering contaminants, providing habitat for native species and preventing shoreline erosion. Shoreline buffers should be: • At least 15-30 metres upland from the shore as recommended by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; • Composed of natural vegetation with a broad corridor of undisturbed vegetation; • Not be grassed; • Avoid shoreline hardening.

Maintenance and Preservation Trees and vegetation require special care and treatment. If it appears the vegetation is struggling, it is recommended you speak to a professional.

Commercial / Higher Density Uses In addition to this policy applying to single detached homes and smaller residential uses, it can also provide guidance to larger commercial/multiple residential developments.

In addition to the benefits listed previously, increased vegetative buffers help beautify commercial properties and match the natural beauty of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. Other benefits that can be considered: Green parking lots to reduce stormwater flows and the costs of stormwater maintenance. Vegetated aisles and parking islands to increase shaded areas and reduce micro climates. Green roofs to reduce total stormwater runoff and enhance the urban canopy. Illustrations from the City of Toronto Design Guidelines for “Greening” Surface Parking lots are included below.

Page 4 of 9

Page 66 of 90

Initiatives Undertaken to Date

Official Plan Policies

The County of Oxford Official Plan (“the Plan”) establishes a number of planning principles and policies for the purposes of protecting, restoring and, where possible, enhancing tree cover and natural vegetation throughout the County, including the Township. These policies apply to all land use decisions in the County, including the Township. The Plan’s Environmental planning principles indicate that the intent is to ensure that development and land use do not negatively impact and, wherever possible, will enhance the natural environment (which includes trees and other natural vegetation) and to promote, protect and improve the state of the natural environment (including connectivity, ecological function and biodiversity) and the health and well-being of residents through appropriate land use planning and other measures.

The policies in the Plan further expand on the above noted principles by establishing a comprehensive, integrated approach to environmental management to protect the quality of the natural environment through the land use planning process. Following is an overview of some of the key policy directions in that regard:

• Identification of the natural heritage system and component natural heritage features and areas in the Plan (including significant woodlands, wetlands, wildlife habitat and valley lands etc.); • Strive to achieve net environmental gain through the protection and conservation of existing natural features, the maintenance of ecological functions and creation of new environmental features, wherever possible; • Minimize or prevent negative impacts on environmental features by prohibiting incompatible development and requiring that development or site alteration proposed Page 5 of 9

Page 67 of 90 within or adjacent to natural heritage features and areas undertake an Environmental Impact Study to ensure this requirement can be addressed and that, where possible, a net environmental gain is achieved; • Continue to develop the natural heritage system by linking natural features and areas and open spaces; • Requiring that a Woodlands Conservation By-Law be maintained; • Various site and urban design policy criteria pertaining to the preservation and enhancement and trees and other natural vegetation as part of development and infrastructure projects; • Encouraging naturalization of the re-establishment of native indigenous vegetation, self- sustaining ecological processes and biodiversity throughout the natural heritage system; and • Allowing Area Municipalities to identify and protect additional environmental features of local significance through the development review process, by employing flexible site design and planning approaches or accepting such features as a portion of the parkland dedication requirements under the Planning Act.

Further, the Plan establishes a range of other conservation measures that may be used by the County and Area Municipalities to increase forest cover and encourage the retention of woodlands and trees in both settlements and rural areas. These measures include:

• requiring tree savings plans as a condition of development approval to specifically identify the trees that are to be planted, maintained, removed and/or relocated over the course of development or site alteration; • requiring site plan control to address the layout and siting of buildings to maximize tree- saving; • requiring new tree planting on boulevards and on lands to be dedicated as parkland; including the planting of trees on abutting properties in plans for construction or widening of roads, where such planting will not interfere with road safety and maintenance and the land owner’s permission is given; and/or • restricting site alteration prior to final plan registration, to ensure tree saving measures are compiled with.

