The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington

Transcription

The Corporation of the
Municipality of Leamington
Meeting of Municipal Council
Agenda
Monday, September 9, 2013
Commencing at 7:00 p.m.
In Leamington Council Chambers
(A) Call to Order:
(B)
National Anthem:
(C)
Prayer:
(D)
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest:
(E)
Adoption of Council Minutes:
1. Minutes of the Council Meeting (including Public Meetings for Zoning By-law
Amendment #71, Zoning By-law Amendment #73 and Zoning By-law Amendment
#74) held August 26, 2013
Pages 5 to 22
(F)
Business Arising Out of the Minutes:
(G)
Public Meetings/Court of Revision:
1. Public Meeting for Zoning By-law Amendment #75 for 410 Mersea Road 5
2. Public Meeting for Zoning By-law Amendment #76 for 63 Robinson Street
(H)
Reports of Staff and Delegations:
1. Delegation regarding suggested modifications to By-law 34-10 Open Air Burning
By-law
Page 23
 Michael Peter Bachmeier
1
Page 2, September 9, 2013 Council Meeting Agenda
2. Report PLA 26-13 dated June 14, 2013 regarding Zoning By-law Amendment #73
for Magri Greenhouses Inc. S/S Mersea Road 3 (Tax Roll No. 590-06300) and Tom
Magri, 308 Mersea Road 3 (Tax Roll No. 590-06500) deferred from August 26, 2013
Public Meeting (see page 20 of Council Agenda for Public Meeting minutes)
Pages 24 to 28
 Richard McGrath, Solicitor for Applicant
3. Report PLA 25/13 dated June 17, 2013 regarding Zoning By-law Amendment #74
for Sunrite Greenhouses Ltd. 620 Essex Road 37 (Tax Roll No. 730-00250)
deferred from August 26, 2013 Public Meeting (see page 22 of Council Agenda for
Public Meeting minutes)
Pages 29 to 32
 Paul Enns, Solicitor for Applicant
4. Report CL 21/13 dated July 15, 2013 regarding First Baptist Church Request to
Relocate Alley Location and to Close and Transfer a Portion of the Alley (Report
previously presented to Council July 22, 2013)
Pages 33 to 36
 Correspondence from area residents
Pages 37 to 39
 Adam Paglione, Solicitor for Darrell Langille, Adjacent Property Owner
 Peter Neufeld, Solicitor and Bob Allen, First Baptist Church
 Corey and Korinne Robertson, Adjacent Property Owners
 Jeff Grant, Adjacent Tenant
5. Report PLA 38/13 dated August 26, 2013 regarding Results of the Uptown
Leamington BIA Boundary Amendment (Letters of Objection circulated to Council)
Pages 40 to 44
 Notice of the Proposed Expansion of the Boundary of the Uptown
Leamington Business Improvement Area dated June 19, 2013
Pages 45 to 46
 Shawn Bodle, BIA President
6. Report PLA 35/13 dated August 13, 2013 regarding Zoning By-law Amendment #68
for 1 Henry Avenue (230-10600) Proposed Temporary Use Zoning By-law
Amendment Long Term Care Facility
Pages 47 to 54
 Karl Tanner, Planner Dillon Consulting
7. Report ENG 16/13 dated August 29, 2013 regarding Leamington Trail Expansion
and Phase 5 Trailhead
Pages 55 to 57
 Kevin Reid, Air Cadets
2
8. Report ENG 04-13 dated July 30, 2013 regarding Seacliff Drive East Widening and
Roadway Improvements Environmental Assessment Phase 1 and 2 Report
Pages 58 to 66
 Delegation from Stantec Consulting
9. Report PLA 37/13 dated August 20, 2013 regarding Housekeeping Amendment for
ZBA #44 Parking and Storage of Recreational Vehicles
Pages 67 to 72
10. Report REC 20/13 dated August 26, 2013 regarding Leamington Kinsmen
Recreation Complex Facility Condition Assessment RFP Award
Pages 73 to 75
11. Report ES 04/13 dated August 20, 2013 regarding Pollution Control Centre
Archimedes Screw Pumps Pre-selection
Pages 76 to 77
12. Report ENG 15/13 dated August 28, 2013 regarding Request for approval to award
the “Cleaning and Inspection of the Erie Street South Storm Sewer Outfall” tender
Pages 78 to 79
13. Report CL 27/13 dated August 1, 2013 regarding Proposed Adjustment of Local
Improvement Charges for Robson Road (Part 2 Plan 12R-1816, 490-02000)
Pages 80 to 86
(I)
Matters for Approval:
1. Minutes of the Leamington Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (LMHAC) held
August 28, 2013
Pages 87 to 88
(J)
Other Matters for Consideration:
1. Minutes of the Leamington Police Services Board (PSB) held June 26, 2013
Pages 89 to 90
(K)
Report on Closed Session: None
(L)
Consideration of By-laws:
By-law 299-13 being a by-law to provide for a new maintenance schedule for the
Fraser Road Drain in the Municipality of Leamington in the County of Essex
(3rd and final reading)
By-law 303-13 being a by-law to provide for a new maintenance schedule for the
Lapos Drain in the Municipality of Leamington in the County of Essex
(3rd and final reading)
3
By-law 304-13 being a by-law to provide for bridges for Tiessen Acres Ltd. on the 1st
Concession Road Drain East in Part Lots 16 and 17, Concession 1 in the
Municipality of Leamington in the County of Essex and for borrowing the sum of
$62,000 for completing the drainage works (3rd and final reading)
By-law 308-13 being a by-law to provide for a re-alignment on the Lamarsh Creek
and William Young Drain in Part Lot 239 STR Concession in the Municipality of
Leamington in the County of Essex (3rd and final reading)
By-law 302-13 being a by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 89009 for the Municipality of Leamington, which pertains to the subject lands
ZBA #68 – 1 Henry Avenue
By-law 305-13 being a by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 89009 for the Municipality of Leamington, which pertains to the subject lands ZBA #44 Bus, Transport Trailers or Recreational Vehicles
By-law 320-13 being a by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 89009 for the Municipality of Leamington, which pertains to the subject lands ZBA #76 63 Robinson Street and 63 Wigle Street
By-law 321-13 being a by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 89009 for the Municipality of Leamington, which pertains to the subject lands ZBA #75 –
410 Mersea Road 5 and S/S Mersea Road 5
By-law 323-13 being a by-law to amend By-law 3022 to expand the boundaries of
the Uptown Leamington Business Improvement Area (BIA)
By-law 324-13 being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of The
Municipality of Leamington at its meeting held September 9, 2013
(M)
Notices of Motion:
(N)
Open Session:
(O)
Announcement of Upcoming Meetings/Events:
None
Monday, September 16, 2013

Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
(P)
Statement of Members: non-debatable
(Q)
Adjournment:
4
Minutes of Council Meeting
Held Monday, August 26, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Councillors: Atkin, Chopchik, Jacobs, MacDonald, Verbeke
Members Absent:
Mayor Paterson
Deputy Mayor Wright
Staff Present:
Chief Administrative Officer Bill Marck
Director of Corporate Services Brian Sweet
Director of Finance and Business Services Cheryl Horrobin
Director of Community Services Rob Sharon
Director of Development Services Tracey Pillon-Abbs
Manager of Planning Services Danielle Truax
Financial Analyst Katie McLean
Engineering Project Supervisor Alex DelBrocco
Legal Assistant Jennifer Bavetta
Brian Sweet, Director of Corporate Services called the meeting to order and asked for
nominations for position of Chair.
Appointment of Chair:
No. C-301-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Jacobs
Councillor Chopchik
That Councillor MacDonald be appointed Chair for the August 26, 2013 Council
Meeting.
Carried
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest:
Councillor Jacobs disclosed a pecuniary interest in Schedule D – Marina Fees of Report
FIN 13/08/01. Councillor Jacobs did not participate in discussion regarding Schedule D
and did not vote on the matter or the corresponding by-law or the confirmation by-law.
5
Page 2, August 26, 2013 Council Meeting Minutes
Adoption of Council Minutes:
No. C-302-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Chopchik
That the Minutes of the Council Meeting (including the Drainage Court of
Revision for New Maintenance Schedule for Fraser Road Drain, New
Maintenance Schedule for the Lapos Drain, 1st Concession Road Drain East
Bridges for Tiessen Acres Ltd. and Realignment on the Lamarsh Creek and
William Young Drain) held August 12, 2013 be adopted.
Carried
Business Arising Out of the Minutes:
Councillor Atkin requested an update regarding the Trans Canada Trail development
Initiative, noting changes to the funding allocation were announced at the recent County
Council Meeting.
Rob Sharon, Director of Community Services, explained TransCanada Trail has
announced they are now able to fund sixty-five percent (65%) of the trail development,
as opposed to fifty percent (50%) as initially announced.
With respect to the impact of the funding increase on trail development in Leamington,
Mr. Sharon explained Council will determine whether the development will occur. He
noted $780,000.00 is still required to complete the portion in Leamington and he expects
opportunities to work with funding partners. Mr. Sharon confirmed Council only
approved the layout and concept of the trail during the last Council meeting and did not
support the funding as laid out in the TransCanada Trail proposal.
Councillor Atkin noted a major portion of the TransCanada Trail cost is the portion from
Staples to Comber, which would be approximately $656,000.00. He inquired whether
administration will be having discussions with the Town of Lakeshore. Councillor Atkin
further inquired whether administration would be having discussions with the Essex
Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) and landowners adjacent to the Staples to
Comber corridor to determine if there is any interest in purchasing the lands.
The Director of Community Services confirmed administration intends to contact the
Town of Lakeshore to discuss funding the trail.
Councillor Atkin stated there may not be the same funding opportunity in the future for
the trail lands, and all avenues must be considered.
With respect to page 12 of the August 12, 2013 Council Minutes wherein Councillor
Atkin requested staff give consideration to moving up 2014 capital budget deliberations
to October of this year, Councillor Atkin requested an update. Cheryl Horrobin, Director
of Finance and Business Services, noted her understanding was that Councillor Atkin
wished to have an advance discussion regarding capital priorities for the long term.
6
Councillor Atkin stated it would be helpful for Council to be aware of required budget
percentage increases and to be able to re-prioritize capital items in the budget.
The Director of Finance and Business Services explained in terms of percentage impact
on the tax rate there have been some years of negative assessment growth within the
Municipality. She noted there have been a significant number of Municipal Property
Assessment Corporation (MPAC) adjustments, which have resulted in a decrease of
$1,600,000.00 in tax assessment. The Director explained those types of fluctuations
make it difficult to reduce tax increases and that administration attempt to remain within
a certain dollar amount.
Public Meetings/Court of Revision:
1. Public Meeting for Zoning By-law Amendment # 71 for P. and F. Zeiter, 20 Grace
Avenue
A copy of the Minutes is attached.
2. Public Meeting for Zoning By-law Amendment # 73 for Magri Greenhouses Inc., S/S
Mersea Road 3 and Tom Magri, 308 Mersea Road 3
3. Public Meeting for Zoning By-law Amendment # 74 for Sunrite Greenhouses Ltd.,
620 Essex Road 37
Reports of Staff and Delegations:
1. Report ENG 14-13 dated August 20, 2013 regarding Leamington Multi-Use Trail
Expansion Phase 5
Alex DelBrocco, Engineering Project Supervisor, reviewed the report, noting the
Municipality just recently received confirmation of funding for this portion of the trail.
Mr. DelBrocco explained an open house was held regarding the project and concerns
such as fencing, ability to purchase former railway property and parking for air cadets
were raised.
With respect to fencing, Mr. DelBrocco explained administration recommend the
construction of a 1.5 metre high chain link fence along the property line in locations
where there is no existing fence. He further explained gates will be installed at no cost
to abutting property owners if they wish to have one installed.
With respect to the sale of former railway lands, Mr. DelBrocco noted it is not
recommended as there are various underground assets, including sewers and
watermains along the lands.
7
The Engineering Project Supervisor confirmed parking is not allowed on any trails along
the former rail corridor and noted staff attended Smith Street to review the possibility of
allowing parking on the road, however the width does not meet Highway Traffic Act
standards to allow on-street parking.
Kevin Reid, Chair of the 535 Leamington Air Cadets, 1334 Mersea Road 2, introduced
retired Captain Gaye Findlay and noted the Air Cadets have been parking along the
railway corridor for thirty-six (36) years. He explained the cadets meet on Wednesdays
during the months of September through June, as well as on occasional Fridays and
Sundays for training.
With respect to the possibility of the Air Cadets parking in the school parking lot and
walking to the building, Mr. Reid stated to do so would not be easy during the winter
months at night. Mr. Reid stated the Air Cadets are requesting Council assist them by
allowing parking along the trail and suggested the Air Cadets would assist in fundraising
to offset costs. Mr. Reid stated if parking is not allowed along the trail the Air Cadets in
Leamington will cease to exist and asked Council to assist them in allowing the program
to continue.
Rob Sharon, Director of Community Services, explained that administration do not
recommend allowing the parking to continue as there would be conflicting pedestrian
and vehicle uses. Mr. Sharon stated his hope the Air Cadets could make alternate
parking arrangements with the school board and suggested it would not be a
tremendous walk from the school parking lot to the building they are utilizing.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Sharon confirmed administration would not
normally recommend constructing a parking lot in that location.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Reid explained the Air Cadets were granted
use of the building by the school board on December 7, 1968 and are responsible for all
maintenance. He further explained he is unaware of any future plans for the building as
the school board would not provide him with any information. Mr. Reid noted
approximately ten cars park on the rail corridor during Air Cadet meetings and that
parents use the area to drop off and pick up their children.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. DelBrocco confirmed the subject rail corridor
is approximately fifty feet (50’) wide. He explained the trail will be four metres (4 m)
wide. He further explained measurements must be taken prior to commenting on
possible parking at the trail head, and that it is possible three or four parking spaces
may fit.
Bill Marck, Chief Administrative Officer, explained the Manager of Engineering Services
examined the elevations of the trail head and the swale makes it more difficult to
construct parking. He further explained the Engineering Technologist noted in order to
provide for parking, a forty feet (40’) wide parcel of land is required. The Chief
Administrative Officer noted parking is allowed on Elliott Street and could be used by the
Air Cadets during meetings.
8
Eugene Barna, 4 Smith Avenue, thanked Council for the opportunity to express his
concerns, observations and suggestions regarding the proposed trail. Mr. Barna noted
he attended the open house on July 24, 2013 and subsequently met with Councillor
Atkin and Ken Brown, Manager of Operations, to resolve immediate issues with the trail.
Mr. Barna suggested signage for picking up after dogs with pictures be installed along
the trail as signage with only wording is not effective. He further suggested garbage
receptacles be placed along the trail as garbage often ends up on his property.
With respect to grass cutting, Mr. Barna stated he and his wife maintained the portion of
the eastern half of the corridor adjacent to their property up until 2010 but have had to
reduce the area in recent years. He stated due to the slope of that area, it must be
maintained manually and he hoped the Municipality takes that into consideration.
Mr. Barna stated his third concern was regarding parking and accessibility of emergency
vehicles on Smith Avenue, which is only thirty-five (35’) wide. Mr. Barna noted a cars
often park on the boulevard.
Mr. Barna stated parking is required for the volunteers who operate the Air Cadets
program and suggested parking for five cars could be constructed on the north and
south side of Smith Street at the trail heads.
Peter Gossmann, 60 Elliott Street, thanked Council for allowing him to speak, noting his
understanding that Council received a copy of his letter outlining his concerns. Mr.
Gossman stated he was not opposed to the installation of trail and that the corridor has
been used as such for a long time.
Mr. Gossman stated the trail should be located in the centre of the corridor which has
the highest elevation. He further stated the drawings indicate a fence along the property
line, however there are a number of mature trees, including fruit trees, that extend past
the property line and requested the fence be constructed ten feet away from the
property line in order to allow those trees to remain.
With respect to the portion of the corridor adjacent to his property, Mr. Gossman noted
he has maintained the thirty feet (30’) property outside the property line for more than
twenty-five (25) years.
Mr. Gossman requested Council recognize that he has taken care of the land for some
time and allow him to purchase the lands, as was done on Orchard Heights. He further
noted the plans indicate drainage, however there is significant drainage onto his
property that must be considered.
Alex DelBrocco, Engineering Project Supervisor, explained the Municipality does not
intend to remove trees to install the chain link fence and would rather increase the
number of trees and shrubs to create a better buffer. With respect to water control, Mr.
DelBrocco noted options for swaling and catch basins are being considered.
Discussion ensued regarding the sale of former railway lands to property owners on
Orchard Heights. It was explained the original trail master plan did not identify that
portion of the former railway as an area to be developed into a trail, however it was later
determined a trail would be beneficial due to the close proximity to the Leamington
Kinsmen Recreation Complex and three schools. The portion of the trail currently being
considered was always intended to be developed into a trail.
9
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. DelBrocco explained the concept drawing for
the trail shows the trail being developed over the existing path used by pedestrians,
however it will be located in the centre of the right of way and not the western boundary
as pictured.
Mr. Gossman stated administration suggested the Municipality may be able to sell him a
portion of the lands. He further stated if fencing must be installed, he would prefer it be
installed away from the property line in order to allow him to continue to maintain the
lands.
Bill Marck, Chief Administrative Officer, explained there were similar requests when the
trail was developed near the Heinz Bush. He further explained the proper location of the
fence is along the property line in order avoid issues of people constructing items on
land that is Municipally owned, such as sheds and pools. Liability issues also arise if
the fence is not placed on the property line.
Brian Sweet, Director of Corporate Services, informed those in attendance the property
owners on Orchard Heights of lands abutting the trail got together and purchased the
entire length of the lands and each property owner had to pay a certain amount.
Mr. Gossman confirmed he was only speaking on behalf of himself with respect to the
sale of railway lands to abutting owners.
Mr. Del Brocco clarified he will act as the general contractor for the project in an effort to
save money. He confirmed he will comply with all purchasing policies and that
additional shrubbery will be planted following the completion of the primary work, based
on available funds.
The Director of Community Services explained the funding program prescribes that the
project must be completed by March, 2014. He further explained the funding is for fifty
percent (50%) of the project and administration felt the project could be overseen by
municipal staff rather than tendering it out in an effort to decrease costs.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. DelBrocco confirmed garbage receptacles,
benches and required lighting and signage will be installed at each trail street crossing.
Further, garbage receptacles will be placed along the trail in an effort to continue the
existing theme.
No. C-303-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Atkin
That Council defer a decision regarding Leamington Multi-Use Trail Expansion
Phase 5 until such time that a further report addressing possible parking solutions
is presented. (ENG 14-13)
Carried
10
2.
Report FIN 13/07/02 dated July 22, 2013 regarding Restatement of 2013 Budget in
PSAB Compliant Format and Disclosure of Expenses Excluded in Accordance with
Ontario Regulation 284/09
Katie McLean, Financial Analyst, presented the report to Council.
No. C-304-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Jacobs
Councillor Atkin
That the 2013 PSAB/Full Accrual budget required for 2013 Financial Statement
purposes as shown in Schedule 1 be approved;
And that council be advised of the impact on the accumulated surplus by
excluding expenses for amortization of tangible capital assets ($7,341,349) and
post-retirement benefits ($939,435) from the 2013 adopted budget, as required
by Ontario Regulation 284/09. (FIN 13-07-02)
Carried
3.
Report FIN 13/08/01 dated August 13, 2013 regarding 2014 Fee Schedule
Cheryl Horrobin, Director of Finance and Business Services, explained there was a
request for adoption of the fee schedule earlier in the year in order to allow for
advertising of any new fees and the creation of publications. The Director highlighted
key proposed fees amendments.
In response to an inquiry from Council, the Director of Finance and Business Services
explained fee increases are gauged on comparable market rates, material costs and
inflation. It was further noted fees assist in covering the cost of delivering the service
rather than absorbing the cost in the tax rate.
Council reviewed the various fee increases and were provided explanations for those
they had questions about.
No. C-305-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Jacobs
Councillor Atkin
That the proposed 2014 Fee Schedule be approved and that Administration be
authorized to prepare a By-law for the 2014 Tariff of Fees. (Report FIN 13-08-01)
Carried
11
No. C-306-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Atkin
Councillor Chopchik
That Schedule D – Marina Fees from the 2014 Fee Schedule, be approved and
that Administration be authorized to prepare a By-law for the 2014 Tariff of Fees.
(Report FIN 13-08-01)
Carried
4.
Report PLA 36/13 dated August 21, 2013 regarding Leamington Uptown
Commercial District Community Improvement Plan Second Quarter Update
Tracey Pillon-Abbs, Director of Development Services, provided an overview of the
report, noting administration does not recommend a reallocation of funding amounts at
this time despite the lower than expected interest in Community Improvement Plan (CIP)
grants.
In response to an inquiry from Council, the Director of Development Services explained
the outdoor café portion of the funding has not been sought due to higher than expected
preliminary design work costs. The Director further explained the possibility of providing
additional funding for the preliminary costs for outdoor café’s will be reassessed during
the third quarter of this year.
A discussion ensued regarding the placement of the four gateway signs to be
constructed in the uptown. The Director of Development Services clarified the gateway
signs are to welcome people to the uptown and will include mapping and pedestrian
style communications.
The Chief Administrative Officer informed Council that staff are in the planning stages of
developing new signage for the major entrances into the Municipality, such as in
Staples.
No. C-307-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Chopchik
That the update on the Leamington Uptown Commercial District Community
Improvement Plan (CIP) for the second quarter be received (PLA-36-13).
Carried
12
5. Report EDO 02/13 dated August 13, 2013 regarding The Case for Developing a
Sport Tourism Strategy
Bill Marck, Chief Administrative Officer, presented the report to Council, noting it was in
response to discussions that took place during 2013 budget deliberations.
The Chief Administrative Officer explained an exact impact study could not be
completed due to lack of data and that a system to better track spending data is being
developed for future sports tournaments in Leamington.
No. C-308-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Atkin
Councillor Verbeke
That the Municipality, through Culture and Recreation, and in consultation with
Tourism Windsor Essex Pelee Island (TWEPI) and other groups, develop a sport
tourism plan;
And that the Municipality allocate funds in the 2014 budget to become a member
of the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance;
And further, that administration provide a further report outlining the goals and
objectives to increase sport tourism in Leamington (EDO/02/13).
Carried
Matters for Approval: No. C-309-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Jacobs
That the Minutes of the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Committee (MYAC) held August
7, 2013 be approved.
Carried
No. C-310-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Chopchik
Councillor Atkin
That the Minutes of the Leamington Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee
(LMHAC) held August 14, 2013 be approved.
Carried
13
Other Matters for Consideration:
Correspondence received from the Town of Kingsville dated July 25, 2013 regarding
Flying Lanterns
No. C-311-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Jacobs
T hat correspondence from The Corporation of the Town of Kingsville dated July
25, 2013 re: Kingsville Council Motion # 521-2013 be received;
And that Fire Chief Parsons prepare a report to Council regarding the sale and
use of flying lanterns.
Carried
Report on Closed Session: None
Consideration of By-laws:
No. C-312-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Jacobs
That the following by-law be read a first, second and third time and finally
enacted:
By-law 310-13 being a by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw No. 890-09 for the Municipality of Leamington, which pertains to the
subject lands (ZBA # 71, 20 Grace Avenue).
Carried
No. C-313-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Chopchik
Councillor Atkin
enacted:
By-law 314-13 being a by-law to authorize internet voting in Municipal
elections.
Carried
14
No. C-314-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Atkin
That the following by-laws be read a first, second and third time and finally
enacted:
By-law 317-13 being a by-law to consolidate the sums authorized to be
borrowed by certain Municipal Drainage by-laws into one sum and to
borrow the same by the issue of debentures (2011 Drainage Capital);
By-law 318-13 being a by-law to consolidate the sums authorized to be
borrowed by certain Municipal Drainage by-laws into one sum and to
borrow the same by the issue of debentures (2012 Drainage Capital).
Carried
No. C-315-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Atkin
Councillor Jacobs
enacted:
By-law 319-13 being a by-law to provide for a tariff of fees, excluding
Schedule D – Marina Fees, to be charged in 2014 by the Municipality of
Leamington.
Carried
No. C-316-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Chopchik
Councillor Atkin
enacted:
By-law 319-13, Schedule D being a by-law to provide for a tariff of fees to
be charged in 2014 by the Municipality of Leamington.
Carried
15
No. C-317-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Atkin
Councillor Chopchik
enacted:
By-law 322-13 being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of
The Municipality of Leamington at its meeting held August 26, 2013.
Carried
Notices of Motion: None
Open Session of Council and Administration:
Councillor Atkin requested a status update on the Pollution Control Centre odour study.
Rob Sharon, Director of Community Services, explained the consultant is waiting for a
significant odour day in order to measure where the odour originates. He further
explained the study will not be delayed indefinitely pending a significant odour day. Mr.
Sharon confirmed staff have provided area residents with a flyer containing contact
information and have been directed to the municipality’s website for updated
information.
With respect to sports tourism, Councillor Verbeke noted CFTV34 filmed an archery
tournament at Canard Valley Conservation Area in Amherstburg the past weekend. He
explained several of the competitors were from Leamington and they will be appearing
before Council in the near future to request support for promoting the sport in
Leamington.
Councillor Jacobs requested an update regarding the Sandy Lakes pond. Rob Sharon,
Director of Community Services, noted letters have been received from area residents.
He explained the pond was pumped for approximately one week in an effort to lower the
water level and to determine whether the contingency plan would be successful in the
event of an emergency. Mr. Sharon noted there are some residents that will not be
satisfied until the Municipality constructs an outlet pipe.
Councillor Chopchik noted she brought greetings from Council to Elsa Koop’s annual
barbecue for the residents of the Sun Parlour Home.
Councillor Chopchik reminded everyone of the St. John’s Anglican Church’s pig roast to
be held on Friday, August 30, 2013 at the Leamington Municipal Marina, noting tickets
are still available.
16
Statement of Members: non-debatable
Councillor Atkin informed those in attendance he attended the recent Association of
Municipalities (AMO) conference in Ottawa. He noted it was a great session, including
workshops on OPP policing and risk management and claims. Councillor Atkin further
noted AMO is considering ways to reduce costs associated with risk liability and claims,
including undertaking signage studies.
Adjournment:
No. C-318-13
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Verbeke
Councillor Atkin
That the meeting adjourn at 10:10 p.m.
Carried
John Paterson, Mayor
Brian Sweet, Clerk
JB
17
Minutes – Public Meeting
ZBA # 71 for 20 Grace Avenue
Monday, August 26, 2013 at 7:14 p.m.
Members Present:
Councillors: MacDonald, Atkin, Chopchik, Jacobs, Verbeke
Members Absent:
Mayor Paterson
Deputy Mayor Wright
Staff Present:
Danielle Truax, Manager of Planning Services, provided background information on the
request for a zoning by-law amendment for 20 Grace Avenue. The Manager noted the
application is a result of a Committee of Adjustment decision. She further noted the
property owner will be required to construct a privacy fence between the commercial and
residential properties and will not be permitted to construct a garbage enclosure in that
area.
The Manager of Planning Services informed Council 141 Talbot Street West is subject to
site plan control and administration has no concerns with the proposed parking lot
expansion. The Manager confirmed administration is in support of the Zoning By-law
Amendment application to change the subject lands from an R2 to C2 zoning designation.
The Manager of Planning Services noted the corresponding by-law is listed on the Council
Agenda for consideration.
Marg and Jay Ardiel, 22 Grace Avenue, noted they have lived immediately west of the
subject property for thirty-one years. They stated the proposed parking lot will be only
twenty feet from the back door and master bedroom of their house.
Mrs. Ardiel noted her understanding the Longo property next to the subject property was
zoned R2 but is shown as C2 on the map.
The Manager of Planning Services noted staff will investigate when the zoning of the
Longo property changed from R2 to C2 and provide the information to Mr. and Mrs. Ardiel.
18
Page 2, August 26, 2013 Public Meeting Minutes, ZBA # 71 for 20 Grace Avenue
With respect to the dumpster, the Manager of Planning Services explained site plan control
will require the area to remain as a green space and as such no dumpster will be allowed
there. She further explained any future amendments to the site plan will require approval
of the Director of Development Services.
The Manager of Planning Services confirmed the proposed parking spaces will not extend
to the residential property.
Mrs. Ardiel stated the lot lines in the area are already unorganized and allowing the zoning
by-law amendment will only worsen the condition. She further stated her difficulty in
understanding why the Official Plan would be altered for a few parking spaces.
In response to an inquiry from Council, the Manager of Planning Services noted there will
be over twenty-five feet of green space buffer between the parking spaces and the Ardiel’s
property line.
In regard to fencing, the Manager of Planning Services explained there is existing board on
board fencing and split rail fencing. The split rail fencing will have to be replaced with a
board on board privacy fence. Discussions regarding additional shrubbery for buffering
can be initiated.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mrs. Ardiel stated the parking lot for the commercial
building is almost never full.
In response to an inquiry from Council, the Manager of Planning Services confirmed the
proposed year yard setback does comply with the zoning regulations.
The applicants, Dave Zeiter, 9 Briarwood Avenue, and Joey Zeiter, 86 Foundary Street,
stated the parking lot is full on a daily basis and the issue of running out of parking is an
ongoing issue. Mr. Zeiter stated the proposed five additional parking spaces will assist
them greatly.
Joey Zeiter noted a seven foot privacy fence with lattice across the top will be constructed.
He further noted they are open to the possibility of planting shrubs as additional buffering.
Council requested that if the application is approved, the addition of shrubbery in the green
space adjacent to the proposed parking lot addition be included as a condition of site plan
control to act as an additional buffer.
Brian Sweet, Director of Corporate Services confirmed the by-law will be considered during
the regular Council Meeting that evening.
Councilor MacDonald confirmed there was no one else in the audience wishing to speak
regarding this public meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
JB
T:\Corporate\C00-Council&By-laws\C04-CouncilMeetings\2013 Council\082613\ZBA 71\082613-PM Minutes-ZBA 71.doc
19
ZBA # 73 for 308 Mersea Road 3 and S/S Mersea Road 3
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Mayor Paterson
Deputy Mayor Wright
Staff Present:
request for a zoning by-law amendment for 308 Mersea Road 3 and S/S Mersea Road 3.
The Manager noted Council was provided with the corresponding by-law, but the applicant
has requested that no decision be made this evening.
The Manager of Planning Services informed Council that administration is not in a position
to support the application as brought forward.
Ralph Warkentin, 34 Cherrywood Avenue, owns 302 Mersea Road 3 which is adjacent to
the subject properties. Mr. Warkentin stated he did not understand why this application
