220222 Council Planning Meeting AgendaThe Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Council Planning Meeting
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
4:30 PM
Electronic Meeting
1.Call to Order
2.Adoption of Agenda
Proposed Resolution #1
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Council Planning meeting of February 22, 2022, be
approved.
3.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
4.Adoption of Council Planning Minutes of Previous Meeting
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the minutes of the Council Planning meeting on January 18, 2022, be approved.
5.Public Meetings
Proposed Resolution #3
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council move into the Committee of Adjustment to hear applications for Minor
Variance at _____ p.m.
5.1.Minor Variance Applications A02- 22 (31 Harwood Street) & A03-22 (45 Beretta
Street)
Proposed Resolution #4
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Town of Tillsonburg Committee of Adjustment approves Application Files
A02-22 & A03-22, submitted by 2385667 Ontario Limited, for lands described as
Blocks 55 & 58, Plan 41M-372, Town of Tillsonburg, as it relates to:
Relief of Section 9.2, RM Zone Provisions – Lot Area, Minimum, to reduce
the minimum required lot area for a corner lot from 330 m2 (3,552 ft2) to 326
m2 (3,509 ft2), to facilitate the creation of a street-fronting townhouse
dwelling lot.
1.
Proposed Resolution #5
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council move out of Committee of Adjustment and move back into regular
Council session at ____ p.m.
5.2.Draft Plan of Subdivision SB 21-09-7 & Zoning Amendment 7-21-12 - Oxnard Potters
Gate. Inc.
Proposed Resolution #6
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg approves in principle the zone change
application (File No. ZN 7-21-05) submitted by Oxnard Potters Gate Inc., for lands
legally described as Part Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, & 6 of 41R-8458, to rezone
the lands Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone, Special Low Density Residential
Type 2 Holding Zone, Special Low Density Residential Type 3 Holding Zone to
facilitate the proposed draft plan of subdivision;
AND FURTHER, the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg advises County Council that
the Town supports the application for approval of draft plan of subdivision, File No.
SB 21-11-7, submitted by Oxnard Potters Gate Inc., for lands legally described as
Part Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, & 6 of 41R-8458, consisting of 54 lots for single
detached dwellings, 6 blocks for 25 street-fronting townhouse dwellings, and a
walkway block, served by 3 new local streets, subject to the 32 conditions detailed in
Planning report CP 2022-37.
6.Planning Reports
6.1.Site Plan Approval TSPC 7-211 Armtec Inc. - 301 Rokeby Side Road
Proposed Resolution #7
Moved By: ________________
Page 2 of 304
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg directs staff to approve the site plan for
Application TSPC 7-211, to facilitate the development of a plastic pipe manufacturing
facility on the lands, submitted by Armtec Inc., on lands legally described as Lots
1614 & 1640, Plan 500, Part Lot 11, Concession 4 NTR (Middleton), Part 1 of 41R-
2151, Tillsonburg, known municipally as 301 Rokeby Side Road, once all technical
comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
7.New Business
8.Motions/Notice of Motions
9.By-Laws
10.Confirm Proceedings By-law
Proposed Resolution #8
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT By-Law 2022-018, to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Planning meeting held
on February 22, 2022, be read for a first, second, third and final reading and that the Mayor
and the Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the corporate seal
thereunto.
11.Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #9
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Council Planning meeting of February 22, 2022 be adjourned at ____ p.m.
Page 3 of 304
1
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Council Planning Meeting
MINUTES
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
4:30 PM
Electronic Meeting
ATTENDANCE: Mayor Molnar
Deputy Mayor Beres
Councillor Esseltine
Councillor Gilvesy
Councillor Luciani
Councillor Parker
Councillor Rosehart
Staff: Kyle Pratt, Chief Administrative Officer
Michelle Smibert, Director of Corporate Services/Clerk
Eric Gilbert, Senior Planner
Ann Wright, Deputy Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Resolution # 2022-025
Moved By: Councillor Parker
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Council Planning meeting of January 18,
2022, be approved.
Carried
Page 4 of 304
2
3. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
4. Adoption of Council Planning Minutes of Previous Meeting
Resolution # 2022-026
Moved By: Councillor Rosehart
Seconded By: Councillor Gilvesy
THAT the minutes of the Council Planning meeting held on November 1, 2021,
be approved.
Carried
5. Public Meetings
Resolution # 2022-027
Moved By: Deputy Mayor Beres
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT Council move into the Committee of Adjustment to hear an application for
Minor Variance at 4:33 p.m.
Carried
5.1 Minor Variance A23-21 - 3 Bidwell Street - Myda Holdings Inc.
County Planner Eric Gilbert provided a review of the Planning Report CP
2022-34 and recommended that the application be approved subject to
conditions.
Opportunity was provided for comments and questions from Council.
Applicant Hayden Diamond from Dalm Construction Ltd. was in attendance.
No questions from Council to the applicant.
No public comments were received and no members of the public appeared
before Council either in support or opposition to the application.
Resolution # 2022-028
Moved By: Councillor Luciani
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
Page 5 of 304
3
That the Town of Tillsonburg Committee of Adjustment approve Application
File A23-21, submitted by Myda Holdings Inc. for lands described Lot 1511,
Plan 500, Town of Tillsonburg, as it relates to:
1. Relief from Section 5.1.1.4.1, i) - Regulations for Accessory Buildings
and Structures, to increase the permitted height of a detached private
garage from 4.5 m (14.8 ft) to 6.2 m (20.3 ft);
2. Relief from Section 5.1.1.4 – Regulations for Accessory Buildings and
Structures – Lot Coverage, maximum for all accessory buildings and
structures, to increase the maximum lot coverage for accessory
buildings from 50 m2 (538 ft2) to 149 m2 (1,603 ft2).
Subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit for the proposed accessory building shall be issued
within one year of the date of the Committee's decision;
2. The applicant shall enter into an agreement between the properties at 7
Bidwell St and 3 Bidwell St respecting access to the proposed accessory
building.
Carried
Resolution # 2022-029
Moved By: Councillor Rosehart
Seconded By: Councillor Gilvesy
THAT Council move out of Committee of Adjustment and move back into
regular Council session at 4:41p.m.
Carried
6. Planning Reports
6.1 Zone Change Application ZN 7-21-17 - Landmark Homes
Resolution # 2022-030
Moved By: Councillor Gilvesy
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg approves the zone change
application submitted by Landmark Homes, whereby the lands described
as Lots 45-57, Plan 41M-143 & Lots 43, 44, & 78-92, Plan 41M-144, in the
Page 6 of 304
4
Town of Tillsonburg are to be rezoned to remove the Holding Provision from
the lands.
Carried
6.2 Implementation of Provincial Direction on Additional Residential
Units
The Planner noted that the Province has recently updated legislation to
allow for the establishment of an ‘additional residential unit’ in single
detached, semi-detached row housing dwellings and in/or in a structure
ancillary to dwellings. Staff is seeking direction from the Town as to how
they would like to proceed and what standards should apply.
Council members provided their support of this initiative.
Resolution # 2022-031
Moved By: Deputy Mayor Beres
Seconded By: Councillor Luciani
THAT the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg receive Report No. CP 2022-
07, as information;
AND FURTHER, directs planning staff to initiate a review of the current
legislative and policy framework the with respect to Additional Residential
Units and authorize staff to initiate the necessary amendments to the Official
Plan and Zoning By-Law to establish the Town’s requirements for such
units.
Carried
7. New Business
8. Motions/Notice of Motions
9. By-Laws
9.1 By-Law 2022-006 to amend Zoning By-Law 3295, as amended (ZN7-
21-17)
2022-006
Resolution # 2022-032
Moved By: Councillor Luciani
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
Page 7 of 304
5
THAT By-Law 2022-006 to amend Zoning By-Law Number 3295, as
amended (ZN 7-21-17), be read for a first, second, third and final reading
and that the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the
same, and place the corporate seal thereunto.
Carried
10. Confirm Proceedings By-law
Resolution # 2022-033
Moved By: Councillor Gilvesy
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT By-Law 2022-004, to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Planning
meeting held on January 18, 2022, be read for a first, second, third and final
reading and that the Mayor and the Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the
same, and place the corporate seal thereunto.
Carried
11. Adjournment
Resolution # 2022-034
Moved By: Councillor Rosehart
Seconded By: Councillor Gilvesy
THAT the Council Planning meeting of January 18, 2022 be adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Carried
Page 8 of 304
Community Planning
P. O. Box 1614, 21 Reeve Street
Woodstock Ontario N4S 7Y3
Phone: 519-539-9800 Fax: 519-421-4712
Web site: www.oxfordcounty.ca
Our Files: A02-22 & A03/22
APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE
TO: Town of Tillsonburg Committee of Adjustment
MEETING: February 22, 2022
REPORT NUMBER: 2022-67
OWNER: 2385667 Ontario Limited
9140 Leslie Street, Unit 210, Richmond Hill, ON L4B 0A9
AGENT: Eldon Darbyson, MCIP, RPP
G. D. Vallee Limited
2 Talbot Street, Simcoe ON, N3Y 3W4
REQUESTED VARIANCE:
1. Relief from Section 9.2, RM Zone Provisions – Lot Area, Minimum, to reduce the minimum
required lot area for a corner lot from 330 m2 (3,552 ft2) to 326 m2 (3,509 ft2), to facilitate the
creation of a street-fronting townhouse dwelling lot.
LOCATION:
A-02/22:
The subject property is legally described as Block 55, Plan 41M-372, Town of Tillsonburg. The
lands are located on the southwest corner of Harwood Street and Seaton Crescent, and are
municipally known as 31 Harwood Street.
A-03/22:
The subject property is legally described as Block 58, Plan 41M-372, Town of Tillsonburg. The
lands are located on the southwest corner of Beretta Street and West Town Line, and are
municipally known as 45 Beretta Street.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
COUNTY OF OXFORD OFFICIAL PLAN:
Schedule ‘T-1’ Town of Tillsonburg Land Use Plan Residential
Schedule ‘T-2’ Town of Tillsonburg Residential Density Plan Medium Density Residential
Page 9 of 304
File Numbers: A02-22 & A03-22 Report Number 2022-067
Page 2
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ZONING BY-LAW:
Special Medium Density Residential Zone (RM-5)
SURROUNDING USES:
Surrounding land uses include vacant residential land, and planned low and medium density
residential development, consisting of single detached dwellings and street-fronting townhouse
dwellings. A retirement home development is located to the south.
COMMENTS:
(a) Purpose of the Application:
The applicant is requesting relief from the above noted provision of the Town Zoning By-law to
facilitate the creation of two street fronting townhouse dwelling lots.
The subject lands comprise two blocks within the plan of subdivision known as Potters Gate
Phase 3. Through the zoning review of the exemption from part lot control application, it was
determined that once the townhouse blocks are divided, two corner lots will not meet the minimum
lot area provisions of the RM-5 Zone. As the foundations for the townhouses have been placed
the proposed lot lines cannot be modified, and these minor variance applications have been
submitted to facilitate the pending part lot control exemption.
The proposed townhouse lot affected by application A-02/22 would have a frontage of 10.52 m
(34.5 ft), depth of 31.07 m (102 ft) and lot area of 327 m2 (3,520 ft2). The proposed townhouse
lot subject to application A-03/22 would have a frontage of 10.55 m (34.6 ft), depth of 31.05 m
(101.9 ft) and lot area of 327.6 m2 (3,526 ft2).
Plate 1, Location Map with Existing Zoning, depicts the property, location, and the zoning in the
immediate vicinity.
Plate 2, Applicant’s Sketch, shows the dimension of the proposed lot for A-02/22.
Plate 3, Applicant’s Sketch, shows the dimension of the proposed lot for A-03/22.
(b) Agency Comments:
The application was circulated to a number of public agencies. No comments were received in
response to the agency circulation.
(c) Public Consultation:
Public Notice was provided to surrounding property owners on February 11, 2022 in accordance
with the requirements of the Planning Act. As of the writing of this report, no comments or
concerns had been received from the public.
Page 10 of 304
File Numbers: A02-22 & A03-22 Report Number 2022-067
Page 3
(d) Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan:
The subject lands are designated ‘Medium Density Residential’ according to the Official Plan.
Within the ‘Medium Density Residential’ designation, permitted land uses consist of medium
density housing forms including street fronting town houses, multiple unit dwellings, and
apartment dwellings, as well as accessory uses thereto. The use of the lands for a street fronting
townhouse dwelling conforms to the ‘Medium Density Residential’ policies of the Official Plan.
(e) Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law:
The subject property is currently zoned ‘Special Medium Density Residential Zone (RM-5)’,
according to the Town of Tillsonburg Zoning By-law. Permitted uses within the ‘RM-5’ zone
include an apartment dwelling, multiple unit dwelling, street fronting townhouse dwelling. The
special provisions included in the RM-5 zone permit a reduced exterior side yard width of 3 m (9.8
ft), reduced lot frontage of 7.5 m (24.6 ft) for an end unit of a townhouse dwelling, reduced rear
yard depth of 5.5 m (18 ft), reduced interior side yard width of 1.2 m (3.9 ft) for end units, and
increased lot coverage of 60%.
For a street fronting townhouse dwelling, the ‘RM’ Zone requires a minimum lot area of 330 m2
(3,552 ft2) for corner lots. The intent of the minimum lot area provision is to ensure the lot is
sufficiently large to provide a suitable building envelope and accommodate all required dwelling
setbacks. For corner lots, the minimum lot area is larger due to the required exterior side yard
width. In this instance, relief is being sought to reduce the minimum required lot area for a corner
lot to 326 m2 (3,509 ft2), or 3 m2 (32.3 ft2) less than required.
Planning staff note that the townhouse blocks are currently under construction, and the lot area
deficiency is the result of the part lot control application to divide the block into separate lots, each
containing a single townhouse dwelling.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed reduced minimum lot area will not impact the
building envelope, area available for amenity purposes, or any of the other required setbacks and
the relief sought is very minor. Given this, Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed
relief maintains the general intent and purpose of the Town’s Zoning By-Law.
(f) Desirable Development/Use:
It is the opinion of this Office that the applicant’s requests can be considered minor and desirable
for the development of the subject property, as the proposed relief will facilitate the creation of
street fronting townhouse lots, which will be consistent with the existing and planned future
development in the area. For Committee’s information, no comments of concern have been
received from any of the neighbouring property owners or public agencies circulated.
In light of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Office that the requested relief is in keeping with
the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Town Zoning By-law and can be given
favourable consideration.
Page 11 of 304
File Numbers: A02-22 & A03-22 Report Number 2022-067
Page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Town of Tillsonburg Committee of Adjustment approve Application Files A02-22 & A03-
22, submitted by 2385667 Ontario Limited, for lands described as Blocks 55 & 58, Plan 41M-372,
Town of Tillsonburg, as it relates to:
1. Relief of Section 9.2, RM Zone Provisions – Lot Area, Minimum, to reduce the minimum
required lot area for a corner lot from 330 m2 (3,552 ft2) to 326 m2 (3,509 ft2), to facilitate
the creation of a street-fronting townhouse dwelling lot.
As the proposed variances are:
(i) deemed to be minor variances from the provisions of the Town of Tillsonburg Zoning By-
law No. 3295;
(ii) desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land;
(iii) in-keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Town of Tillsonburg Zoning By-law
No. 3295; and
(iv) in-keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Authored by: original signed by Eric Gilbert, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Approved for submission by: original signed by Gordon K. Hough, RPP
Director
Page 12 of 304
May 6, 2021
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
1020
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
51 Meters
Draft Plans
Open Space
Right of Ways
Properties
Zoning Floodlines
Regulation Limit
100 Year Flood Line
30 Metre Setback
Conservation Authority
Regulation Limit
Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
Plate 1: Location Map with Existing Zoning
File Nos: A-02/22 & A-03/22-Oxnard Developments
Blocks 55 & 58, Plan 41M-372 Town of Tillsonburg - 31 Harwood Street and 45 Beretta Street, Tillsonburg
Subject
Properties
West
Town
Line
Harvest
Avenue
Seaton
Crescent
Beretta
Street
Harwood
Street
Page 13 of 304
HARDWOOD STSEATON CRES Harvest AveSeaton CresHardwood StSeaton CresHarvest AveTJCTJCJTI1:30020-058-55SCALE =1:300CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERSG. DOUGLAS VALLEE LIMITEDL55POTTERS GATE PH3TILLSONBURGGRADING PLANUNITS 1 TO 8 IN BLOCK 2OXNARD DEVELOPMENT INC.APR 6/21Meters10501719212325272931Plate 2: Applicant's Sketch File Nos: A-02/22 & A-03/22-Oxnard Developments Blocks 55 & 58, Plan 41M-372 Town of Tillsonburg - 31 Harwood Street and 45 Beretta Street, TillsonburgPage 14 of 304
C:\OSOFT141\RYAN WORK\WORK 2021\21-17384.dwg, 2021-09-08 2:55:08 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3Plate 3: Applicant's Sketch File Nos: A-02/22 & A-03/22-Oxnard Developments Blocks 55 & 58, Plan 41M-372 Town of Tillsonburg - 31 Harwood Street and 45 Beretta Street, TillsonburgPage 15 of 304
Page 16 of 304
Page 17 of 304
Page 18 of 304
Page 19 of 304
Page 20 of 304
Page 21 of 304
Page 22 of 304
Page 23 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
To: Mayor and Members of Tillsonburg Council
From: Eric Gilbert, Senior Planner, Community Planning
Applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zone Change
SB 21-09-7 & ZN 7-21-12 – Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
The purpose of the applications for draft plan of subdivision approval and zone change is
to facilitate the development of 54 lots for single detached dwellings, 6 blocks for 25 street
fronting townhouse dwellings, and a block for existing residential development, served by 3
new local streets.
A number of special zoning provisions are requested to permit single detached dwellings,
and street fronting townhouse dwellings with site-specific development provisions.
The proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement
respecting the provision of a mix of housing types for current and future residents of the
Town, and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan respecting subdivision
development and can be supported from a planning perspective.
DISCUSSION
Background
OWNERS: Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
9140 Leslie Street, Suite 210, Richmond Hill ON L4B 0A9
AGENT: Eldon Darbyson, MCIP RPP,G. Douglas Vallee Limited
2 Talbot Street North, Simcoe ON N3Y 3W4
LOCATION:
The subject lands are described as Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, & 6 of 41R-8458, in the Town
of Tillsonburg. The lands are located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Potters Road
and West Town Line, and are known municipally as 93 Potters Road, Tillsonburg.
Page 24 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 2 of 13
COUNTY OF OXFORD OFFICIAL PLAN:
Schedule ‘T-1’ Town of Tillsonburg Residential
Land Use Plan
Schedule ‘T-2’ Town of Tillsonburg Low Density Residential
Residential Density Plan
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ZONING BY-LAW 3295
Existing Zoning: Future Development Zone (FD)
Proposed Zoning: Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)
Special Low Density Residential Type 3 Zone (R3-sp)
Recommended Zoning: Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2) for proposed Block 8
Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Holding Zone (R2-sp (H))
Special Low Density Residential Type 3 Holding Zone (R3-sp (H))
PROPOSAL:
The application for draft plan of subdivision approval proposes to create 54 lots for single
detached dwellings, 6 blocks for 25 street fronting townhouse dwellings, and one block for existing
residential development, served by 3 new local streets.
The zone change application proposes to rezone the lands from ‘Future Development Zone (FD)’
to ‘Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp),’ & ‘Special Low Density Residential
Type 3 Zone (R3-sp)’ to facilitate the proposed draft plan of subdivision. The requested relief and
special provisions are outlined under the ‘Zoning By-Law’ section of this report.
The applicants have also submitted a severance application (B21-60-7 & A21-14-7) to sever the
existing dwelling on the subject property, shown as Block 8 on the proposed draft plan of
subdivision. The proposed minor variance associated with the consent would permit a reduced
lot depth of 26.7 m (86.9 ft) in lieu of the required 30 m (98.4 ft).
The subject lands comprise approximately 5.03 ha (12.4 ac) and contain a single detached
dwelling, accessory structure, 2 barns, greenhouse, bunkhouse, and several concrete
foundations and concrete pads. All buildings and structures save for the dwelling are proposed
to be removed. Surrounding uses include existing low density residential uses to the south,
west, and north fronting on Potters Road, with a previous subdivision phase (Potters Gate Phase
3) currently underway immediately adjacent to the site, to the south. Agricultural uses are present
within the Township of Norwich on the east side of West Town Line.
Plate 1, Location Map with Existing Zoning, indicates the location of the subject site and the
existing zoning in the immediate vicinity.
Plate 2, 2020 Aerial Map, provides an aerial view of the subject property.
Plate 3, Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, provides the layout of the proposed draft plan of
subdivision.
Page 25 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 3 of 13
Application Review
2020 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
The 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial
interest related to land use planning and development. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where
a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions shall be
consistent with all policy statements issued under the Act.
The policies of Section 1.1 state that healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by
accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential uses, including an appropriate
affordable and market-based range, to meet long-term needs. Sufficient land shall be made
available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs
for a time horizon of up to 25 years. Within settlement areas, sufficient land shall be made
available through intensification and redevelopment.
Section 1.1.3 states that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their
vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be
based on densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure
and public service facilities.
Section 1.1.3.3 further states that planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and
promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where it can be accommodated,
taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability
of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate
projected needs.
Section 1.4.3 directs that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing
types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional
market area by:
establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is
affordable to low and moderate income households;
permitting and facilitating all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment and all
forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current
and future residents;
directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of
infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;
promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and
public service facilities and support the use of active transportation;
requiring transit-supportive development and prioritizing intensification, including potential
air rights development, in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations; and
establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new
residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form,
while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.
Section 1.6.6.2 also states that intensification and redevelopment within settlement areas on
existing municipal sewage and water services should be promoted, wherever feasible.
Page 26 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 4 of 13
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are predominantly designated ‘Low Density Residential’, according to the Town
of Tillsonburg Land Use Plan & Residential Density Plan.
Low Density Residential Areas are those lands that are primarily developed or planned for a
variety of low rise, low density housing forms including single-detached dwellings, semi-detached,
duplex or converted dwellings, quadraplexes, townhouses and low density cluster development.
In these areas, it is intended that there will be a mixing and integration of different forms of housing
to achieve a low overall density of use. It is not intended that the full range of housing will be
permitted in every individual neighbourhood or development.
The maximum net residential density in the Low Density Residential Designation is 30 units/ha
(12 units/ac) and the minimum net residential density is 15 units/ha (6 units/ac). The proposed
development has a net residential density of 23.5 units/ha (10.1 units/ac).
The policies of Section 10.3.3 (Plans of Subdivision and Condominium) provide that County and
Town Council will evaluate applications for a plan of subdivision on the basis of the requirements
of the Planning Act, as well as criteria including, but not limited to, the following:
Conformity with the Official Plan;
The availability of community services such as roads, water, storm and sanitary sewers,
waste disposal, recyclable collection, public utilities, fire and police protection, parks,
schools and other community facilities;
The accommodation of Environmental Resources and the mitigation of environmental and
human-made constraints;
The reduction of any negative effects on surrounding land uses, transportation networks
or significant natural features;
The design of the plan can be integrated into adjacent developments, and;
The design of the plan is to be compatible with the natural features and topography of
the site, and proposals for extensive cut and fill will be discouraged.
As a condition of draft plan approval, County Council will require an applicant to satisfy conditions
prior to final approval and registration of the plan. The applicant will be required to meet the
conditions of the draft approval within the specified time period, failing which, draft plan approval
may lapse. Additionally, to provide for the fulfillment of these conditions, and for the installation
of services according to municipal standards, County Council shall require the applicant to enter
into a subdivision agreement with the area municipality and, where necessary, the County, prior
to final approval of the plan.
Section 8.6.2.3 of the Official Plan provides that Town Council will acquire lands for use as
parkland or leisure through conditions of draft approval of plan of subdivision. Land conveyed to
the Town as part of the required parkland dedication will be expected to meet minimum standards
for drainage, grading, landscaping, fencing and shape in accordance with the intended function
and will be located in appropriate locations.
Page 27 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 5 of 13
ZONING BY-LAW
The subject lands are currently zoned ‘Future Development Zone (FD)’ according to the Town’s
Zoning By-law. The ‘Future Development Zone (FD)’ permits a farm, existing buildings and
structures, and a seasonal fruit and vegetable outlet.
The applicant is proposing to rezone the townhouse blocks to ‘Special Low Density Residential
Type 3 Holding Zone (R3-sp)’ which would permit street fronting townhouse dwellings. The single
detached dwelling lots are proposed to be rezoned to ‘Special Low Density Residential Type 2
Holding Zone (R2-sp)’ to permit single detached dwellings.
Block 8 of the proposed draft plan, encompassing the existing single detached dwelling, is
proposed to be rezoned ‘Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2)’. Applications for consent
and minor variance have been submitted to sever the vacant residential land and retain the
existing dwelling. The proposed minor variance would permit a reduced lot depth of 26 m (85.3
ft).