Oxford Natural Heritage System Study (ONHSS)

The Oxford Natural Heritage System Study (ONHSS) identifies the County’s Natural Heritage System and the ‘ecologically important’ natural features and areas that comprise the system, as required by Provincial Policy (PPS). The natural features and areas identified in the study include woodlands, wetlands, valley lands, meadows, thickets and connected vegetation features. The ONHSS provides an understanding of the type, location and ecological importance of the natural features and areas in the “name of AM’ and broader County as well as potential opportunities for improving the natural heritage system and ecological functions through increased connectivity (natural corridors) and other enhancements. The ONHSS is reviewed/updated on a regular basis (approximately every 5 years) to ensure it is reflective of current information and environmental science and provides the scientific basis necessary to inform the natural heritage policies in the Official Plan, and other natural heritage initiatives being undertaken or considered by the County and the (name of AM). The information contained in the ONHSS also provides a base point for monitoring future changes in natural cover, including woodlands and other natural vegetative features, which can assist Page 6 of 9

Page 68 of 90 in informing, and assessing the overall effectiveness, of initiatives to maintain and/or enhance tree canopy coverage and/or natural vegetation cover in the municipality. Finally, the study also provides various recommendations with respect to additional measures and initiatives that municipalities could consider to improve the natural heritage systems and component features and areas.

Woodlands Conservation By-law

The County of Oxford Woodland Conservation By-Law is an important tool for protecting and enhancing woodlands in the Township. The WCB establishes various definitions and regulations for the purpose of protecting woodlands and trees, including tree species to be protected; requirements and process for obtaining permits to harvest trees; and permitted exemptions.

The general intent and purpose of the WCB is to:

• sustain the community’s environmental and natural heritage resources; • conserve and improve woodlands through good forestry practices; • protect, promote and enhance the value of woodlands for social, economic and environmental value; • enhance biodiversity and forest resilience to assist the community in adapting to climate change and other environmental threats to forest health.

The WCB protects woodlands and may require that private landowners obtain a ‘Notice of Intent’ when they intend to harvest or destroy trees in woodlands specified in the By-law.

Future Oxford Community Sustainability Plan

The Future Oxford Community Sustainability Plan (CSP) is a community developed document aimed at improving quality of life for Oxford’s current and future generations and balancing economic, community and environmental interests, including the protection of trees, woodlands and other natural heritage features. The CSP contains a number of local Environmental Goals and Actions pertaining to trees and other natural vegetation, including: • To protect and restore the ecosystem, through actions such as: creating a green infrastructure plan with a tree planting strategy; creating a biodiversity plan to preserve and enhance biodiversity, with a focus on native species; and establishing a Natural Heritage System within the Official Plan to increase and connect green space to support biodiversity and to protect significant natural features; and, • To establish targets for the planting of native tree species, increasing tree cover and rehabilitation of native species, grasslands, wetlands and natural features.

Stewardship and Incentive Programs

The County and the Township also support a number of stewardship and incentive programs aimed at preserving, restoring and enhancing woodlands and other natural vegetation in the municipality. Some examples include the Clean Water Program, which provides financial incentives for landowners seeking to conserve and enhance terrestrial natural heritage resources (e.g. woodlands/wetland enhancement) and the Oxford County Stewardship Award,

Page 7 of 9

Page 69 of 90 which recognizes private landowners who have made outstanding contributions to protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

Policy Management

The Township Chief Administrative Officer shall be responsible for monitoring the application of this policy. Members of Council and staff are responsible for adhering to the parameters of this policy.

Limitation

This policy does not take priority over any By-laws, Resolutions or Agreements of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council, which includes but is not limited to:

• Oxford County Woodlands Conservation By-law 6035-2018; • By-law 1915-2015 - Regulate Placing or Dumping of Fill or Altering Land Grade; or, • Any agreement made under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.

Review

This policy shall be reviewed as required due to legislative changes.