cannot be supported by administration and that he is in favour with Mr. Magri’s application.
Mr. Warkentin stated if the application affects any property it is his.
The Manager of Planning Services noted she spoke with Mr. Warkentin regarding his
position and administration’s inability to support the rezoning application.
Mr. Warkentin stated approval of the zoning by-law amendment would enhance the
properties in the area rather than hurt them. He noted his property was comprised of a one
acre parcel with a house and a pole barn.
In response to an inquiry from Council, the Manager of Planning Services explained the
properties to the West of the subject property are zoned rural residential, however Mr.
Magri’s property is considered agricultural. Further, the Official Plan does not consider Mr.
Magri’s property to be residential.
20
Page 2, August 26, 2013 Public Meeting Minutes, ZBA # 73 for 308 Mersea Road 3 and
S/S Mersea Road 3
The Manager of Planning Services further explained the Provincial Policy Statements to
allow infilling lots in such cases have been removed in order to preserve prime agricultural
land.
In response to an inquiry from Council, the Manager of Planning Services confirmed a
home may be constructed on the vacant property, however as a house did not exist prior to
the passing of the current zoning by-law, policies will not allow a severance to create a
surplus dwelling lot.
Councillor Macdonald, Chair, confirmed there was no one else in the audience wishing to
speak regarding this public meeting.
JB
21
ZBA # 74 for 620 County Road 37
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Mayor Paterson
Deputy Mayor Wright
Staff Present:
request for a zoning by-law amendment for 620 County Road 37 noting administration is
not in a position to support the application.
The Manager noted no decision would be made that evening.
Chris Todorovski, Ricci Enns and Rollier on behalf of Paul Enns, solicitor for the applicant,
was in attendance to answer any questions that may arise.
Brian Sweet, Director of Corporate Services, noted the by-law will be considered at the
September 9, 2013 Council Meeting and that the date was agreeable to the solicitor acting
on behalf of the applicant.
Councillor MacDonald, Chair, confirmed there was no one else in the audience wishing to
speak regarding this public meeting.
JB
22
Summary Argument
It is not my intention to assume a broader, than is justified, scope with respect to the harmful effects of
open air burning with respect to BY-LAW 34-10. Having observed the negative effects of wood smoke
upon me and my family I set out to review the research available in order to determine what level of
risk my family and others may be exposed to. I was surprised to find that the potential negative health
impacts were significantly greater than I had anticipated. I also found that the proximity of an
individual to the source of an open air burn was of even greater significance. Based on a dispersion
model found under “Smoke Dispersion” that looks at a home heating fireplace, the minimum safe range
is potentially exceeded for the space of one city block within 6hrs. An open air burn does not have the
advantage of a chimney stack (allowing for greater dispersion). An open air burn is not contained
within a structure and will not generate as much concentrated heat or positive upward flow. The lower
temperature burn will generate higher levels of unhealthy constituents. This leads to the conclusion that
three factors are of primary significance in determining harmful exposure – Distance, Volume and
duration.
Potential Remedy
Persons at risk are defined as individuals with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and young
children. Allowing individual community members to self identify themselves as at risk individuals
prior to issuance of yearly open air burn permits would appear to be the best starting point.
Determining a minimum safe distance where permits would not be issued would have to take into
account both volume and duration, however, taking into account the sample smoke dispersion model a
distance of one city block with a six hour burn limit and a burn pit size limitation of 2ft. Diameter
would likely combine with random wind effects on dispersion to significantly reduce the exposure of
people at risk.
Conclusion
The remedial steps I have suggested to be incorporated into BY-LAW 34-10 are not a guaranty that at
risk persons within the population will be protected from negative effects produced by open air burns,
but those steps will provide a little breathing room for those that need it most. Please note: prior to my
investigation into the potential hazards of open air burning within residential areas, I was in favor of
responsible burning, but am now aware of the significant risk pleasure burning may have upon the
whole community. Additional research is currently be done and existing research is being compiled for
previous years, however, the available data only support remedial action (at this time) as I have outline
to council.
23
PLA-26-13
REPORT
TO:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
FROM:
DANIELLE TRUAX, MANAGER OF PLANNING SERVICES
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 14, 2013
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT – ZBA#73
MAGRI GREENHOUSES INC. S/S MERSEA ROAD 3
(TAX ROLL NO. 590-06300) and
TOM MAGRI – 308 MERSEA ROAD 3
(TAX ROLL NO. 590-06500)
AIM:
To provide Council with information regarding an application to amend Map 34 of Zoning By-law
#890-09 for vacant farmland located on the south side of Mersea Road 3, as well as the abutting
farm at 308 Mersea Road 37 and to recommend that the application be refused.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has received an application to amend the zoning for land described as Part Lot 3,
Concession 2 in the former Township of Mersea being a vacant farm on the south side of
Mersea Road 3, as well the abutting farm known municipally as 308 Mersea Road 3 (see
inserted key map). The application has been submitted as a condition of approval for consent
application (B/08/13) which was given provisional consent by the Committee of Adjustment on
March 26, 2013.
Subject Property
Subject Property
B/08/13
The purpose of consent application B/08/13 was to add 13.77 ha (34.3 acres) of vacant farmland
to the abutting farm at 308 Mersea Road 3. The lot addition resulted in a vacant retained
residential parcel. The retained residential lot measures 47 m (154.73 ft) by 158 m (554.6 ft)
and is 0.8 ha (1.97 ac) in area. As a condition of the provisional consent, the retained lands
must be rezoned from the Agricultural General Zone (A1) to Agricultural Residential Zone (A5)
to reflect the resulting residential use of the severed property.
24
PLA-26-13 ZBA# 73 – MAGRI GREENHOUSES INC.
2
As a second condition of consent, the lands receiving the lot addition must be rezoned from the
Agricultural Hobby Farm Zone (A3) to Agricultural General Zone (A1) to reflect the resulting farm
lot size. This farm contains an existing dwelling and barn.
Administration was not in support of a lot addition application that would result in a residential lot
not otherwise permitted under the Land Division Policies of the Official Plan (OP) of the
Municipality of Leamington. In particular, Section 5.4.3 of the Official Plan states that lot
adjustments may be permitted for legal or technical reasons provided that:
i)
Both parcels (severed and retained) comply with the provisions of the implementing
Zoning By-law;
ii)
The consent is granted conditional to Section 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990; &
iii)
The lot adjustment does not result in the creation of a ‘residential lot’ that would not
have otherwise been allowed under Section 5.4.2 of this Plan.
The proposed severance will result in the creation of a vacant lot, which would otherwise not be
permitted.
Resulting
Retained
Lot
A1 to A5
Resulting
Farm
Lands to be
rezoned
from A3 to
A1
25
3
COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS:
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS):
Areas identified as Prime Agricultural Areas, as defined by the PPS, are to be protected for longterm use for agricultural purposes. Within the agricultural area permitted uses and activities
include agricultural uses, secondary uses and agriculture-related uses.
Section 2.3.4.2 of the PPS permits lot additions in agricultural areas for legal or technical
reasons. Legal or technical reasons are defined under the PPS as “…means severances for the
purpose such as easements, corrections of deeds, quit claims and minor boundary adjustments
which do not result in the creation of a new lot.”
The consent is not consistent with the direction of the PPS established in Section 2.3.4.2 as it
permitted the creation of a vacant residential lot not otherwise permitted.
The proposed zoning amendment to permit the residential use of the property is not consistent
with the direction of the PPS.
County of Essex Official Plan 2005 (OP):
The subject lands are designated within the Agricultural Area on Schedule “A” of the County OP.
The land use goals contained within the County OP are to protect prime agricultural areas for
agricultural purposes and to discourage the creation of lots outside of the settlement area,
except as permitted by the local Official Plans. Applications for severances are delegated to the
local municipality and should conform to the policies of the County OP and the PPS. The
County OP policies are silent on lot additions or boundary adjustments and this is regulated at
the local level.
The creation of a new vacant residential lot in the agricultural area does not conform to the
Agricultural Land Use Policies of Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the County Official Plan. The
creation of the residential lot by way of a lot addition does not conform to the policy direction of
Section 3.3.3, in particular, the application:
i)
does not protect prime agricultural areas for agricultural purposes;
ii)
contributes to non-farm uses in the agricultural area; &
iii)
allows residential development outside of settlement area not on full municipal
services.
Leamington Official Plan, 2008 (OP):
The subject property is designated Agricultural on Schedule “A-2” of the Leamington OP. The
goals of the Land Use and Land Division Policies in the OP are to preserve prime agricultural
land for agricultural purposes and to restrict the type and amount of non-farm development. The
creation of a vacant residential lot does not comply with the Land Division Policies of Section
5.4.3 of the Official Plan.
Administration did not support the approval of consent application B/08/13 which resulted in a lot
that would have not otherwise been permitted. The proposed amendment does not conform to
the policies of the Official Plan as it allows the residential use of a lot in the agricultural area.
During the consideration of the lot addition application, Administration did take into account the
rural residential lots located immediately west of the subject property. These lands are
designated as “Rural Residential” in the Official Plan and were designated as such in the Official
Plan for the former Township of Mersea (1993). Administration was also not in a position to
support a request to expand the rural residential designation to allow for the creation of a
residential lot from the subject farm.
26
4
Leamington Zoning By-law #890-09:
The subject farm property is currently zoned Agricultural General Zone (A1) on Map 34 of
Zoning By-law #890-09. To fulfill a condition of the provisional consent granted by the
Committee of Adjustment the property owner has applied to rezone the retained residential lot to
the Agricultural Residential Zone (A5) to reflect the residential use of the property. Additionally,
as a result of the addition of the lands to 308 Mersea Road 3 that property must be rezoned from
Agricultural Hobby Farm Zone (A3) to Agricultural General Zone (A1)
Both properties comply with the lot area and frontage requirements of the applicable zones.
In consideration of the retained residential lot and resulting farm property at 308 Mersea Road 3,
the Committee of Adjustment, has deemed the lot area and frontage to be adequate to allow for
appropriate servicing, access, compliance with the Zoning By-law and appropriate for normal
agricultural practices.
Administration is not in support of the proposed zoning amendment as the creation of the
residential lot does not conform to the land division policies of the Official Plan. For that reason,
Administration is not in a position to support the application to rezone agricultural lands to
recognize the future residential use of the property.
CONCLUSION:
Administration has completed their review of the proposed application as part of the approval for
consideration of the severance. As set out in the Planning Act, a complete application includes
any ‘prescribed information’ identified in the regulations of the Planning Act and any ‘additional
information’ required by the municipality, as identified in its official plan. Due to the nature of the
proposed zoning change, it is Administration’s position that additional information is not
required.
Administration suggests that this matter should be refused. It is Administration’s opinion that:
i)
The application is not consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3 (1)
of the Planning Act.
ii) The proposed amendment does not conform to the overall goals and policies of the
Official Plan.
iii) The proposed amendment does meet the criteria used when considering applications to
amend the zoning by-law.
Council may refuse the application and provide notification to the applicant. Upon notification
the applicant may appeal Council’s refusal to consider the zoning amendment application to the
Ontario Municipal Board. Council should be able to demonstrate that its decision was fully
supported by relevant information and that the information was considered by Council.
Council may also direct Administration to proceed to a public meeting and that the required
Notice be given in accordance with the regulations of the Planning Act. R.S.O.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA#73 (Magri Greenhouses Inc.) to change the
zone of the retained lands from the Agricultural General Zone (A1) to the Agricultural Residential
Zone (A5) and to change the zone of the farm at 308 Mersea Road 3 from the Agricultural
Hobby Farm Zone (A3) to Agricultural General Zone (A1) was reviewed and deemed to be
complete pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act (PLA-25-13);
27
5
AND THAT Council refuse the application for the following reasons:
i)
The application is not consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection
3 (1) of the Planning Act.
ii)
The proposed amendment does not conform to the overall goals and policies of the
Official Plan.
iii)
The proposed amendment does meet the criteria used when considering applications
to amend the zoning by-law.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Danielle Truax
Manager of Planning Services
Tracey Pillon-Abbs
Director of Development Services
:dt
28
PLA-25-13
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 13, 2013
SUNRITE GREENHOUSES LTD.
620 ESSEX ROAD 37 (TAX ROLL NO. 730-00250)
AIM:
To provide Council with information regarding an application to amend Zoning By-law #890-09
for property located at 620 Essex Road 37 and to recommend that the application be refused.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has received an application to amend the zoning for a portion of land described as Part Lot
19, Concession 6 in the former Township of Mersea known municipally as 620 Essex Road 37
(see inserted key map). The application has been submitted as a condition of approval for
consent application (B/02/13) which was given provisional consent by the Committee of
Adjustment on January 22, 2013.
Subject Property
Subject Property
620 County Rd. 37
1997 Retirement Lot
610 County Road 37
2001 Lot Creation
616 County Rd 37
2001 Infilling Lot Denied
2004 Lot Addition to Farm
2013 Surplus Dwelling Lot
612 County Road 37
29
PLA-25-13 ZBA# 74 – 620 ESSEX ROAD 37 (SUNRITE GREENHOUSES LTD.)
2
B/02/13
The purpose of consent application B/02/13 was to sever the existing dwelling at 620 County
Road 37 as a surplus dwelling from the balance of the farm owned by Sunrite Greenhouses Ltd.
The surplus dwelling lot measures 30 m (100 ft) by 158 m (518) and results in a 0.48 ha (1.2 ac)
lot. As a condition of the approval, the lands must be rezoned from the Agricultural Hobby Farm
Zone (A3) to Agricultural Residential Zone (A5) to reflect the resulting residential use of the
severed property.
Administration was not in support of the application to create the surplus dwelling lot as it did not
conform to the Land Division Policies of the Official Plan (OP). In particular, the subject property
exceeds the maximum number of permitted severances for lot creation under subsection 5.4.2.
j) of the OP.
Municipal records indicate the property has been subject to a number of severances granted by
the Committee of Adjustment. In 1997. the Owner’s of the farm were granted a retirement lot
(B/147/97) to sever the existing home at 610 County Road 37 from the 8.06 ha (19.93 ac) farm,
shown in red on the key map.
A second vacant lot was taken from the retained farm 6.5 ha (16.3 ac) greenhouse farm in 2001
(B/104/01) and the home at 616 County Road 37 was constructed in 2002, shown in blue on the
key map.
The owner’s of 610 County Rd 37 applied in 2004 (B16/04) to sever an infilling lot shown in
green on the key map. The application was denied, as the retained and severed parcels did not
comply with the minimum lot area requirements.
The owner’s of 610 County Road 37 applied a second time in 2004 (B/29/04) to add the area
shown in green on the key map back to the farm.
COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS:
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS):
Areas identified as Prime Agricultural Areas, as defined by the PPS, are to be protected for longterm use for agricultural purposes. Within the agricultural area permitted uses and activities
include agricultural uses, secondary uses and agriculture-related uses.
Lot creation for the propose of severing an existing dwelling deemed to be surplus to the needs
of a farm as a result of farm consolidation is permitted in accordance with Section 2.3.4.1 of the
PPS. Surplus dwelling lots can be created provided municipalities take the necessary action to
ensure that no further residential dwellings can be constructed on the retained farm parcel. The
PPS does not establish the criteria that allow municipalities to create surplus dwelling lots. The
criteria, for example how large the original farm is, how many other severances have been
granted or whether the owner is a bona fide farmer or how long the property has been owned by
an applicant are established in the local planning documents.
The consent granted by the Committee of Adjustment included the standard requirement to
enter into an agreement with the Municipality to prohibit any new residential dwellings which is
consistent with the direction of Section 2.3.4.1 of the PPS. It is noted that the there is an
existing residential structure on the retained farm used for the accommodation of farm help. The
applicant has requested that the residential use for farm help be permitted.
30
3
The approved consent is not consistent with the overlying direction of the PPS established in
Section 2.3.1 to protect farm land for long term agricultural uses.
The proposed zoning amendment to permit the residential use of the property is not consistent
with the direction of the PPS.
County of Essex Official Plan 2005 (OP):
The subject lands are designated within the Agricultural Area on Schedule “A” of the County OP.
The land use goals contained within the County OP are to protect prime agricultural areas for
agricultural purposes and to discourage the creation of lots outside of the settlement area,
except as permitted by the local Official Plans. The County Official Plan states that lot creation
should occur by way of Plan of Subdivision when four or more lots are created. Applications for
lot creation for three are fewer lots are delegated to the local municipality.
Section 4.6.4 of the County OP requires that lot creation applications considered by a
municipality must conform to the policies of the County OP and the PPS. The approval of
consent application B/02/13 does not conform to the land division policies and the overall land
use goals for lands shown in the Agricultural Area.
The proposed zoning to permit the residential use of the property does not conform to the land
use goals for lands shown in the Agricultural Area.
Leamington Official Plan, 2008 (OP):
The subject property is designated Agricultural on Schedule “A-2” of the Leamington OP. The
goals of the Land Use and Land Division Policies in the OP are to preserve prime agricultural
land for agricultural purposes and to restrict the type and amount of non-farm development. The
creation of a surplus dwelling lot from the subject property does not comply with the Land
Division Policies of Section 5.4 of the Official Plan.
Administration did not support the approval of consent application B/02/13 which created the
residential lot. For that reason, Administration is not in a position to support the application to
rezone agricultural lands to recognize the future residential use of the property.
Leamington Zoning By-law #890-09:
The subject farm property is currently zoned Agricultural Hobby Farm Zone (A3) on Map 20 of
Zoning By-law #890-09. To fulfill a condition of the provisional consent granted by the
Committee of Adjustment the property owner has applied to rezone the severed surplus dwelling
lot to the Agricultural Residential Zone (A5).
Both properties comply with the lot area and frontage requirements of the applicable zones.
In consideration of the retained and severed surplus dwelling lot, the Committee of Adjustment,
has deemed the lot area and frontage to be adequate to allow for appropriate servicing, access,
compliance with the Zoning By-law and appropriate for normal agricultural practices.
Administration is not in support of the proposed zoning amendment as the creation of the
surplus dwelling lot does not conform to the land division policies of the Official Plan.
31
4
CONCLUSION:
Administration has completed their review of the proposed application as part of the approval for
consideration of the severance. As set out in the Planning Act, a complete application includes
any ‘prescribed information’ identified in the regulations of the Planning Act and any ‘additional
information’ required by the municipality, as identified in its official plan. Due to the nature of the
proposed zoning change it is Administration’s position that additional information is not required.
Administration was not in support of the creation of the surplus dwelling lot as it did not conform
to the land division policies of the Official Plan. For that reason Administration, is not in a
position to support the zoning which supports the creation of the surplus dwelling lot. It is
suggested that this application should be refused. It is Administration’s opinion that:
i)
The application is not consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3 (1)
Official Plan.
Council may refuse the application and provide notification to the applicant. Upon notification
the applicant may appeal Council’s refusal to consider the zoning amendment application to the
Ontario Municipal Board. Council should be able to demonstrate that its decision was fully
supported by relevant information and that the information was considered by Council.
Council may also direct Administration to proceed to a public meeting and that the required
Notice be given in accordance with the regulations of the Planning Act. R.S.O.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA#74 (Sunrite Greenhouses Ltd.) to change the
zone of the severed lands from the Agricultural Hobby Farm Zone (A3) to the Agricultural
Residential Zone (A5) was reviewed and deemed to be complete pursuant to the requirements
of the Planning Act (PLA-25-13);
AND THAT Council refuse the application for the following reasons:
i) The application is not consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3 (1)
Official Plan.
_________________________
Danielle Truax
:dt
Tracey Pillon-Abbs
32
CL/21/13
Report
To:
Mayor and Members of Council
From:
Brian R. Sweet, Director of Corporate Services
Date:
July 15, 2013
Re:
First Baptist Church - Request to Relocate Alley Entrance and
to Close and Transfer a Portion of the Alley
Aim:
To report upon an updated request to close and transfer a portion of an alley and to
relocate a portion of an alley.
Background:
On December 3, 2012 Council considered Report CL/18/12 which described a request
from the First Baptist Church to initiate the process to close and transfer an alley in
order to allow the church to construct an addition to connect the two buildings they
presently own, as shown on the map below.
At that meeting, Council passed Council Resolution No. 390-12, authorizing
administration to commence the process to close the portion of the alley located
between the two church properties.
The process to close and transfer the alley included mailing a Notice to neighbours
abutting the alley of Council’s intention to consider closing and transferring the alley, as
well as inclusion of the Notice in the Southpoint Sun for two weeks prior to Council’s
consideration.
33
Page 2, Report CL 21/13 – First Baptist Church
On January 14, 2013 Council considered a proposed by-law to close the portion of the
alley located between the two properties owned by the First Baptist Church and to
transfer those lands to the church.
At that meeting, Council heard from a number of the neighbours abutting the alley as
well as reviewed correspondence submitted by neighbours. A number of neighbours
expressed concern over the possibility of the alley becoming a dead-end, as the alley is
narrow and many of them rely on access to the alley for parking of their vehicles. They
suggested if the alley were to become a dead end it would pose a safety concern as it
would be difficult to turn around at the dead end.
At the meeting of January 14, 2013 Council enacted the following resolution:
No. C-17-13
That the application by the First Baptist Church to close a portion of the alley
between Fox Street and Chestnut Street, as described in Report CL/18/12 be
denied.
In the time since that meeting, representatives of the First Baptist Church have worked
with staff to develop a new proposal in order to allow them to construct the addition. The
Development Services Review Committee, including representatives of fire and police,
have reviewed this proposal and none of the departments have any objection to this
proposal which includes closure of the portion of the alley located between the two
church properties and the creation of a new entrance to the alley from Russell Street. A
sketch of the proposal is shown below.
34
Sketch of new proposed alley
Location of Proposed Alley Entrance and Portion of Alley to be Closed
If Council is in support of the new proposal, the process to close and transfer the alley
can commence and Administration will take the following steps:
1. Place a Notice in the local paper advertising Council’s intention to consider
closing the alley and the date of the Council meeting for the by-law to be
considered;
2. Notify all property owners in the immediate vicinity of the alley;
3. If, following the advertised Council meeting Council decides to close the alley, an
appropriate by-law will be prepared to be registered on title; and
4. If Council decides to sell the property, an agreement will be entered into with the
First Baptist Church and a reference plan and a transfer will be prepared and
registered; and
5. The First Baptist Church will take the steps to have a reference plan prepared for
the new alley location and to have the lands transferred to the Municipality.
35
The new existing portion of the alley will not be closed or the ownership transferred until
such time that the ownership of the lands for the new alley have been transferred to the
Municipality and the new alley has been constructed to the satisfaction of the
Municipality. There will never be a time where there is only one exit from the alley.
Financial Impact:
The First Baptist Church will be responsible for all costs associated with the closure and
transfer of the existing portion of the alley including all plan preparations, postage,
advertising and registration costs. Further, the Church will be responsible for the costs
to transfer the new alley lands to the Municipality and for the construction of the new
alley.
Recommendation:
That administration initiate the process described in Report CL/21/13 for Council to
consider the request to close a portion of the alley between 82 Talbot Street West and
31 Russell Street and to transfer the closed portion of alley to the owners of 82 Talbot
Street West and 31 Russell Street.
(Report CL/21/13)
Brian Sweet
Director of Corporate Services
JB
T:\Corporate\A00-Administration\A00-Council Reports\2013 Corporate Services Reports\Word Reports\CL2113-First Baptist Church-Alley Closure.doc
36
37
38
The Letter was signed by the owners/occupants of the following properties (indicated
with a red dot on the map below):