A number of site specific provisions are proposed to facilitate the development, as summarized
below:
Provisions for Single-Detached Dwelling
Provision Required (R2) Proposed
Lot Coverage, max 40 % 60%
Lot Depth, min 30 m (98.4 ft) 29 m (98.4 ft)
Exterior Side Yard, min 6.0 m (19.7 ft) 3 m (9.8 ft)
Lot Frontage, Corner Lot 15 m (49.2 ft) 10 m (32.8 ft)
Interior Side Yard, min 3 m (9.8 ft) and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) 1.5 m (4.9 ft) and 1.2 m (3.9 ft)
Rear Yard Depth, min 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 7 m (23 ft)
Permitted Encroachment
for Covered Deck into All
Yards
1.5 m (4.9 ft) 2 m (6.5 ft)
Minimum Setback
Between Projection and
Lot Line (Front and
Exterior)
3 m (9.8 ft) 2 m (6.5 ft)
Provisions for Street- Fronting Townhouse Dwelling
Provision Required (R3) Proposed
Lot Area for Interior Unit,
min
240 m2 (2,583.3 ft2) 210 m2 (2,260 ft2)
Lot Area for End Unit, min 330 m2 (3,552 ft2) 260 m2 (2,798 ft2)
Lot Area for End Unit on
Corner Lot, min
420 m2 (4,520 ft2) 290 m2 (3,121 ft2)
Lot Frontage for Corner Lot 14 m (45.9 ft) 10.5 m (34.4 ft)
Lot Frontage for Interior
Unit, min
8 m (26.2 ft) 7.5 m (24.6 ft)
Lot Frontage for End Unit,
min
11 m (36 ft) 9 m (29.5 ft)
Lot Depth, min 30 m (98.4 ft) 28.5 m (93.5 ft)
Lot Coverage, max 40% 60%
Front Yard Depth, min 6 m (19.7 ft) 5.4 m (17.7 ft)
Exterior Side Yard, min 6 m (19.7 ft) 3.0 m (9.8 ft)
Page 28 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 6 of 13
Interior Side Yard for End
Unit, min
3.0 m (9.8 ft) 1.2 m (3.9 ft)
Rear Yard Depth, min 7.5 m (24.6 ft) Block 1 & 2: 6.5 m (21.3 ft)
Block 5 & 6: 5.5 m (18 ft)
Amenity Area, min 48 m2 (516.7 ft2) Interior Units (Block 5 & 6):
41 m2 (441.3 ft2)
Permitted Encroachment
for Covered Deck
1.5 m (4.9 ft) 3.0 m (9.8 ft)
It is recommended that Holding Provisions be utilized, as has been standard practice in the Town
for draft plans of subdivision, to ensure that all appropriate development agreements are in place
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
AGENCY COMMENTS
The applications were reviewed by a number of public agencies considered to have an interest in
the proposal.
Town of Tillsonburg Building & By-Law Services provided the following comments:
Proposed front yard depth for R3 Lots of 5.4 m may cause conflict with minimum parking
stall provision of 5.5 m; therefore, minimum permitted front yard depth should not be less
than 5.5 m.
Designer to ensure that garage parking stalls meet minimum standards noted in Zoning
By-Law Section 5.24.1.4.1.
The Town of Tillsonburg Engineering Services Department provided the following comments:
Reduced minimum setback to rear lot line may not be possible if rear yard drainage
swales and easements are required following detailed engineering design.
Reduced front yard depth is not supported, due to sidewalk location that would
preclude one vehicle on private property.
0.3 m reserve required for lots backlotting on West Town Line.
The Town of Tillsonburg Director of Recreation, Culture and Parks provided the following
comments:
Cash-in-lieu of parkland will be required.
Develop an overall Landscaping Plan depicting One (1) tree per lot, in accordance with
Tillsonburg’s Design Guidelines. Tree Species to be to the satisfaction of the Town.
Chainlink Fencing required for both sides of pedestrian walkways.
The County Public Works Department provided the following comments:
Flow monitoring of the sanitary sewer on Lorraine Avenue is required prior to the registration of
this phase.
The draft plan of subdivision shall be subject to the following conditions:
The Owner agrees in writing that a 0.3 meter (1 foot) reserve along the Oxford Road 37
frontage of the subject lands will be conveyed to the County of Oxford, free of all costs
and encumbrances, to the satisfaction of Oxford County Public Works.
Page 29 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 7 of 13
The Owner agrees in writing that a road widening will be conveyed to the County of Oxford
along the entire frontage of Oxford Road 37 to provide for a 13 meter right-of-way from
the centerline of the road, free of all encumbrances and costs to the satisfaction of the
County of Oxford.
The Owner agrees in writing to implement the noise mitigation measures that were
identified in the Noise Assessment Report prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated
June 2021, to the satisfaction of the Oxford County Public Works Department.
The Owner shall provide the results of sanitary flow monitoring for the existing sanitary
sewer on Lorraine Avenue to demonstrate capacity to convey wastewater from the
proposed development. Such monitoring shall be to the satisfaction of the Oxford County
Public Works Department.
The Owner shall agree to prepare, and submit for the approval of Oxford County Public
Works, detailed servicing plans designed in accordance with Oxford County Design
Guidelines.
The subdivision agreement shall make provision for the assumption and operation by the
County of Oxford of the water and sewage system within the draft plan subject to the
approval of the County of Oxford Department of Public Works.
Prior to the final approval of the subdivision plan, the Owner shall receive confirmation
from the County of Oxford Department of Public Works that there is sufficient capacity in
the Tillsonburg water and sanitary sewer systems to service the plan of subdivision.
The Owner agrees to provide such easements as may be required for utility or drainage
purposes outside of the proposed public right-of-ways shall be granted to the appropriate
authority.
The Owner agrees in writing to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, including
payment of applicable development charges, of the County of Oxford regarding the
installation of the water distribution system, the installation of the sanitary sewer system,
and other matters pertaining to the development of the subdivision.
Enbridge Gas requested that the Owner/developer provide the necessary easements and/or
agreements required by Enbridge Gas as a condition of draft approval.
The Town Development Commissioner indicated that they are supportive of this proposed plan
of subdivision, which help meet increased market demand for housing and will result in increased
residential growth for the community.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Notice of complete application was provided to surrounding property owners on November 5,
2021, and notice of public meeting was sent on February 4, 2022 in accordance with the
requirements of the Planning Act. At the time of writing this report, two letters of concern have
been received from the public. Both letters are included as attachments to this report.
One letter received expressed concerns with the proposed density, lot coverage, proposed
reductions to front and rear yard depths, and the parking pressures created by the proposed plan.
Page 30 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 8 of 13
The second letter expressed concern with the lots being too narrow and lot coverage being too
large, resulting in not enough room for parking.
Planning Analysis
The purpose of the applications for draft plan of subdivision approval and zone change is to
facilitate the development of 54 lots and 5 blocks for future residential development, and a
walkway block, served by 3 new local streets.
It is the opinion of staff that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial
Policy Statement. The proposed development is considered to be a form of development that
promotes a mix of housing types and represents an efficient use of lands, municipal services and
infrastructure within a designated settlement area, which is consistent with Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.1,
1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3 and 1.4.3 of the PPS.
With regard to the policies of Section 10.3 of the Official Plan (Plans of Subdivision and
Condominium) which require the developer to address a series of standard review criteria
concerning the adequacy of servicing, environmental impacts, transportation networks and
integration with surrounding developments, staff note that the required studies and reports have
been received and reviewed through this Office and other required reports can be satisfactorily
addressed through the inclusion of appropriate conditions of draft approval.
The proposed draft plan consists of 54 lots for single detached dwellings and 5 blocks for 25 street
fronting townhouses, while retaining an existing single detached dwelling. Based on this, the
proposed draft plan has a net residential density of 23.5 units per hectare, in keeping with the
density target for Low Density Residential areas of 15 to 30 units per hectare. The proposal is in
keeping with the Plan of Subdivision policies of Section 10.3.3, and the policies of the Low Density
Residential designation. In addition, the proposed draft plan provides a range of lot sizes and a
mix of housing types that are integrated throughout the development, which is in keeping with low
density residential policies.
Town staff have indicated that due to the shape and location of this development and the
proposed subdivision design, that cash-in-lieu of parkland is preferred. A pedestrian walkway is
proposed to connect to the existing pedestrian walkway in the subdivision to the south to provide
opportunities for active transportation and walkability for future and current residents of this area
of Town.
The proposed subdivision design will connect to an existing planned road stub to Harvest Avenue
with another connection proposed to West Town Line. No direct access to Potters Road is
proposed through this subdivision design, as was requested by Oxford County Public Works. The
design of the subdivision development will integrate well with adjacent development to the south
and west, and will remain compatible with existing low density uses on private services to the
north as no lots (other than the existing former farm dwelling) will directly front on Potters Road.
The proposed subdivision is not expected to negatively impact surrounding public services, and
appropriate conditions of approval are proposed to ensure water and wastewater infrastructure
and capacity are available to service the development.
The recommendations of the Noise and Vibration Study that was conducted indicated that
dwelling units that back onto or face Potters Road are required to be equipped with central air
conditioning to ensure that the noise levels stay within the recommended noise limits. The Study
also recommended that warning clauses be included in the subdivision agreement to provide
notice of potential noise impacts from the CP Railway.
Page 31 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 9 of 13
An archaeological investigation has been carried out for the subject lands and concluded that no
further archaeological investigations are required.
Staff are satisfied that the requested zoning provisions to provide for increased lot coverage,
reduced lot depth, increased building footprint and reduced exterior side yard widths for corner
lots for the proposed single detached dwellings within the development are generally appropriate.
The Functional Servicing Report provided by the applicant indicated that the existing stormwater
management pond can be modified to accommodate additional run-off resulting from the
increased dwelling footprints. The requested relief is similar to relief previously granted for the
previous subdivision development, Potters Gate Phase 3 adjacent to the south.
The requested zoning provisions for the street-fronting townhouse blocks will provide for
increased building envelopes and will facilitate a compact and more affordable housing type. The
reduced exterior side yard width is not expected to impact traffic sightlines or safety as the lots
will front on local streets. The reduced minimum lot area, lot depth, lot frontage, interior side yard,
rear yard depth and increased lot coverage can be considered appropriate to facilitate the
development of the proposed townhouse blocks. It is recommended that the proposal to reduce
the front yard depth not be approved, as the proposed front yard depth (5.4 m) will not
accommodate the required depth for a parking space (5.5 m). Provided that the front yard depth
is not reduced, the reduced lot frontage, lot area and interior side yard width will continue to allow
for 2 parking spaces to be provided for each unit (1 in the driveway and one within the private
attached garage). The requested relief is also similar to the relief granted to the townhouse blocks
in Potters Gate Phase 3, directly to the south.
The development of the townhouse blocks will be reviewed by Building staff for zoning compliance
at the time of building permit submission. The requested provisions will facilitate the future
creation of separate conveyable lots, which will be completed in an anticipated subsequent
application for exemption from Part Lot Control.
Within the proposed draft plan, Block 8 at the northeastern corner of the development that
encompasses the existing single detached dwelling that is proposed to remain is also the subject
of severance application B21-60-7. The severance of this proposed block can be considered
appropriate as any required conditions related to the development of this subdivision can be
implemented through a severance agreement and associated conditions of approval. It is
recommended that this Block be excluded from the proposed draft plan once the consent
application is approved. It is also recommended that Block 8 be zoned R2, as the Block will be
compliant with the R2 zoning if the related minor variance to permit a reduced lot depth is
approved.
Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan. As such,
staff are satisfied that the applications can be given favourable consideration.
The previously noted agency comments have been addressed in the recommended conditions of
draft approval, where appropriate, and are provided for Council’s consideration.
Page 32 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 10 of 13
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Council of the Town of Tillsonburg approve in principle the zone change
application (File No. ZN 7-21-05) submitted by Oxnard Potters Gate Inc., for lands
legally described as Part Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, & 6 of 41R-8458, to rezone
the lands Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone, Special Low Density Residential
Type 2 Holding Zone, Special Low Density Residential Type 3 Holding Zone to
facilitate the proposed draft plan of subdivision;
2. And further, the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg advise County Council that the
Town supports the application for approval of draft plan of subdivision, File No. SB
21-11-7, submitted by Oxnard Potters Gate Inc., for lands legally described as Part
Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, & 6 of 41R-8458, consisting of 54 lots for single
detached dwellings, 6 blocks for 25 street-fronting townhouse dwellings, and a
walkway block, served by 3 new local streets, subject to the following conditions of
draft approval:
1. This approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision submitted by Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
(SB 21-09-7) and prepared by G. Douglas Vallee, as shown on Plate 3 of Report No. CP
2022-37 and comprising Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, & 6 of 41R-8458, in the Town of
Tillsonburg, showing 54 lots for single detached dwellings, 6 blocks for 25 street-fronting
townhouse dwellings, and a walkway block, served by 3 local streets, subject to the
following modifications:
i. Removal of Block 8 on proposed draft plan of subdivision;
ii. 0.3 m reserve block for properties abutting West Town Line.
2. The Owners shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Town of Tillsonburg and
County of Oxford.
3. The Owners agree in writing, to install fencing as may be required by the Town, to the
satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg.
4. The Owners agree in writing, to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Town
regarding construction of roads, installation of services, including water, sewer, electrical
distribution systems, sidewalks, street lights, and drainage facilities and other matters
pertaining to the development of the subdivision in accordance with the standards of the
Town, to the satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg.
5. The road allowances included in the draft plan of subdivision shall be dedicated as public
highways, to the satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg.
6. The streets included in the draft plan of subdivision shall be named, to the satisfaction of
the Town of Tillsonburg.
7. The subdivision agreement shall contain provisions indicating that prior to grading and
issuance of building permits, a grading plan, servicing plan, hydro and street lighting plan,
and erosion and siltation control plan, along with reports as required, be reviewed and
approved by the Town, and further, the subdivision agreement shall include provisions for
the owners to carry out or cause to be carried out any necessary works in accordance with
the approved plans an reports, to the satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg.
Page 33 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 11 of 13
8. The subdivision agreement shall contain provisions requiring the Owners provide an overall
Landscaping Plan depicting at least one (1) tree per lot, in accordance with Tillsonburg’s
Design Guidelines. The Town shall approve the species of tree to be planted.
9. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, all lots/blocks shall conform to the
zoning requirements of the Town’s Zoning By-law. Certification of lot areas, frontages, and
depths shall be provided to the Town by an Ontario Land Surveyor retained by the Owners,
to the satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg.
10. A 0.3 m (1 ft) reserve shall be dedicated to the Town Tillsonburg, free of all costs and
encumbrances, at the western boundary of the subject lands, for lots that are adjacent to
West Town Line.
11. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the Owners shall agree in writing that
all phasing of the plan of subdivision will be to the satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg
and County of Oxford.
12. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, such easements as may be required
for utility and drainage purposes shall be granted to the appropriate authority, to the
satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg and County of Oxford Public Works.
13. The Owners agree in writing, to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise,
including payment of applicable development charges, of the County of Oxford regarding
the installation of the water distribution system, the installation of the sanitary sewer system,
and other matters pertaining to the development of the subdivision, to the satisfaction of
County of Oxford Public Works.
14. The subdivision agreement shall make provision for the assumption and operation of the
water and sewage system within the draft plan of subdivision by the County of Oxford, to
the satisfaction of County of Oxford Public Works.
15. The Owner agrees in writing, to prepare and submit for approval from County of Oxford
Public Works, detailed servicing plans designed in accordance with the County Design
Guidelines, to the satisfaction of County of Oxford Public Works.
16. The Owner agrees in writing to implement the noise mitigation measures that were identified
in the Noise Assessment Report prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated June 2021,
to the satisfaction of the Oxford County Public Works Department.
17. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the Owners shall receive confirmation
from County of Oxford Public Works that there is sufficient capacity in the Tillsonburg water
and sanitary sewer systems to service the plan of subdivision, to the satisfaction of County
of Oxford Public Works.
18. The Owner agrees in writing, that a 0.3 m (1 ft) reserve along Potters Road (Oxford Road
37) shall be conveyed to the County as required, free of all costs and encumbrances, to the
satisfaction of County of Oxford Public Works.
19. The Owner agrees in writing that a road widening will be conveyed to the County of Oxford
along the entire frontage of Oxford Road 37 to provide for a 13 meter right-of-way from the
centerline of the road, free of all encumbrances and costs to the satisfaction of the County
of Oxford.
Page 34 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 12 of 13
20. The Owner shall agree to prepare and submit for the approval of Oxford County Public
Works, a detailed flow monitoring program for the sewers downstream of the proposed
development.
21. Prior to the signing of the final plan by the County of Oxford, the owner shall submit an
archaeological assessment of the subject property and mitigate, through preservation or
resources removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological
resources found. No grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject
property prior to the issuance of a clearance letter by the Ministry of Culture confirming that
all archaeological resource concerns have met licensing and resource conservation
requirements.
22. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future
owners of properties within the draft plan to include the following environmental warning
clause in all purchase and sale agreements:
“Purchasers are advised that dust, odour, noise and other emissions from normal
agricultural activities conducted in the periphery of the subject lands, in the Township of
Norwich, may be of concern and may interfere with some residential activities”.
23. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the Owners shall agree in writing to
satisfy the requirements of Canada Post Corporation with respect to advising prospective
purchasers of the method of mail delivery; the location of temporary Centralized Mail Box
locations during construction; and the provision of public information regarding the proposed
locations of permanent Centralized Mail Box locations, to the satisfaction of Canada Post.
24. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the Owners shall agree in writing, to
satisfy the requirements of Enbridge Gas that the Owner/developer provide Enbridge Gas
with the necessary easements and/or Enbridge Gas.
25. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the Owners shall secure clearance from
the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA), indicating that final lot grading
plans, soil conservation plan, and stormwater management plans have been completed to
their satisfaction.
26. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the County of Oxford shall be advised
by the Town of Tillsonburg that Conditions 2 to 12 (inclusive), have been met to the
satisfaction of the Town. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for each
condition detailing how each has been satisfied.
27. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the Owners shall secure clearance from
the County of Oxford Public Works Department that Conditions 12 to 20 (inclusive), have
been met to the satisfaction of County Public Works. The clearance letter shall include a
brief statement for each condition detailing how each has been satisfied.
28. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the County of Oxford shall be advised
by Canada Post Corporation that Condition 23 has been met to the satisfaction of Canada
Post. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how this condition has
been satisfied.
29. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the County of Oxford shall be advised
by Enbridge Gas that Condition 24 has been met to the satisfaction of Enbridge Gas.
Page 35 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-37
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 13 of 13
The clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how this condition has been
satisfied.
30. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the County of Oxford shall be advised
by LPRCA that Condition 25 has been met to the satisfaction of LPRCA. The clearance
letter shall include a brief statement detailing how this condition has been satisfied.
31. Prior to the approval of the final plan by the County, the Owners shall provide a list of all
conditions of draft approval with a brief statement detailing how each condition has been
satisfied, including required supporting documentation from the relevant authority, to the
satisfaction of the County of Oxford.
32. This plan of subdivision shall be registered within three (3) years of the granting of draft
approval, after which time this draft approval shall lapse unless an extension is authorized
by the County of Oxford.
SIGNATURES
Authored by: Eric Gilbert, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Approved for submission: Gordon K. Hough, RPP
Director
Page 36 of 304
September 17, 2021
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
2050
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
102 Meters
Zoning Floodlines
Regulation Limit
100 Year Flood Line
30 Metre Setback
Conservation Authority
Regulation Limit
Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
Plate 1: Location Map with Existing Zoning
File Nos: SB 21-09-7 & ZN 7-21-12 - Oxnard Potters Gate Inc (Jacko & Watson-Vogan)
Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, 6 of 41R-8458, Town of Tillsonburg- 93 Potters Road
Subject
Property
West
Town
Line
Potters
Road
Harvest
Avenue Seaton
Crescent
Lands
within the
Township
of Norwich
Page 37 of 304
September 17, 2021
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
1020
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
51 Meters
Zoning Floodlines
Regulation Limit
100 Year Flood Line
30 Metre Setback
Conservation Authority
Regulation Limit
Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
Subject
Property
West
Town
Line
Harvest
Avenue
Potters
Road
Plate 2: 2020 Aerial Map
File Nos: SB 21-09-7 & ZN 7-21-12 - Oxnard Potters Gate Inc (Jacko & Watson-Vogan)
Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, 6 of 41R-8458, Town of Tillsonburg- 93 Potters Road
Lands
within the
Township
of Norwich
Page 38 of 304
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17
38
43
42
41
40
39
44
48
53 54
37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27
9 10 11 12 13 1476543218
49
50
51
52
474645
TOWN OF
TILLSONBURG
SCALE
500 100
File Number:
Drawn By:
Planner:
Scale:
CAD:
see scale bar
Drawing Number:
METRES
DRAWN / REVISED
First Draft
OX 01
C6
Concept Plan _R4
NJ
5 JAN 2021
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES ONLY
Revision to Street C11 JAN 2021
27 JAN 2021 Revision to Layout
09 MAR 2021 Revision to BLOCK 9
PARTS 4,5 & 6
LAND REGISTARS' COMPLIED PLAN 1653
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
COUNTY OF OXFORD
Total Site Area:
DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS:
DRAFT PLAN
5.029 ha
LEGEND
Subject Lands
Single Detached Dwelling 54 units
79 unitsTotal
Street Fronting Townhomes (7.5 x 18.6m)25 units
POTTERS GATE PHASE 4
Proposed Sidewalk
KEY PLAN N.T.S.
PROPOSED
OF SUBDIVISION OF
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LANDS TO BE
SUBDIVIDED AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO TO THE ADJACENT
LANDS ARE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN ON THIS
PLAN.
KIM HUSTED,ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CONSENT TO THE FILING OF THIS PLAN IN DRAFT
FORM FOR APPROVAL.
DATE
OXNARD POTTERS GATE INC.
LAND USE TABLE
PROPOSED DIVISIONS PROPOSED LAND USE AREA DENSITY
LOT 1 to 54 SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS (R2)
BLOCK 1 to 6 (25 UNITS)STREET FRONTING TOWNHOUSES(R3)
2.504 ha (6.189 acre)
0.688 ha (1.702 acre)
8.72 UNITS/acre
14.68 UNITS/acre
BLOCK 7
ROADWAYS ROADWAYS
WALKWAY 0.0094 ha
1.470 ha (3.632 acre)
TOTAL SITE AREA:5.029 ha
BLOCK 8 0.210 ha EXISTING SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
UNDER SECTION 51(17) OF THE PLANNING ACT INFORMATION
REQUIRED BY CLAUSES a, b, c, e, f, g AND j SHOWN ON DRAFT
AND KEY PLANS.
(h) A MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE
DEVELOPER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
COUNTY OF OXFORD.
(i) SOILS ARE GENERALLY COMPRISED SAND AND SANDY SILT ,
SOIL POROSITY - HIGH
(k) MUNICIPAL SERVICES INCLUDING WATER SUPPLY, SANITARY
SEWERS, STORM SEWERS, CURB AND GUTTER, PAVED ROADS,
STREET LIGHTING AND SIDEWALKS WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE
DEVELOPER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE COUNTY OF OXFORD.
(l) NO RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN EXCESS OF THE EXISTING
ZONING AND BUILDING BY-LAWS ARE PROPOSED.
DATE
Plate 3: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
File Nos: SB 21-09-7 & ZN 7-21-12 - Oxnard Potters Gate Inc
Lot 24, Plan 1653, Parts 4, 5, 6 of 41R-8458, Town of Tillsonburg- 93 Potters Road
Page 39 of 304
From:Heather Campbell
To:Planning
Subject:Fwd: Attention Eric re Potters Road development ,Tillsonburg
Date:October 28, 2021 4:33:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise cautionwhen opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Heather Campbell <hcampbell7@sympatico.ca>Date: October 28, 2021 at 2:53:47 PM EDTTo: planning@oxfordcounty.comSubject: Attention Eric re Potters Road development ,Tillsonburg
Hello Eric,We are writing to you as concerned residents of Potters Road in Tillsonburg
regarding the recent email outlining the latest plan for housing at Potters Roadand Westtown Line.
We are very strongly opposed to many things regarding the plan. 1. The density
2. The lot coverage3. The front and rear yard reductions
4. Additional cars parked on nearby streets.
The plan does not fit the neighbouring landscape which is rural and or countrylots.
We are born and raised in Tillsonburg and with plans and subdivisions such asthese we are rapidly losing our identity as a small rural town. Many seniors and
retirees have moved here for the reason that they enjoy the small town feel andless congestion and easier driving situations. These densely populated
subdivisions will all help to destroy what many have come here for and havestayed here for. The proposed plan is more suited to urban expansion.
We thank you for your time in considering our opinions.
RegardsHeather and Colin Campbell
Sent from my iPad
Page 40 of 304
From:Glen Gilvesy Gmail
To:Planning
Cc:Glen Gilvesy; Julie Gilvesy
Subject:File Nos. SB 21-09-7 & ZN 7-21-12
Date:October 25, 2021 3:00:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise cautionwhen opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders.
Eric,
We received the notice File Nos. SB 21-09-7 & ZN 7-21-12 and would like to express our
concerns regarding the variance requests. Our home address is 80B Potters Road, Tillsonburgwhich is across the road from the Subject Lands.
We have had first-hand experience with what has already been developed in the initial phasesof this development and anticipate that what is being proposed will amplify the existing issues
and create new ones. The existing lots being too narrow and the lot coverage being too greathas resulted in the front yards, garages and driveways being extremely small; therefore, being
unable to accommodate the space needed for the vehicles of the owners, let alone when theyhave guests. This in turn has created a road that is littered with vehicles, trailers, etc. Hence,
our concern with approving a variance that will only recreate this situation in the new phase. Additionally, condensing more dwellings into Phase 4 will create traffic congestion coming
off of Harvest Lane onto Potters Road as that will be the most direct route for all of theresidents and those attending the new Church to take into town.
Although this type of development may exist in the GTA, it is not in keeping with the currentstandards for small town living or infrastructure and will affect the heritage and charm of
Potters Road and of Tillsonburg. Since it is evident that the addition of so many moredwellings will greatly exacerbate the situation, we request that none of the proposed variances
be approved.
Glen & Julie Gilvesy
80 B Potters Road
Tillsonburg, Ontario
N4G 4G7
glengil001@gmail.com
(519)842-1400--
Page 41 of 304
Page 42 of 304
Page 43 of 304
Page 44 of 304
Page 45 of 304
Page 46 of 304
Page 47 of 304
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
Potters Gate – PH 4
Town of Tillsonburg
Prepared by: Negar Javaherian, Oxnard Developments Inc.