Page 8 of 9

Page 70 of 90 Schedule A

Trees Shrubs Partial Shade Full Sun Shoreline Pin Oak Alternate- Bearberry Black-eyed Blue Flag Iris Northern Pin Oak leaved/Silky/Gray/Round- Bloodroot Susan Big Blue Vervain White Oak leaved Dogwood Bunchberry Bluestem Boneset Black Cherry American Witch-hazel False Solomons Grass Cardinal Eastern Cottonwood Staghorn Sumac Seal Jack-in- Canada Flower Big-toothed Aspen Bebb’s/Pussy/Missouri/Shining- the-pulpit Wild Goldenrod Swamp Balsam Poplar leaved/Black Willow Columbine Common Milkweed Bitternut/Pignut/Shagbark Black Chokeberry Foamflower Milkweed Joe Pye Hickory Nannyberry Ostrich Fern Flat-topped Weed White Common Hackberry Northern Bush Aster New Turtlehead American Hazelnut England Yellow Pond Honeysuckle Sassafras Aster Lily Balsam Fir Pagoda Dogwood Pearly Fragrant Red Maple Red Osier Everlasting Water Lily Tamarack Dogwood Smooth Water Smartweed Black Wild Rose Swamp Rose Common Spruce Waterweed Eastern Hemlock Sweet Gale Winterberry Holly Common Elderberry Highbush Coontail Chokecherry Cranberry Lowbush Blueberry Common Pin Cherry Meadowsweet Serviceberry Mare’s Tail Serviceberry Steeplebush Pickerelweed Striped Blue Vervain Maple Northern Blueflag Iris Ironwood River Eastern White Cedar Bulrush Bur Oak Common Red Oak Cattail Silver Hardstem Maple Bulrush Trembling Aspen White Birch Red Spruce Eastern White Pine Butternut Sugar Maple

Derived from the List of Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (Ecoregion 7E) – March 2017 by Carolinian Canada and the Government of the Province of Ontario.

Page 9 of 9

Page 71 of 90 10. g. i.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

Agenda Item

To: Members of Council From: Rodger Mordue, CAO/Clerk Denise Krug, Director of Reviewed By: Date: February 28, 2019 Finance Council Subject: Development Charges March 6, 2019 Meeting Date: Report #: CAO-19-07

Recommendation:

That Report CAO-19-07 be received as information.

Background:

The Township passed a Development Charges By-law on August 6, 2014. Section 15 of the By- law establishes the authority to adjust the development charges set out in Schedule B of the bylaw annually on April 1, each year, without amendment to the by-law, in accordance with the most recent twelve month change in the Statistics Canada Quarterly, “Construction Price Statistics”.

Analysis/Discussion:

The Township has the ability to alter the development charges to accommodate for inflation. This ability is contained in Section 15 of the current By-law. The following table illustrates the Development Charges Currently in place compared to the Charges that will come into effect when the charges are indexed in accordance with the Construction Price Index:

Residential Unit Current Charge 5.7% adjustment Charge as of April 1, Type 2019 Singles & Semis 5,419.09 308.89 5,727.98 Rows & other 3,871.72 220.69 4,092.41 multiples Apartment - 2 2,815.50 160.48 2,975.98 bedroom units Apartment – 1 2,111.35 120.35 2,231.70 bedroom units

Page 72 of 90

Non-residential properties are exempt from Township Development Charges under the current by-law.

Financial Considerations:

The Township’s Development Charges by-law allows for the fees charged to be adjusted annually based on the most recent twelve month change in the Statistics Canada Quarterly “Construction Price Index”. The 2018 fourth quarter data places the year-over-year change at 5.7%. The change over the same period in 2017 was 2.7%.

Attachments:

- Information sheet from Hemson Consulting on Development Charge Indexing

Respectfully submitted by:

Rodger Mordue CAO/Clerk

Page 73 of 90 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE INDEXING

Information Sheet February 20, 2019

Development Charge rates can be indexed to account for inflation. Most Development Charges By-laws call for annual indexing. The Development Charges Act, 1997 (s.5 (1) (10)) and O.Reg. (82/98 (s.7) prescribe one index for adjusting development charge rates for inflation: Construction Price Statistics, Catalogue No. 62-007, Statistics Canada Quarterly. As of May 23, 2018, this index was replaced with the Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index, CANSIM Table 327-0058.

NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PRICE INDEX

 data published for 7 census metropolitan areas throughout Canada, including Toronto and Ottawa;  measures the change in the contractors’ selling price of new non-residential construction projects (i.e. commercial, industrial and institutional);  includes both general and trade contractors’ work and excludes the cost of land, design and real estate fees; and  samples are taken of five different building types.