33 Russell Street
34 Russell Street
35 Russell Street
39 Russell Street
40 Russell Street
42 Russell Street
43 Russell Street
84 Talbot Street West
92 Talbot Street West
64 Mill Street West
Subject alley
39
PLA-38-13
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
TRACEY PILLON-ABBS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
SUBJECT:
RESULTS OF THE UPTOWN LEAMINGTON BIA BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
AIM:
To provide Council with an update on the results of the formal notification for the request to
amend the Uptown Leamington Business Improvement Area (BIA) boundary.
BACKGROUND:
Administration received correspondence from the Board of Management of the Uptown
Leamington BIA on March 27, 2013 requesting that the existing boundary be amended.
BIAs are legislated under section 204 (i) of the Municipal Act which allows local municipalities to
designate an area to oversee improvements, beautification and maintenance of land, buildings
and structures. It also allows an opportunity to promote an area as a business or shopping area.
Members of the BIA include both property owners and tenants within the BIA area that were
assessed in a business class (commercial and industrial) and do not include properties that are
owned by the Municipality, vacant land or properties used for residential purposes. The levy
paid by members is based on the assessed value of the property.
The existing Leamington BIA was established in 1979 by by-law No 3007.
boundary has not been modified since its inception.
The existing
Council approved the Uptown Commercial District Community Improvement Plan (CIP) on
August 13, 2012 (By-law 233-12). A CIP area is different than a BIA area as it is a planning tool
that allows municipalities to promote investment through programs and incentives. The purpose
of the Leamington Uptown Commercial District CIP is to establish strategic direction and
financial incentive programs that focus on the maintenance, rehabilitation, development and
redevelopment of the Uptown Commercial District. The plan aims to promote cultural cohesion,
strengthen mainstreet, and stimulate new investment while retaining existing businesses.
40
PLA-38-13 RESULTS OF THE BIA BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
2
The BIA Board of Management request is to amend the existing BIA boundary (shown in yellow
on the key map) to include the additional CIP properties (shown in the black outline on the key
map) in addition to lands to the north (shown in the red outline on the key map). It is not
proposed to remove any BIA properties from the existing area.
There are currently 145 properties that were given notice in the existing BIA area. The
amendment to the existing boundary proposes to add 38 new properties in total (9 in the
additional area to the north and 29 from the additional CIP area).
The BIA held an informal open house on May 29th, 2013 from 6pm to 8pm to offer an opportunity
for existing and proposed property owners to discuss the proposed boundary amendment.
Through the recommendation of report PLA-14-13, Council authorized Administration to send
out formal notification under the Municipal Act of Council’s intention to pass a By-law
(September 9, 2013) to alter the BIA boundary.
COMMENTS:
Notification:
Based on the requirements of the Municipal Act, Administration sent out formal notification on
June 19, 2013 advising of Council’s intention to pass a By-law to amend the BIA boundary. The
41
3
notice was sent to all property owners within the existing BIA area, the additional properties in
the CIP boundary and the additional lands to the north.
The Act requires that within 30 days of the notice being mailed (July 19, 2013), property owners
have the responsibility to give their tenants a copy of the notice and provide the Clerk of the
municipality a list of every tenant required to pay taxes on the property and the share of the
taxes that each tenant and the property owners pays.
Results of the Notification:
The Act states that Council cannot pass a By-law to change the boundaries of the BIA if written
objections are received by at least one-third of the total number of persons entitled to receive
notice within 60 days of mailing the notice (August 19, 2013); and,
a. The total value of the assessments of the objectors is at least one-third of the total
assessment in the improvement area, or
b. The total value of the assessments of the objectors is at least one-third of the total
assessment in the proposed boundary expansion area.
Based on the total number of properties eligible to receive notice (existing and proposed)
Administration received 4 objections. The property locations are as follows:
1
2
3
4
Property Location
88 Erie Street North
77-79 Erie Street North
74 – 78 Erie Street North
10 Clark Street West
Area on Key Map
Shown in Red
Shown in Red
Shown in Red
Shown in Black
Most of the correspondence noted that there was no interest in becoming a member of the BIA
(under separate cover). Also, it should be noted that 3 of the 4 objections came from the area
proposed as the additional lands to the north (see green dots on the key map in the area shown
in red).
CONCLUSION:
The number of objections received does not represent one-third of the total number of people
that were eligible to receive notice. Therefore the By-law to facilitate the amendment to the BIA
boundary can be considered for approval by Council.
However it should be noted that since the majority of the objectors are located the additional
area to the north (shown in red), Administration recommends that the area be removed from the
amendment all together (see revised key map below). There also seems to be some confusion
about this area as it relates to the CIP. It was never the intent to offer this area inclusion into the
CIP and it was strongly discouraged by the project consultant to enlarge the CIP boundary after
Council had decreased its size as part of the comprehensive review.
42
4
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are no financial impacts as a result of this report.
If the amendment to the BIA boundary is approved by Council, the effective date will be January
1, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the information regarding the Uptown Leamington Business Improvement Area (BIA)
amendment request be received;
AND THAT in accordance with Section 210 of the Municipal Act; the request from the
Leamington BIA Board of Management to amend the boundary be granted however without the
area shown on the key map as the ‘additional area’;
AND THAT the necessary By-law is forwarded to Council for consideration;
43
5
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Uptown Leamington BIA Board
of Management (PLA-38-13).
Tracey Pillon-Abbs
/tpa
File: T:\Development\Reports\2013 Reports\Planning\Word Versions\PLA-38-13 BIA Boundary Change Final.docx
44
NOTICE OF PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE
UPTOWN LEAMINGTON BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LEAMINGTON
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington intends to
pass a by-law under Section 209 and 210 of the Municipal Act (S.O. 2001, c.25) at its Regular
Meeting to be held on Monday, September 9th, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Leamington Council
Chambers to expand the boundary of the Uptown Leamington Business Improvement Area
(BIA).
The By-law would amend the current provisions in By-law 3007 which established the BIA. The
amendment proposed by the Board of Management of the existing BIA would expand the
boundary to include the area within the Uptown Commercial District Community Improvement
Plan (CIP) and the area to the north (see key map).
As required by the Municipal Act, this notice is being mailed to the Board of Management for the
BIA in addition to all owners in both the existing BIA and the proposed expanded area of
property in a prescribed business property class. If the by-law is approved, the boundary
change would take effect on January 1, 2014.
By July 19th, 2013, which is 30 days after this notice is mailed, you must:
a) give a copy of this Notice to each tenant of the property to which this Notice applies who
is required to pay all or part of the taxes on the property, and
b) give the Clerk a list of every tenant described in clause (a) and the share of the taxes
that each tenant is required to pay and the share that you are required to pay.
Any persons in the existing or proposed BIA area who would be liable to pay a BIA levy or any
tenant who is required under their lease to pay all or part of the taxes on the property may object
to the proposed by-law.
In order to object to the proposed expansion you must provide the Clerk with Notice of your
objection, in writing, by August 19th, 2013, which is 60 days after this Notice was mailed.
Council will be prohibited from passing the by-law for the proposed expansion of the boundary if
the objections that are received meet the requirement set out in section 210 (3) of the Municipal
Act, 2001.
It should be noted that the proposed BIA area which is outside of the CIP area will not be eligible
for CIP grants until such time that Council amends the CIP. Please contact Tracey Pillon-Abbs,
Director of Development Services for further information.
DATED at the Municipality of Leamington this 19th day of June, 2013.
BRIAN R. SWEET, CLERK
MUNICIPALITY OF LEAMINGTON
111 ERIE STREET NORTH
LEAMINGTON, ON N8H 2Z9
TELEPHONE: (519) 326-5761
45
46
PLA-35-13
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
AUGUST 13, 2013
SUBJECT:
1 HENRY STREET (230-10600)
PROPOSED TEMPORARY USE ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
LONG TERM CARE FACILITY
AIM:
To provide Council with a recommendation regarding a request to provide temporary relief from
the requirement to provide on-site parking at 1 Henry Street to permit the existing facility to
accommodate 118 beds (60 long term care beds & 58 retirement beds) for a period of two years.
BACKGROUND:
Staff received a request to provide relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law #890-09 to
consider the temporary use of the subject property located at 1 Henry Street (see inserted key
map) to accommodate 118 beds with 41 parking spaces provided on-site. Council received a
preliminary planning report (PLA-16-13) detailing the nature of the relief being sought and the
applicable land use policies.
M.D. Bennie P.S.
Shopper’s Drug Mart
Leamington Court Residence
1 Henry Street
The site was developed as an 80 bed retirement home with 41 parking spaces. Since that time,
Leamington Court Residence has converted some of the retirement suites into rooms which can
accommodate two long term care beds. The level of care a resident receives triggers new
requirements under the Building Code and the provision of emergency services. The owner of
the facility is working extensively with both Building and Fire Services to make the necessary
upgrades to convert the rooms based on the classification of the resident. These changes will
be required whether ZBA #68 is approved or not by Council.
47
PLA-35-13 ZBA 68 1 HENRY AVENUE LEAMINGTON COURT RESIDENCE
2
However, it is the addition of beds which triggers a need for additional parking under the Zoning
By-law. Section 4.38 of the Zoning By-law requires that Nursing Homes/Retirement Homes
provide 1 parking space for every two beds of capacity. Based on the current number of beds in
the facility, a total 60 standard parking spaces and two barrier free spaces would be required.
The facility has 41 spaces and would require an additional 19 spaces that cannot be provided
on-site.
Public Meeting
A Public Meeting was held on June 10, 2013 for the purpose of receiving comments from
residents and commenting agencies on the proposed use of the facility to accommodate 118
beds while providing the same amount of parking (41 spaces).
The following represents a summary of the comments received from the public meeting and the
written submissions with respect to the proposed temporary use by-law;
1.
Other Parking Options - Residents noted that perhaps other options for providing private
parking could be investigated by the property owner (Chartwell). Such options included:



New parking lot – Mr. Tanner confirmed that Chartwell is not approaching
owners along Pulford for the purpose of purchasing lands to create an additional
parking area.
Shuttle to off-site location – It was suggested by the owners that perhaps
additional parking areas could be leased off site and workers shuttled into the
site. However no off-site location is being proposed at this time.
Erie Street Plaza parking – It was suggested by residents and the applicant that
arrangements for a private parking agreement could be sought with the owner of
the abutting shopping plaza to the immediate east of the facility. The applicant
has entered into a private agreement to use 19 parking spaces at the rear of the
Erie Street Plaza for staff parking until July 31, 2015.
2.
Traffic Safety – It was stated that parked cars hinder home owners’ ability to see oncoming traffic, make it difficult to exit driveways into traffic and occasionally park in a way
that blocks driveways.
3.
Pedestrian Safety – It was stated that parked cars hinder pedestrian’s ability to see
oncoming traffic at street crossings.
Engineering Services has indicated that parking spaces can be delineated on the west side of
Henry Avenue, south of Pulford Street with pavement markings to mitigate sight line issues.
Written comments were also received from two residents detailing the same concerns noted at
the public meeting.
1. P. French, 14 Pulford- in opposition
2. T. & F. Galloway, 26 Melrose Ave. – in opposition
DISCUSSION:
A temporary use by-law can be passed by Council to allow land to be temporarily used for a
purpose which would otherwise not be permitted under the provisions of the zoning by-law. The
applicants have requested that they be permitted to have 118 beds on-site with the current
number of parking spaces for a time period of two years.
48
3
Section 7.15 of the Municipality of Leamington Official Plan states that Council may consider
passing a temporary use by-law to allow a use not otherwise permitted. Prior to the approval of
any temporary use by-law, Council shall be satisfied that the following principals and criteria are
met:

Temporary in nature
 The applicants have indicated that the request is being brought forward to
temporarily accommodate the needed beds within the community while Schlegel
Village is being constructed in Windsor. The applicant has requested a
temporary use by-law for a period of two years.
 Major construction or investment
 The applicant is in the process of working with both Fire and Building Services to
complete upgrades to the building which are required whether additional beds are
permitted or not. The applicant has indicated that the required upgrades to
accommodate both retirement beds and long term care beds within the facility are
likely to cost $400,000. Unlike zoning regulations, Fire and Building regulations
are based on the level of care a person receives at the facility. No building
additions or additional facilities are required to temporarily accommodate the
additional beds.
 Compatible of Use
 There will be no changes in the use of the site or the nature of the general
operations offered on-site. The services offered to retirement, nursing and long
term care facilities are very similar in nature and therefore lend themselves well
to a combined facility.

Properly serviced
 There are no requirements for increased municipal services.

Traffic
 The applicant has indicated that the requested beds have been on-site for a
year’s time and that no further staff are required.


Traffic is generated from staff, visitors and limited traffic from residents with
vehicles.
Parking
 The Municipality is aware that the parking for the facility has exceeded the on-site
capacity and that available on-street parking is often used by visitors and staff.

On-street parking is permitted along the streets surrounding the facility.
Engineering Services has indicated that parking spaces can be delineated on the
west side of Henry Avenue, south of Pulford Street with pavement markings.
Painting lines to mark the location of parking spaces is effective in maximizing the
numbers of spaces available where parking demand is high. It will also ensure
that drivers parking along this section will leave appropriate distances from the
residential driveway at 24 Pulford Street.

Based on current staffing and occupancy, the parking demand is at its maximum.
49
4
Information in support of the application was submitted by the applicant’s
Planner, including the results of an informal parking survey. The parking survey
indicated that the majority of the parking is provided on-site at peak times and
that over the course of a day 7 additional parking spaces were typically required
and was being provided off-site. It was understood that staff and visitors typically
choose to park on street along Henry Avenue and Pulford Street and in the
parking lot for the Erie Street (Shoppers Drug Mart) Plaza. It was the opinion of
Mr. Tanner that the on-street parking required to accommodate staff and visitors
of the facility was appropriate for the area.