Reviewed by: Eldon Darbyson, BES, MCIP, RPP, Director of Planning
G. Douglas Valle Limited. 2 Talbot Street North Simcoe Ontario N3Y 3W4
July 2021
Page 48 of 304
Page 49 of 304
Table of contents
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Site Context ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Surrounding Land Use .............................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Required Land Use Planning Approvals ................................................................................... 5
3. Proposed Development ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Street Network and Circulation ................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Proximity to Services and Amenities ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3 Density and Built Form.............................................................................................................. 6
4. Planning Policy Context ...................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 (as amended 2015) ........................................................................ 9
4.2 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 .......................................................................................... 10
4.3 Oxford County Official Plan .................................................................................................... 13
4.4 Town of Tillsonburg Zoning By-Law No. 3295 ........................................................................ 18
5. Technical Studies .............................................................................................................................. 23
6. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure index
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Subject Lands .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: The Proposed Concept Plan .......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Oxford County Official Plan – Schedule "C-3" County of Oxford Settlement Strategy Plan
................................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 4: Oxford County Official Plan – Schedule “T-1”, Town of Tillsonburg Land Use Plan ................... 17
Figure 5: Oxford County Official Plan – Schedule “T-2”, Town of Tillsonburg Residential Density
Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 1: Proposed Zoning Table for R3-XX(H) ........................................................................................... 19
Table 2: Proposed Zoning Table for R2-XX (H) .......................................................................................... 21
*Please note that all figures, images and maps provided in this report are for reference only and should not be interpreted as exact.
Appendices
Appendix A – Draft Zoning By‐law Amendment Text and Schedule
Appendix B –Zoning Matrix
Page 50 of 304
Page 51 of 304
1. Introduction
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc. herein referred to as ‘Oxnard’, is the owner of an approximately 5
hectare parcel of Parts 4,5 & 6 Land Registrars' Complied Plan 1653, Town of Tillsonburg,
County of Oxford.
The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Potters Road and
Westtown Line, at the easternmost extent of the Town of Tillsonburg, Ontario. The Site is
trapezoidal in shape and occupies an area of approximately 12.43 acres (5.03 hectares).
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc. is proposing to develop a total of 79 units consisting of 54 single-
detached lots and 24 street townhouse dwelling units. The site is known as Potters Gate Phase
4 and abuts the Potters Gate Phases 2 and 3 subdivision.
Oxnard intends to submit an application for the approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit
the proposed development as depicted in Figure 2. The subject lands have been zoned for
Future Development (FD).
This report will review the design elements of the proposed Draft Plan, its conformity to the
Official Plan Policies and its conformity to Provincial Policy.
2. Site Context
The subject lands are located within the Urban Area and designated Residential in the Town of
Tillsonburg’s Official Plan. The site falls within a larger residential block which is bound by Potters
Road to the North, West Townline to the East, County Road 51 to the South and Canada Pacific
Railway (CPR) to the West. At the edge the residential block there are designations for
residential to the south and west.
2.1 Surrounding Land Use
The neighbouring land uses and amenities surrounding the subject property are outlined below.
Figure 1: Site Context Map is an aerial map showing the location of the site and its neighbouring
community structure. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject lands are as follows:
North: 4 Single family houses are located on the north side of Potters Road. Further north of
the subject property is open space and environmental protection land.
East: East of the subject lands is further vacant rural lands as well as 2 single family detached
homes located on large rural parcels. Further south-east of the subject property is
vacant agricultural land.
South: Potters Gate Phase 3 subdivision comprising of single detached dwellings and
townhouses is being constructed to the South. Low density single detached dwellings
are located immediately to the south of the subject lands. Further south of the subject
property is Harvest Retirement Community
West: Abutting the subject lands to the east is the Potters Gate Phase 2 subdivision consisting
of low density semi-detached and townhouse dwellings is zone for R2 according to the
Town of Tillsonburg Zoning By-law
Page 52 of 304
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Subject Lands
2.2 Required Land Use Planning Approvals
As discussed in the Pre-Consultation meeting held on January 20, 2021, a Draft Plan of
Subdivision application is required to develop the land consisting of single detached dwellings
and street townhouse dwellings totalling 79 units. Furthermore, a land severance application is
required to separate the existing single detached dwelling from the new subdivision. A Zoning
Amendment application is required as well.
Page 53 of 304
3. Proposed Development
The subject lands consist of an approximately 5 hectares of land which forms the subdivision
known as Potters Gate Phase 4. The development of the subject lands as depicted on
Figure 2, proposes a total of 54 single- detached lots and 24 street townhouse units
contained in 6 residential townhouse blocks, one pedestrian walkway and 3 metre road
widening. The development proposes to establish a residential lot (Block 8) for the existing
single-detached dwelling which is privately serviced with on-site water and septic. The
retained parcel (Block 8) will have a lot area of 2105.214 m2 (0.210 ha) and a lot frontage of
130 m (426.50 ft). The conveyed parcel will have a lot area of 48190 m2 (4.819 ha).
3.1 Street Network and Circulation
Two vehicular access points are proposed on the west and east side of the proposed
development through Street “C”. The Draft Plan proposes to extend the planned but unbuilt road
in Potters Gate PH 2 subdivision (Block 8 Registered Plan 41M-272) from the two Collector roads
of Harvest Avenue and Westtown Line. This road extension completes the internal network for
the larger residential area and provides two access points into the subdivision to enhance
vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
The internal road network is wrapped parallel pattern. It includes:
• Street “C” that will operate two-way for cars with two connections from the two Collector
roads of Harvest Avenue and Westtown line.
• Streets “A”, “D” and “E” have a road reserve of 20m and a carriageway width of 8m and
one
• Street “B” is a Window Street with a minimum width of 18m running parallel to Potters
Road.
The site’s pedestrian pathways seamlessly link to the existing Town of Tillsonburg pedestrian
network. These connections will also improve access to nearby amenities for vehicles,
pedestrians and cyclists from within the neighbourhood. The retained parcel will maintain the
driveway access from Potters Road.
3.2 Density and Built Form
The proposed development yields a density of 24.74 units per net hectare consisting of 21.56
units per net hectare of single- family units and 36.33 units per net hectare of townhouses. The
County Official Plan states that:
“The maximum net residential density for an individual development in the Low-Density
Residential area is 30 units per hectare (12 units per acre) and no building shall exceed three stories in height at street elevation.”
Given that the Official Plan only provides one residential category and does not provide for a
range of density categories, our interpretation of this policy is that it is intended to be applied
over the entire residential area. Further OP policies and draft plan conformity are discussed in
Section 4.1 of this report.
The street townhouses will have a minimum frontage of 7.5m on a street and singe detached
lots will have a minimum frontage of 12.04m on a street. Single-detached and townhouse
Page 54 of 304
dwellings will be offered in both single storey bungalow and two-storey to accommodate various
lifestyles and physical needs, including providing barrier-free living options. All the units will have
an approximate gross floor area of between 114.1 m2 to 382.09 m2. Parking spaces will be
provided within garages, as well as on the proposed driveways. Landscaped open space will be
provided in the front and rear yards of each dwelling unit. The proposed units increase the range
of housing options and lot sizes in the neighbourhood while maintaining compatibility to the
existing residential development.
Page 55 of 304
Figure 2: The Proposed Concept Plan
Page 56 of 304
4. Planning Policy Context
4.1 Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 (as amended 2015)
Section 2 of the Planning Act provides direction on matters of provincial interest and includes the
following relevant policies:
“2. The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board,
in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters
of provincial interest such as…
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;
(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;
(r) the promotion of built form that,
(i) is well-designed,
(ii) encourages a sense of place, and
(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;”
Section 51 (24) pf the Planning Act sets out criteria that need to be considered in draft plan of subdivision
and includes the following principals. The proposed development is keeping with the policies of Section
2 as it proposes the accommodation of a range and mix of residential units withing the settlement area.
Criteria
(24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health,
safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future
inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred
to in section 2;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for
affordable housing;
Page 57 of 304
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy
of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established
highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the
buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be
conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient
use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control
matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control
area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act,
2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31(2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22(3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).”
The Planning Act includes direction and provides the legal authority pertaining to the applicable planning
policy themes to be discussed in this report and to which are addressed through the Provincial Policy
Statement. The proposed plan of subdivision has considered matters of Provincial Interest.
4.2 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect on May 1, 2020 and provides policy direction
on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS aims to permit
appropriate development while ensuring that resources of provincial interest, public health and safety,
and the quality of the natural environment are protected. All planning decisions in Ontario must be
consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
The PPS encourages efficient land use planning and growth management to create and maintain strong
communities and a healthy environment while encouraging economic growth over the long term. The
PPS also encourages the efficient use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities and requires
that municipalities plan for an appropriate range and mix of land uses throughout the Province.
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2020 indicates in Section 1.1.1 that “healthy, liveable and safe
communities” are sustained by:
a) “Promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial
well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term;
b) Accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential (including second units, affordable
housing and housing for older persons), employment (including industrial and commercial),
institutional (including places of worship, cemeteries and long-term care homes,) recreation, park
and open spaces, and other uses to meet long term needs;
Page 58 of 304
c) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and
safety concerns; …
i. promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption
and servicing costs; …”
The proposed development is in keeping with the policies of Section 1.1.1 as it proposes the
accommodation of a range and mix of residential units. As described in Section 3 of this report, the
proposed development is for single-family dwellings and townhouse dwelling units consisting of various
proposed sizes.
The subject lands are located within the settlement area of the Town of Tillsonburg and are therefore
subject to the policies set forth in Section 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 which apply and are relevant to the proposed
development, as follows:
1.1.2 “Sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land
uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 25 years, informed by provincial
guidelines. However, where an alternate time period has been established for specific areas
of the Province as a result of a provincial planning exercise or a provincial plan, that time frame
may be used for municipalities within the area.
Within settlement areas, sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and
redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas.
Nothing in policy 1.1.2 limits the planning for infrastructure, public service facilities and
employment areas beyond a 25-year time horizon.”
The PPS further states in Section 1.1.3.1 that “Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and
development.” Furthermore, Section 1.1.3.2 of the PPS states that land use patterns within Settlement
Areas shall be based on the following:
1.1.3.2 “Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses
which:
a) efficiently use land and resources;
b) are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which
are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical
expansion;
c) minimize negative impacts to air quality and climate change, and promote energy efficiency;
d) prepare for the impacts of a changing climate;
e) support active transportation;
f) are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed; and
g) are freight-supportive.”
Land use patterns within settlement areas shall also be based on a range of uses and opportunities for
intensification and redevelopment in accordance with the criteria in policy 1.1.3.3, where this can be
accommodated.
Page 59 of 304
Lastly, the PPS notes that development should “provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing
types and densities required to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents…"
(Section 1.4.1).
1.4.1. “To provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities required
to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market
area, planning authorities shall:
a) maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a
minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary,
lands which are designated and available for residential development; and
b) maintain at all times where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned to facilitate residential intensification and redevelopment, and land in draft approved and registered plans”.
The proposed development will assist the Town of Tillsonburg in achieving its growth obligations by
contributing to the range of housing types to the neighbourhood. The pocket of compact residential form
will increase density and ensure the efficient use of land and existing resources.
Section 1.6 of the PPS speaks to Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities. More specifically, Section
1.6.6 speaks to Sewage, Water and Stormwater, which is relevant to the proposed development.
Section 1.6.6.2 of the PPS advises:
1.6.6.2 “Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing
for settlement areas to support protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to
human health and safety. Within settlement areas with existing municipal sewage services and
municipal water services, intensification and redevelopment shall be promoted wherever
feasible to optimize the use of the services.”
Section 1.6.6.7 states that:
1.6.6.7 Planning for stormwater management shall:
a) be integrated with planning for sewage and water services and ensure that systems are
optimized, feasible and financially viable over the long term;
b) minimize, or, where possible, prevent increases in contaminant loads;
c) minimize erosion and changes in water balance, and prepare for the impacts of a changing
climate through the effective management of stormwater, including the use of green
infrastructure;
d) mitigate risks to human health, safety, property and the environment;
e) maximize the extent and function of vegetative and pervious surfaces; and
f) promote stormwater management best practices, including stormwater attenuation and re-
use, water conservation and efficiency, and low impact development.
The Functional Servicing Report prepared and The Stormwater Management (SWM) Report by G
Douglas Vallee demonstrates that the proposed Phase 4 development can be functionally serviced by
Page 60 of 304
the available municipal infrastructure for water, sanitary and storm sewer services as outlined in the
reports.
Summary:
The proposed development is consistent with the policies contained within the PPS. The proposed
development provides a mix and appropriate range of variety of housing in the settlement area, while
making efficient use of the existing infrastructure and servicing. The subject property is located adjacent
to an existing built community and provides an orderly and natural expansion or filling out of the
settlement area. Additionally, the proposed development has a compact form which allows for the
efficient use of land and infrastructure in an orderly progression of development. Overall, the plan is
consistent with the policies of the PPS.
4.3 Oxford County Official Plan
The Oxford County Official Plan was adopted by Oxford County Council on December 13, 1995. The
contents of the Official Plan reflect the latest consolidation of Official Plan amendments, as of September
30, 2020. he following policies apply to the proposed development of the subject lands.
County Development Strategy
Part 2 of the COP includes policies that provide growth management strategies to ensure the
appropriate phasing of new developments. Section 2.1.1 Growth Management provides the direction
for new development within the County and incorporated the following strategic initiatives to manage
growth:
Forecasting and Allocating Growth
As directed by provincial policy, the County, in consultation with the Area Municipalities, will identify,
coordinate and allocate population, housing and employment projections for the Area Municipalities;
identify areas where growth or development will be directed; and identify minimum targets for
intensification within all or any of the Area Municipalities
Accommodating Growth
Growth and development will be focused in settlements and their vitality and regeneration will be
promoted
FULL SERVICES
The majority of growth will be directed to settlements with centralized waste water and water supply
facilities to minimize risks of contamination to air, land, surface water and groundwater, to preserve
agricultural land and to reduce the per capita and per unit costs of public service facilities and
infrastructure.
Land Use Patterns, Mix of Uses and Density
Settlements will be required to develop with land use patterns, and a mix of uses and densities that
efficiently use land and resources, are appropriate for, and efficiently use, existing or planned
infrastructure and public service facilities, support active transportation and existing or planned transit,
are freight-supportive, minimize negative impacts to air quality and climate change and promote
energy efficiency. Development and land use patterns that would prevent the efficient expansion of
settlements, in areas adjacent, or in close proximity to, settlements, will be avoided.
Page 61 of 304
Intensification
Intensification will be promoted in appropriate locations within settlements, particularly those serviced
by centralized wastewater and water supply facilities, in accordance with the applicable policies of this
Plan. A minimum target of 15 percent of all new residential dwelling units created within the Large
Urban Centres shall occur by way of residential intensification over the planning period.
As per Section 2.1.5 of the County OP, the proposed development shall have regard for the responsible
water and waste management. Accordingly, this Plan incorporates the following strategic initiatives to
promote responsible water and waste management:
PLANNING FOR SEWAGE AND WATER SERVICES
Expected growth and development shall be directed and accommodated in a manner that promotes
efficient use and optimization of existing centralized water and/or centralized waste water treatment
services. Such services will be provided in a manner that: can be sustained by the water resources
on which said services rely; promotes water conservation and water use efficiency; is feasible,
financially viable and complies with all regulatory requirements; and protects human health and the
natural environment.
The Functional Servicing Report prepared by G. Douglas Vallee Limited demonstrates how the
proposed development will be effectively serviced. Furthermore, the Functional Servicing Report has
demonstrated that municipal water and wastewater services are available to adequately service the
proposed development.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Stormwater management will be planned to minimize, or where possible, prevent increases in
contaminant loads, minimize changes in water balance and erosion, not increase risks to human
health and safety and property damage, maximize the extent and function of vegetative and
pervious surfaces, and incorporate stormwater management best practices.
The Stormwater Management (SWM) Report prepared by G Douglas Vallee details a proposed SWM
plan. The SWM plan for the development will be achieved by using the existing stormwater management
pond, and mitigates risks to human health, safety, property and the environment by reducing the risk of
flooding, and minimizing contaminant loads flowing off site. Therefore, the proposed development is
consistent with Section 2.1.5 of the COP.
Furthermore, it is the policy of Section 2.1.1 that an appropriate supply of land is made available for
residential development and intensification in accordance with the County and Town’s population target.
“A sufficient supply of land will be provided within settlements to accommodate an appropriate range
and mix of residential and non-residential growth, in accordance with the projected 20 year needs of
the County and each of the Area Municipalities within the County, while accounting for opportunities
to accommodate growth through intensification.”
The Town of Tillsonburg has a projected population of 17,700 residents by 2031. The current population
based on 2016 Canadian Census data is 16,200 residents. The proposed development will assist the
town in reaching its growth projections under the Growth Plan.
The Town of Tillsonburg is identified as a Settlement Area (Large Urban Centres) to which development
should be directed according to the Schedule "C-3" County of Oxford Settlement Strategy Plan – Figure
3. The proposed development directs growth to an existing settlement area as required. The proposed
Page 62 of 304
development will ensure that new development provides a diverse range of housing options to the
residents of the Town of Tillsonburg. It will promote the efficient use of land as it proposes the
intensification of a new development area.
Figure 3: Oxford County Official Plan – Schedule "C-3" County of Oxford Settlement Strategy Plan
Land Use Policy
The subject land is located within the existing Built Boundary and is designated Residential according
to the Town of Tillsonburg Land Use Plan (Schedule “T-1”), as depicted on Figure 4. The subject lands
are proposed to be developed for low density residential uses.
In the consideration of development applications in Residential Areas, the COP provides further
direction on the appropriate developments in Section 8.0 Town of Tillsonburg Land Use Policies, Section
8.2.3:
“within the Residential Area housing will include the full range of dwelling types from detached
homes to apartment dwellings including special needs housing. In order to provide opportunities for
the development of a broad range of dwelling types, to facilitate the efficient use of residentially
designated land and to provide for compatibility between housing of different residential densities,
three categories of residential land use are identified. Areas designated for Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential on Schedule T-2 are differentiated
according to function, permitted uses, location criteria, density and scale of development.”
8.2.3.2 Residential Development Policies
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To assist in achieving the land use objectives for Residential Area designations as identified in Section
8.2.3.1, Residential Areas of Low, Medium and High Density and Mobile Home Park are identified on
the Residential Density Plan, Schedule T-2.
Page 63 of 304
The Land is designated as Low Residential Density as identified on Schedule T-2 (Figure 5). The
following policies apply:
8.2.4 “Low Density Residential Areas
Low Density Residential areas are those lands that are primarily developed or planned for a variety
of low-rise, low density housing forms including single detached, semi-detached, duplex, converted
dwellings, quadraplexes, townhouses, and low-density cluster development. In these areas, it is
intended that there will be a mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low
overall density of use. It is not intended however that the full range of housing will be permitted in
every individual neighbourhood or development and Town Council may choose to restrict the range
of uses permitted in a particular location through the Zoning By-law. Low Density Residential areas
are identified on Schedule T-2.”
DENSITY
The maximum net residential density for an individual development in the Low-Density Residential
area is 30 units per hectare (12 units per acre) and no building shall exceed three stories in height
at street elevation.
CRITERIA FOR MULTIPLE UNITS
Multiple unit dwellings such as townhouse and cluster development in Low Density Residential areas
will generally be restricted to the following areas:
• sites which abut arterial or collector roads or are situated such that traffic impacts from the site
create a minimum disturbance on local streets;
• sites where the topography or other natural features would be best preserved by fewer buildings;
• sites which are close to shopping, recreation, cultural and community facilities. Street-oriented
multiples such as street townhouses, quadraplexes and converted dwellings may be permitted
on local streets.
Section 8. 2. 4 Low Density Residential Areas sets a density target of 15 units per hectare (6 units per
acre) for areas within areas of new Low-Density Residential development. The proposed development
has an overall density of 24.71 units per hectare (10 units per acre). The proposed portion of single-
detached dwelling lots has a proposed density of 21.56 units per hectare (8.7 units per acre) and the
proposed portion of Street Townhouses has a proposed density of 36.33 units per hectare (14.71 units
per acre).
Given that the Official Plan only provides one residential category and does not provide for a range of
density categories, our interpretation of this policy is that it is intended to be applied over the entire
residential area. The proposed development, with a density of 25 units per hectare is considered a low-
density residential development and doesn’t exceed the maximum development densities for the Low-
Density Residential Area. The proposed development density will be compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood and will increase the diversity of the housing forms and densities available. The
proposed development is consistent with the Oxford Official Plan land use and density requirements for
Low Density Residential.
Further, the proposed development is compatible with the neighbouring new development which would
result in a lower average density in the context of the overall neighbourhood. The surrounding lands
(Potters Gate Phases 2 and 3) include a mix of lower density semi-detached and detached dwellings,
Page 64 of 304
and medium density townhouse development. The Potters Gate PH 2 consists of 14 semi-detached
dwellings and 8 townhouse units has overall density of 7.36 units per hectare and the Potters Gate PH
3 consists of 53 single-detached dwellings and 35 townhouse units has overall density of 12.94 units
per hectare. The proposed density represents a pattern of development that will be compatible with the
surrounding area.
Figure 4: Oxford County Official Plan – Schedule “T-1”, Town of Tillsonburg Land Use Plan
As per the classification of the roads provided in Section 8.7.2 Roads, the proposed development plans to
build full local road network and provides two safe and future access points to the existing roads Harvest Ave
(Collector Road) and Westown Line (Collector Road).
8.7.2 Roads
The road system shall be based on a functional classification of roads described as follows:
• Local - provides access to individual properties and serves local traffic only;
The proposed development plans to build upon the existing road network and provides future access
points to further enhance the grid network. The proposed local roads would have sufficient pavement
width to accommodate cyclists and motorized vehicles, while providing sidewalks for pedestrians. The
proposed road network would promote alternative modes of transportation allowing pedestrians and
Page 65 of 304
cyclists to access amenities in the neighbourhood via connecting to existing road network. As such the
proposed development meets the intent of the COP. Furthermore, the proposed development will not
cause traffic hazards as indicated in the enclosed Traffic Impact Study.
Figure 5: Oxford County Official Plan – Schedule “T-2”, Town of Tillsonburg Residential Density Plan
4.4 Town of Tillsonburg Zoning By-Law No. 3295
The subject lands are currently zoned as Future Development under By-law 3295 based one Key Map
31 of the by-law. In order to facilitate the development of the subject lands, the Town of Tillsonburg
Zoning By-law 3295 must be amended. The proposed development seeks to amend the zoning for the
subject lands from ‘Future Development Zone (FD)’ to ‘Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2–(H))’
to permit 54 lots for single detached dwellings. The application also proposes to rezone a portion of the
land from ‘Future Development Zone (FD)’ to ‘Low Density Residential Type 3 Zone (R3 –(H))’ to permit
Page 66 of 304
24 street facing townhouse units. The holding provision will be lifted upon the execution of a subdivision
agreement.
The proposed amendment is consistent with zoning utilized in the development and intensification areas
on surrounding lands including Potter Gate Phases 2 and 3, and reflects appropriate urban densities in
the context of current Town and Provincial policies.
Special provisions to the zoning are also requested to address site specific requirements. Tables 1 and
2 identify the current and proposed zoning standards to be implemented for the subject lands. In
addition, the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment is attached to this report as Appendix A.
Table 3 provides a summary of the proposed site-specific zoning provision for the retained parcel (Block
8).
A zoning matrix has been provided as part of the submission materials for each lot and block to assist
staff in reviewing the proposed development. Please see the Appendix B.
Table 1: Proposed Zoning Table for R3-XX(H)
Zone Provision Required R3 Proposed R3-XX(H)
Minimum Lot Area 240 m2 (2,583 ft2) per dwelling
unit or 330 m2 (3,552 ft2) for an
end unit, except in no case
shall the lot area for an end unit
on a corner lot be less than 420
m2 (4,520 ft2)
210 m2 (2,260 ft2) per dwelling
unit or 260 m2 (2,798 ft2) for an
end unit, except in no case
shall the lot area for an end unit
on a corner lot be less than 290
m2 (3,121 ft2)
Minimum Lot Frontage 8 m (26.2 ft) per dwelling unit
or 11 m (36 ft) for an end unit,
except in no case shall the lot
frontage for the end unit on a
corner lot be less than 14 m
(39.4 ft).
7.5 m (2.28 ft) per dwelling unit
or 9 m (2.74 ft) for an end unit,
except in no case shall the lot
frontage for the end unit on a
corner lot be less than 10.5 m
(34.45 ft).
Minimum Lot Depth 30 m (98.4 ft) 28.5 m (93.50 ft) Block 6 only
Minimum Exterior Side Yard
Setback
6 m (19.7 ft) 3 m (9.8 ft)
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 7.5 m (24.6 ft) Block 1 & 2; 6.5 m
Block 5 & 6; 5.5 m
Minimum Front Yard Setback 6 m (19.7 ft) Block 5, 5.4 m
Minimum Interior Side Yard
Setback
3 m (9.8 ft) for end dwelling
units
1.2 m (3.93 ft) for end dwelling
units
Minimum Amenity Area 48 m2 (516.7 ft2) per dwelling
unit
BLOCK 5&6 Internal units 41
m2 (441.3 ft2) per dwelling unit
Page 67 of 304
Maximum Lot coverage 40% 60%
Minimum Amenity Area 48 m2 (516.7 ft2) per dwelling
unit
As noted herein, the proposed development will require several site-specific provisions within a proposed R3
-** Exception Zone. It is our opinion that the proposed modified provisions maintain the intent of the Town of
Tillsonburg Zoning By-law and are appropriate for the subject lands. The proposed modified provisions are
discussed below:
Lot Area
An amendment is required to reduce minimum lot areas in order to maximize the land use and facilitate the
proposed townhouse development, as shown on the Table 1. The reduced minimum lot areas will allow for
well sized residential lots and using land and infrastructure efficiently.
Lot Frontage
As outlined in Table 1, an amendment is required to reduce minimum lot frontages. The reductions are minor
in nature and will make the proposed development compatible with the surrounding areas.