For more information please contact the Hemson Finance Department, 416-593-5090, [email protected]

NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COST INDEX: TORONTO CMA % Changes Actual Index Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual

2017 1st Quarter 98.9 0.8% 1.5% 3.8% 2nd Quarter 100.0 1.1% 1.9% 3.2% 3rd Quarter 100.4 0.4% 1.5% 3.1% 4th Quarter 100.8 0.4% 0.8% 2.8%

2018 1st Quarter 102.1 1.3% 1.7% 3.2% 2nd Quarter 104.1 2.0% 3.3% 4.1% 3rd Quarter 105.7 1.5% 3.5% 5.3% 4th Quarter 106.5 0.8% 2.3% 5.7%

Hemson Consulting assists the public and private sectors with municipal finance, planning policy, demographics, and property assessment.

Recent work includes studies on:  Development Charges  Long Range Financial Planning HEMSON  Fiscal Impact Analysis  Water and Sewer Full Cost Recovery Rate Setting (Bill 175)  Water and Sewer Financial Plan (SDWA)  Building, Planning and Engineering Fees  Infrastructure Financing  Growth Management

For more information visit www.hemson.com

Page 74 of 90 16. a.

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

BY-LAW 2125-2019

A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT, KIND AND LOCATION OF FENCES WITHIN DEFINED AREAS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

WHEREAS Section 210(25) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. M.45 permits that Councils of municipalities may pass by-laws for prescribing the height and description of lawful fences;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim deems it advisable to enact a by-law to regulate fences within defined areas in the municipality.

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. DEFINITIONS

In this by-law:

“building” See Definition in Zoning By-law.

“corner lot” See Definition in Zoning By-law.

“Council” means the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim.

“electrical fence” means a fence through which electricity passes.

“erect” includes alter, construct, plant, place, relocate and any work preparatory to erection, and "erection" has a corresponding meaning.

“fence” includes a railing, wall, hedge, line of posts, shrubs, wire, gate, boards, masonry, concrete, pickets or other similar substances, used to enclose or divide in whole or in part a yard or other land, or to establish a property boundary, or to provide privacy but does not include a retaining wall defined under the Ontario Building Code or a deck.

“height” means the distance measured from the grade to the tallest point of the ‘fence’.

“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof.

"interior lot” See Definition in Zoning By-law.

Page 75 of 90 Page 2

“land” includes lands, tenements and hereditaments, and any estate or interest therein, and any right or easement affecting them, and land covered with water.

“lot” means any parcel of land which can be alienated or otherwise disposed of separately and apart from any abutting lands, whether or not such parcel is described in a registered deed or shown on a registered plan of subdivision.

“person” includes an individual, partnership, association, firm or corporation, business entity or club, or any other incorporated or unincorporated group or organization to whom the context can apply in accordance with The Interpretations Act.

“privacy screen” means a visual barrier used to shield any part of a yard from view from any adjacent parcel or highway.

"yard, front" See Definition in Zoning By-law.

"yard, side" See Definition in Zoning By-law.

"yard, side, exterior" See Definition in Zoning By-law.

"yard, side, interior" See Definition in Zoning By-law.

"yard, rear" See Definition in Zoning By-law.

"Zoning By-law" means any by-law administered by the Township passed pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act or a predecessor or successor thereof, as may be amended from time to time.

2. APPLICATION OF BY-LAW

This by-law applies to all fences and privacy screens erected in the Township of Blandford- Blenheim on and after the date of enactment and passage of this by-law, and except as provided in this section, applies to all fences in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim whenever erected.

Sections 3.1 through 3.4 (inclusive) do not apply to a fence which on the date of enactment and passage of this by-law was already erected and in place.

The provisions of Sections 3.1 through 3.4 (inclusive) of this by-law do not apply to fencing or privacy screen provisions contained in site plans or site plan agreements approved or executed by the Township of Blandford-Blenheim under the Planning Act.

Sections 3.1 through 3.4 (inclusive) do not apply to a fences, guards, and railing erected on decks to which the Ontario Building Code applies.

Page 76 of 90 Page 3

Sections 3.1 thought 3.4 (inclusive) do not apply to fences erected around pools or used during construction.

Sections 3.1 thought 3.4 (inclusive) do not apply to temporary fences erected as snow fencing during the months of November to April.