Pulford has been identified as a collector road on Schedule “E” of the Official
Plan. Collector roads serve the purpose of gathering traffic from local roads and
moving it to other areas. A benefit of having parking along streets is that the
parked cars have the effect narrowing the feel of the street for drivers who in turn
slow down. Parking along Pulford Avenue does help to slow the traffic cross from
Sherk to Erie street down.
 Beneficial
 There is a demand for the provision of long term care beds within a community.
The provision of beds locally allows families access more easily to those that
require full care services and elevates the demand for the same beds currently
being accommodated within local hospitals.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
It is not anticipated that the proposed amendment will trigger any change in assessment for the
facility.
It has been suggested that parking spaces be painted on a portion of Henry Avenue south of
Pulford Street to direct drivers away from a residential driveway. The line painting can be
completed in house by Public Works at a cost of material and labour. Line painting maintenance
would be an on-going cost to the Municipality.
CONCLUSION:
The requested zoning by-law amendment to allow temporary relief from the requirement to
provide on-site parking spaces meets the criteria set out in Section 7.15 of the Official Plan with
the exception of the ability to provide all parking on-site.
It is Administration’s opinion that the facility does not provide adequate parking to accommodate
staff and visitors on-site. However, it has been shown that on-street parking in the immediate
area is able to accommodate the overflow parking at this time and that the expected levels over
the requested two years should not increase. Additionally, the applicant has confirmed with the
Municipality that they have entered into an agreement with the abutting commercial property to
use 19 parking spaces until July 31, 2015. The requested relief will accommodate the
immediate need for additional beds in the community to be provided at Leamington Court
Residence for a period of two years.
The applicant is seeking relief from the requirement to provide on-site parking for 118 beds for a
time period of two years. After two years, the applicant would be required to comply with the bylaw and may do so by:
1.
2.
3.
Providing the required number of parking spaces on the subject property;
Eliminating the number of beds to comply with the required parking;
Apply to Council for extension of the temporary relief for up to an additional 3
50
4.
5
years; or
Apply to Council for a zoning by-law amendment to site specifically decrease the
required parking for the site.
The applicant has been advised that subsequent requests for extensions to the relief will not be
supported by staff. Any consideration of extensions or relief from the parking requirements
would require an amendment to the zoning by-law and must be supported by a full planning
justification report including a formal parking study which addresses the impact of the use of onstreet parking within the immediate area and the appropriateness of the parking provided onsite.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA#68 (1 Henry Avenue – Leamington Court
Residence) to allow the temporary use of the subject property for 118 beds with a minimum of
41 parking spaces to be provided on-site, in an addition to 19 spaces provided off-site be
approved (PLA-35-13);
AND THAT the temporary use shall be in effect until July 31, 2015;
AND THAT By-law 302-13 being a by-law to amend Leamington’s comprehensive Zoning Bylaw #890-09 be forwarded to Council for consideration.
_________________________
Danielle Truax
Tracey Pillon-Abbs
:dt
51
BY-LAW NUMBER 302-13
Being a By-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law No. 890-09 for the Municipality of Leamington,
which pertains to the subject lands
ZBA #68 – 1 HENRY AVENUE
WHEREAS By-law No. 890-09, as amended, is a comprehensive zoning by-law
regulating the use of lands and the character, location and use of buildings and structures within
the Municipality of Leamington;
AND WHEREAS Council may pass a by-law under Section 39 of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended for a Temporary Use By-law;
AND WHEREAS he Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington deems
it appropriate to further amend By-law No. 890-09;
AND WHEREAS this By-law will conform with the Official Plan (as approved
February 5, 2008) in effect for the subject lands;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF LEAMINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Schedule "A", Map 47 to By-law No. 890-09, as amended, is hereby further
amended by changing the zoning classification on the lands depicted on Schedule 'A'
attached hereto and forming part of this amendment, from Residential Zone (R4) to
Residential Zone (R4-9).
2. That Section 9, Residential Zone (R4) Zone Regulations, of By-law No. 890-09, as
amended, is hereby further amended by the addition of subsection 9.2.9 with the
following:
“9.2.9
DEFINED AREA R4-9 as shown on Map 47, Schedule “A” of this By-law.
a) Permitted Uses
A 118 Retirement Home, as defined in Section 3.175 of this By-law. This use shall be in
effect until July 31, 2015.
b) Permitted Buildings and Other Structures
Buildings and structures for the permitted uses in subsection 9.1.2 of this By-law.
52
By-law 302-13– Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA#68 1 HENRY AVENUE
2
c) Zone Provisions
All lot and building requirements for the permitted buildings and structures shall be in
accordance with subsections 9.1.3 of this By-law, except that the minimum parking
spaces to be provided on-site shall be 41 spaces, in an addition to 19 spaces provided
off-site.
This relief from the required parking shall be in effect until July 31, 2015.
d) Other
All other provisions of this By-law pertaining to lands zoned R4 shall also pertain to
lands zoned R4-9”.
3. This by-law shall take effect from the date of passing by Council and shall come into force
in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY ENACTED THIS 9th DAY
OF SEPTEMBER, 2013.
___________________________________
John Paterson - Mayor
___________________________________
Brian R. Sweet - Municipal Clerk
53
By-law 302-13– Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA#68 1 HENRY AVENUE
3
SCHEDULE “A”
CONCESSION 1, PART LOT 6
AND LOCALLY KNOWN AS 1 HENRY AVENUE
THE MUNICIPALITY OF LEAMINGTON
Change from R4 Zone to R4-9 Zone until July 31, 2015.
This is Schedule “A” to By-Law Number 302-13
which amends Map 47 to By-law No. 890-09,
Passed the 9th day of September, 2013.
___________________________________
___________________________________
Brian R. Sweet - Clerk
54
ENG 16-13
REPORT
TO:
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
FROM:
ALEXANDER N. DEL BROCCO, C.E.T., ENGINEERING PROJECT
SUPERVISOR
DATE:
August 29, 2013
SUBJECT:
Leamington Trail Expansion and Phase 5 Trailhead
AIM:
To recommend final design and tendering for a trail extension along the abandoned rail lands
between Talbot Road West and Hazelton Avenue, including the construction of a trail head on the
South side of Smith Street.
BACKGROUND:
On August 26, 2013 Council was presented ENG 14-13, which included information pertaining to the
Leamington Trail Expansion Phase 5 from Talbot to Hazleton. Administration provided background
relating to the project, the proposed design, input received from the public information session, and
sought Council’s approval to proceed with the proposed design and tender the project.
The Leamington Air Cadets (535) appeared before Council as a delegation on August 26, 2013,
regarding parking concerns and the proposed trail project. Council deferred the report and directed
Administration to develop a proposed solution to remedy the parking challenges.
No. C-303-13
That Council defer a decision regarding Leamington Multi-Use Trail Expansion Phase 5 until
such time that a further report addressing possible parking solutions is presented. (ENG 14-13)
COMMENT:
Administration has reviewed the site and determined that, the only available remedy is the
construction of a trailhead on the south side of Smith Street. (see Attachment #1).
The trailhead could support parking for approximately 7 vehicles. Adjacent to the trailhead, the trail
will need to be reduced from 4 meters to 3 meters to accommodate the trailhead parking area. The 3
meter width is still within our trail development guidelines which note that 3 meters is the minimum
for trail maintenance and safe passage on multi-use rail trails.
As seen in Attachment #1, the trailhead will be located on the Eastern 12 metres (40 feet) of the
corridor up to the property line to the East, and the trail located in the remaining approximate 3.0
metres (10 feet) on the western portion up to the property line. There will be buffering on the east
and west sides of the former rail lines to delineate the trail and trailhead from private property and
buffering between the trail and the trailhead to avoid interaction between vehicles and pedestrians.
The trailhead parking area will be constructed as a granular parking area with concrete bumper
blocks to delineate the parking spaces. The trailhead parking area will not be subject to winter
55
ENG 16-13 – Leamington Trail Expansion and Phase 5 Trailhead
Page 2
control (snow clearing, etc.). Posted signage will limit parking times, and this parking area will not be
exclusive to the Air Cadets.
Administration has discussed this proposal with Kevin Reid, SSC Chair -535 Leamington Air Cadets,
and he has indicated that this will address their parking concerns. Administration presented the plan
as attached to the property owners adjacent to the trailhead. The owners had some minor requests
for modification and Administration will be able to accommodate. A drawing detailing those changes
will be presented to Council at the meeting.
The majority of the trail construction should happen this fall, as there is a March 31, 2014 deadline
for CIIF funded projects. Given the nature of the work, and the site restoration and beautification in
particular, work should not be deferred until the spring since the ground can still be frozen in March.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The trailhead will add approximately $13,000 to the cost of the phase 5 project. At this time,
Administration believes that the increase can be accommodated within the $300,000 budget. Once
the tendering is complete, Administration will be in a better position to determine the exact impact
this addition will have on the overall planned scope of the project.
The construction of the trailhead falls within the scope of the project and can therefore be part of the
CIFF funding.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Administration complete the final design as outlined in the Leamington Trail Expansion and
Phase 5 Trailhead report for the trail expansion along the abandoned rail lands between Talbot Road
West and Hazelton Avenue;
And that Administration tender the project and submit a further report with respect to the tender
outcome to Council for consideration (ENG 16/13).
Respectfully submitted;
_____
Alexander N. Del Brocco, C.E.T.
Engineering Project Supervisor
Allan Botham, P.Eng.
Manager of Engineering Services
Robert Sharon
Director of Community Service
56
ENG 16-13 – Leamington Trail Expansion and Phase 5 Trailhead
Page 3
Attachment #1
57
ENG 04-13
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
JOSEPH DATTILO, P. Eng., PROJECT ENGINEER
DATE:
JULY 30, 2013
RE:
SEACLIFF DRIVE EAST WIDENING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT
______________________________________________________________________
AIM:
To recommend that Council receive the Environmental Assessment Phase 1 & 2 Report
prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. and to recommend that Council adopt the report as the
basis for future design and construction of the Seacliff Drive East corridor from approximately
Cherry Lane to County Road 33.
BACKGROUND:
The “Problem Identification” presented in the subject report is that the section of Seacliff Drive
East from Cherry Lane to the ESAR requires widening as well as upgrades and improvements
due to:
 existing condition of the road and poor drainage,
 projected increases in overall traffic volumes,
 changes in the patterns of traffic flow to the east of the urban centre,
 anticipated major residential and commercial development in the northeast and
southeast areas designated in the Municipality’s Official Plan,
 construction of the East Side Arterial Road (ESAR), which intersects with Seacliff
Drive East.
1. This section of Seacliff Drive East is currently a two lane asphalt roadway, approximately 1
kilometer in length. It has gravel shoulders, grass boulevards, and asphalt pavement with a
varying width from 6m to 13m. Seacliff Drive East is classified as an Arterial Road in the
Official Plan of the Municipality of Leamington. The pavement and road structure has failed
and is in urgent need of repair or replacement. Existing roadway and roadside drainage
requires significant improvement.
2. Existing conditions will not support current and future development within the Municipality of
Leamington, as identified in the Official Plan.
3. The Municipality of Leamington initiated an Environmental Assessment for the Seacliff Drive
East Widening and Roadway Improvements project in July of 2005. A Public Information
Centre (P.I.C. No. 1) was held on September 22, 2005 for the purpose of explaining the
project and presenting the preferred alternative for improvement. The Environmental
Assessment was not finalized at that time, and deferred due to changes in priorities of the
Municipality. Priorities such as the completion of the: Oak Street East, Erie Street North and
Robson Road reconstruction projects and the East Side Arterial Road (ESAR)/County Road
33 construction project.
58
Page 2
ENG 04-13 – SEACLIFF DRIVE EAST WIDENING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
4. Another delay occurred in 2005 with the Municipality undertaking a long range Traffic
Planning Study for the Municipality, identifying increases in the overall traffic volume in the
urban centre and forecasted changes in the traffic flow patterns due to the proposed ESAR.
The Long Range Transportation Action Plan for the Municipality was completed in June,
2007.
5. A second P.I.C. was held November 25, 2009 at which time the Municipality presented the
“revised, preferred” alternative of the road layout. The revised alternative comprised: a three
lane section (two lanes with a centre turn lane), bike lanes on both sides of the road,
construction of a much needed storm sewer and street lighting.
COMMENTS:
1. The “Seacliff East Widening and Roadway Improvements” project is identified as a Schedule
B project within the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA), requiring the
Municipality to complete at least Phase 1 (Problem or Opportunity) and Phase 2 (Alternative
Solution) of the process. The compiled, subject report will be placed in the public record for
thirty days. If no valid objections are received by the Ministry of the Environment, and
causing the ministry to issue a “Part II Order” (additional documentation to support the
recommended alternative), the project may proceed to detailed design and construction.
2. Review Agencies and Stakeholders within the area were contacted at various milestones
during the EA process for their comments and input. The recommended alternative was
selected in consideration with:
 addressing identified needs with comments from agencies and the public
 feedback from the Public Information Centers
 consultation with the Municipality of Leamington
3. The subject report reviewed four options (please refer to Schedule A) and identifies option 4,
as the preferred alternative. Option 4 is described as “Reconstruct to Increased Width and
Urban Cross Section (i.e. Additional Lanes, Curb & Gutter, Bike Lanes and Sidewalks)”.
(please refer to Schedule A). Under this option, the existing roadway would be completely
reconstructed with proper road drainage, thereby extending the service life of this section of
Seacliff Drive East substantially more than the other options.
4. Safety to motorists, to cyclists (due to the addition of bike lanes) and to pedestrians (due to
the sidewalks) would be improved. Two (2) lanes for through traffic, one (1) in each direction,
is sufficient to service the anticipated traffic growth for the next 20 years. (please refer to
Schedule B)
5. While Option 4 will be more costly than Options 1-3, it best satisfies the long term
transportation demands, land use planning objectives and addresses the social and
economic impacts identified in the study.
6. Additional property is required adjacent to the existing right-of-way due to the widening and
infrastructure improvements including much needed daylight corners at intersections.
7. Stantec Consulting Ltd. will be providing a presentation to council and the report is available
for review through our Corporate Services Department.
8. Following the Class Environmental Assessment process, and Council’s approval, Stantec
will publish and mail a Notice of Completion. This notice will be delivered to stakeholders
and published in our local newspaper. The Environmental Assessment process requires
59
Page 3
ENG 04-13 – SEACLIFF DRIVE EAST WIDENING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
that the compiled report be made available for thirty (30) days allowing public review and
comment. If after thirty (30) days no objections have been received the process is deemed
complete, and the preferred alternative is accepted. The report will be made available for
review and copies will be displayed at: the Municipal Building, the Kinsmen Recreation
Complex, and the Leamington Public Library.
9. Final budgets, timing and construction schedules will be brought forward for Council
consideration in separate reports, in coming years. The expected size of the undertaking
suggests that the roadway and infrastructure improvements will be split into (4) phases.
(please refer to Schedule C)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial impact considerations affect long term capital planning; at this time administration is
recommending that Council adopt the report.
Currently the project design and engineering is identified in the 5 year capital plan to occur in
2015. Construction is beyond the Engineering 5-Year Capital Plan.
Preliminary estimates of probable costs for all (4) Phases, including construction, engineering,
contingencies and land acquisition is $6 million.
Funding the project will prove to be a challenge and administration will explore multiple funding
sources, including the County of Essex, as this segment of Seacliff Drive is a County
Connecting Link (There is not enough information at this time to accurately predict a county
funding portion).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Environmental Assessment Phase 1 & 2 Report, prepared by Stantec Consulting, be
adopted as the basis for future design and construction of the Seacliff Drive East corridor from
approximately Cherry Lane to County Road 33. (ENG 04-13)
__
Joseph Dattilo, P.Eng.
Project Engineer
____________________
Manager of Engineering
Services
______________________
Robert Sharon
Director of Community
60
ENG 04-13 SEACLIFF DRIVE EAST WIDENING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 4
FIGURE 3
SEACLIFF DRIVE EAST EVALUATION CRITERIA
Criterion
Option 1
Do Nothing
Option 2
Mill and Resurface Existing Roadway Only
Option 3
Reconstruct to Existing Width to Urban
Cross Section (i.e. Curb & Gutter and
Sidewalks)
Option 4
Reconstruct to Increased Width and Urban
Cross Section (i.e. Additional Lanes, Curb
& Gutter, Bike Lanes and Sidewalks)
Transportation
Does not support future transportation needs.
- no cycling facility
- increased traffic on narrow road
Supports future transportation needs. (i.e.
cycling facility)
Allows opportunity for north end of Bevel Line
to be realigned.
Reduced traffic congestion, optimizes
physical conditions for future signalization at
intersections.
Allows opportunity for north end of Bevel Line
to be realigned.
Land Use Planning Objectives
Does not support Land Use Planning
objectives.
objectives.
objectives.
Supports Land Use Planning objectives.
Social Impacts
Industrial, Commercial and Residential
Development/Developer interest may be
hindered.
hindered.
hindered.
Development/Developer interest will be
increased.
Motorist, Cyclist and Pedestrian safety not
improved.
Motorist, Cyclist and Pedestrian safety not
improved.
Motorist and Cyclist safety not improved.
Optimizes Motorist, Cyclist and Pedestrian
safety.
No property acquisition required.
Minor property acquisition required (Daylight
Corners).
Allows opportunity for all Utilities to upgrade
their plant.
Allows opportunity for all Utilities to upgrade
their plant.
Environmental Impacts
Economic Impacts
Future Maintenance
Opinion of Probable Cost for Roadwork and Related
Storm Drainage Components (EA Requirment)
Poor drainage and lack of local storm drainage
infrastructure
Poor drainage and lack of local storm drainage
infrastructure
Allows opportunity to construct storm sewer
to significantly improve storm drainage.
Allows opportunity to construct storm sewer
to significantly improve storm drainage.
Some trees may have to be removed.
Some trees may have to be removed.
No impact to Selkirk Drain.
No impact to Selkirk Drain.
Minor impact to Selkirk Drain.
Minor impact to Selkirk Drain.
hindered.
hindered.
hindered.
Development/Developer interest will be
increased.
If any type of Development is hindered it
will negatively affect tax base, employment
and local economy.
and local economy.
and local economy.
Will increase Development/Developer interest
thereby increasing tax base, employment and
the local economy.
Requires current and ongoing major
maintenance and resurfacing.
Will require ongoing short term minor
maintenance and scheduled long term
resurfacing.
resurfacing.
resurfacing.
N/A
$318,500
$2,546,000
$4,350,000
$6,000,000
(Including All Infrastructure, Engineering
and Incidentals)
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
FIGURE 3
Schedule 'A'
61
Page 5
Schedule62
'B' page 1 of 4
Page 6
63
Schedule 'B' page 2 of 4
Page 7
64
Page 8
65
Page 9
MUNICIPALITY OF LEAMINGTON
SEACLIFF DRIVE EAST WIDENING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
SCHEDULE ‘B’ CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
PHASE 3
September 2012
PHASE 2
PHASE 4
PHASE 1
1.2
66 'C'
Schedule
PLA-37-13
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
AUGUST 20, 2013
SUBJECT:
HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENT – ZBA #44
PARKING AND STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
AIM:
To provide Council with further information regarding the proposed housekeeping amendment to
Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of Zoning By-law No. 890-09 dealing with the parking and storage of bus,
transport trailers, recreational vehicles and other similar vehicles.
BACKGROUND:
By-law 305-13 recommending amendments to Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of Zoning By-law 890-09
was presented to Council on July 8, 2013 for consideration. At that meeting, Council requested
further clarification regarding the following matters:
 Clarification on how recreational vehicles in residential zones would be
considered legal non-conforming; and
 Status of recreational vehicle at 26 Queens.
DISCUSSION
Legal Non-Conforming
Legal non-conforming is a term used to describe a use, building or structure that is not permitted
in the Zoning By-law but which lawfully existed on the day the Zoning By-law was passed.
“Grandfathering” is a term often used to describe how existing uses, building or structures are
permitted.
As set out in case law, the onus is on the owner to establish that:
i)
that the use, building or structure legally existed on the date the zoning by-law
was passed;
ii)
that the use, building or structure has been continuous since that time; &
iii)
that it has been used in the same manner or extent as originally permitted.
A property which was legally used to store or park a recreational vehicle in a location that would
no longer be permitted under the Zoning By-law would be considered legal non-conforming, if it
can also show the use has been continuous and that it is occurring in the same manner.
If a new owner can establish to the satisfaction of the Municipality that the property was legally
used for the parking or storage of a recreational vehicle under previous ownership, that the use
has been continuous and that it is being used in the same extent (size, location etc..) the new
owner may continue to use the property in the same way.
An owner can replace an existing recreational vehicle on a property that was legally used for
that purpose provided it is not larger or does not further encroach into restricted areas and it has
been used for a reasonably continuous time period.
Corporate Services has confirmed that they are in a position to work with owners to establish
that the use of their residential property and to what extent is considered legal non-conforming.
67
PLA-37-13 PARKING AND STORAGE OF RECREATION VEHICLES ZBA #44
2
Provisions acknowledging how legal non-conforming uses are treated under the Zoning By-law
are noted in Section 4.36 of Zoning By-law No. 890-09, as follows:
a) Continuation of Existing Uses
The provisions of this By-law shall not apply to prevent the use of any lot, building or
structure for any purpose prohibited by this By-law if such lot, building or structure was
lawfully used for such purpose on the date of passing of this By-law, providing such use
has been continuous since that date or interrupted by fire damage or natural disaster for
a period of less than 3 years and not used for any other purpose.
26 Queens Avenue
A petition was submitted on June 21, 2013 in support of the proposed zoning by-law amendment
to restrict parking of recreational vehicles in the front yard to 15 days. A majority of those that
signed the petition had addresses on Queens Avenue. Administration has met with By-law
enforcement to review the situation surrounding the existing recreational vehicle parked at 26
Queens Avenue as directed by Council.
The subject property is zoned Commercial Uptown (C1) under Zoning By-law 890-09. This zone
allows for a variety of commercial uses, as well as residential uses in existing single detached
dwellings. The subject property contains a single detached dwelling which is used residentially
in a commercial zone.
By-law Enforcement has advised that they have responded to multiple land maintenance
complaints for the subject property since 2009. In June 2012, By-law Enforcement investigated
as to whether the trailer was being used for living accommodations. The owner stated that the
recreational vehicle was used by tenants to smoke as it was not permitted inside the main
dwelling. The owner stated that it is not used for living purposes. Upon investigation, By-law
Enforcement did not have sufficient evidence to pursue further enforcement.
The zoning provisions do not address where buses, transport trailers or recreational vehicles
can be in any zone other than a residential zone. The recreational vehicle at 26 Queens can be
located in its present location however it cannot be used to live in. It must be maintained in
accordance with the Property Standards By-law.
Other Suggested Revisions:
The following revisions to the proposed by-law were made at Council’s suggestion for
clarification purposes:


The setback distances from a curb, travelled portion of the road or sidewalk shall be
inclusive of the tongue or hitch of a recreational vehicle.
The maximum number of days, consecutive or intermittent, with any part of a day
equaling a full day shall be 30 days. The original number of days proposed by staff was
15, comments at the public meeting suggested that 15 days was not reasonable, 30 days
was suggested as reasonable by residents without recreational vehicles. The current
provision allows for recreational vehicles to be within the front yard from April to October.
By-law Enforcement has noted that the greater the number of days a recreational vehicle
is permitted within the front yard, the more difficult it is to enforce the provisions of the
by-law over that time period.
68
PLA-37-13 PARKING AND STORAGE OF RECREATION VEHICLES ZBA #44
3
CONCLUSION
By-law 305-13 containing amendments to Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of Zoning By-law 890-09 is being
presented to Council for consideration. The final by-law has been drafted based on the
comments and direction received from Council and the public at the public open houses and
meetings hosted in 2011 and 2013. The required public consultation has been completed in
accordance with Section 34(12) of the Planning Act.
In accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, Council can determine as to whether
further notice is required with respect to changes made to a by-law after the required public
meeting has been held.
Upon Council making a decision and providing the required Notice with respect to the requested
Zoning By-Law amendment there is a 20 day appeal period where objections can be submitted
to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Notice of Council’s decision will be advertised in the
local newspaper, posted on the municipal website and delivered to those who have participated
in the process and provided contact information to the Municipality.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13 Council
determines that no further notice is required with respect to the proposed zoning by-law
amendment;
AND THAT Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA#44 to amend Section 4.6 Bus, Transport Trailer
and Recreational Vehicle Parking and Section 4.7 Bus, Transport Trailer and Recreational
Vehicle Storage be approved as revised (PLA-37-13);
AND THAT By-law 305-13 being a by-law to amend Leamington’s Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw No. 890-09 be forwarded to Council for consideration.
_________________________
Danielle Truax
Tracey Pillon-Abbs
ATTACH
:dt
69
BY-LAW NUMBER 305-13
Being a By-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law No. 890-09 for the Municipality of Leamington,
which pertains to the subject lands
ZBA 44 - Bus, Transport Trailers or Recreational Vehicles
WHEREAS By-law No. 890-09, as amended, is a comprehensive zoning by-law
regulating the use of lands and the character, location and use of buildings and structures within
the Municipality of Leamington;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington
deems it appropriate to further amend By-law No. 890-09;
AND WHEREAS this By-law will conform with the Official Plan (as approved
February 5, 2008) in effect for the subject lands;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF LEAMINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Section 3, Definitions of By-law No. 890-09 is hereby further amended by the
addition of subsection 3.186 a) with the following:
“3.186 a)
PARK (or Parked or Parking), shall mean the temporary storage of a
motor vehicle, boat, motor home, trailer, recreational vehicle or other similar vehicle.”
2. That Section 4.6, Bus, Transport Trailers or Recreational Vehicles “Parking” of By-law No.
890-09 be deleted in its entirety and is hereby further amended by its replacement with
the following:
“4.6
BUS, TRANSPORT TRAILERS OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
In any zone where the sale of goods are permitted, no bus, transport trailer,
recreational vehicle or other similar vehicle shall be used for wholesale or retail sale of
goods, articles or things for a period of more than 15 consecutive or intermittent days
within any given calendar year.
In any zone, no bus, transport trailer, recreational vehicle or other similar vehicle shall
be used for the living, sleeping or eating accommodation of persons whether or not
the same is mounted on wheels, unless such vehicle is located within a licenced
trailer campground.
In any zone, no bus, transport trailer, recreational vehicle, commercial motor vehicle,
storage container or other similar vehicle shall be used as a permanent office or for
storage purposes.
70
By-law 305-13 Zoning By-law Amendment – ZBA #44
2
4.6.1 Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones
In any Residential Zone, and in compliance with all of the provisions of this by-law, a
Recreational Vehicle(s) is permitted in accordance with the following:
a)
A Recreational Vehicle is permitted:
i.
in the front yard for a maximum of 30 consecutive or intermittent
days within a calendar year, with any part of a day being considered one full
day and must be 1.0 m (3.3 ft) from the interior edge of a sidewalk or 2.0 m
(6.57 ft) from the interior edge of a curb or travelled portion of the road,
inclusive of the tongue or hitch;
ii.
in the exterior side yard for a maximum of 30 consecutive or
intermittent days within a calendar year, with any part of a day being
considered one full day and must be 1.0 m (3.3 ft) from the interior edge of a
sidewalk or 2.0 m (6.57 ft) from the interior edge of a curb or travelled portion
of the road, inclusive of the tongue or hitch;
iii.
in the interior side yard and must be 0.5 m (1.64 ft) from any
interior side lot line and behind the front wall of the main building;
iv.
in the rear yard and must be 1.0 m (3.28 ft) from any rear lot line;
b) A Recreational Vehicle is permitted in the front yard or side yard of a residence in
accordance with subsection a) and must be located on a driveway or in a garage;
c) A Recreational Vehicle is only permitted on a property with a residential dwelling
unit;
d) A Recreational Vehicle shall be located in accordance with the provisions of
Section 4.51 - Sight Visibility Triangles of this by-law;
e) Where a required rear yard abuts a required front yard of an abutting property, a
Recreational Vehicle shall not be located within a triangular space for a distance of 6
m (19.68 ft) measured along the exterior lot line and the interior lot line of the abutting
lot (see illustration of “Yard” in the definitions);
f)
A Recreational Vehicle on a residential property abutting Lake Erie is permitted:
i.
in the front yard not closer than 1.0 m (3.3 ft) from the interior edge
of a sidewalk or 2.0 m (6.57 ft) from the interior edge of a curb or travelled
portion of the road, inclusive of the tongue or hitch;
ii. in the exterior side yard 1.0 m (3.3 ft) from the interior edge of a sidewalk
or 2.0 m (6.57 ft) from the interior edge of a curb or travelled portion of the
road, inclusive of the tongue or hitch;
iii.
in the interior side yard not closer than 0.5 m (1.64 ft.) from any
interior side yard;
3. That Section 4.7, Bus, Transport Trailers or Recreational Vehicles “Parking” of By-law No.
890-09 be deleted in its entirety.
71
By-law 305-13 Zoning By-law Amendment – ZBA #44
3
4. This by-law shall take effect from the date of passing by Council and shall come into force
in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY ENACTED THIS 9th DAY
OF SEPTEMBER, 2013.
___________________________________
___________________________________
Brian R. Sweet - Municipal Clerk
72
REC 20/13
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
AMANDA SMITH
MANAGER OF CULTURE & RECREATION SERVICES
DATE:
August 26, 2013
RE:
LEAMINGTON KINSMEN RECREATION COMPLEX – FACILITY CONDITION
ASSESSMENT RFP AWARD
AIM:
To request Council award the RFP for the Facility Condition Assessment at the Leamington
Kinsmen Recreation Complex to Dillon Consulting, and to request that the over-expenditure in
the amount of $10,900 be funded from the Complex Reserve.
BACKGROUND:
1.
Following emergency repairs required to remedy collapsed roof drains in 2012,
Administration identified the necessity to undertake a facility condition assessment at the
Leamington Kinsmen Recreation Complex. A facility condition assessment (FCA) would
be conducted on the Recreation Complex by architectural/engineering professionals in
2013, as approved in the operating budget. The purpose of the initiative is to conduct an
assessment of the Complex to determine the current condition of the building and
components so that the municipality can then develop short and long-term
comprehensive maintenance and capital replacement program for the facility to be
incorporated into the overall asset management plan. Attachment #1 details the project
overview and scope.
2.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) process was initiated on July 6 and closed on July 24,
2013. The RFP was promoted on the municipal website and efforts were made to notify
qualified firms. Seven proposals were received on or before the deadline.
COMMENTS:
1.
Administration reviewed and scored the proposals based on a defined scoring matrix.
Proposals were evaluated on the identified methodology of approach, the scope of
work, the experience/profile of the firm and the submitted fee.
2.
The results from the scoring of the proposals are as follows:
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3.
Contractor
Dillon Consulting
Pinchin Environmental
Amec
Haerko Inc.
DC McCloskey
Archon Architect
Surendra K. Bagga Architect
Proposals ranged in price from $28,500 to $58,500.
Score
167
160
156
154
152
138
124
73
REC 20/13 – LKRC Facility Condition Assessment
2
4.
Administration recommends awarding the project to Dillon Consulting Inc., 3200 Deziel
Dr., Suite 608, Windsor ON N8W 5K8 in the amount of $35,900 plus applicable taxes.
5.
Dillon Consulting has completed similar type projects for recreation facilities. The
scope of work will include identifying the project goals, asset inspections of facility and
components (ie: HVAC, refrigeration, filtration, electrical, plumbing, roofing and
building envelop, etc.), condition rating, identifying maintenance needs and estimating
remaining service life. The final report will be useful in determining future budgetary
needs and support the asset management plan. With Council approval, this project will
commence immediately and will be completed before the end of 2013.
6.
The project team will include Dillon’s lead engineer, a project coordinator/architectural
inspector, quality assurance coordinator, mechanical inspector, electrical inspector,
structural inspector, the Manager of Culture & Recreation and the Municipal Facilities
Coordinator (acting).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The 2013 Recreation Complex operating budget request includes a total of $25,000 for the
facility condition assessment (account # 10-5-0670-7440-002030-007400).
Dillon Consulting has proposed a fee of $35,900, based on the scope of work provided in the
RFP documents. As Administration is unable to mitigate the over-expenditure through
operations, we are recommending that the over-expenditure of $10,900 be funded through the
Complex Reserve. The Complex Reserve is currently projected to have sufficient funds in 2013
closing balance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT Dillon Consulting Inc., 3200 Deziel Dr., Suite 608, Windsor ON N8W 5K8 be awarded the
tender for the Facility Condition Assessment at the Leamington Kinsmen Recreation Complex in
the amount of $35,900 plus applicable taxes and to be charged to account # 10-5-0672-7494002030-7400;
And that the over-expenditure be funded from the Complex Reserve in the amount of $10,900
(REC 20/13).
Signed:
Amanda Smith
Manager of Culture & Recreation
Signed:
Robert Sharon
Director of Community Services
74
REC 20/13 – LKRC Facility Condition Assessment
3
Attachment #1 – Facility Condition Assessment – details from RFP
Project Overview
The on-site inspection combined with the building data and maintenance history shall be used
to: identify and condition rate, identify deficiencies, and identify the estimated remaining useful
life and costs to replace the building components identified below. Detailed drawings of the
facility will be provided to the successful proponent. The facility condition assessment must
include analysis of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Structural and foundation systems
Building envelope including waterproofing and roof systems
Exterior walls, including windows, doors, caulking and sealing
Interior systems, including interior finishes, millwork, washrooms/changerooms, doors,
flooring, painting
Life safety systems, including fire protection
Vertical systems, including stairways and elevators
Mechanical systems, including HVAC, boilers and plumbing, refrigeration plant and pool
filtration components
Electrical systems, including interior and exterior lighting
Accessibility as per the most current AODA standards
Project Scope
The scope of the facility condition assessment must include:
1. An on-site visit of the Complex and interview the Manager of Culture & Recreation and
Facilities Coordinator.
2. An on-site survey of the building, including first-hand observations of systems and overall
building condition.
3. Listing and prioritization of the deficiencies currently existing in the Complex and its
systems.
4. Estimated cost of correcting the listed deficiencies
5. Identification and condition assessment of the building components identified in the
project overview.
6. Identification of potential risks and methods to remediate risks.
7. Assessment of the life expectancy of major components (mechanical, structural,
refrigeration and filtration) and include recommendations for future repair and
replacement.
8. Generation of the Facility Condition Index (FCI) for the facility.
The facility condition assessment will include the privately leased spaces (ie: physiotherapy
rooms).
The security system, telecommunications/wi-fi, furnishings, parking lot and grounds are
excluded from this Audit.
75
Report
ES/04/13
To:
From:
Kit Woods, Manager of Environmental Services
Date:
August 20th 2013
Re:
Pollution Control Centre Archimedes Screw Pumps Preselection
Aim:
To recommend the pre-selection of screw pumps and associated equipment for the
2013/2014 capital project for installation of the 4th screw pumps at the Pollution Control
Centre.
Background:
On July 15, 2013 Council passed resolution No. C-258-13 retaining the services of
Stantec Consulting for the engineering design for the installation of two Archimedes
Screw Pumps for the Leamington Pollution Control Centre.
Leamington PCC Upper Archimedes Screw Pumping Station
Comments:
Having consulted with pump manufacturers it has become clear that the delivery for the
screw pumps will be in the order of 6 months. The original intent was to proceed with
76
Page 2, Report ES/04/13 Pollution Control Centre Archimedes Screw Pumps Preselection
preparation of tender documents this year and tender the project after budget approval
in 2014. However with the extended delivery time this would likely result in the
installation being timed for late fall or winter 2014 which is not appropriate, especially
given the need for concrete screeding that provides the tight tolerances within the screw
pump troughs during installation.
The best alternative would therefore be to preselect the equipment now, and then
subsequently include the selected equipment in a tender for installation. That way the
pumps can be competitively priced, ordered this year and delivery/installation be timed
for the summer of next year.
Clearly however, tendering for and ordering the pumping equipment in 2013 effectively
constitutes a commitment to complete the project in 2014. Administration is therefore
requesting Council approval to tender the equipment this year, with a view to applying
the cost as a first charge to the 2014 PCC capital budget. A report will be prepared for
Council later in the year with the results of the pre-selection tender.
Financial Impact:
The 5 year capital works plan includes a project estimate of $608,000. The 2013 budget
amount is $45,000 for design engineering. (The pumping equipment cost estimate is
$360,000.)
With equipment pre-selection it is usual to pay a small percentage of the equipment cost
(5%) on receipt of detailed “shop” or manufacturing drawings. This enables expedited
receipt of the manufacturing drawings that are necessary to complete construction
drawings for the installation tender documents. Thus there might be an additional
charge to the 2013 capital budget of approximately $18,000, which would be offset by a
corresponding decrease in the 2014 budget requirement. This will depend on the timing
of the tender and actual cost and delivery schedules, and will be discussed further in the
future pre-selection tender report.
Recommendation:
That the pre-selection of the pumping equipment in 2013 for the installation of two
Archimedes Screw Pumps for the Leamington Pollution Control Centre be approved,
and that Administration report back to Council on the tender results, with
recommendations for budget funding at that time. (Report ES/04/13)
____________________________
Kit Woods P.Eng.
Manager of Environmental Services
File
Robert Sharon
T:/CS/CS/CS Council Reports/2013/Environmental Services/ES 04-13 screw pumps preselection /
77
REPORT
ENG 15-13
TO:
FROM:
Joseph Dattilo, P. Eng., Project Engineer
DATE:
August 28, 2013
SUBJECT:
Request for approval to award the “Cleaning and Inspection of the Erie Street
South Storm Sewer Outfall” tender
AIM:
To award the Erie Street South Storm Sewer Outfall Cleaning and Inspection contract to Watech
Services Inc., 895 Valetta Street, London, Ontario N6H 2Z4.
BACKGROUND:
Cleaning and inspection of the storm sewer outfall is specialized work and must be completed by
qualified contractors. This is a result of the majority of the Storm Sewer Outfall being located under
water. Requests for tender were sent to ten (10) qualified contractors. On August 9, 2013, only one
package was submitted. The municipality exercised the right to reject all submissions and reevaluate the project.
Subsequent to the first tender closing date of August 9, 2013, Administration contacted the
specialized contractors and found that the timeline and the completion date identified in the tender
were unachievable due to current workloads..
Administration revised (extended) the project timeline and resent requests for tender to the same list
of contractors. On August 20, 2013, two (2) tenders were received and opened with the following
results:
Company
Tender Price
Total Cost
(Not Incl. HST)
(Incl. HST)
Watech Services Inc.
$ 32,280.00
$ 36,476.40
Sewer Maintenance Services (SMS)
*N/A
*N/A
*Submitted a package noting “No bid” due to time limits and previous commitments.
COMMENTS:
Administration is seeking Council approval to award this tender. Despite only receiving one bid,
Administration is of the opinion that this is a good price to complete the scope of work. There was
$125,000 in the approved budget for cleaning, inspection and repair of the storm sewer outfall in
2013.
Watech Services has indicated that they would be able to meet the terms of the contract and start
work mid September.
The Watech Services tender package has been reviewed for accuracy and the tender satisfies all
terms of the contract.
78
ENG 15-13 – Erie S Outfall Cleaning and Inspection Tender Results
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The approved budget for the Erie South Storm Outfall cleaning, inspection and repair is $125,000
(Sewer Capital Account 10-7-0610-8110-300630-500013). The total cost of the tender award is
$32,848 (Incl. Net HST).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Erie Street South Storm Sewer Outfall Cleaning and Inspection contract be awarded to
Watech Services Inc., 895 Valetta Street, London, Ontario N6H 2Z4, in the amount not to exceed
$32,280 (plus applicable taxes), and charged to account 10-7-0610-8110-300630-500013-7650
Sewer Capital Account. (ENG 15-13)
Joseph Dattilo, P. Eng.
Project Engineer
_____
Manager of Engineering Services
________________________
Robert Sharon
79
CL/27/13
Report
To:
From:
Brian R. Sweet, Director of Corporate Services
Date:
August 1st, 2013
Re:
Proposed Adjustment of Local Improvement Charges – Robson
Road – Part 2 – Plan 12R-1816 (490-02000)
Aim:
To recommend that Council reduce to zero the amount charged as a local improvement on
a vacant lot on Robson Road described as Part 2, Plan 12R-1816 (the subject lands) and
to forgive all of the penalties incurred because of non-payment of the local improvement
charge.
Background:
The municipality received a request from the owner of the subject lands to adjust the local
improvement charges assessed against that property for the Robson Road reconstruction
project.
Subject Lands
80
Page 2, Report CL 27/13 – Proposed Adjustment of Local Improvement Charges
The owner maintains that the subject lands cannot be developed because of provincial
regulations and therefore the subject lands, which are vacant, do not benefit from the
services that were installed.
In 2006, the municipality completed the reconstruction of Robson Road which included
new street, curbs, sidewalks, sanitary and storm sewers. That construction was
undertaken as a local improvement project and part of the cost was assessed against each
lot which benefitted from the project as a local improvement charge.
On December 5th, 2005, Council passed by-law 643-05 which confirmed the works to be
undertaken as a local improvement and apportioned and assessed the costs to each
benefiting property. Following the passing of the by-law, a series of courts of revision were
held for different phases of the project. The courts of revision provided affected property
owners who believed their properties were inappropriately assessed the opportunity to
request that the assessment be revised.
The court of revision for the phase of the project from Erie Shores Golf Course to Sturgeon
Creek, which includes the subject lands, was commenced on December 18th, 2006 and
completed on January 3rd, 2007 at which time the property assessments were approved as
revised by the Court of Revision. The subject lands were assessed a local improvement
charge in the amount of $14,257.98. This amount was financed through a debenture and
amortized at 6% interest payable over a ten year period from 2007 – 2016 so that the
annual amount to be paid on the local improvement charge for the subject lands was
$1,937.20, or $19,372.00 in total.
The owner of the subject lands did bring his concern that the subject lands could not be
developed to the attention of the municipality during the planning stages of the project. The
Owner also provided to the municipality a letter from ERCA confirming that pursuant to
provincial regulations, it was “implausible” to develop the lands. The municipal staff
overseeing the project disagreed with this conclusion and assessed the local improvement
costs to the lot. Though the Owner submitted his objections to staff at the time, the Owner
did not submit a request for review of the assessment through the Court of Revision.
Further, the Owner did not file an objection with the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in
relation to the assessment of local improvement charges.
Subsequent to the assessment of the local improvement charges in 2006, no payments
were made on the tax account. As such, tax arrears including the local improvement
charges accumulated, along with applicable interest and penalty.
In July 2013, the property was registered for tax sale. In August 2013, the Owner agreed
to pay the portion of tax arrears and related interest and penalties that would have been
owed had the local improvement charges never been applied and provided a cheque to the
municipality for that amount. The Owner’s position remained that the local improvement
charges should not have been assessed to the subject lands and refused to pay any of the
local improvement charges and resulting penalties which total $20,415.79 to September 1,
2013.
As the property is under tax registration, partial payments cannot be applied against the
account. Tax registration proceedings are not ‘stopped’ unless the tax account is paid in
full. However, given this report coming forward for Council consideration, the tax
registration proceedings are temporarily held in abeyance pending Council’s direction on
this account.
81
Comments:
Local Improvement projects are now undertaken pursuant to Municipal Act regulations.
However, projects such as the Robson road reconstruction project that was undertaken
under The Local Improvement Act are still governed by that legislation.
S. 28 of The Local Improvement Act provides that if a lot is unfit for building purposes then
the lot should not be assessed a local improvement charge. The amount that would have
been charged against that lot is to be assessed as part of the municipality’s share of the
cost.
Administration has again reviewed the documents supporting the Owner’s claim and
current Administration agrees that the subject lands are unfit for building purposes within
the definition provided by the Local Improvement Act. Since the lot is unfit for building, the
installation of new services for development along Robson Road provides no benefit to the
subject lands. If Council supports this position, they could direct that the local
improvement charge that was assessed be reduced to zero along with related penalties
and interest, and that those costs be funded by the municipality.
The Owner acknowledges that regulations and situations may change and therefore has
agreed to enter into an agreement to be registered on title for the subject lands. The
agreement will provide that if a building permit is ever applied for to develop these lands
then the total amount of $19,372.00 will immediately become due and payable to the
municipality.
Financial Impact:
The works for the Robson Road Local Improvements were financed under debenture bylaw #588-05, which will be fully repaid in 2021. The municipality funds repayment of this
debt through the Sewers operating budget out of the urban tax levy.
Landowners’ who opted to finance their local improvement costs over 10 years are
charged annually in each of the years 2007 through 2016. Re-payment by landowners’
provides annual revenue to the Sewers budget, which offsets the net amount to be raised
through the urban tax levy.
The local improvement charges approved to be levied and financed for the subject property
total $19,372.00, based on annual payments of $1,937.20 for ten years inclusive of
principal and interest. To date 7 years (2007 – 2013) of local improvement debenture
charges have been applied to the tax account totalling $13,560.40. Remaining debt
service payments totalling $5,811.60 are pending for the final 3 years of the debenture
(2014 -2016 at $1.937.20/yr).
Should Council approve an amendment to remove the special assessment against the
subject property for Phase IV of the Robson Road Local Improvements, then the tax
account would be adjusted to remove the local improvement charges along with related
interest and penalty to September 1, 2013 totalling $20,415.79.
82
After the tax account adjustment is applied, the Owner’s payment of the full remaining
balance owed will be applied to the tax account and the tax registration for the subject
property will be stopped.
The cost of the local improvement adjustment will affect the 2013 Urban Sewers Budget.
An unbudgeted expense will be incurred ($20,415.79) for the 2007 -2013 portion of the tax
account write-off. The 2014 through 2016 Urban Sewers budgets will also be affected by
reductions to revenues from local improvement recoveries, thereby increasing the amount
to be funded from the urban tax levy each year by $1,937.20.
Recommendation:
That the special assessment for Phase IV of the Robson Road Local Improvements as
confirmed on January 3, 2007 be amended for lands described as Part 2, Plan 12R 1816
(490-02000) by reducing the local improvement charge assessed against the lands to zero;
And that the tax account for the subject property be adjusted to remove the local
improvement charges and related interest and penalty incurred;
And that the local improvement charge reduction be subject to execution and registration
on title of an agreement with the Owner providing that if a building permit is ever applied for
then the amount of $19,372.00 representing the applicable local improvement charge paid
over ten years at 6% interest will immediately become due and payable and form a lien
against the land;
And that the tax account write-off expense totalling $20,415.79 be charged to the 2013
Urban Sewers budget; and that revenue from local improvement recoveries in the 2014
through 2016 Urban Sewers budgets exclude the amount of $1,937.20 annually in
accordance with cancellation of the local improvement financing for the subject property.
(Report CL/27/13)
Brian Sweet
Director of Corporate Services
Attach.
BRS/jb
T:\Corporate\A00-Administration\A00-Council Reports\2013 Corporate Services Reports\Word Reports\CL2713-Removal of Local Improvement Charges
.doc
83
84
85
86
Leamington Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee
LMHAC
MINUTES
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Ante Room, 111 Erie Street North, Leamington
Members Present:
Chair Lee-Anne Setterington
Tony Duncan
Scott Holland
Judy Lear-Zylstra
Ted Wigfield
Members Absent:
Deputy Mayor Charlie Wright
Staff Present:
Kim Siddall, Manager of Corporate Services
Emily Freitas, Human Resources Assistant
Others Present:
Irena Vucknk
Call to Order:
Chair Lee-Anne Setterington called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Minutes:
Moved by:
Tony Duncan
Seconded by: Judy Lear-Zylstra
That the minutes of the Wednesday August 14, 2013 meeting of the Leamington
Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee be adopted.
CARRIED
Business Arising from Minutes:
E-mail to Mr. Mark Loop:
Ms. Siddall reviewed her e-mail dated August 15, 2013 to Mr. Loop in response to his e-mail
dated Monday, August, 12, 2013 regarding the Hillman Church for Heritage Designation. He
requested further information for heritage designations and was forwarded the website for the
Heritage Tool Kit.
Review Invitation for Public Open House:
The Committee Members reviewed the Public Open House invitation and no further changes are
needed. Members will be notified by e-mail once the invitations have been sent.
Members will prepare a schedule for working the Public Open House on October 1, 2013 at the
next meeting.
87
Page 2, Leamington Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes, August 28, 2013
Review Frequently Asked Questions and Answers:
Members reviewed the answers to the list of frequently asked questions. Recommendations
were made to clarify the answers. The Chair will revise the questions and answers list for review
at the next meeting which will include “What is registered?” and “What is designated?”
Adjournment:
Moved by:
Tony Duncan
Seconded by: Judy Lear-Zylstra
That the meeting adjourn at 3:40 p.m.
CARRIED
The next LMHAC Special Committee meeting date is Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at
3:00 p.m.
/ef
T:\Corporate\R00-Recreation&Culture\R-01 Heritage Preservation\R-01 Leamington Municipal Heritage Advisory
Committee\2013\Meetings\082813-LMHAC Minutes.doc
88
Minutes – Leamington Police Services Board Meeting
Held Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Commencing at 8:45 a.m.
in the West End Meeting Room # 112
Members Present: John Paterson, Chair
John Jacobs, Vice Chair
Joan McSweeney
Judy Butler
Members Absent:
Lorraine Hodgson
Also Present:
Inspector Glenn Miller
Staff Sergeant Tim Nyhoff
Sergeant Darin Rickeard
Jennifer Bavetta, Recording Secretary
Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest: None.
Delegations:
Business Arising from the Minutes: None.
No. 25-06-13
Moved by:
Judy Butler
Seconded by: John Jacobs
That the Minutes of the Leamington Police Services Board Meeting held May 22,
2013 be approved.
“CARRIED”
Key items in the Commander’s Report for the month of May, 2013 were reviewed for the
Board. It was noted there were increases in violent and property crimes. It was further
noted foot patrol hours are quite high in Leamington and contract hours are above the
median. The Board was informed overtime has decreased slightly.
A discussion ensued regarding drugs in Leamington. The presence of prescription
drugs, marijuana and cocaine was noted.
No. 26-06-13
Moved by: Judy Butler
Seconded by: Joan McSweeney
That the Detachment Commander's Report for the month of May, 2013 be
received.
“CARRIED”
89
Police Services Board Meeting – June 26, 2013
2
No. 27-06-13
Moved by: Judy Butler
That the Windsor & Essex County Crime Stoppers Statistical Report for the
month of May, 2013 and the Community Events to Date report be received.
“CARRIED”
Correspondence from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) dated June 14,
2013 re: Policing Update
Distributed for informational purposes.
No. 28-06-13
Moved by: John Jacobs
Seconded by: Judy Butler
That correspondence from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
dated June 14, 2013 re: Policing Update be received.
“CARRIED”
Questions and Statement Session:
John Jacobs noted he and John Paterson attended an informative joint Police Services
Board meeting regarding the COAST program. Inspector Glenn Miller explained the pilot
program has resulted in great success stories to date. Sergeant Darin Rickeard noted
there have been examples of success stories in Leamington which have resulted in
fewer calls to the police. A brief discussion took place regarding collaborated bargaining.
Adjournment:
No. 29-06-13
Moved by:
Judy Butler
That the meeting be adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
“CARRIED”
Next Meeting: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
/jb
T:\Corporate\P00-Protection&Enforcement\P00-PoliceServicesBoard\Agendas&Minutes\2013\062613\062613-PSB Minutes.doc
90

The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington

Transcription

Similar documents

Huron County Special Council Minutes April 9 , 2015

Huron County Special Council Minutes April 10 , 2015

Precinct: 4 Name: Sandra Shaw # Article Name Yes No A Lexington

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONDUCT A ZONING ADMINISTOR

August-September 2014 - Municipalité d`Ormstown

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

Scanned Document - Covenant Health