Lot Depth
As shown on the Table 1, the proposed lot depth (28.5 m) for the proposed townhouse lots in Block 6 does
not meet the minimum lot depth requirement (30m) of the R3 zone. The remaining proposed lots will meet the
minimum lot depth requirement in the R3 zone category. The reduced lot depth on Block 6 will promote an
efficient use of land and compact form.
Exterior Side Yard Width
The zoning by-law requires a minimum exterior side yard setback of 6.0 meters. The proposed 3.0m exterior
side yard setback will facilitate more efficient use of the land, it brings building closer to the roadways and it
allows for more consistent and harmonious streetscape. The proposed 3.0m setback will provide adequate
space for fencing and landscaping feature.
Front and Rear Yard Setbacks
An amendment is required to reduce the required rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 6.5 m for the proposed lots
in Block 1 and 2, and to 5.5m for the proposed lots in Block 5 and 6. The relief is required to address the
shallower lot depths on Block 6, to allow more efficient building design specifically for the lots in Blocks 1,2
and 5, to promote efficient land use and compact form. The proposed lots in Block 3 will maintain 7.5m rear
yard setback in the R3 zone category. The rear yard reductions will still allow for ample amenity area for each
unit.
A 5.4 m front yard setback is proposed only for the end unit of Block 5. It is expected the proposed dwelling
design for the end units cannot comply with the required front yard depth, primarily due to the proposed curved
streetline. The reduced front yard setback will allow for more efficient building design and compact form. The
other street townhouse lots will meet 6.0 metre front yard setback in the R3 zone category.
Interior Side Yard Width
The zoning by-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 3.0 metres for end unit dwelling, whereas
a site-specific minimum setback of 1.2 metres is proposed. The reduced side yard setback is in keeping with
Page 68 of 304
the character of the existing residential developments (Potters Gate Subdivisions PH 2&3) in the area. A
reduced interior side yard setback allows for a slight increase in the gross floor area (GFA) of end unit and
facilitates compact form of development.
Lot Coverage
As noted in the Table 1, the proposed maximum lot coverage is 60%, whereas as per ZBL 3295 requires
40% maximum lot coverage. It is our opinion that this represents an insignificant increase. The primary intent
of the lot coverage provision is to ensure there is not a significant amount of impervious surface on the
property, which may create stormwater management issues. As noted in the Stormwater Management Report
provided by G. Douglas Vallee Limited, stormwater can be adequately accommodated on the site through the
quality and quantity control measures discussed in the Report.
An increase in lot coverage will allow for a variety of unit sizes and architectural styles to be achieved in
accordance with the residential areas policies of the OP. The required yard setbacks will restrict the buildings
footprint without overbuilding the lots. Therefore, it is our opinion that the proposed increase in lot coverage
maintains the intent of the lot coverage provision.
Table 2: Proposed Zoning Table for R2-XX (H)
Zone Provision Required R2 Proposed R2-XX(H)
Minimum Lot Frontage 15 m (49.2 ft) in the case of a
corner lot
10 m (34.4 ft) in the case of a
corner lot
Minimum Lot Depth 30 m (98.4 ft) Lot 3, 4 and 52 – 29.0m (98.4
ft)
Minimum Exterior Side Yard
Setback
6 m (19.7 ft) 3 m (9.8 ft)
Interior Side Yard, Minimum
Width
3 m (9.8 ft) on one side and 1.2
m (3.9 ft) on the narrow side
1.5 m (4.9 ft) on one side and
1.2 m (3.9 ft) on the narrow
side
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 7.0 m (22.9 ft)
Maximum Lot coverage 40% 60%
Yard Encroachments
(Covered decks, patios and
porches/verandas)
Permitted Projections into
Required Yards: All Yards,
1.5 m (4.92 ft)
Minimum Setback Between
Projection and Lot line: Front
or Exterior Side, 3 m (9.8 ft).
Permitted Projections into
Required Yards: All Yards,
2.0 m (6.56 ft)
Minimum Setback Between
Projection and Lot line: Front
or Exterior Side, 2 m (9.8 ft).
The proposed development generally conforms to the provisions of the Residential Two Density
Zone. The areas that do not comply are discussed below:
Page 69 of 304
• To reduce lot frontage on corner lots from 15 m to 10 m. The reduced minimum lot frontage will
allow for well sized residential lots and is consistent with the PPS and COP policies of using
land and infrastructure efficiently.
• To reduce the minimum exterior side yard setback from 6.0 m to 3m. The proposed 3.0m exterior
side yard setback will facilitate more efficient use of the land, it brings building closer to the
roadways and it allows for more consistent and harmonious streetscape. The proposed 3.0m
setback will provide adequate space for fencing and landscaping feature.
• To reduce the minimum interior side yard setback from 3.0 m on one side to 1.5m on one side.
The reduced interior side yard setback will create a more compact form of development that will
facilitate the intensification, and would be in keeping with the existing development pattern of
the surrounding area. This 1.5m metre setback provides adequate spacing between houses.
• To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 7.0 m. Reducing the rear yard setback
will facilitate well sized floor plan for bungalow models. Permitting a reduced setback will
maximize living space and facilitate a functional, efficient layout for the houses.
• To increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 60%. Increasing lot coverage will facilitate
well-designed housing products while also providing additional lot coverage space for a covered
deck or other accessory structures desired by the future homeowner. The increase in lot
coverage would not compromise the buffer areas or amenity space on lots, given the front yard,
rear yard and side yard setback regulations will maintain a sufficient amount of open space
within a lot relative to the size of the structure.
• To increase the permitted projection/encroachments into required yard from 1.5m to 2.0m which
triggers an amendment to reduce the minimum setback between the projection and lot line from
3 m to 2m.
The proposed zoning provisions are in keeping with the proposed policies of the Low-Density
Residential designation of the County Official Plan. Subsection 8.2.3.1 of the COP requires new
residential development to be compatible with surrounding properties, “ensure that the built form,
massing and profile of new housing is well integrated and compatible with existing housing and that a
compatible transition between lands of different residential densities and between residential and non-
residential land uses is achieved.
The lands immediately to the west and south of the subject lands, which comprise the Potters Gate
Phases 2 and 3 subdivisions, are zoned R2. These developments are characterized by a mix of semi-
detached and single-detached dwellings. In this regard, the proposed R2 uses within the Draft Plan will
be compatible with and complementary to the character of this community. As a result, the proposed
zoning for the subject lands will be compatible with the immediately surrounding areas to ensure a mix
of uses that reflect the development character within the neighbourhood. Accordingly, the proposed
zoning will implement a form and scale with respect to building heights, lot coverages, and unit types
that is reflective of the surrounding context. In our opinion, these reductions are minor in nature, and will
not impact the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding areas.
Page 70 of 304
Table 3: Proposed Zoning Table for R2-XX (H)
Zone
Provision
Required
R2
Proposed
R2-
XX(H)
Minimum
Lot
Depth
30 m
(98.4 ft)
26 m
(85.30 ft)
The lot frontage and lot area for the retained parcel complies with the By-law requirement for R2 zoning
provisions. However, an amendment is required to reduce the required minimum lot depth from 30 m to
26 m for the retained parcel.
All of the R2 and R3 special zoning provisions have been requested to facilitate the proposed
subdivision layout. The proposed provisions allow for additional units to be created while generally
maintaining the intent of the R2 and R3 zones. It is our opinions that the proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment represents good planning as it:
• allows for a more consistent site planning across all the lots and blocks, and for a new
development that is compatible with the surrounding areas, specifically Potters Gate PH 2 and
3 subdivisions;
• facilitates a compact form of development that allows for the efficient use of land, infrastructure
and public service facilities;
• provides appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet current and projected
needs, and more specifically, represents gentle intensification within the Town’s urban area;
• Aligns with the policy directives of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and Section 51 of
Planning Act; and conforms to the Oxford County Official Plan.
5. Technical Studies
As identified through a Pre-Consultation meeting held on January 20, 2021 for the proposed
development, the following studies have been prepared in support of the proposed development
• Archaeological Assessments Stage 1&2
• Functional Servicing report
• Geotechnical Report
• Noise Impact Study
• Phase One Environmental Site Assessment
• Stormwater Management Report
• Traffic Impact Study
Page 71 of 304
Archaeological Assessments Stage 1&2
ASI Heritage undertook a Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments for the proposed development,
which was completed in April 2021. The Stage 2 field survey component was conducted on April 14 and
April 30, 2021 and involved pedestrian survey of the ploughed fields and test pit survey of the
unploughed lawns. The field survey was completed across the entire property.
During the pedestrian survey of the ploughed fields, Indigenous lithic artifacts were found on the field
surface at ten distinct locations; no archaeological material was found during the test pit survey of the
lawns. Nine of the Indigenous artifact locations were comprised of no more than two non-diagnostic
lithics each and thus did not meet the criteria for registry as an archaeological site as outlined in the
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries’ Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists. The final Indigenous location was comprised for four non-diagnostic lithic artifacts,
which meets the criteria for registry as an archaeological site; this location has thus been registered in
the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database as Site AfHe-71. Given the small size and non-diagnostic
nature of Site AfHe-71 and the nine other non-registered findspots, none of these ten Indigenous
locations meet the criteria for cultural heritage value or interest as outlined in the Ministry’s Standards
and Guidelines. Therefore, further Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment is not recommended for any of
the Indigenous locations documented on the property.
Pending review and acceptance of the final report recommendations by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport,
Tourism and Culture Industries, the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment may be considered
complete and no further archaeological assessment of the property will be required.
Functional Servicing report
A Functional Servicing Report was completed in June 2021 by G. Douglas Vallee Limited (GD Vallee)
to outline the proposed servicing strategy in support of the proposed development. The proposed Phase
4 development can be functionally serviced by the available municipal infrastructure for water, sanitary
and storm sewer services as outlined below:
Water service will be provided to the development by a looped watermain network with one municipal
connection to Harvest Avenue. A 200mm PVC watermain is proposed within the development, this will
need to be confirmed in modelling done by Oxford County.
Sanitary service will be provided by a proposed 200mm PVC sanitary main with 125mm PVC services
to the individual lots. The sanitary sewer system will outlet to the existing sanitary sewer on Harvest
Avenue. Previous reports completed for Oxford County have indicated that the capacity of the existing
sewer along Lorraine Avenue, downstream of the proposed development, limits the amount of additional
flow that can be received by this sewer. Theoretically, the downstream sewer had insufficient capacity
to convey the addition of the Phase 4 development. That said, previous conditions of draft plan approval
required that developer complete a flow monitoring program to compare actual flows to the theoretical
sanitary sewer flows along Potters Road and Lorraine Avenue. This flow monitoring showed a
171L/day/capita rather than the 375L/day/capita per the Town’s design criteria. Using the recorded flow
monitoring per capita rate, it was found that there is capacity in the downstream sanitary sewer system
for the Phase 4 development.
Geotechnical Report
LDS Consultants Inc. (LDS) completed a geotechnical investigation in March 2021 to reveal the
subsurface conditions and to determine the engineering properties of the disclosed soils for the design
Page 72 of 304
and construction of the residential development. Selected soil samples were submitted to a chemical
laboratory for testing of specified parameters and compared to applicable Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change (MOECC) regulations. The study resulted in various recommendations and
considerations for the construction phase of the development proposal. Please refer to the Geotechnical
Investigation Report for further discussion on the recommendations.
Noise Impact Study
An Environmental Noise Assessment was prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd. and was finalized in March
2021. The assessment studied the potential impacts of road traffic Potters Road and OSR Railway on
the future residents of the proposed development. The report provided the following recommendations:
1. Provision for air conditioning is required for Lots 1, 38 to 44 and Block 8.
2. Standard window and wall constructions are sufficient for all locations within the proposed
development.
3. All applicable warning clauses shall be listed in the Development Agreement and registered on title.
The report concluded that the sound levels are acceptable to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation
and Parks and Town of Tillsonburg (County of Oxford) standards through the use of the abatement
measures contained in the report. Please refer to the Environmental Noise Assessment for further
discussion on the recommendations.
Phase One Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Update was completed by LDS Consultants Inc. (LDS)
on March 15, 2021. The Phase One ESA resulted in the following conclusions and recommendations:
• Based on the age(s) of the Site buildings and presumed later renovations/improvements, it was
deemed possible that hazardous building materials and/or designated substances exist. It is
recommended to complete a Designated Substances Survey / Hazardous Building Materials Survey
(DSS/HMS) of the Site buildings, in order to properly identify any hazardous substances within the
premises and to provide guidance on how to handle/maintain any such products prior to
renovation/demolition works.
• In December 2019, the MECP released a new regulation under the Environmental Protection Act,
titled “On-Site and Excess Soil Management” to support improved management of excess construction
soil (Ontario Regulation 406/19). Excess soil is defined as material that is generated during construction
activities at a Site but will not be needed for grading, fill or other purposes and therefore needs to be
transported off-Site. Due to COVID-19, the implementation of this regulation has been delayed;
however, as of January 1, 2021, the new Excess Soil Regulation (O.Reg. 406/19) will start to be phased
in across Ontario and may affect planned Site works.
• Two groundwater monitoring wells have been installed at the Site as part of the LDS field program in
support of the preparation of the Geotechnical Report. In addition, there are two wells/standpipes on the
property (one is the potable water supply well for the residence). When the monitoring and other on-Site
wells are no longer required, they should be properly decommissioned in accordance with O.Reg. 903.
This regulation identifies that only certified and qualified well drilling technicians are permitted to direct
the decommissioning work for existing wells. Decommissioning a well which is no longer in use helps
to ensure the safety of those in the vicinity of the well, prevents surface water infiltration into an aquifer
Page 73 of 304
via the well, prevents the vertical movement of water within a well, conserves aquifer yield and hydraulic
head and can potentially remove a physical hazard.
Stormwater Management Report
G. Douglas Vallee Limited (GD Vallee) prepared a Stormwater Management Report in support of the
proposed development GD Vallee in June 2021, concluded that the proposed development can meet
the stormwater management requirements and criteria for the subject site based on the following
conclusions:
Stormwater within the development will be conveyed via a storm sewer network sized for the 5 year
storm event, connecting to the existing sewer on Harvest Avenue. Two storm sewer lengths in Harvest
Avenue will need to be up-sized to support the additional lands proposed in Phase 4 development.
Stormwater management for the development will be achieved by the existing stormwater management
pond. With minor modifications to the pond outlet structure, the pond can adequately control runoff from
the development to pre-development design conditions.
Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study was completed by JD Northcote Engineering Inc. in June 2021 in support of the
proposed residential development. JD Engineering determined that the proposed development is
expected to generate a total of 61 AM and 81 PM peak hour trips. The proposed Street C intersections
will operate efficiently with one-way stop control for egress movements. A single lane for ingress and
egress movements will provide the necessary capacity to convey the traffic volume generated by the
proposed development.
JD Engineering determined that the location of the proposed site access points is considered
appropriate with respect to minimum corner clearance and spacing requirements as identified in the
Transportation Association of Canada Design Guide for Canadian Roads (2017). Furthermore, the sight
distance available for the proposed site accesses is suitable for the intended use. Refer to the Traffic
Impact Study for further reference on the proposed traffic recommendations and proposed traffic
calming measures.
6. Conclusion
The development conforms to the Town of Tillsonburg Official Plan by providing Low Density Residential
development. The proposed grid network provides convenient access to nearby amenities and services.
The built form of the development is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood while providing a
suitable transition in lot sizes and densities for areas in closer proximity to collector roads.
The proposed development implements Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and complies with all
Provincial and Municipal policies regarding the redevelopment of the subject lands. The proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment will allow the subject lands to develop for residential uses as intended on
the enclosed concept plan.
Based on the planning analysis and justification contained within this report, the proposed development
is consistent with the applicable planning policy framework and in our opinion represents good planning.
It is our opinion that the Draft Plan of Subdivision to ultimately allow a total of 79 units consisting of 54
single- detached lots and 24 street townhouse dwelling units represents good planning and can be
supported from a land use planning perspective.
Page 74 of 304
Respectfully Submitted,
Negar Javaherian, B. URPL
Oxnard Developments Inc.
Reviewed by:
Eldon Darbyson, BES, MCIP, RPP,
G. Douglas Vallee Limited.
Page 75 of 304
Appendix A
Draft Zoning By‐law Amendment Text and Schedule
Page 76 of 304
Page 77 of 304
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
BY-LAW NUMBER XXXX
A By-Law to amend Zoning By-Law Number 3295, as amended.
WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg deems it advisable to amend By-Law Number 3295, as amended. THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg,
enacts as follows:
1. That Schedule "A" to By-Law Number 3295, as amended, is hereby amended by changing to ‘R2-24 (H)’ & ‘R3-XX (H)’ the zone symbol of the lands so designated ‘R2-24 (H)’ & ‘R3-XX (H)’ on Schedule “A” attached
hereto.
2. That Section 7.5 to By-Law Number 3295, as amended is hereby further amended by the following:
“7.5.17 LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF HARVEST AVENUE, WEST OF WEST TOWN LINE (POTTERS GATE) PART LOT 24, PLAN 1653, R2-17 (H) (Key Map 31) 7.5.17.1 Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-Law, no person shall within
any R2-24 Zone use any lot, or erect, alter, or use any building or
structure for any purpose except the following: All uses permitted in Table 7.1.
7.5.17.2 Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-Law, no person shall within any R2-24 Zone use any lot, or erect, alter, or use any building or
structure except in accordance with the following provisions: 7.5.17.2.1 EXTERIOR SIDE YARD WIDTH
Minimum 3 m (9.8 ft) 7.5.17.2.2 LOT FRONTAGE FOR CORNER LOT
Minimum 10 m (32.8 ft) 7.5.17.2.3 LOT COVERAGE Maximum 60 %
7.5.17.3 HOLDING ZONE PROVISIONS 7.5.17.3.1 PERMITTED USES WHILE HOLDING ZONE IS IN PLACE
Page 78 of 304
The Corporation of the
Town of Tillsonburg By-law Number XXXX Page 2
None
7.5.17.3.2 REMOVAL OF HOLDING ZONE
The Holding Zone, as identified by the “(H)” symbol, shall not be removed from the subject lands until appropriate development agreements have been executed between the applicant and the Town
of Tillsonburg. Removal of the Holding Zone shall be undertaken in
accordance with Section 36 of the Planning Act. 7.5.17.4 That all of the provisions of the R2 Zone in Section 7.2 of this By-Law, as amended, shall apply; and further, that all other provisions of this
By-Law, as amended, that are consistent with the provisions herein
shall continue to apply mutatis mutandis.” 3. That Section 8.5 to By-Law Number 3295, as amended is hereby further amended by the following:
“8.5. XX LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF HARVEST AVENUE, WEST OF WEST TOWN LINE (POTTERS GATE) PART LOT 24, PLAN 1653, PARTS 4,5 & 6, of PLAN 41R-8458 R3-XX (H) (Key Map 31)
8.5. XX.1 Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-Law, no person shall within any R3-XX Zone use any lot, or erect, alter, or use any building or
structure for any purpose except the following: All uses permitted in Table 8.1.
85. XX.2 Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-Law, no person shall within any R3-XX Zone use any lot, or erect, alter, or use any building or
structure except in accordance with the following provisions:
8.5.XX.2.1 EXTERIOR SIDE YARD WIDTH Minimum 3 m (9.8 ft) 8.5.XX.2.2 LOT FRONTAGE FOR INTERIOR UNIT LOT
Minimum 7.5 m (24.60 ft) 8.5.XX.2.3 LOT FRONTAGE FOR END UNIT LOT
Minimum 9 m (29.52 ft) 8.5.XX.2.4 LOT FRONTAGE FOR CORNER LOT Minimum 10.5 m (34.45 ft)
8.5.XX.2.5 LOT DEPTH
Page 79 of 304
The Corporation of the
Town of Tillsonburg By-law Number XXXX Page 3
Minimum 28.5 m (93.50 ft)
8.5.XX.2.6 LOT COVERAGE
Maximum 60 % 8.5.XX.2.7 REAR YARD DEPTH
Minimum 5.5 m (18 ft) 8.5.XX.2.8 LOT AREA FOR INTERIOR UNIT LOT
Minimum 210 m2 per dwelling unit (2,260 ft2 per dwelling unit)
8.5.XX.2.9 LOT AREA FOR END UNIT LOT Minimum 260 m2 per dwelling unit (2,798 ft2 per dwelling unit)
8.5.XX.2.10 LOT AREA Minimum 290 m2 per dwelling unit (3,121 ft2 per dwelling unit)
8.5.XX.2.9 INTERIOR SIDE YARD WIDTH FOR END UNITS
Minimum 1.2 m (3.9 ft) 8.5. XX.3 HOLDING ZONE PROVISIONS
8.5. XX.3.1 PERMITTED USES WHILE HOLDING ZONE IS IN PLACE None
8.5.XX.3.2 REMOVAL OF HOLDING ZONE The Holding Zone, as identified by the “(H)” symbol, shall not be removed from the subject lands until appropriate development agreements have been executed between the applicant and the Town
of Tillsonburg. Removal of the Holding Zone shall be undertaken in accordance with Section 36 of the Planning Act. 8.5.XX.4 That all of the provisions of the R3 Zone in Section 8.2 of this By-Law, as amended, shall apply; and further, that all other provisions of this
By-Law, as amended, that are consistent with the provisions herein shall continue to apply mutatis mutandis.” 4. This By-Law comes into force in accordance with Sections 34(21) and (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.
READ a first and second time this XX day of XXXX , 202X.
Page 80 of 304
The Corporation of the
Town of Tillsonburg By-law Number XXXX Page 4
READ a third time and finally passed this XX day of XXXX , 202X..
Mayor
Clerk
Page 81 of 304
Appendix B
Zoning Matrix
Page 82 of 304
Page 83 of 304
Proposed Townhouse Blocks
Internal
240 m2
end
330 m2
Corner
420 m2
Internal
8 m
end
11 m
Corner
14 m 30 m 6.0 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 3 m (9.8 ft) for end
dwelling units 40% of Lot Area Building cov.
1 415.9785 13.50 31.20 6.0 5.69 6.60 166.3914 140
2 233.9886 7.5 m 31.20 6.0 6.60 93.59544 140
3 280.777 9.0 m 10.50 31.20 6.0 6.60 1.50 112.31092 140
1 280.775 9.0 m 31.20 6.0 6.60 1.50 112.30984
2 233.9883 7.5 m 31.20 6.0 6.60 93.59532 140
3 233.9782 7.5 m 31.20 6.0 6.60 93.59128 140
4 322.234 31.20 6.0 3.0 6.60 128.8936
1 288.959 9.0 m 32.11 6.0 7.5 115.5836
2 240.8748 7.5 m 32.11 6.0 7.5 96.34992
3 240.80 7.5 m 32.11 6.0 7.5 96.31984
4 241.3618 7.5 m 32.11 6.0 7.5 96.54472
5 290.890 9.0 m 32.11 6.0 7.5 1.50 116.35584
1 405.245 10.50 39.11 13.0 3.0 7.5 162.098 140
2 292.9673 7.5 m 38.68 12.54 7.5 117.18692
3 278.0353 7.5 m 35.45 9.3 7.5 111.21412
4 305.755 9.0 m 32.81 6.7 7.5 1.50 122.30212
1 280.276 9.0 m 30.97 5.40 5.5 1.50 112.11048
2 237.4759 7.5 m 30.97 8.36 5.5 94.99036
3 238.7865 7.5 m 31.89 9.24 5.5 95.5146
4 238.7775 7.5 m 31.89 9.2 5.5 95.5110
5 238.4638 7.5 m 31.89 9.2 5.5 95.38552
6 286.534 9.0 m 31.89 9.2 5.5 1.50 114.61344
1 294.940 10.50 28.60 6.0 3.0 5.5 117.97588
2 214.5833 7.5 m 28.60 6.0 5.5 85.83332
3 266.60 9.0 m 28.60 6.0 5.5 1.50 106.6392
BLK 3
BLK 4
BLK 5
Lot Coverage Maximum
BLK 6 has
be
Hamliton
Front Yard,
Minimum Depth
Lot Depth
Minimum LOT NO.BLK NO.
Lot Area, Minimum Lot Frontage, Minimum
BLK 1
BLK 2
Exterior Side Yard,
Minimum Width
Rear Yard
Minimum Depth
Interior Side Yard,
Minimum Width
Page 84 of 304
LOT
NO.
Lot Area,
Minimum
Lot Frontage,
Minimum
Lot Depth
Minimum
Front
Yard,
Minimum
Depth
Exterior
Side Yard,
Minimum
Width
Rear Yard
Minimum
Depth
Interior Side
Yard,
Minimum Width
Lot Coverage
Maximum
315
m2
Corner
450
m2
10.5
m
Corner
15 m 30 m 6.0 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 3 m (9.8 ft) on
one side
40% of
Lot
Area
Building
cov.
1 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 0
2 646.79 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 258.72
3 382.23 ✓ N/A 29.29 on one
side ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 152.89
4 362.69 ✓ N/A 29.29 on one
side ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 145.07
5 379.25 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.7
6 379.07 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.63
7 379.07 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.63
8 530.15 10.0 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 212.06
9 507.11 10.0 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 202.85
10 379.07 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.63
11 379.07 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.63
12 379.07 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.63
13 475.57 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 190.23
14 639.91 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 255.96
15 925.03 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 370.01
16 474.12 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 189.65
17 474.12 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 189.65
18 379.32 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.73
19 379.32 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.73
20 379.32 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.73
21 379.32 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.73
22 379.32 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.73
23 379.32 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.73
Page 85 of 304
24 379.7 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.88
25 529.65 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 211.86
26 764.71 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 305.88
27 869.2 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 347.68
28 560.61 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 224.24
29 438.93 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 175.57
30 379.2 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.68
31 379.03 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.61
32 467.14 10.0 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 186.86
33 467.06 10.0 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 186.83
34 379.25 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.7
35 379.25 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.7
36 379.25 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.7
37 379.25 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 151.7
38 518.7 10.0 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 207.48
39 480.62 10.0 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 192.25
40 390.09 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 156.04
41 390.09 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 156.04
42 390.09 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 156.04
43 390.09 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 156.04
44 380.87 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 152.35
45 524.94 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 209.97
46 462.73 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 185.09
47 462.03 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 184.81
48 374.78 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 149.91
49 374.78 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 149.91
50 374.78 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 149.91
51 374.78 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 149.91
52 363.97 ✓ N/A 29.15 on one
side ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 145.59
Page 86 of 304
53 384.21 ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ 1.5 153.68
54 453.04 9.21 ✓ ✓ 3.0 ✓ 1.5 181.22
Page 87 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Town of Tillsonburg
County of Oxford
Traffic Impact Study for:
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
Type of Document:
Draft Report
Project Number:
JDE – 21033
Date Submitted:
June 2nd, 2021
_______________________________________ 06/02/21
John Northcote, P.Eng.