3. FENCING PROVISIONS

3.1 Fences on Interior Lots

No person shall erect, construct or permit to be erected or constructed, a fence on an interior lot except in accordance with the following regulations:

(a) a fence within the front yard shall not exceed a height of 0.91 metres (3 feet);

(b) a fence within any rear yard or interior side yard shall not exceed a height of 2.43 metres (8 feet);

3.2 Fences on Corner Lots

No person shall erect, construct, or permit to be erected or constructed a fence on a corner lot except in accordance with the following regulations:

(a) a fence not exceeding 0.91 metres (3 feet) in height may be erected within a front yard;

(b) a fence not exceeding 2.43 metres (8 feet) in height may be erected within an interior and exterior side yard.

3.3 Barbed Wire Fences

No person shall erect, construct or permit to be erected or constructed any barbed wire fence within the Township, except that barbed wire is permitted:

(a) on a fence erected on land in an agricultural zone as designated by the Zoning By-law and used for the purpose of keeping livestock; and

(b) on the top of a fence erected in a commercial or industrial zone as designated by the Zoning By-law provided that it projects inwards to the area enclosed by the fence; and

(c) on the top of a fence erected for security reasons around any recreational, operational or storage facility owned, operated or maintained by the Township.

3.4 Electric Fences

No person shall erect, construct or permit to be erected or constructed any fence

Page 77 of 90 Page 4

equipped with a device for transmitting an electric current thereon or there through, except on land designated as agricultural by the Zoning By-law and used for the purpose of keeping livestock provided that the maximum electrical current does not exceed 120 volts at .04 amps and that it complies with the Power Corporation Act, and the regulations thereunder, as amended, from time to time.

4. GENERAL PROVISIONS

4.1 General Provisions

No fence shall be located or constructed so as to block access to a parking space required by the township Zoning Bylaw.

4.2 Minor Variances

The Committee of Adjustment of the Township is hereby appointed a Standing Committee of the Council for the purpose of enquiring into and reporting on any applications for minor variances from the provisions of this by-law.

The Committee may recommend that any application be refused or that such relief as it considers appropriate be granted either absolutely or subject to conditions.

The Committee is directed to follow its usual procedure on such applications, so far as may be practical.

The Township Clerk shall place all reports made by the Committee of Adjustment under this section before the Council for approval.

The Council's usual rules respecting delegations will apply to persons desiring to make representations in support of or against a Committee of Adjustment recommendation made under this Section.

4.3 Public Use

Notwithstanding anything contained in this by-law, the Township, the County of Oxford, any Local Board as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and any telecommunications company may, for public service purposes, construct or erect any fence on its lands within the Township. Provided, however, that the said fence shall be in substantial compliance with the regulations prescribed heretofore in this by-law to the maximum extent possible and shall require written permission of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim.

Page 78 of 90 Page 5

4.4 Enforcement

Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence, pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 33, and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars, exclusive of costs, for each offence.

4.5 Severability

It is hereby declared that each and every of the foregoing provisions of this bylaw is severable and that, if any provision of this by-law should for any reason be declared invalid by any Court, it is the intention and desire of this Council that each and every of the then remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

5. By-law Number 411-81 enacted July 13, 1981 is hereby repealed.

READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 6th day of March, 2019.

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED TIME THIS 6th day of March, 2019.

______Mark Peterson Mayor

______Rodger Mordue Clerk

Page 79 of 90 16. b.

THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

BY-LAW NUMBER 2126-2019

Being a By-law to Adopt a Policy with respect to the manner in which the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim will Protect and Enhance the Tree Canopy and Natural Vegetation in the Municipality.

Whereas Bill 68, Modernizing Ontario's Municipal Legislation Act, 2017 received Royal Assent on May 30, 2017, and amends the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, herein referred to as the "Act"; and

WHEREAS the Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 provides that every municipality shall establish policies with respect to the manner in which it will protect and enhance the tree canopy and natural vegetation in the municipality;

AND WHEREAS the tree canopy and vegetation in the Township of Blandford- Blenheim are protected by the Municipal Official Plan.

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford- Blenheim enacts as follows:

1. That the Council of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim hereby confirm that the policies set out in Section 5.5.6 of the Official Plan shall constitute the policy as required by Section 270(1)7 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

2. That the Policy attached hereto as Schedule “A” constitutes an integral part thereof;

3. That this By-law shall come into effect on March 6th, 2019.

By-law READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 6th day of March, 2019.

By-Law READ a THIRD time and ENACTED in Open Council this 6th day of March, 2019.