Professional License #: 100124071
JD Northcote Engineering Inc.
86 Cumberland Street
Barrie, ON
705.725.4035
www.JDEngineering.ca
Page 88 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
ii
Legal Notification
This report was prepared by JD Northcote Engineering Inc. for the account of Oxnard Potters
Gate Inc.
Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on
it, are the responsibility of such third parties. JD Northcote Engineering Inc. accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this project.
Page 89 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
iii
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed residential development
located on the on the southwest corner of Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road) and West Townline in the
Town of Tillsonburg [Town], County of Oxford [County]. The report assesses the impact of traffic
related to the development on the adjacent roadway and provides recommendations to accommodate
this traffic in a safe and efficient manner.
The proposed development is anticipated to consist of 54 single detached units and 25 Townhouse
units. Access to the development is proposed via Street C with connection to Harvest Avenue [West
Access] and West Townline [East Access].
The scope of this analysis includes a review of the following intersections:
Harvest Lane / Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road); and
West Townline / Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road).
Conclusions
1. The proposed development is expected to generate a total of 61 AM and 81 PM peak hour
trips.
2. Detailed intersection counts were obtained and conducted at the study intersections.
3. An intersection operation analysis was completed at the study area intersections, using the
existing and background (2023, 2028 and 2033) traffic volumes, with consideration for the
projected adjacent development traffic growth and without the proposed development traffic.
This enabled a review of existing and future traffic deficiencies that would be present without
the influence of the proposed development. No improvements are recommended within the
study area.
4. An estimate of the amount of traffic that would be generated by the Subject Site was
prepared and assigned to the study area streets and intersections.
5. An intersection operation analysis was completed under total (2023, 2028 and 2033)) traffic
volumes with the proposed development operational at the study area intersections. No
improvements are recommended within the study area.
6. The proposed Street C connections will operate efficiently with one-way stop control for
egress movements. A single lane for ingress and egress movements will provide the
necessary capacity to convey the traffic volume generated by the proposed development.
7. The location of the proposed site access intersections are considered appropriate with
respect to minimum corner clearance and spacing requirements as identified in the
Transportation Association of Canada Design Guide for Canadian Roads (2017).
8. The sight distance available for the proposed site accesses is suitable for the intended use.
9. In summary, the proposed development will not cause any operational issues and will not
add significant delay or congestion to the local roadway network.
Page 90 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Study Scope and Objectives .................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Analysis Periods ....................................................................................................................... 3
2 Information Gathering ............................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Street and Intersection Characteristics .................................................................................... 3
2.2 Transit Access .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Local Transportation Infrastructure Improvements................................................................... 5
2.4 Other Developments within the Study Area ............................................................................. 5
2.4.1 Potters Gate Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 5
2.4.2 Potters Gate Phase 3 .................................................................................................. 5
2.4.3 Harvest Crossing Community Centre .......................................................................... 6
2.4.4 Tillsonburg First Baptist Church .................................................................................. 7
2.5 Background Traffic Growth ....................................................................................................... 7
2.6 Traffic Counts ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 8
2.8 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 8
3 Intersection Operation without Proposed Development .................................................... 8
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Existing Intersection Operation................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Background (2023) Intersection Operation ............................................................................ 10
3.4 Background (2028) Intersection Operation ............................................................................ 10
3.5 Background (2033) Intersection Operation ............................................................................ 11
4 Proposed Development ....................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Traffic Generation ................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Traffic Assignment .................................................................................................................. 12
4.3 Total Horizon Year Traffic Volumes with the Proposed Development ................................... 13
5 Intersection Operation with Proposed Development ....................................................... 13
5.1 Total (2023) Intersection Operation ........................................................................................ 13
5.2 Total (2028) Intersection Operation ........................................................................................ 14
5.3 Total (2033) Intersection Operation ........................................................................................ 15
Page 91 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
v
5.4 Site Access ............................................................................................................................. 16
5.5 Sight Distance Review ............................................................................................................ 16
6 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 17
List of Tables
Table 1 – Estimated Traffic Generation for the Potters Gate Phase 3 ................................................... 6
Table 2 – Estimated Traffic Generation for the Harvest Crossing Community Centre .......................... 6
Table 3 – Estimated Traffic Generation for the Tillsonburg First Baptist Church ................................... 7
Table 4 – Traffic Count Data .................................................................................................................. 7
Table 5 – Level of Service Criteria for Intersections............................................................................... 9
Table 6 – Existing (2021) LOS ............................................................................................................... 9
Table 7 – Background (2023) LOS ....................................................................................................... 10
Table 8 – Background (2028) LOS ....................................................................................................... 11
Table 9 – Background (2033) LOS ....................................................................................................... 11
Table 10 – Estimated Trip Generation of the Proposed Development................................................. 12
Table 11 – Proposed Development Traffic Distribution ........................................................................ 13
Table 12 – Total (2023) LOS ................................................................................................................ 14
Table 13 – Total (2028) LOS ................................................................................................................ 15
Table 14 – Total (2033) LOS ................................................................................................................ 16
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Proposed Site Location and Study Area ............................................................................... 2
Figure 2 – Existing Lane Configuration within Study Area ..................................................................... 4
Figure 3 – Adjacent Development Traffic Volumes – Potters Gate Phase 3 (2023) ............................ 19
Figure 4 – Adjacent Development Traffic Volumes – HCRC (2021) .................................................... 20
Figure 5 – Adjacent Development Traffic Volumes – Tillsonburg First Baptist Church (2021) ............ 21
Figure 6 – Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................... 22
Figure 7 – Background (2023) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 23
Figure 8 – Background (2028) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 24
Figure 9 – Background (2033) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 25
Figure 10 – Site Generated Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 11 – Total (2023) Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 27
Figure 12 – Total (2028) Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 28
Figure 13 – Total (2033) Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 29
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A – Site Plan
APPENDIX B – Traffic Count Data
APPENDIX C – Synchro Analysis Output – Existing Traffic Volumes
APPENDIX D – Synchro Analysis Output – Background Traffic Volumes
APPENDIX E – Synchro Analysis Output – Total Traffic Volumes
APPENDIX F – OTM Signal Justification Sheets
Page 92 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc. [the Client] is proposing a residential development located on the on the
southwest corner of Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road) and West Townline in the Town of Tillsonburg
[Town].
The proposed development is anticipated to consist of 54 single detached units and 25 Townhouse units.
Access to the development is proposed via Street C with connection to Harvest Avenue [West Access]
and West Townline [East Access].
The Client has retained JD Northcote Engineering Inc. [JD Engineering] to prepare this traffic
impact study in support of the proposed development.
1.2 Study Area
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the subject site and study area intersections in relation to the
surrounding area. The Development Concept Plan is shown in Appendix A. The subject site is bound
by Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road) to the north, West Townline to the east, and future Potters Gate
development to the south and west.
Through consultation with County staff, the following intersections are included in the traffic impact
study:
Harvest Lane / Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road); and
West Townline / Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road).
1.3 Study Scope and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to identify the potential impacts to traffic flow at the site accesses and on
the surrounding roadway network. The study analysis includes the following tasks:
Determine existing traffic volumes and circulation patterns;
Estimate future traffic volumes if the proposed development was not constructed, including
the impact of additional proposed developments in the area;
Complete level-of-service [LOS] analysis of horizon year (without the proposed development)
traffic conditions and identify operational deficiencies;
Estimate the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and
assign to the roadway network;
Complete LOS analysis of horizon year (with the proposed development) traffic conditions
and identify additional operational deficiencies;
Identify improvement options to address operational deficiencies;
Review the available sight distance on Harvest Lane and West Townline;
Complete a review of the proposed intersection spacing; and
Document findings and recommendations in a final report.
Page 93 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
2
Figure 1 – Proposed Site Location and Study Area
Page 94 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
3
1.4 Analysis Periods
Traffic scenarios for the existing year, buildout horizon year (2023), 5-year post-buildout horizon year
(2028) and 10-year post-buildout horizon year (2033) have been reviewed as part of this study. Given
the residential nature of the development, the weekday morning [AM] and weekday afternoon [PM]
peak hours have been selected as the analysis periods for this study.
2 Information Gathering
2.1 Street and Intersection Characteristics
Oxford Road 37 (Potters Road) is a two-lane County Road with a rural cross-section (gravel
shoulders and ditches on both sides of the road) through the study area. Potter Road has a posted
speed limit of 60 km/h and is under the jurisdiction of County.
West Townline is a two-lane local road with a rural cross-section through the study area. West
Townline Road has an unposted (assumed) speed limit of 50 km/h and is under the jurisdiction of the
Town.
Harvest Lane is a two-lane local road with and urban cross-section through the study area. Harvest
Lane has an unposted (assumed) speed limit of 50 km/h and is under the jurisdiction of the Town.
The existing intersection spacing and lane configuration within the study area is illustrated in Figure
2.
Page 95 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
4
Figure 2 – Existing Lane Configuration within Study Area
Page 96 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
5
2.2 Transit Access
T:GO Transit provides transit service throughout the Town of Tillsonburg. T:GO offers a single, fully
accessible, 20 passenger seated bus.
The Blue Route operates during peak hours (06:00 – 08:00 and 14:00 – 16:00), Monday to Friday
with service every hour. The Red Route operates between 08:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday with
service every hour.
The closest transit stop is located at the Harvest Crossing Retirement Centre
2.3 Local Transportation Infrastructure Improvements
In review of the County’s Draft Transportation Master Plan (April 2019), the County’s 2020 Business
Plan & Budget and the Town’s 2021 Business Plan there are no planned infrastructure improvements
in the study area that would impact the local traffic volumes or traffic distribution.
2.4 Other Developments within the Study Area
Based on our correspondence with County staff, the Potters Gate Phase 2 and Phase 3 have been
included in our detailed traffic review to assess the impact on the local traffic volumes / infrastructure
capacity. Additional consideration has been given to the operations of existing Harvest Crossing
Retirement Community Centre [HCRC] and Tillsonburg First Baptist Church [TFBC].
2.4.1 Potters Gate Phase 2
Potters Gate Phase 2 is located west of the Subject Site and includes 14 semi-detached and 8
townhouse units, with direct driveway connections onto Harvest Avenue. Phase 2 is currently built-
out and occupied; consequentially, traffic volumes generated by such have been captured in the
conducted counts.
2.4.2 Potters Gate Phase 3
Potters Gate Phase 3 is located south of the Subject Site and includes 53 single-detached and 35
townhouse units, with access via internal road connection to Harvest Avenue and West Townline.
Construction of Phase 3 is underway, with build-out assumed for the 2023 horizon year.
The traffic generated by Phase 3 has been estimated based on the data provided in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers [ITE] Trip generation Manual (10th Edition) [ITE Trip Generation Manual].
The following ITE land use has been applied to estimate the traffic from the adjacent development:
ITE land use 210 (Single Family Detached) – General Urban/Suburban Setting.
The estimated trip generation for the Potters Gate Phase 3 development is illustrated below in Table
1.
Page 97 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
6
Table 1 – Estimated Traffic Generation for the Potters Gate Phase 3
Land Use Trip Basis /
Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Single-Family Detached
ITE Land Use: 210
equation (units) T = 0.71 X + 4.80 Ln(T) = 0.96 Ln(X) + 0.2
distribution 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100%
Potters Gate Phase 3 88 17 50 67 57 33 90
The traffic distribution for Potters Gate Phase 3 has been distributed to the study area road network
based on the traffic distribution developed in Section 4.2, in context with site’s internal road network
and access points. Figure 3 illustrates the traffic assignment for Phase 3, during the AM and PM
peak hour.
2.4.3 Harvest Crossing Community Centre
The Harvest Crossing Community Centre is located south of the Subject Site and includes 100
retirement residential suites with access via two driveway connections to Harvest Lane.
The HCRC is currently built-out and occupied. However, with the 2021 traffic counts having been
conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (and the physical distancing requirements coinciding with
such), the traffic data is not expected to have captured the typical operations of the HCRC site. In
order to provide a conservative estimate, it has been assumed that the HCRC site was been
operating at 20% of its typical traffic generation. The remaining 80% of the typical traffic generation
has been estimated based on the data provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The following ITE
land use has been applied to estimate the traffic from the adjacent development:
ITE land use 255 (Continuing Care Retirement Community) – General Urban/Suburban
Setting
The estimated trip generation for the HCRC is illustrated below in Table 2.
Table 2 – Estimated Traffic Generation for the Harvest Crossing Community Centre
Land Use Trip Basis /
Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Continuing Care Retirement
Community
ITE Land Use: 255
equation (units) T = 0.13 X + 21.28 T = 0.13 X + 59.19
distribution 65% 35% 100% 40% 60% 100%
HCRC 100 22 12 34 29 43 72
HCRC (80%) 18 10 28 23 34 57
The traffic distribution for the HCRC has been distributed to the study area road network based on the
traffic distribution developed in Section 4.2, in context with site’s internal road network and access
points. Figure 4 illustrates the traffic assignment for HCRC, during the AM and PM peak hours.
Page 98 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
7
2.4.4 Tillsonburg First Baptist Church
The Tillsonburg First Baptist Church is located on the west side of Harvest Avenue, south of the
subject site.
Similar to the HCRC, the site is currently constructed and occupied; however, operations of the
Church are expected to have been limited during the timing of the conducted traffic counts. It is noted
that the Church’s peak operations occur on Sunday morning during the weekly Church service, and
do not align with the AM and PM weekday peak hours considered in this study. However,
consideration has been given to any potential daycare, day camps and additional ministries or
operations that may occur during the weekday peak hour. An assumption of 30 AM and PM trips has
been applied (total of inbound and outbound trips).
The estimated trip generation for the Tillsonburg First Baptist Church is illustrated below in Table 3.
Table 3 – Estimated Traffic Generation for the Tillsonburg First Baptist Church
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Tillsonburg First Baptist Church 15 15 30 15 15 30
Total 15 15 30 15 15 30
The traffic distribution for the Tillsonburg First Baptist Church has been distributed to the study area
road network based on the traffic distribution developed in Section 4.2, in context with site’s internal
road network and access points. Figure 5 illustrates the traffic assignment for Tillsonburg First Baptist
Church, during the AM and PM peak hours.
2.5 Background Traffic Growth
Based on our correspondence with County staff, a growth rate of 2.0% per annum has been assumed
within the study area.
2.6 Traffic Counts
Detailed turning movement traffic and pedestrian counts were commissioned by JD Engineering for
the study area intersections. Table 4 summarizes the traffic count data collection information.
Table 4 – Traffic Count Data
Intersection
(N-S Street / E-W Street) Count Date AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Source
Harvest Lane / Oxford Road
37 (Potters Road) Wednesday March 21, 2021 07:45 – 08:45 16:15 – 17:15 JD Eng1
West Townline / Oxford
Road 37 (Potters Road) Wednesday March 21, 2021 07:15 – 08:15 16:15 – 17:15 JD Eng1
West Townline / Oxford
Road 51 (Simcoe Street)2 Wednesday March 21, 2021 08:00 – 09:00 16:00 – 17:00 JD Eng1
1Traffic counts were completed by Accu Traffic Inc. on behalf of JD Engineering.
2Although the intersection of West Townline / Oxford Road 51 is not explicitly analyzed in this study, traffic counts were
conducted at the intersection to evaluate the existing travel patterns in the area.
Page 99 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
8
Recognizing that the timing of the March 2021 traffic counts coincides with the physical distancing
requirements related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the historical 2010 turning movement counts (prior
to the COVID pandemic) were compared to those conducted in March 2021, in order to consider any
traffic volume adjustments necessary in developing typical roadway conditions. In review of such
volumes, it was found that the 2021 traffic count volumes on the Potters Road fall slightly below the
historical volumes in the eastbound direction and slightly above the historical volumes in the
westbound direction (with consideration for the 2.0% per annum growth rate). In order to remain
conservative, an increase of 25% increase has been applied to all volumes in the study area.
Detailed traffic count data can be found in Appendix B. Heavy vehicle percentages from the traffic
count data have also been included in the Synchro analysis.
2.7 Existing Traffic Volumes
The 2021 existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes in the study area are illustrated in Figure 6,
established based on the March 2021 counts, adjusted to reflect the annual background growth rate
noted in Section 2.5, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic as outlined in Section 2.6 and the traffic
volumes generated by the existing adjacent developments as noted in Section 2.4.
2.8 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes
The background (2023, 2028 and 2033) horizon year traffic volumes are illustrated in through Figure
7 through Figure 9. The background volumes are based on the March 2021 counts, adjusted to
reflect the annual background growth rate noted in Section 2.5, the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic as outlined in Section 2.6 and Phase 3 of development as noted in Section 2.4.
3 Intersection Operation without Proposed
Development
3.1 Introduction
Existing and background horizon operational conditions were established to determine how the street
network within the study area is currently functioning without the proposed development. This
provides a base case scenario to compare with future development scenarios. Traffic operations
within the study area were evaluated using the existing and future background traffic volumes with the
existing road configuration and traffic control. The intersection performance was measured using the
traffic analysis software, Synchro 11, a deterministic model that employs Highway Capacity Manual
and Intersection Capacity Utilization methodologies for analyzing intersection operations. These
procedures are accepted by provincial and municipal agencies throughout North America.
Synchro 11 enables the study area to be graphically defined in terms of streets and intersections,
along with their geometric and traffic control characteristics. The user is able to evaluate both
signalized and unsignalized intersections in relation to each other, thus not only providing level of
service for the individual intersections, but also enabling an assessment of the impact the various
intersections in a network have on each other in terms of spacing, traffic congestion, delay, and
queuing.
The intersection operations were also evaluated in terms of the LOS. LOS is a common measure of
the quality of performance at an intersection and is defined in terms of vehicular delay. This delay
includes deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. LOS is
expressed on a scale of A through F, where LOS A represents very little delay (i.e. less than 10
seconds per vehicle) and LOS F represents very high delay (i.e. greater than 50 seconds per vehicle
Page 100 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
9
for a stop sign controlled intersection and greater than 80 seconds per vehicle for a signalized
intersection).
The LOS criteria for signalized and stop sign-controlled intersections are shown in Table 5. A
description of traffic performance characteristics is included for each LOS.
Table 5 – Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
LOS LOS Description
Control Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Signalized
Intersections
Stop Controlled
Intersections
A Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop (Excellent) less than 10.0 less than 10.0
B Higher delay; more vehicles stop (Very Good) between 10.0 and 20.0 between 10.0 and 15.0
C
Higher level of congestion; number of vehicles
stopping is significant, although many still pass
through intersection without stopping (Good)
between 20.0 and 35.0 between 15.0 and 25.0
D
Congestion becomes noticeable; vehicles must
sometimes wait through more than one red light; many
vehicles stop (Satisfactory)
between 35.0 and 55.0 between 25.0 and 35.0
E
Vehicles must often wait through more than one red
light; considered by many agencies to be the limit of
acceptable delay
between 55.0 and 80.0 between 35.0 and 50.0
F
This level is considered to be unacceptable to most
drivers; occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection (Unacceptable)
greater than 80.0 greater than 50.0
3.2 Existing Intersection Operation
The results of the LOS analysis under existing (2021) traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak
hour can be found below in Table 6. Existing intersection geometry and traffic control have been
utilized for this scenario. Detailed output of the Synchro analysis can be found in Appendix C.
Table 6 – Existing (2021) LOS
Location
(N-S Street / E-W Street)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay (s) LOS
Harvest Lane / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 1.5 A - 2.5 A
EB 0.04 0.0 - 0.08 0.0 -
WB 0.00 0.2 A 0.00 0.3 A
NB 0.03 9.3 A 0.10 10.3 B
West Townline / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 2.2 A - 1.7 A
EB 0.03 0.0 - 0.07 0.0 -
WB 0.02 1.9 A 0.01 0.9 A
NB 0.02 8.8 A 0.05 9.5 A
The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all intersections are operating within the typical design
limits noted in Section 3.1.
A review of the need for auxiliary right and left turn lanes at unsignalized study area intersections was
completed as part of our analysis. The results of the Synchro analysis indicate that there is excess
Page 101 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
10
capacity for all movements; consequently, auxiliary turn lanes are not recommended at any
unsignalized study area intersections.
Based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 Signal Justification, traffic signals are not warranted at
the study area intersections (results are provided in Appendix G).
No additional improvements are recommended within the study area.
3.3 Background (2023) Intersection Operation
The results of the LOS analysis under background (2023) traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak
hour can be found below in Table 7. Detailed output of the Synchro analysis can be found in
Appendix D.
Table 7 – Background (2023) LOS
Location
(N-S Street / E-W Street)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay (s) LOS
Harvest Lane / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 2.2 A - 3.0 A
EB 0.04 0.0 - 0.10 0.0 -
WB 0.00 0.3 A 0.01 0.5 A
NB 0.06 9.5 A 0.15 10.9 B
West Townline / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 3.1 A - 2.4 A
EB 0.04 0.0 - 0.08 0.0 -
WB 0.02 2.1 A 0.02 1.4 A
NB 0.06 9.0 A 0.08 9.8 A
The results of the LOS analysis indicate that the study area intersections are operating within the
typical design limits noted in Section 3.1.
A review of the need for auxiliary right and left turn lanes at unsignalized study area intersections was
completed as part of our analysis. The results of the Synchro analysis indicate that there is excess
capacity for all movements; consequently, auxiliary turn lanes are not recommended at any
unsignalized study area intersections.
Based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 Signal Justification, traffic signals are not warranted at
the study area intersections (results are provided in Appendix F).
No infrastructure improvements are recommended within the study area to accommodate the
background (2023) traffic volumes.
3.4 Background (2028) Intersection Operation
The results of the LOS analysis under background (2028) traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak
hour can be found below in Table 8. Detailed output of the Synchro analysis can be found in
Appendix D.
Page 102 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
11
Table 8 – Background (2028) LOS
Location
(N-S Street / E-W Street)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay (s) LOS
Harvest Lane / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 2.1 A - 3.1 A
EB 0.05 0.0 - 0.11 0.0 -
WB 0.00 0.3 A 0.01 0.5 A
NB 0.06 9.6 A 0.16 11.2 B
West Townline / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 3.0 A - 2.4 A
EB 0.04 0.0 - 0.09 0.0 -
WB 0.02 2.2 A 0.02 1.5 A
NB 0.06 9.1 A 0.08 10.0 B
The results of the LOS analysis indicate that the study area intersections are operating within the
typical design limits noted in Section 3.1.
A review of the need for auxiliary right and left turn lanes at unsignalized study area intersections was
completed as part of our analysis. The results of the Synchro analysis indicate that there is excess
capacity for all movements; consequently, auxiliary turn lanes are not recommended at any
unsignalized study area intersections.
Based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 Signal Justification, traffic signals are not warranted at
the study area intersections (results are provided in Appendix F).
No infrastructure improvements are recommended within the study area to accommodate the
background (2028) traffic volumes.
3.5 Background (2033) Intersection Operation
The results of the LOS analysis under background (2033) traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak
hour can be found below in Table 9. Detailed output of the Synchro analysis can be found in
Appendix D.
Table 9 – Background (2033) LOS
Location
(N-S Street / E-W Street)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay (s) LOS
Harvest Lane / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 2.1 A - 3.9 A
EB 0.05 0.0 - 0.12 0.0 -
WB 0.00 0.3 A 0.01 2.2 A
NB 0.07 9.7 A 0.16 10.5 B
West Townline / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 3.0 A - 2.3 A
EB 0.04 0.0 - 0.10 0.0 -
WB 0.02 2.1 A 0.02 1.4 B
NB 0.06 9.2 A 0.09 10.2 B
The results of the LOS analysis indicate that the study area intersections are operating within the
typical design limits noted in Section 3.1.
Page 103 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
12
A review of the need for auxiliary right and left turn lanes at unsignalized study area intersections was
completed as part of our analysis. The results of the Synchro analysis indicate that there is excess
capacity for all movements; consequently, auxiliary turn lanes are not recommended at any
unsignalized study area intersections.
Based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 Signal Justification, traffic signals are not warranted at
the study area intersections (results are provided in Appendix F).
No infrastructure improvements are recommended within the study area to accommodate the
background (2033) traffic volumes.
4 Proposed Development
4.1 Traffic Generation
The traffic generation for proposed development has been estimated based the type of land use,
development size and data provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The following ITE land use
has been applied to estimate the traffic for the proposed development:
ITE land use 210 (Single Family Detached) – General Urban/Suburban Setting.
The estimated trip generation of the proposed development for the development is illustrated below in
Table 10.
Table 10 – Estimated Trip Generation of the Proposed Development
Land Use Trip Bases / Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Single-Family Detached
ITE Land Use: 210
equation (units) T = 0.71 X + 4.80 Ln(T) = 0.96 Ln(X) + 0.2
distribution 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100%
Subject Site 79 units 15 46 61 51 30 81
As shown, the proposed development is expected to generate 61 and 81 trips during the AM and PM
peak hours, respectively.
4.2 Traffic Assignment
For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that all traffic generated by the proposed
development will be new traffic and would not be in the study area if the development was not
constructed.
The ITE data provides the anticipated percentage of new traffic entering and exiting during the peak
hour. The traffic distribution for the development has been estimated based on the existing
directional distribution at the study intersections. For illustrative purposes, the distribution to/from
Simcoe Street to the south has been included.
The distribution of trips is illustrated in Table 11 using the methodology outlined above.
Page 104 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
13
Table 11 – Proposed Development Traffic Distribution
Travel Direction (to / from)
Percent of Total Traffic Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IN OUT IN OUT
Northeast via Harvest Ln to Potters Rd 5% 5% 5% 5%
Northwest via Harvest Ln to Potters Rd 10% 20% 15% 20%
Northeast via West Townline to Potters Rd 25% 25% 15% 15%
Northwest via West Townline to Potters Rd 10% 10% 10% 15%
Southeast via West Townline to Simcoe St 15% 15% 30% 15%
Southwest via West Townline to Simcoe St 35% 25% 25% 30%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Further distribution to the study area intersections and Site Access points has been based on the
overall distribution in conjunction with the motorists’ anticipated travel route.
Figure 10 illustrates the traffic assignment for the proposed development.
4.3 Total Horizon Year Traffic Volumes with the Proposed
Development
For the total (2023, 2028 and 2033) horizon year traffic volumes, the proposed development traffic
was added to the background (2023, 2028 and 2033) traffic volumes. The resulting total (2023, 2028
and 2033) horizon year traffic volume for the AM and PM peak hour are illustrated in Figure 11 and
Figure 13.
5 Intersection Operation with Proposed
Development
5.1 Total (2023) Intersection Operation
The results of the LOS analysis under total (2023) traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hour
can be found below in Table 12. Stop control has been assumed at the Street C egress movements.
Detailed output of the Synchro analysis can be found in Appendix E.
Page 105 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
14
Table 12 – Total (2023) LOS
Location
(N-S Street / E-W Street)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay (s) LOS
Harvest Lane / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 2.7 A - 3.3 A
EB 0.05 0.0 - 0.11 0.0 -
WB 0.00 0.1 A 0.01 0.7 A
NB 0.08 9.7 A 0.18 11.3 B
West Townline / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 3.7 A - 2.8 A
EB 0.04 0.0 - 0.09 0.0 -
WB 0.02 2.3 A 0.02 1.8 A
NB 0.08 9.3 A 0.10 10.2 B
Harvest Lane / Street C (West Access)
(unsignalized) - 2.4 A - 1.9 A
WB 0.02 8.7 A 0.01 8.8 A
NB 0.02 0.0 - 0.03 0.0 -
SB 0.00 0.9 A 0.01 2.0 A
West Townline / Street C (East Access)
(unsignalized) - 2.8 A - 2.7 A
EB 0.03 8.8 A 0.02 8.9 A
NB 0.00 0.7 A 0.01 2.6 A
SB 0.02 0.0 - 0.02 0.0 -
The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all intersections are operating within the typical design
limits noted in Section 3.1.
A review of the need for auxiliary right and left turn lanes at unsignalized study area intersections was
completed as part of our analysis. The results of the Synchro analysis indicate that there is excess
capacity for all movements; consequently, auxiliary turn lanes are not recommended at any
unsignalized study area intersections.
Based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 Signal Justification, traffic signals are not warranted at
the study area intersections (results are provided in Appendix F).
No additional improvements are recommended within the study area.
5.2 Total (2028) Intersection Operation
The results of the LOS analysis under total (2028) traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hour
can be found below in Table 13. Stop control has been assumed at the Street C egress movements.
Detailed output of the Synchro analysis can be found in Appendix E.
Page 106 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
15
Table 13 – Total (2028) LOS
Location
(N-S Street / E-W Street)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay (s) LOS
Harvest Lane / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 2.6 A - 3.4 A
EB 0.05 0.0 - 0.12 0.0 -
WB 0.00 0.3 A 0.01 0.7 A
NB 0.08 9.8 A 0.20 11.7 B
West Townline / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 3.7 A - 2.8 A
EB 0.04 0.0 - 0.10 0.0 -
WB 0.03 2.3 A 0.03 1.8 A
NB 0.09 9.3 A 0.11 10.4 B
Harvest Lane / Street C (West Access)
(unsignalized) - 2.3 A - 1.8 A
WB 0.02 8.7 A 0.01 8.8 A
NB 0.02 0.0 - 0.04 0.0 -
SB 0.00 0.9 A 0.01 2.0 A
West Townline / Street C (East Access)
(unsignalized) - 2.7 A - 2.6 A
EB 0.03 8.9 A 0.02 8.9 A
NB 0.00 0.7 A 0.01 2.5 A
SB 0.02 0.0 - 0.03 0.0 -
The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all intersections are operating within the typical design
limits noted in Section 3.1.
A review of the need for auxiliary right and left turn lanes at unsignalized study area intersections was
completed as part of our analysis. The results of the Synchro analysis indicate that there is excess
capacity for all movements; consequently, auxiliary turn lanes are not recommended at any
unsignalized study area intersections.
Based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 Signal Justification, traffic signals are not warranted at
the study area intersections (results are provided in Appendix F).
No additional improvements are recommended within the study area.
5.3 Total (2033) Intersection Operation
The results of the LOS analysis under total (2033) traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hour
can be found below in Table 14. Stop control has been assumed at the Street C egress movements.
Detailed output of the Synchro analysis can be found in Appendix E.
Page 107 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
16
Table 14 – Total (2033) LOS
Location
(N-S Street / E-W Street)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay (s) LOS
Harvest Lane / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 2.6 A - 3.5 A
EB 0.05 0.0 - 0.13 0.0 -
WB 0.00 0.1 A 0.01 0.7 A
NB 0.09 9.9 A 0.22 12.2 B
West Townline / Potters Road
(unsignalized) - 3.6 A - 2.8 A
EB 0.05 0.0 - 0.11 0.0 -
WB 0.03 2.3 A 0.03 1.7 A
NB 0.09 9.4 A 0.12 10.6 B
Harvest Lane / Street C (West Access)
(unsignalized) - 2.2 A - 1.7 A
WB 0.02 8.7 A 0.01 8.8 A
NB 0.02 0.0 - 0.04 0.0 -
SB 0.00 0.8 A 0.01 1.9 A
West Townline / Street C (East Access)
(unsignalized) - 2.6 A - 2.5 A
EB 0.03 8.9 A 0.02 8.9 A
NB 0.00 0.7 A 0.01 2.4 A
SB 0.02 0.0 - 0.03 0.0 -
The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all intersections are operating within the typical design
limits noted in Section 3.1.
A review of the need for auxiliary right and left turn lanes at unsignalized study area intersections was
completed as part of our analysis. The results of the Synchro analysis indicate that there is excess
capacity for all movements; consequently, auxiliary turn lanes are not recommended at any
unsignalized study area intersections.
Based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 Signal Justification, traffic signals are not warranted at
the study area intersections (results are provided in Appendix F).
No additional improvements are recommended within the study area.
5.4 Site Access
The Street C roadway connections will operate efficiently as full-movement intersections, with one-
way stop control for the egress movements. Single ingress and egress lane will provide the
necessary capacity to service the proposed development.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the proposed spacing between Street C and Potters Road to the north is in
excess of the minimum intersection spacing requirements as identified in the Transportation
Association of Canada Design Guide for Canadian Roads (2017) [TAC Guidelines] – Figure 8.8.2
(Suggested Minimum Corner Clearance to Accesses at Major Intersections) – 15 metres for collector
roads for unsignalized conditions.
5.5 Sight Distance Review
A review of the available sight distances for the Street C connections was completed as part of this
analysis
Page 108 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
17
The sight distance north and south on West Townline at Street C (200+ metres in both directions) is
greater than both the minimum stopping and intersection sight distance requirements as per the TAC
Guidelines for a design speed of 60 km/h (85 and 130 metres, respectively).
The sight distance to the south on Harvest Lane at Street C (200+ metres) is greater than the is
greater than both the minimum stopping and intersection sight distance requirements as per the TAC
Guidelines for a design speed of 60 km/h (85 and 130 metres, respectively).
The sight distance to the north on Harvest Lane at Street C (approximately 90 metres) exceeds the
than the minimum stopping sight distance (85 metres) and falls below the minimum intersection sight
distance (130 metres) as per the TAC Guidelines for a design speed of 60 km/h, limited by the
existing intersection with the Potters Road. However, recognizing that all vehicles from the north will
move onto Harvest Lane after completing a turning movement and a significant speed reduction, the
sightlines are not considered a concern.
There are no issues with the sight distance available for the proposed Street C connections.
6 Summary
Potters Gate Phase 4 retained JD Engineering to prepare this traffic impact study in support of the
proposed residential development located on the on the southwest corner of Oxford Road 37 (Potters
Road) and West Townline in the Town of Tillsonburg.
The proposed development includes 54 single detached units and 25 Townhouse units
This chapter summarizes the conclusions and recommendations from the study.
1. The proposed development is expected to generate a total of 61 AM and 81 PM peak hour
trips.
2. Detailed intersection counts were obtained and conducted at the study intersections.
3. An intersection operation analysis was completed at the study area intersections, using the
existing and background (2023, 2028 and 2033) traffic volumes, with consideration for the
projected adjacent development traffic growth and without the proposed development traffic.
This enabled a review of existing and future traffic deficiencies that would be present without
the influence of the proposed development. No improvements are recommended within the
study area.
4. An estimate of the amount of traffic that would be generated by the Subject Site was
prepared and assigned to the study area streets and intersections.
5. An intersection operation analysis was completed under total (2023, 2028 and 2033)) traffic
volumes with the proposed development operational at the study area intersections. No
improvements are recommended within the study area.
6. The proposed Street C intersections will operate efficiently with one-way stop control for
egress movements. A single lane for ingress and egress movements will provide the
necessary capacity to convey the traffic volume generated by the proposed development.
7. The location of the proposed site access points is considered appropriate with respect to
minimum corner clearance and spacing requirements as identified in the Transportation
Association of Canada Design Guide for Canadian Roads (2017).
8. The sight distance available for the proposed site accesses is suitable for the intended use.
Page 109 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 3: Adjacent Development Traffic Volumes – Potters Gate Phase 3 (2023)13 (5)5 (5)13 (9)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)
1 (3)
4 (8)18 (10)(14) 6Page 110 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 4: Adjacent Development Traffic Volumes – HCRC (2021)3 (7)3 (12)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)
5 (5)3 (7)(5) 5Page 111 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 5: Adjacent Development Traffic Volumes – Tillsonburg First Baptist Church (2021)2 (1)7 (7)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)
1 (1)
2 (1)2 (1)(1) 2Page 112 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 6: Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
17 (30)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)16 (20)(13) 2163 (84)
20 (11)14 (13)2 (7)Page 113 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 7: Background (2023) Traffic Volumes
31 (40)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)35 (31)(27) 2867 (90)
25 (19)28 (19)7 (12)Page 114 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 8: Background (2028) Traffic Volumes
32 (44)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)36 (33)(29) 3073 (99)
27 (21)29 (20)7 (13)Page 115 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 9: Background (2033) Traffic Volumes
35 (47)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)39 (35)(31) 3281 (110)
29 (22)31 (21)9 (14)Page 116 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 10: Site Generated Traffic Volumes
12 (4)5 (5)Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)4 (17)3 (11)(11) 3(9) 17
(8) 11
4 (17)(5) 7
11 (8)
7 (5)3 (11)(12) 51 (3)
3 (7)(8) 11Page 117 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 11: Total (2023) Traffic Volumes
Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)
68 (93)
28 (26)40 (23)12 (17)(9) 17
(8) 11
11 (8)
7 (5)35 (31)4 (17)(27) 28(12) 53 (11)31 (40)(11) 3(29) 20Page 118 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 12: Total (2028) Traffic Volumes
Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)
74 (102)
30 (28)41 (24)12 (18)(9) 17
(8) 11
11 (8)
7 (5)36 (33)4 (17)(29) 30(12) 53 (11)32 (44)(11) 3(30) 21Page 119 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
Figure 13: Total (2033) Traffic Volumes
Traffic Volume
AM (PM)
Travel
Movement
Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
LEGEND:
20 (10)
82 (113)
32 (29)43 (25)13 (19)(9) 17
(8) 11
11 (8)
7 (5)39 (35)4 (17)(31) 32(12) 53 (11)35 (47)(11) 3(32) 24Page 120 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
30
Appendix A –
Site Plan
Page 121 of 304
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2729
17
28333435363738303132
50
51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
43
42
41
40
39
11 12 13 14910
44
474645
48
49
52
53 54
SCALE
500 100
File Number:
Drawn By:
Planner:
Scale:
CAD:
see scale bar
Drawing Number:
METRES
PARTS 4,5 & 6
LAND REGISTARS' COMPLIED PLAN 1653
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
COUNTY OF OXFORD
Total Site Area:
DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS:
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
DRAWN / REVISED
First Draft
OX 01
5.02 ha
C6
Concept Plan _R4
NJ
LEGEND
Subject Lands
5 JAN 2021
Single Detached Dwelling 54 units
79 unitsTotal
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES ONLY
Street Fronting Townhomes (7.5 x 18.6m)25 units
Land Use Table
Proposed Division Proposed Land Use Area Density
POTTERS GATE PHASE 4
Revision to Street C11 JAN 2021
2385667 ONTARIO LIMITED
27 JAN 2021 Revision to Layout
Total Site Area:5.02 ha
09 MAR 2021 Revision to BLOCK 9
Proposed Sidewalk
Page 122 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
31
Appendix B –
Traffic Count Data
Page 123 of 304
Accu-Traffic Inc.
Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period
From:
To:
7:00:00
9:00:00
One Hour Peak
From:
To:
7:45:00
8:45:00
Municipality:
Site #:
Intersection:
TFR File #:
Count date:
Tillsonburg
2102800001
Potters Rd & Harvest Ave
1
31-Mar-21
Weather conditions:
Person counted:
Person prepared:
Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road:Potters Rd runs W/E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
205557
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
002424
0044
0028
Peds Cross:
West Peds:
West Entering:
West Leg Total:
0
28
85
Potters Rd
W
N
E
S
Potters Rd
Harvest Ave
East Leg Total:
East Entering:
East Peds:
Peds Cross:
78
53
0
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
510253
0000
51 0 2
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
250025
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
4
0
0
4
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
4
0
0
4
1
0
0
1
5
0
0
Peds Cross:
South Peds:
South Entering:
South Leg Total:
3
5
9
Comments
Page 124 of 304
Accu-Traffic Inc.
Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period
From:
To:
16:00:00
19:00:00
One Hour Peak
From:
To:
16:15:00
17:15:00
Municipality:
Site #:
Intersection:
TFR File #:
Count date:
Tillsonburg
2102800001
Potters Rd & Harvest Ave
1
31-Mar-21
Weather conditions:
Person counted:
Person prepared:
Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road:Potters Rd runs W/E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
107677
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
106465
0033
1067
Peds Cross:
West Peds:
West Entering:
West Leg Total:
0
68
145
Potters Rd
W
N
E
S
Potters Rd
Harvest Ave
East Leg Total:
East Entering:
East Peds:
Peds Cross:
139
72
0
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
700171
1001
71 0 1
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
660167
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
4
0
0
4
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
6
0
0
6
2
0
0
2
8
0
0
Peds Cross:
South Peds:
South Entering:
South Leg Total:
0
8
12
Comments
Page 125 of 304
Accu-Traffic Inc.
Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period
From:
To:
7:00:00
9:00:00
One Hour Peak
From:
To:
7:15:00
8:15:00
Municipality:
Site #:
Intersection:
TFR File #:
Count date:
Tillsonburg
2102800002
Potters Rd & Westtown Line
1
31-Mar-21
Weather conditions:
Person counted:
Person prepared:
Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road:Potters Rd runs W/E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
204850
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
002525
0000
0025
Peds Cross:
West Peds:
West Entering:
West Leg Total:
0
25
75
Potters Rd
W
N
E
S
Potters Rd
Westtown Line
East Leg Total:
East Entering:
East Peds:
Peds Cross:
91
59
0
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
480149
90110
57 0 2
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
320032
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
9
0
1
10
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
0
0
1
1
7
0
0
7
7
0
1
Peds Cross:
South Peds:
South Entering:
South Leg Total:
0
8
18
Comments
Page 126 of 304
Accu-Traffic Inc.
Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period
From:
To:
16:00:00
19:00:00
One Hour Peak
From:
To:
16:15:00
17:15:00
Municipality:
Site #:
Intersection:
TFR File #:
Count date:
Tillsonburg
2102800002
Potters Rd & Westtown Line
1
31-Mar-21
Weather conditions:
Person counted:
Person prepared:
Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road:Potters Rd runs W/E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
126871
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
106364
0011
1064
Peds Cross:
West Peds:
West Entering:
West Leg Total:
0
65
136
Potters Rd
W
N
E
S
Potters Rd
Westtown Line
East Leg Total:
East Entering:
East Peds:
Peds Cross:
138
70
0
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
632166
4004
67 2 1
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
670168
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
5
0
0
5
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
5
0
0
5
4
0
0
4
9
0
0
Peds Cross:
South Peds:
South Entering:
South Leg Total:
0
9
14
Comments
Page 127 of 304
Accu-Traffic Inc.
Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period
From:
To:
7:00:00
9:00:00
One Hour Peak
From:
To:
8:00:00
9:00:00
Municipality:
Site #:
Intersection:
TFR File #:
Count date:
Tillsonburg
2102800003
Simcoe St & Westtown Line
1
31-Mar-21
Weather conditions:
Person counted:
Person prepared:
Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road:Simcoe St runs W/E
North Leg Total:
North Entering:
North Peds:
Peds Cross:
28
10
0
Heavys
Trucks
Cars
Totals
1
0
4
5
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
3
1
0
9
Heavys
Trucks
Cars
Totals
3
1
14
18
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
96223238
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
21811
65184195
0011
86193
Peds Cross:
West Peds:
West Entering:
West Leg Total:
0
207
445
Westtown Line
Simcoe St
W
N
E
S
Simcoe St
Westtown Line
East Leg Total:
East Entering:
East Peds:
Peds Cross:
434
236
0
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
4015
21867231
0000
222 6 8
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
18756198
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
3
0
0
3
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
Peds Cross:
South Peds:
South Entering:
South Leg Total:
0
4
7
Comments
Page 128 of 304
Accu-Traffic Inc.
Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period
From:
To:
16:00:00
19:00:00
One Hour Peak
From:
To:
16:00:00
17:00:00
Municipality:
Site #:
Intersection:
TFR File #:
Count date:
Tillsonburg
2102800003
Simcoe St & Westtown Line
1
31-Mar-21
Weather conditions:
Person counted:
Person prepared:
Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road:Simcoe St runs W/E
North Leg Total:
North Entering:
North Peds:
Peds Cross:
31
14
0
Heavys
Trucks
Cars
Totals
1
1
6
8
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
4
1
1
12
Heavys
Trucks
Cars
Totals
1
0
16
17
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
86496510
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals
0066
52388395
0022
52396
Peds Cross:
West Peds:
West Entering:
West Leg Total:
0
403
913
Westtown Line
Simcoe St
W
N
E
S
Simcoe St
Westtown Line
East Leg Total:
East Entering:
East Peds:
Peds Cross:
908
509
0
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
8019
48857500
0000
496 5 8
Cars Trucks Heavys Totals
39225399
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
4
0
0
4
Cars
Trucks
Heavys
Totals
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
Peds Cross:
South Peds:
South Entering:
South Leg Total:
1
4
8
Comments
Page 129 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
32
Appendix C –
Synchro Analysis Output –
Existing Traffic Volumes
Page 130 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road Existing (2021) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 14 2 67 14 3
Future Volume (Veh/h) 30 14 2 67 14 3
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.63 0.63
Hourly flow rate (vph) 43 20 3 91 22 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 63 150 53
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 63 150 53
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 97 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1540 840 1014
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 63 94 27
Volume Left 0 3 22
Volume Right 20 0 5
cSH 1700 1540 868
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.00 0.03
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.7
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 9.3
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 9.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 131 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road Existing (2021) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 1 20 63 2 14
Future Volume (Veh/h) 33 1 20 63 2 14
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 52 2 24 77 3 21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 54 178 53
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 54 178 53
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1502 781 1014
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 54 101 24
Volume Left 0 24 3
Volume Right 2 0 21
cSH 1700 1502 978
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.02
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.4 0.6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 8.8
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 8.8
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 132 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road Existing (2021) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 13 3 89 26 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 82 13 3 89 26 4
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.38 0.38
Hourly flow rate (vph) 121 19 4 114 68 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 140 252 130
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 140 252 130
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 91 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1443 734 919
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 140 118 79
Volume Left 0 4 68
Volume Right 19 0 11
cSH 1700 1443 755
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.00 0.10
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 2.7
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 10.3
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 10.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 133 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road Existing (2021) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 2 11 84 7 13
Future Volume (Veh/h) 81 2 11 84 7 13
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.50 0.50
Hourly flow rate (vph) 121 3 14 108 14 26
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 124 258 122
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 124 258 122
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 98 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1463 723 929
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 124 122 40
Volume Left 0 14 14
Volume Right 3 0 26
cSH 1700 1463 845
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.01 0.05
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 1.1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.5
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 134 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
33
Appendix D –
Synchro Analysis Output –
Background Traffic Volumes
Page 135 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road BG (2023) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 17 3 75 25 6
Future Volume (Veh/h) 33 17 3 75 25 6
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.63 0.63
Hourly flow rate (vph) 47 24 4 101 40 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 71 168 59
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 71 168 59
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 95 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1529 820 1007
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 71 105 50
Volume Left 0 4 40
Volume Right 24 0 10
cSH 1700 1529 852
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.00 0.06
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 1.4
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.5
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 136 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road BG (2023) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 3 25 67 7 28
Future Volume (Veh/h) 37 3 25 67 7 28
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 59 5 30 82 10 42
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 64 204 62
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 64 204 62
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 99 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 1489 752 1004
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 64 112 52
Volume Left 0 30 10
Volume Right 5 0 42
cSH 1700 1489 943
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.06
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.5 1.3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 9.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 9.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 137 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road BG (2023) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 91 23 6 98 34 6
Future Volume (Veh/h) 91 23 6 98 34 6
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.38 0.38
Hourly flow rate (vph) 134 34 8 126 89 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 168 293 151
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 168 293 151
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 87 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1410 694 895
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 168 134 105
Volume Left 0 8 89
Volume Right 34 0 16
cSH 1700 1410 719
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.01 0.15
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 3.9
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 10.9
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 10.9
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 138 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road BG (2023) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 8 19 90 12 19
Future Volume (Veh/h) 86 8 19 90 12 19
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.50 0.50
Hourly flow rate (vph) 128 12 24 115 24 38
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 140 297 134
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 140 297 134
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 96 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 1443 683 915
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 140 139 62
Volume Left 0 24 24
Volume Right 12 0 38
cSH 1700 1443 808
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.02 0.08
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.4 1.9
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 9.8
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 9.8
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 139 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road BG (2028) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 18 3 82 26 6
Future Volume (Veh/h) 36 18 3 82 26 6
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.63 0.63
Hourly flow rate (vph) 51 26 4 111 41 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 77 183 64
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 77 183 64
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 95 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1522 804 1000
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 77 115 51
Volume Left 0 4 41
Volume Right 26 0 10
cSH 1700 1522 836
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.00 0.06
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 1.5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.6
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.6
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 140 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road BG (2028) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 3 27 73 7 29
Future Volume (Veh/h) 41 3 27 73 7 29
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 65 5 33 89 10 43
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 70 222 68
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 70 222 68
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 99 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 1481 732 996
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 70 122 53
Volume Left 0 33 10
Volume Right 5 0 43
cSH 1700 1481 932
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.06
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.5 1.4
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.2 9.1
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.2 9.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 141 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road BG (2028) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 24 6 107 37 7
Future Volume (Veh/h) 100 24 6 107 37 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.38 0.38
Hourly flow rate (vph) 147 35 8 137 97 18
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 182 318 164
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 182 318 164
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 86 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1393 672 880
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 182 145 115
Volume Left 0 8 97
Volume Right 35 0 18
cSH 1700 1393 698
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.01 0.16
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 4.5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 11.2
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 11.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 142 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road BG (2028) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 95 8 21 99 13 20
Future Volume (Veh/h) 95 8 21 99 13 20
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.50 0.50
Hourly flow rate (vph) 142 12 27 127 26 40
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 154 329 148
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 154 329 148
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 96 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 1426 653 899
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 154 154 66
Volume Left 0 27 26
Volume Right 12 0 40
cSH 1700 1426 783
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.02 0.08
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.4 2.1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 10.0
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 10.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 143 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road BG (2033) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 20 4 90 28 7
Future Volume (Veh/h) 40 20 4 90 28 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.63 0.63
Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 29 5 122 44 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 86 204 72
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 86 204 72
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 94 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1510 782 991
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 86 127 55
Volume Left 0 5 44
Volume Right 29 0 11
cSH 1700 1510 817
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.00 0.07
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 1.6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.7
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.7
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 144 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road BG (2033) - AM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 3 29 81 8 31
Future Volume (Veh/h) 45 3 29 81 8 31
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 71 5 35 99 12 46
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 76 242 74
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 76 242 74
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 98 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 1474 711 988
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 76 134 58
Volume Left 0 35 12
Volume Right 5 0 46
cSH 1700 1474 915
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.06
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.6 1.5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 9.2
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 145 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road BG (2033) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 25 7 18 40 7
Future Volume (Veh/h) 110 25 7 18 40 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.38 0.38
Hourly flow rate (vph) 162 37 9 23 105 18
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 199 222 180
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 199 222 180
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 86 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1373 762 862
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 199 32 123
Volume Left 0 9 105
Volume Right 37 0 18
cSH 1700 1373 775
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.01 0.16
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 4.3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.2 10.5
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.2 10.5
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 146 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road BG (2033) - PM
05/31/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 105 9 22 110 14 21
Future Volume (Veh/h) 105 9 22 110 14 21
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.50 0.50
Hourly flow rate (vph) 157 13 28 141 28 42
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 170 360 164
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 170 360 164
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 96 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 1407 626 881
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 170 169 70
Volume Left 0 28 28
Volume Right 13 0 42
cSH 1700 1407 757
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.02 0.09
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.5 2.3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 10.2
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 10.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 147 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
34
Appendix E –
Synchro Analysis Output –
Total Traffic Volumes
Page 148 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road TT (2023) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 19 4 80 34 8
Future Volume (Veh/h) 35 19 4 80 34 8
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.63 0.63
Hourly flow rate (vph) 50 27 5 108 54 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 77 182 64
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 77 182 64
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 93 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1522 805 1001
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 77 113 67
Volume Left 0 5 54
Volume Right 27 0 13
cSH 1700 1522 837
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.00 0.08
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 2.0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.7
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.7
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 149 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road TT (2023) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 39 5 28 68 12 40
Future Volume (Veh/h) 39 5 28 68 12 40
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 62 8 34 83 18 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 70 217 66
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 70 217 66
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 98 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1481 736 998
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 70 117 78
Volume Left 0 34 18
Volume Right 8 0 60
cSH 1700 1481 922
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.08
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.5 2.1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.3 9.3
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.3 9.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 150 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
5: Harvest Lane & Street C TT (2023) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 11 31 3 3 20
Future Volume (Veh/h) 7 11 31 3 3 20
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 12 34 3 3 22
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 64 36 37
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 64 36 37
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 941 1037 1574
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 20 37 25
Volume Left 8 0 3
Volume Right 12 3 0
cSH 996 1700 1574
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.9
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 151 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
6: West Townline & Street C TT (2023) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 11 4 35 28 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 11 4 35 28 5
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 12 4 38 30 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 78 32 35
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 78 32 35
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 922 1041 1576
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 30 42 35
Volume Left 18 4 0
Volume Right 12 0 5
cSH 966 1576 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.02
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.7 0.1 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 0.7 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 152 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road Total (2023) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 31 9 103 40 8
Future Volume (Veh/h) 96 31 9 103 40 8
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.38 0.38
Hourly flow rate (vph) 141 46 12 132 105 21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 187 320 164
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 187 320 164
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 84 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1387 668 881
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 187 144 126
Volume Left 0 12 105
Volume Right 46 0 21
cSH 1700 1387 696
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.01 0.18
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 5.0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 11.3
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 11.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 153 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road Total (2023) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 88 13 26 93 17 23
Future Volume (Veh/h) 88 13 26 93 17 23
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.50 0.50
Hourly flow rate (vph) 131 19 33 119 34 46
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 150 326 140
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 150 326 140
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 95 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 1431 653 907
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 150 152 80
Volume Left 0 33 34
Volume Right 19 0 46
cSH 1700 1431 779
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.02 0.10
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.5 2.6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.8 10.2
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.8 10.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 154 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
5: Harvest Lane & Street C Total (2023) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 8 40 11 11 29
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 8 40 11 11 29
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 9 43 12 12 32
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 105 49 55
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 105 49 55
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 886 1020 1550
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 14 55 44
Volume Left 5 0 12
Volume Right 9 12 0
cSH 967 1700 1550
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.01
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 0.2
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 2.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 2.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 155 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
6: West Townline & Street C Total (2023) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 8 17 31 27 12
Future Volume (Veh/h) 9 8 17 31 27 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 9 18 34 29 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 106 36 42
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 106 36 42
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 882 1037 1567
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 19 52 42
Volume Left 10 18 0
Volume Right 9 0 13
cSH 949 1567 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.02
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.3 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.9 2.6 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 2.6 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 156 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road TT (2028) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 20 4 87 35 8
Future Volume (Veh/h) 38 20 4 87 35 8
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.63 0.63
Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 29 5 118 56 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 83 196 68
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 83 196 68
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 93 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1514 790 995
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 83 123 69
Volume Left 0 5 56
Volume Right 29 0 13
cSH 1700 1514 822
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.00 0.08
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 2.1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.8
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 9.8
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 157 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road TT (2028) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 5 30 74 12 41
Future Volume (Veh/h) 43 5 30 74 12 41
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 68 8 37 90 18 61
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 76 236 72
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 76 236 72
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 97 97 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1474 716 990
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 76 127 79
Volume Left 0 37 18
Volume Right 8 0 61
cSH 1700 1474 911
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.03 0.09
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.6 2.2
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.3 9.3
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.3 9.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 158 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
5: Harvest Lane & Street C TT (2028) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 11 32 3 3 21
Future Volume (Veh/h) 7 11 32 3 3 21
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 12 35 3 3 23
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 66 36 38
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 66 36 38
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 938 1036 1572
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 20 38 26
Volume Left 8 0 3
Volume Right 12 3 0
cSH 994 1700 1572
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.9
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 159 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
6: West Townline & Street C TT (2028) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 11 4 36 30 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 11 4 36 30 5
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 12 4 39 33 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 82 36 38
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 82 36 38
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 917 1037 1572
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 30 43 38
Volume Left 18 4 0
Volume Right 12 0 5
cSH 962 1572 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.02
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.7 0.1 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.7 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 160 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road Total (2028) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 32 9 112 43 9
Future Volume (Veh/h) 106 32 9 112 43 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.38 0.38
Hourly flow rate (vph) 156 47 12 144 113 24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 203 348 180
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 203 348 180
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 82 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1369 644 863
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 203 156 137
Volume Left 0 12 113
Volume Right 47 0 24
cSH 1700 1369 674
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.01 0.20
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 5.8
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 11.7
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 11.7
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 161 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road Total (2028) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 97 13 28 102 18 24
Future Volume (Veh/h) 97 13 28 102 18 24
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.50 0.50
Hourly flow rate (vph) 145 19 36 131 36 48
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 164 358 154
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 164 358 154
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 97 94 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 1414 625 891
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 164 167 84
Volume Left 0 36 36
Volume Right 19 0 48
cSH 1700 1414 753
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.03 0.11
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.6 2.8
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.8 10.4
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.8 10.4
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 162 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
5: Harvest Lane & Street C Total (2028) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 8 44 11 11 30
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 8 44 11 11 30
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 9 48 12 12 33
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 111 54 60
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 111 54 60
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 879 1013 1544
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 14 60 45
Volume Left 5 0 12
Volume Right 9 12 0
cSH 961 1700 1544
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.01
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 0.2
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 2.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 2.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 163 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
6: West Townline & Street C Total (2028) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 8 17 33 29 12
Future Volume (Veh/h) 9 8 17 33 29 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 9 18 36 32 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 110 38 45
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 110 38 45
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 876 1033 1563
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 19 54 45
Volume Left 10 18 0
Volume Right 9 0 13
cSH 944 1563 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.03
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.3 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.9 2.5 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 2.5 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 164 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road TT (2033) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 22 5 95 37 9
Future Volume (Veh/h) 42 22 5 95 37 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.63 0.63
Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 31 7 128 59 14
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 91 218 76
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 91 218 76
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 92 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1504 767 986
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 91 135 73
Volume Left 0 7 59
Volume Right 31 0 14
cSH 1700 1504 801
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.00 0.09
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 2.3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.9
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 9.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 165 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road TT (2033) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 5 32 82 13 43
Future Volume (Veh/h) 47 5 32 82 13 43
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 75 8 39 100 19 64
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 83 257 79
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 83 257 79
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 97 97 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1465 696 981
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 83 139 83
Volume Left 0 39 19
Volume Right 8 0 64
cSH 1700 1465 897
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.09
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.6 2.3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.3 9.4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.3 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 166 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
5: Harvest Lane & Street C TT (2033) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 11 35 3 3 24
Future Volume (Veh/h) 7 11 35 3 3 24
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 12 38 3 3 26
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 72 40 41
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 72 40 41
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 931 1032 1568
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 20 41 29
Volume Left 8 0 3
Volume Right 12 3 0
cSH 989 1700 1568
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.8
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.8
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 167 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
6: West Townline & Street C TT (2033) - AM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 11 4 39 32 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 11 4 39 32 5
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 12 4 42 35 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 88 38 40
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 88 38 40
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 911 1035 1570
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 30 46 40
Volume Left 18 4 0
Volume Right 12 0 5
cSH 957 1570 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.02
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.7 0.1 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.7 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 168 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
1: Harvest Lane & Potters Road Total (2033) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 115 33 10 123 46 9
Future Volume (Veh/h) 115 33 10 123 46 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.38 0.38
Hourly flow rate (vph) 169 49 13 158 121 24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 218 378 194
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 218 378 194
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 80 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1352 618 848
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 218 171 145
Volume Left 0 13 121
Volume Right 49 0 24
cSH 1700 1352 647
Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.01 0.22
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.2 6.5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 12.2
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 12.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 169 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
2: West Townline & Potters Road Total (2033) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 14 29 113 19 25
Future Volume (Veh/h) 107 14 29 113 19 25
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.50 0.50
Hourly flow rate (vph) 160 21 37 145 38 50
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 181 390 170
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 181 390 170
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 97 94 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1394 598 873
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 181 182 88
Volume Left 0 37 38
Volume Right 21 0 50
cSH 1700 1394 728
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.03 0.12
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.6 3.1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.7 10.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.7 10.6
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 170 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
5: Harvest Lane & Street C Total (2033) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 8 47 11 11 32
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 8 47 11 11 32
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 9 51 12 12 35
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 116 57 63
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 116 57 63
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 873 1009 1540
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 14 63 47
Volume Left 5 0 12
Volume Right 9 12 0
cSH 956 1700 1540
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.04 0.01
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 0.2
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 1.9
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 1.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 171 of 304
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Potters Gate Ph. 4
6: West Townline & Street C Total (2033) - PM
06/01/2021 Synchro 11 Report
JL Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 8 17 35 31 12
Future Volume (Veh/h) 9 8 17 35 31 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 9 18 38 34 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (m)
Walking Speed (m/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (m)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 114 40 47
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 114 40 47
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 872 1031 1560
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 19 56 47
Volume Left 10 18 0
Volume Right 9 0 13
cSH 940 1560 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.03
Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.3 0.0
Control Delay (s) 8.9 2.4 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 2.4 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Page 172 of 304
Potters Gate Phase 4
Oxnard Potters Gate Inc.
JDE-21033
Date: June 2nd, 2021
35
Appendix G –
OTM Signal Justification Sheets
Page 173 of 304
OTM Book 12 Signal Justification Potters Gate Ph.4
Justification No. 7 - Total (2033) Traffic
Potters Road / Harvest Lane
Rest. Flow Numerical %
A. Vehicle volume, all aproaches
(average hour)720 137 19% NO NOB. Vehicle volume, along minor streets
(average hour)255 25 10% NO NO
A. Vehicle volume, major street
(average hour)720 98 14% NO NOB. Combined vehicle and pedestrian
volume crossing artery from minor
streets (average hour)75 19 25% NO NO
Justification Description
2. Delay to cross traffic 9%
Signal
Warrant
Underground
Provisions
Warrant
Sectional Entire %
1. Minimum Vehicluar Volume 7%
Compliance
JD Engineering
Page 174 of 304
OTM Book 12 Signal Justification Potters Gate Ph.4
Justification No. 7 - Total (2033) Traffic
Potters Road / West Townline
Rest. Flow Numerical %
A. Vehicle volume, all aproaches
(average hour)720 132 18% NO NOB. Vehicle volume, along minor streets
(average hour)255 25 10% NO NO
A. Vehicle volume, major street
(average hour)720 103 14% NO NOB. Combined vehicle and pedestrian
volume crossing artery from minor
streets (average hour)75 13 17% NO NO
Justification Description
2. Delay to cross traffic 9%
Signal
Warrant
Underground
Provisions
Warrant
Sectional Entire %
1. Minimum Vehicluar Volume 7%
Compliance
JD Engineering
Page 175 of 304
Page 176 of 304
Page 177 of 304
Page 178 of 304
Page 179 of 304
Page 1 of 4
Report No: CP 2022-77
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
To: Mayor and Members of Town of Tillsonburg Council
From: Eric Gilbert, Senior Planner, Community Planning
Application for Site Plan Approval
Armtec Inc. (TSPC 7-211)
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
An application for site plan approval has been submitted to facilitate the development of a
plastic pipe manufacturing facility on the lands, with buildings totalling 10,807 m2 (116,326 ft2).
A functional servicing report, stormwater management brief and other studies were submitted
in support of the proposed development.
The Planning Office is satisfied that the proposed development is appropriate and
recommends Council direct staff to approve the proposed site plan once all technical matters
and concerns have been addressed.
DISCUSSION
Background
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Armtec Inc.
205, 10423 178th Street
Edmonton AB T5S 1R5
AGENT:
CJDL Consulting Engineers
261 Broadway
Tillsonburg ON N4G 4J1
LOCATION:
The subject property is described as Lots 1614 & 1640, Plan 500, Part Lot 11, Concession 4 NTR
(Middleton), Part 1 of 41R-2151, in the Town of Tillsonburg. The lands are located on the north
side of Rokeby Side Road, west of Bell Mill Side Road, and are municipally known as 301 Rokeby
Side Road.
COUNTY OF OXFORD OFFICIAL PLAN:
Schedule ‘T-1’ Town of Tillsonburg Land Use Plan Industrial
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ZONING BY-LAW 3295:
Existing Zoning: General Industrial Zone (MG)
Page 180 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-77
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 2 of 4
SITE PLAN:
The Town has received an application to permit the development of an industrial use, consisting
of a plastic pipe manufacturing facility on the lands.
The subject property is approximately 21.79 ha (53.85 ac) and is currently vacant.
The proposed site plan includes a 7014m2 (75,500 ft2) plastic manufacturing building, an office
building with an area of 625 m2 (6,727 ft2), a proposed building for fabricating steel pipes with an
area of 1574 m2 (16,942 ft2), and a proposed cold storage building with an approximate area of
847 m2 (9,117 ft2). Associated parking areas and a storm water management area are also
proposed for the industrial development.
The applicant has provided the following materials in support of the proposed site plan:
Site Plan;
Functional Servicing Report;
Storm Water Management Report;
Geotechnical Investigation;
Building Elevations
Surrounding land uses include industrial development to the east, with agricultural uses within
Norfolk County to the south. Uses to the west include agricultural and residential development,
with the CN Railway Cayuga Subdivision to the north and industrial warehousing farther to the
north.
The subject lands were sold to the owner by the Town of Tillsonburg, and Town Council adopted
a resolution on April 12, 2021 requiring the site plan to be approved by Town Council.
Plate 1 – Existing Zoning & Location Map provides an aerial view of the property and shows the
location of the subject lands and the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity.
Plate 2 – Proposed Site Plan, prepared by CJDL Consulting Engineers, depicts the proposed site
plan for the site.
Application Review
Town of Tillsonburg Zoning By-Law 3295
The subject lands are located within the ‘General Industrial Zone (MG)’ in the Town of Tillsonburg
Zoning By-law. A manufacturing facility is a permitted use within the MG Zone.
The MG zone requires a front yard depth of 15 m (49.2 ft), interior side yard width of 20 m (65.6
ft) for the westerly lot line, and 3 m (9.8 ft) for the easterly lot line, and 7.5 m (24.6 ft) minimum
rear yard depth.
The proposed site plan is compliant with the MG zoning that applies to the property.
Page 181 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-77
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 3 of 4
Agency Comments
The application was circulated to agencies on July 17, 2021, October 27, 2021 and January 25,
2022.
Comments received to date through the 2 site plan submissions and circulations are expected to
be addressed through the next site plan submission, which was circulated in January 2022.
Public Consultation
The Town’s Development Commissioner hosted a meeting on August 20, 2021 with surrounding
residential property owners in response to concerns raised through the tree removal and site
preparation works for the site.
The concerns raised by adjacent residents included preservation of a buffer zone on southwestern
corner of property, and concerns about truck traffic and entrances.
Planning Analysis
The applicant is requesting site plan approval to construct an industrial manufacturing facility for
the production of plastic and steel corrugated piping products.
The applicant has indicated that they desire to start construction as soon as possible, and
Planning staff have brought this report forward to ensure that the site plan and site plan process
can be concluded expeditiously.
The proposed site plan satisfies the requirements of the MG Zone, and no zoning relief is required
to facilitate the proposed development.
The lands were originally owned by the Town of Tillsonburg, and were sold conditionally to the
applicant. Conditions included the removal of the woodland on the west side of the property and
the property being serviced by the Town. The proposed site plan includes a buffer area on the
southwestern portion of the site. The intent of this area is to provide a buffer between the
proposed industrial activity and other non-industrial properties in this area.
The proposed site plan and supporting plans and studies have been reviewed by Town and
County staff, and staff are generally satisfied with the proposed design, save for grading
modifications in the southwestern corner of the property that may be required to relocate the
municipal drain present in this area.
Planning staff understand that work on the sanitary sewer outlet is well underway, and a sanitary
outlet will be available once the development is constructed; alternatively a holding tank is
proposed for sanitary sewer flows to allow them to be pumped and removed off-site in the event
that the sanitary outlet is delayed.
Given the foregoing, the Planning Office is satisfied that the proposed development is appropriate
and recommends that Town Council direct staff to approve the site plan once all technical
comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of Town staff.
Page 182 of 304
Report No: CP 2022-77
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Date: February 22, 2022
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg direct staff to approve the site plan for
Application TSPC 7-211, to facilitate the development of a plastic pipe
manufacturing facility on the lands, submitted by Armtec Inc., on lands legally
described as Lots 1614 & 1640, Plan 500, Part Lot 11, Concession 4 NTR (Middleton),
Part 1 of 41R-2151, Tillsonburg, known municipally as 301 Rokeby Side Road, once
all technical comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
SIGNATURES
Authored by: “original signed by” Eric Gilbert, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner
Approved for submission: “original signed by” Gordon K. Hough, RPP, Director
Page 183 of 304
February 15, 2022
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
2050
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
102 Meters
Zoning Floodlines
Regulation Limit
100 Year Flood Line
30 Metre Setback
Conservation Authority
Regulation Limit
Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
Rokeby
Side
Road
Subject
Property
Plate 1: Existing Zoning and Location Map
File No: TSPC 7-211 - Armtec Inc.
Lots 1614 & 1640, Plan 500, Part Lot 11, Concession 4 NTR (Middleton), Part 1 of 41R-2151, Town of Tillsonburg- 301 Rokeby Side Road
Page 184 of 304
2364423593233922341323433125
111115116
126
139
1
1918
2425282961
33
344748545562 74
7587
88 100
101110
AAO/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
B
B
NORF
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
NORF
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
ARMTEC
SITE PLAN
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
CON
C
E
S
SI
O
N
R
O
A
D
3 (
R
O
K
E
B
Y
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
D.)
WA
B
A
S
H
R
D
.CULTIVATED LANDSEX. R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
LWOODLANDSCUL
T
I
V
A
T
E
D
L
A
N
D
SWOODLANDS
CULTI
V
A
T
E
D
L
A
N
D
S (INDUS
T
RI
A
L)
THK
R
H
Y
T
H
M
AUTO
M
O
TI
V
E
IND
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
(AU
T
O
N
E
U
M
C
A
N
A
D
A
)
WA
R
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
Cyril J. Demeyere Limited
P.O. Box 460, 261 Broadway
Tillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8
Tel: 519-688-1000
866-302-9886
Fax: 519-842-3235
cjdl@cjdleng.com
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DESCRIPTIONDWG
1.
2.
6.
4.
5.
3.
STORAGE YARD
BELL MILLSIDEROADCA
N
A
D
I
A
N
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
FUTURE EXPANSION
(PRE GRADE ONLY IN 2022)
7.
POND
RELO
C
A
T
E
D
J.
A.
S
MI
T
H
MUNI
CI
P
A
L
D
R
AI
N
RELO
C
A
T
E
D
J.
A.
S
M
I
T
H
M
U
NI
C
I
P
A
L
D
R
AI
NRELOCATED J.A. SMITHMUNICIPAL DRAINRELOCATED
J
.A
.
SM
ITHMUNIC
IPAL
DRA
IN
(INDUSTRIAL)I:\ACAD Projects\2021\21003\01-Model\21003_Mast.dwg, 2022-01-21 3:23:16 PM, CJDLPC36Plate 2: Proposed Site Plan
File No: TSPC 7-211 - Armtec Inc.
Lots 1614 & 1640, Plan 500, Part Lot 11, Concession 4 NTR (Middleton), Part 1 of 41R-2151, Town of Tillsonburg- 301 Rokeby Side Road
Page 185 of 304
125
111115116
126
139
1
1918
2425282961
33
344748545562 74
7587
88 100
101110
AAO/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
B
B
NOR
F
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
NOR
F
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
Cyril J. Demeyere Limited
P.O. Box 460, 261 Broadway
Tillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8
Tel: 519-688-1000
866-302-9886
Fax: 519-842-3235
cjdl@cjdleng.com
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
2
CON
C
E
S
SI
O
N
R
O
A
D
3 (
R
O
K
E
B
Y
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
D.)
WOO
D
L
A
N
D
S
EX. R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
LCULTIVATED LANDSWOODLANDSI:\ACAD Projects\2021\21003\01-Model\21003_Mast.dwg, 2022-01-21 3:23:29 PM, CJDLPC36Plate 2: Proposed Site Plan
File No: TSPC 7-211 - Armtec Inc.
Lots 1614 & 1640, Plan 500, Part Lot 11, Concession 4 NTR (Middleton), Part 1 of 41R-2151, Town of Tillsonburg- 301 Rokeby Side Road
Page 186 of 304
2364423593233922341323433Cyril J. Demeyere Limited
P.O. Box 460, 261 Broadway
Tillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8
Tel: 519-688-1000
866-302-9886
Fax: 519-842-3235
cjdl@cjdleng.com
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
3
WA
B
A
S
H
R
D
.
RAI
L
W
A
Y
IND
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
(AU
T
O
N
E
U
M
C
A
N
A
D
A
)
WA
R
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
CA
N
A
D
I
A
N
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
FUTURE EXPANSION
(PRE GRADE ONLY IN 2022)I:\ACAD Projects\2021\21003\01-Model\21003_Mast.dwg, 2022-01-21 3:23:44 PM, CJDLPC36Page 187 of 304
125
111115116
126
139
1
1918
2425282961
33
344748545562 74
7587
88 100
101110
AO/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
B
B
NOR
F
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
NOR
F
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
Cyril J. Demeyere Limited
P.O. Box 460, 261 Broadway
Tillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8
Tel: 519-688-1000
866-302-9886
Fax: 519-842-3235
cjdl@cjdleng.com
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
4
CON
C
E
S
SI
O
N
R
O
A
D
3 (
R
O
K
E
B
Y
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
D.)
WOO
D
L
A
N
D
S
BY PERMIT
ONLY
P
VAN
ACCESSIBLE
FIRE
ROUTE
P
I:\ACAD Projects\2021\21003\01-Model\21003_Mast.dwg, 2022-01-21 3:23:54 PM, CJDLPC36Plate 2: Proposed Site Plan
File No: TSPC 7-211 - Armtec Inc.
Lots 1614 & 1640, Plan 500, Part Lot 11, Concession 4 NTR (Middleton), Part 1 of 41R-2151, Town of Tillsonburg- 301 Rokeby Side Road
Page 188 of 304
January 24, 2022
Town of Tillsonburg
Building, Planning, By-Law Services
Attention: Thomas Louws, Engineering Development Technologist
Reference: Armtech Inc, Rokeby Side Road
Your File: SPA TSPC 7-211
We hereby provide the following Comment Response Matrix with respect to our
3rd SPA Submission on the subject project.
3rd Submission Comment Response Matrix – SPA TSPC 7-211 Rokeby Side Road
Town of Tillsonburg - Building Department (dated December 1, 2021)
-Identify the building department connection for the plastics building
Fire Department connections for to both
the Plastics Building and Office/Steel
Building have been added to the Site Plan
– Drawing 4 Servicing Plan
-Identify the building department connection for the office/steel building
Fire Department connections for to both
the Plastics Building and Office/Steel
Building have been added to the Site Plan
– Drawing 4 Servicing Plan
-Provide fire department access route to the principal entranceof each
building as per OBC3.2.5.2.(1)(a) & 3.2.5.5 (1).
Fire Department access routes to all
buildings are shown on all plans
-Verify that the water service/supply is adequate for the required fire
flows.
The sprinkler and hydrant fire flow
requirements have been determined for
each building and are shown in the
Functional Servicing Report. The demands
are lower than the County’s preliminary
estimated available flow from the
300mmø main on Rokeby Road. The
County will typically model the
distribution system proposed on site to
confirm available flow at internal hydrants
Page 189 of 304
-Identify fire route signage
Fire route signage has been added at 30m
intervals where possible
-Identify fire route to proposed cold storage building
Included on revised CJDL Site Plans R4
-Identify any hazardous materials as per OBC 3.3.1.2(1) and Fire Code
See OBC Matrix on Architectural Drawings.
-Provide setbacks to property lines for proposed cold storage building
Setbacks to property lines have been
added for the proposed Cold Storage
Building
-Item 16 of the OBC Matrix will have to be checked off “yes” for barrier
free design
Included on revised Architectural
Drawings from Zoltan Engineering.
-Verify that all part lots will or have been merged
Armtec to provide verification prior to
finalization of Site Plan Agreement.
-Provide CN Railway review/approval Approval has been received from Gio Rail,
as per email from Neil Johnson, Vice
President Gio Rail Holdings Corp, dated
January 21, 2022, as Gio Rail is the leesor
of the railway line from CN Rail
Town of Tillsonburg - Engineering Department (dated December 6, 2021)
-Why is the Site Plan SWM pond and CJDL SWM pond different Architectural Site Plan for Cold Storage
Building has been revised to match CJDL
drwgs.
-Provide uncontrolled flows
Uncontrolled flows to the SWM
Infiltration Pond have been added to the
Functional Servicing Report (FSR).