Mark Peterson, Mayor

Rodger Mordue, CAO/Clerk

Page 80 of 90 Policies and Procedures The Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim

Policy Statement

Purpose

Scope

This policy applies to all properties and development, on public and private lands, in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. It is a resource which can be referred to and utilized

as guiding principles for residential, commercialPage 81 of 90 and public purposes.

Definitions

Policy

Benefits There are several benefits to an urban tree canopy, including:

The following from Water the Journal of Environmental Quality illustrates the above:

Page 82 of 90

Native Plantings When planting any vegetation, local species/native vegetation should be utilized. Some examples of are included in Schedule “A”.

Page 83 of 90 Shoreline Vegetation Vegetated areas adjacent to watercourses, lakes, rivers and wetlands are known as shoreline buffers. Shoreline buffers protect water from pollutants by filtering contaminants, providing habitat for native species and preventing shoreline erosion. Shoreline buffers should be: • At least 15-30 metres upland from the shore as recommended by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; • Composed of natural vegetation with a broad corridor of undisturbed vegetation; • Not be grassed; • Avoid shoreline hardening.

Maintenance and Preservation Trees and vegetation require special care and treatment. If it appears the vegetation is struggling, it is recommended you speak to a professional.

Page 4 of 9

Page 84 of 90

Initiatives Undertaken to Date

Official Plan Policies

Page 85 of 90 within or adjacent to natural heritage features and areas undertake an Environmental Impact Study to ensure this requirement can be addressed and that, where possible, a net environmental gain is achieved; • Continue to develop the natural heritage system by linking natural features and areas and open spaces; • Requiring that a Woodlands Conservation By-Law be maintained; • Various site and urban design policy criteria pertaining to the preservation and enhancement and trees and other natural vegetation as part of development and infrastructure projects; • Encouraging naturalization of the re-establishment of native indigenous vegetation, self- sustaining ecological processes and biodiversity throughout the natural heritage system; and • Allowing Area Municipalities to identify and protect additional environmental features of local significance through the development review process, by employing flexible site design and planning approaches or accepting such features as a portion of the parkland dedication requirements under the Planning Act.

Oxford Natural Heritage System Study (ONHSS)

Page 86 of 90 in informing, and assessing the overall effectiveness, of initiatives to maintain and/or enhance tree canopy coverage and/or natural vegetation cover in the municipality. Finally, the study also provides various recommendations with respect to additional measures and initiatives that municipalities could consider to improve the natural heritage systems and component features and areas.

Woodlands Conservation By-law

The general intent and purpose of the WCB is to:

The WCB protects woodlands and may require that private landowners obtain a ‘Notice of Intent’ when they intend to harvest or destroy trees in woodlands specified in the By-law.

Future Oxford Community Sustainability Plan

Stewardship and Incentive Programs

Page 7 of 9

Page 87 of 90 which recognizes private landowners who have made outstanding contributions to protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

Policy Management

Limitation

This policy does not take priority over any By-laws, Resolutions or Agreements of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim Council, which includes but is not limited to:

Review

This policy shall be reviewed as required due to legislative changes.

Page 8 of 9

Page 88 of 90 Schedule A

Derived from the List of Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (Ecoregion 7E) – March 2017 by Carolinian Canada and the Government of the Province of Ontario.

Page 9 of 9

Page 89 of 90 THE CORPORATION OF THE 16. c.

TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

BY-LAW NUMBER 2127-2019

Being a By-law to confirm the proceedings of Council.

WHEREAS by Section 5 of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, the powers of a municipal corporation are to be exercised by its Council.

AND WHEREAS by Section 11 of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, the powers of every Council are to be exercised by by-law;

AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim hereby enacts as follows:

1. That the actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford- Blenheim in respect of each recommendation contained in the reports of the Committees and each motion and resolution passed and other action taken by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, at this meeting held on March 20th, 2019 is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.

2. That the Mayor and proper officials of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the actions of the Council referred to in the proceeding section hereof.

3. That the Mayor and the CAO / Clerk be authorized and directed to execute all documents in that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim.

By-law read a first and second time this 20th day of March, 2019.

By-law read a third time and finally passed this 20th day of March, 2019.

MAYOR CAO / CLERK MARK PETERSON RODGER MORDUE

Page 90 of 90