-Provide letter confirming Municipal Drain acceptance The Town of Tillsonburg appointed Spriet
Associates as their Sgent with respect to
the Municipal Drain Relocation. As per
email from Brandon Widner at Spriet
dated January 4, 2022, the report will be
sent out by the end of January. Email from
Shayne Reitsma, Manager of Engineering,
Town of Tillsonburg dated January 6, 2022
indicates he has reached out to Brandon
in this regard.
-Provide settling distance required
The settling distance for the forebay in the
infiltration pond has been calculated to be
41m and the length of the forebay has
been lengthened accordingly. The FSR has
been updated and calculations have been
added accordingly.
Page 190 of 304
-Provide section drawing from inlet to just past check dam
A profile from the Inlet Headwall to past
the check dam has been added to Dwg. 4
– Servicing Plan.
-Provide pipe data on 600mm HDPE pipe between ponds
Inverts have been added to the 600mm
HDPE pipe between ponds.
Oxford County Public Works Comments (email dated January 7, 2022)
-confirm forcemain size; FSR indicates 100mm…DWGS indicate 75mm
The forcemain size has been corrected to
75mmø in the Functional Servicing Report
to match the drawings. The sizing will be
finalized in a Design Brief along with the
Sanitary Pumping Station design and plan
and profile drawings. The forcemain and
pumping station are part of the servicing
being provided by the Town of Tillsonburg
in accordance with the Purchase and Sales
Agreement with Armtec. A temporary
sewage holding tank has been sized to
provide 7 days capacity and is shown on
the Site Plan – Drawing 4 – Servicing Plan.
This holding tank will only need to be
installed if plant operations commence
ahead of obtaining an ECA and
constructing the forcemain and sewage
pumping station.
-As previously mentioned, the private side sewage pumping station shall
be owned and maintained by the Developer. This shall be stated in the
site plan agreement.
This is understood and accepted by the
Owner
-The forcemain within Rokeby right-of-way shall be installed, at no cost to
the County, and owned / operated by the County.
In accordance with the agreement
between Armtec and the Town of
Tillsonburg, this work will be carried out
by Armtec, but the cost will be
reimbursed by the Town to Armtec.
-With respect to the forcemain; The site plan agreement shall state that
the Owner agrees to provide a 12 months maintenance guarantee.
This is understood and accepted by the
Owner
-Adequate backflow prevention (RPZ assembly) shall be located
immediately inside each building on each water service – show on DWGS
The requirement for RPZ assembly
backflow prevention has been added to
Drawing 4 – Servicing Plan and referenced
to Site Plan Note 4 on Drawing 1.
Page 191 of 304
-The Owner shall have an Engineering consultant provide full time
inspection for installation of the forcemain
-With respect to the forcemain and other municipal services, as
constructed drawings shall be provided to the County
This is understood and accepted by the
Owner and is added as Site Plan Note 5 on
Drawing No. 1.
-With respect to the forcemain, An ECA application shall be submitted to
the County for review (including applicable fees)
The requirement to submit an ECA
application to the County for the
forcemain including applicable fees is
acknowledged. (Also see forcemain
comments above). An application will be
submitted to the County for review
(including applicable fees).
-Provide anticipated domestic demand water flows
Anticipated domestic water demands of
14505 L/day have been detailed in the
water supply and sewage flow sections of
the updated Functional Servicing Report.
Ministry of Transportation (email dated December 14, 2021)
-Site Plans, Site Grading Plans, Site Servicing Plans, Signage Plans and
shall be submitted to MTO for review and approval;
Application will be made to the MTO as
requested.
- Traffic Impact Study; to be submitted for MTO review and approval,
indicating the anticipated volumes of traffic and its impact upon the
Highway 3 and Bell Mill Side Rd signalized intersection.
A Traffic Impact Brief is being prepared
and will be submitted to the MTO for their
review and approval.
MTO Sign Permit: Will be required for this site; should any signage be
proposed within 400m and is visible from MTO property limits.
Application will be made to the MTO as
requested.
Trusting this is the information required for final approval of our Site Plan
Application.
Yours truly,
Herman Sinke, Pre-Construction Manager
GRASSMERE CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Cc. Jason Johnston, Armtec Inc
Peter Penner, CJDL Consulting Engineers
Mike Booth, President, Grassmere Construction
Page 192 of 304
Page 1 of 10
9 July 2021 21003
Rev. 1 – 25 October 2021
Rev. 2 – 21 January 2022
ARMTEC – ROKEBY ROAD
FUNCTIONAL SERVICING REPORT
TILLSONBURG - OXFORD COUNTY
Introduction and Background
Armtec recently purchased 64.87 acres (26.25 ha) of industrial land from the Town of Tillsonburg on the
north side of Rokeby Road and west of Bell Mill Road. The land is zoned MG -General Industrial which is
appropriate for the Armtec’s proposed pipe fabrication facility. The easterly 53.85 ac (21.79 ha) parcel is
legally described as Part of lot 10, Concession 4 North of Talbot Road, Geographic Township of Middleton
(Norfolk) now in the Town of Tillsonburg, County of Oxford and Lot 1641 Judge’s Plan Registered as 500,
Town of Tillsonburg, County of Oxford. The westerly 11.02 ac (4.46 ha) property is legally described as
Part of lot 10, Concession 4 North of Talbot Road, Geographic Township of Middleton (Norfolk) now in
the Town of Tillsonburg, County of Oxford and Lot 1641 Judge’s Plan Registered as 500, Town of
Tillsonburg, County of Oxford.
Armtec is proposing to construct three large buildings on the property. Please refer to the accompanying
Site Plan for size and location. The largest building will be for extruding plastic pipe and associated
fittings, etc. There will a building for fabrication corrugated steel pipe and associated fittings which will
also contain the required office space and equipment washing facilities. A third building located near
the northeast corner of the property will a non-heated storage building for various materials and
products and is referred to as the ‘Cold Storage Building”.
The site will include a large storage yard with areas for staging and loading trucks. The storage yards and
internal driveways are proposed to have gravel surfaces. MOE approved dust suppressants will be used
to control dust on driveways and staging areas as needed.
The wooded areas on the property were cleared and grubbed by the Town of Tillsonburg as stipulated in
the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. At the time of this report, burning of the piles of the remnant
stumps and brush is still in progress and some perimeter brush remains.
The initial phase of construction will utilise approximately 30 acres on the south-easterly side of the site.
The north-westerly 35 acres will not be developed at this time but may be used for topsoil storage during
phase 1 construction. Sand fill from the higher knolls on the future lands may be borrowed now to fill
low areas on Phase 1.
Page 193 of 304
Page 2 of 10
Sanitary Sewer
In accordance with the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, the Town of Tillsonburg is responsible for the
cost of the design and installation of a pumped sewage collection system that will convey sanitary
sewage from the site to an existing gravity sewer outlet on Bell Mill Road at the intersection of Rokeby
Road. The site is too low for a gravity sewer to be extended from Bell Mill Road. A gravity outlet is
possible to construct to the existing sewer stub at the east end of Rouse Street; however, the significant
length required along with the rail crossing and potential wet ground conditions make this option not
feasible for the low flows anticipated from the Armtec Site.
Sanitary sewage from the subject lands will be conveyed to the existing municipal collection system and
ultimately to the municipal treatment plant. The Municipality have confirmed capacity exists in the
collection system and the sewage treatment plant to accommodate increased inflows.
An internal gravity collection system will be installed by Armtec to convey flows from the Plastics and
the Steel/Office buildings to an onsite pumping facility located near the south-east corner of the Plastics
building. No sanitary collection will be provided to the ‘Cold Storage’ building.
Armtec Inc. expects a maximum of 125 employees per day with up to 70 for the day shift. Expected
flows are as follows:
1.125 Employees @ 75 l/day/employee = 9,375 l/day
2.HDPE closed loop chilling system = 200 liters/day
3.Wash Bay = 130 liters/day
4.CSP Mill (2@2,400l/d) = 4,800 liters/ day
14,505 liters/ day
The design flow to be used for the sanitary sewage system design is 14,505 liters average daily flow. A
Peaking factor of 7.8 times the average daily flow will be used for estimating peak hour flow and a
peaking factor of 3.5 is used for max day flow. Future expansion beyond the foregoing is not currently
contemplated and would require reassessment of the pumping station capacity. An E ONE model WH
484-122 with 4-pumps is currently under review with a 75mm diameter forcemain. A design brief for
the sanitary pumping station will be completed under separate cover on behalf of the Town of
Tillsonburg.
A Wilkinson model 7 precast sediment/oil interceptor will be installed for flows from the Wash bay and
the pit located in the plastics building for discharge to the sanitary collection system.
Sanitary flows from the subject lands are designed to be conveyed via force main north easterly along
the south side of Rokeby Road to existing Manhole 100 at the intersection of Rokeby Road and Bell Mill
Sideroad. Approximately 400 meters of external force main and 60+- meters of internal force main are
required. The force main will be installed via directional drilling at an approximate depth of 1.8 meters
to Bell Mill Side Road. The force main high point will be elevation 238.30+- west of Bell Mill Side Road
and drop to elevation 236.90+- at MH 100. The gravity inlet to the pumping station will be at elevation
233.60 resulting in a vertical rise in the force main of 4.7+- meters. The design brief for the pumping
Page 194 of 304
Page 3 of 10
station will include detailed flow information to support the forcemain sizing in accordance with the
Oxford County Design Standards.
The forcemain on Rokeby Road will require Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) from the Ministry
of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). If plant operations commence prior to receiving an
ECA a holding tank capable of containing 7 days of sewage flow (14.5m³/day x 7 days = 101.5m³) is
required.
Water Supply & Fire Flows
Water to the site will be via live tapping the 300mm diameter ductile iron watermain running east- west
on the north side of Rokeby Road across the property frontage. The live tap will be a 250mm diameter
located near the main entrance to the site. This will avoid the potential of an offset below the northerly
roadside ditch.
A Water Meter Chamber for Domestic and Fire Service will be installed per Oxford County standard
detail drawing D 1813-2019. The 3000mm diameter precast chamber will separate the Domestic and
Fire flows to the site. Only the Domestic side will be metered. The meter is proposed to be located in the
boulevard on the east side of the main entrance.
The Domestic feed will be 100mm diameter from the chamber to the south-east area of the Plastics
building. This feed will continue terminating near the south-west corner of the Steel Building which also
feeds the Office Building.
Armtec has advised that a 250mm feed for fire flows is required for the Plastics building sprinkler
system. This feed comes from the chamber and goes to the south-east area of the Plastics building. The
feed will reduce to 200mm for fire flows required at the Steel Building and continue northerly at 200mm
diameter to feed a hydrant near the Cold Storage Building near the north-east corner of the site. The
anticipated available supply from the main on Rokeby Road is 3591 to 3867 USG per min (226.5 to
244l/s) based on preliminary comments from the municipal water department.
The sprinkler designer for this project provided design flow requirements for the Plastics and Steel Pipe
Manufacturing Buildings.
Office and Steel Pipe Building – Class II standpipe system (building less than 25m high/less than 4000m²
building area)
-Standpipe requirement = 6.3 l/s (100 USGPM)
HDPE-Plastic Pipe Building – sprinkler system, plastics manufacturing, extra hazard II to NFPA 13
-Sprinkler requirement = 58 l/s (800 USGPM)
-NFPA would also require 31.5 l/s (500 USGPM) hose allowance from the closest hydrant.
The max day flow is only 0.6 l/s for the facility using a 3.5 peaking factor over the average day demands.
The maximum NFPA fire flow to the site is governed by the Plastics Building.
Sprinkler system + NFPA hydrant flow + max day domestic = 58 l/s + 31.5 l/s + 0.6 l/s = 90.1 l/s.
The Fire Underwaters Survey (FUS) have higher fire flow demands for the hydrants on site. Calculations
are included in the Appendix.
-HDPE-Plastic Pipe Building – external hydrant = 150 l/s
-Office/Steel Pipe Building – external hydrant = 106 l/s
Page 195 of 304
Page 4 of 10
-Cold Storage Building – external hydrant = 98 l/s
The maximum FUS fire flow is also for the Plastics Building.
Sprinkler system + FUS hydrant flow + max day domestic = 58 l/s + 150 l/s + 0.6 l/s = 208.6 l/s
The Cold Storage Building to the rear of the property has a hydrant located 50m from the principal
entrance and FUS requires 98 l/s for fire protection independent of the other buildings.
The on-site water distribution system needs to be able to provide fire flows of 208.6 l/s for the Plastics
Building and 98 l/s for the Cold Storage Building, not concurrently. The system capacity should be
confirmed with modelling by the Oxford County Public Works.
Hydro Supply
The initial electrical demand anticipated for this development is 3.6 MW. This is primarily driven by the
large electrical requirement to extrude plastic pipe. 3E Power services is completing a demand analysis
to confirm peak and base load power requirements and is consulting with Tillsonburg Hydro Inc. (THI)
and HONI to determine the most feasibly service provider to service this site for temporary power
during construction and for the permanent supply. It is understood that that both service providers can
accommodate Armtec’s electrical demands, however system upgrades will be required.
THI would need to extend their current grid from just North of the CNR crossing on Bell Mill Road, south
to Rokeby Road and west to the Armtec Site. This expansion to the THI grid could involve adding the THI
circuit to the HONI poles on Bell Mill Road and Rokeby Road which could require upgrading the existing
HONI pole line.
Natural Gas
Armtec does not require a significant supply of natural gas and the existing Enbridge distribution line on
Rokeby Road is expected to be sufficient to meet that need.
Communication
Armtec requires high speed communication via fiber optic service to this facility. Execulink has
confirmed that they have fiber optic plant available at Bell Mill Road that can be extended on Rokeby
Road to service the Armtec facility.
Traffic Generation
Rokeby Road is a Boundary Road between Norfolk County and the Town of Tillsonburg that is
maintained by the Town of Tillsonburg. It is currently a surface treated road and is planned to be
partially upgraded to a semi-urban standard in 2022.
Traffic generation to the Armtec Site will be for up to 125 employees at full build out generating 2 trips
per day per employee spread over 2 shifts plus up to 42 incoming trucks per day (full/part loads) for
receiving materials and supplies and shipping pipe products to their distributers. A few trips per day
may also occur from local contractors obtaining small quantities of construction supplies.
With truck traffic distributed over the daytime shift, an average volume of 10.5 trips trucks per hour is
anticipated. The day shifts are a maximum of 70 employees that should not cause any significant wait
times at the intersection of Rokeby Road and Bell Mill which are both low volume roads at that point.
The fully signalized and channelized intersection of Bell Mill Road and Hwy 3 is expected to handle the
additional traffic safely and without significant wait times.
Page 196 of 304
Page 5 of 10
If the Town does not reconstruct the full length of Rokeby Road to the west of the Armtec Site out to
County Road 30, truck traffic should be restricted to approaching and leaving the site from the east on
Rokeby Road. Appropriate signage could be posted to direct trucks accordingly.
Municipal Drain
The JA Smith Municipal Drain currently enters the south end of the site near the main driveway to
Rokeby Road through a 600mm culvert. The drain crosses the site diagonally, exiting to the west
through adjacent farmland. Armtec signed a petition to request relocation of the JA Smith Drain and
agreed to pay the full cost of the work required to benefit this site. The new alignment is requested to
flow along the south and west perimeter of the site, just outside the SWM Infiltration Pond next to the
10.7m treed buffer adjacent to Rokeby Road and wider triangular buffers along existing Residential
properties as shown on the site plan. This would be a combination of a closed and an open drain.
Tillsonburg Council appointed Spriet Associates to consider the request and design the appropriate
diversion. The drain sizing shown on the site plan is approximate and to be confirmed by the appointed
Drainage Engineer.
Geotechnical Report
Armtec retained EXP Services Inc. to investigate existing soils and ground water conditions with a series
of 14 boreholes. The field work was completed in February 2021 with subsequent monitoring of
monitoring wells completed in late March 2021. The site was found to be entirely native sand with the
water table located 1.8 to 2.7m below the ground surface. Conditions are well suited to the proposed
industrial development. Recommendations for road base design, soil strength for the building
foundation design and for SWM design are contained in the enclosed report.
The geotechnical report completed by EXP also reviewed the site potential for Low Impact Development
(LID) practices including infiltration. The report indicated the test hole locations have good potential for
use in LID stormwater management design including infiltration. The grain size distribution analyses
completed by EXP yielded an average estimated unfactored infiltration rate of 108 mm/hr.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN BRIEF
1.1.Constraint Review
The Town of Tillsonburg requires the following:
•post-development run-off is limited to pre-development levels for the 2 year through to 100
year storm event.
•storm sewers be designed to carry a 5 year storm event.
•Run-off coefficients and levels of imperviousness to reflect anticipated build-out.
The Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) typically identifies the following requirements:
•retain run-off from a 25.4 mm (1") quality storm for 24 hours;
•attenuate post-development run-off to pre-development levels up to a 100 year storm event;
•ensure soil conservation by erosion and sedimentation control included during construction.
On other recent subdivisions, LPRCA identified the following additional requirements that are applicable
to this site:
Page 197 of 304
Page 6 of 10
•maximize infiltration from Stormwater Management Pond
•minimize erosion concerns over pond outlet.
Controls are not required to restrict regional storms. However, the design will allow for minor ponding to
occur during some major storm events within the gravel area adjacent to the infiltration pond, with depths
of less than 300 mm with no flooding of any existing or proposed buildings.
The infiltration pond side slopes will be 4:1 maximum. The SWM facility has been designed in accordance
with the Town of Tillsonburg Design Guidelines, Oxford County Design Guidelines, LPRCA requirements
and referencing best practices from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) 2003
Design Guidelines. Site grading will be implemented to ensure major flows are directed towards the on-
site SWM facilities and to ensure flooding of adjacent lots will be avoided. The SWM facility will have a
6.0m wide access road for maintenance access of both the pond and the relocated Municipal Drain. An
open area has been provided along the pond to ensure there is sufficient room for any maintenance work.
The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks generally requires that the Outlet Control
Structure be relatively maintenance free and placed in an accessible location on the pond bank.
1.2.Best Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Selection
After consideration of various SWMP’s and review of aforementioned constraints, an infiltration pond
design was decided to provide quantity and quality control for the development while encouraging
infiltration to mitigate impact to the site water balance under post-development conditions. As a
conservative design, infiltration was only considered through the bottom of the pond, although some
infiltration will occur along the side slopes under ponding conditions.
1.3.Design of Pond and Storm Drainage System
The Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices Manual published in June 1991 by the MECP, Page
91, states that the criteria and preferences of the differing reviewing agencies can be summarized as
follows:
MECP - Ponds should act as a sedimentation basin (top draw).
MNR - Ponds should minimize thermal impact (bottom draw), extended detention ponds may be more
suitable.
CA - Pond must provide peak flow and erosion control.
MUN - Pond must provide peak flow control, maintenance must be addressed.
The Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual published in March 2003 by the MECP further
expands criteria and terminology.
The normal operating levels on the ponds are a function of pond area and depth to free outlet available.
The outlets and emergency overflow spillways should be sized to carry the 100-year flows from the design
tributary area.
Criteria as described under Constraint Review, Best Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Selection and
at the opening of this section have been satisfied as follows:
i)The infiltration pond will provide extended detention of run-off from an approximate 25.4 mm
(1") stream bank erosion/quality storm event producing 40 m3/ha of maximum storage that is
released over an extended period as controlled by a flow control device (orifice).
ii)The infiltration pond will provide an enhanced protection level (80% TSS Removal) based on an
85% impervious catchment area requiring 40 m3/ha of storage for infiltration.
iii)Initial flows are directed away from the pond outlet allowing optimum performance as a sediment
Page 198 of 304
Page 7 of 10
basin, with a sediment trap located at the stormwater system inlet to the pond.
iv)The pond outlet control structures are designed as a top draw for the more frequent (25.4 mm
(1") stream bank/erosion quality storms, once the infiltration storage has been exceeded.
Overflows for less frequent larger storms will also be operated as a top draw. All structures are
designed to be relatively maintenance free.
v)Infiltration pond provides post to pre-development attenuation for 2 to 100 year quantity flows
and 25.4 mm (1") quality storm control.
vi)Shallow 4:1 slopes will be easy to maintain and should be safe for the public without need of
fencing.
vii) The grassed pond will encourage infiltration in the porous native soil.
1.4.Hydraulic Analysis Results and Discussion
Design of the pond is comparable to SWM areas for similar developments previously designed by this
office. As mentioned above, an SSA model has been developed for the modelling of the SWM facility
proposed for the site.
The 2 year and 100 year pre-development run-off from the entire site was calculated using 2%
imperviousness with a curve number (CN=67), which accounts for the native soil conditions. The amount
of storage for both the 2 year and 100 year post-development events was calculated using 85%
imperviousness with a curve number (CN=76) for the proposed gravel and 15% perviousness with a curve
number (CN=49) for fair grass cover. Outflows from the pond were limited down to the previously
determined pre-development levels up to the 100 year storm. The maximum required storage volume was
determined for the duration of the storm event for the pond. All storm flows are designed to have
unrestricted access to the pond/basin.
1.4.1.Autodesk® Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA) 2020 Computation
A detailed hydraulic analysis with computer modelling was completed using Autodesk® Storm and
Sanitary Analysis (SSA) 2020.
The following analysis options were selected;
Single Event AnalysisDesign Model Storms – Current 2010 MTO IDF Curves applied to a Chicago Storm DistributionSubbasin Hydrograph Method – EPA SWMMInfiltration Method – SCS Curve Number (although infiltration was not considered in modelling)
Link Routing Method – Hydrodynamic
Complete pre-development and post-development SSA modelling results have been included in the
Appendices which outlines a detailed description of all input parameters, output results and modelling
schematics.
1.4.2.Pre-Development Model
This section provides an outline of the pre-development conditions for the subject lands. A computer
model was developed in SSA to mimic these existing conditions and to determine the pre-development
peak flow and total runoff from each pre-development tributary area.
The pre-development run-off from the entire site and tributary external lands were calculated using 2%
imperviousness with a curve number (CN=67), which accounts for the native soil conditions.
Page 199 of 304
Page 8 of 10
Table 1 below summarizes the pre-development peak outflows, which are the limits for post-
development conditions. Please refer to the Appendices for tributary area figures, modelling schematics,
a list of input parameters and output results.
Table 1 Pre-Development Peak Outflows
Design Storm Peak Outflow (m3/s)
25.4mm –4 Hr Quality Storm 0.03
2 – Year 0.06
5 – Year 0.14
10 – Year 0.21
25 – Year 0.34
50 – Year 0.45
100 - Year 0.58
1.4.3.Post-Development Model
The post-development model was developed to mimic the site conditions when the Armtec facility is
fully constructed. The entirety of the 25.1ha site was considered tributary to the proposed infiltration
pond, apart from the area occupied by the relocated Municipal Drain.
Total Drainage Area 25.1 ha
Pre-development Imperviousness 2%
Pre-development Curve Number 67.0
Post-development Imperviousness 85%
Post-Development Impervious Curve Number 76.0
Post-Development Perviousness 15%
Post-Development Pervious Curve Number 49.0
Storage Volumes
i)Water Quality (MOE Manual Table 3.2) Enhanced - 80% S.S. Removal
Infiltration 40.0 m3/ha 1,005 m3
Extended Detention 40.0 m3/ha 1,005 m3
ii) Streambank Erosion /Quality
(MOE Manual - 25 mm (1") run-off/24 hr)1,250 m3
iii) Active-Water Quantity Pre to Post 13,915 m3
The total pond volume required includes the infiltration volume (1,004 m3) and the active volume (13,915
m3) for a total of 14,920 m3. The active volume provided will include the extended detention volume
required. The active storage volume has been determined by maintaining run-off to pre-development
levels for the 1 in 100 year storm event.
From the geotechnical investigation competed by EXP, an average estimated unfactored infiltration rate of
108 mm/hr was determined. Based on the guidelines in the Low Impact Development Stormwater
Management Planning and Design Guide by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA) and the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the recommended safety correction factor for soil
horizons that are continuous for 1.5m or greater below the bottom of the infiltration pond is 2.5. Using a
safety correction factor of 2.5 yields a design infiltration rate of 43 mm/hr. Based on the approximate
Page 200 of 304
Page 9 of 10
bottom surface area of the pond (5,600 m2), the pond is capable of infiltrating approximately 240 m3/hr
(0.07 m3/s).
The SSA modelling has been completed based on Phase 1 of the site development (south-easterly 30 acres)
and full build-out of the site (remaining north-westerly 35 acres). The extent of the infiltration pond
proposed to be constructed with Phase 1 of the site development is sized to allow for restriction of post-
development outflows to pre-development levels, as well as maintaining the same 100-year ponding
elevation within the infiltration pond. The remainder of the pond within Phase 2 of the site development
(north-westerly 35 acres) is proposed to be constructed as the remainder of the site is developed.
The sediment trap length was set to 41m based on the calculated settling distance for sediment in the
infiltration channel, as shown in the calculation sheet provided in the appendices. There is an additional
flow length of 215m from the end of the sediment trap to the outlet control chamber. The anticipated
cleanout frequency for the sediment trap is 10 years, based on the 3.7ha area tributary to this location. In
accordance with the MECP Stormwater Management Manual (2003), the infiltration basin has a length to
width ratio greater than 3:1 (approx. 13:1), to increase sediment flow lengths and encourage settlement.
Table 2 Post-Development Modelling Results & Comparison
STORM
RETURN
PERIOD
PRE-
DEVELOPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT
PEAK OUTFLOW
(m3/s)
UNCONTROLLED
PEAK
OUTLFOW
(m3/s)
CONTROLLED
PEAK
OUTFLOW
(m3/s)
MAX. PONDING
ELEVATION IN
SWM POND
(m)
25mm 4-Hr –
QUALITY 0.03 0.29 0.01 233.64
2-Year 0.06 0.79 0.04 233.93
5-Year 0.14 1.21 0.13 234.11
10-Year 0.21 1.51 0.20 234.21
25-Year 0.34 1.91 0.32 234.37
50-Year 0.45 2.22 0.44 234.45
100-Year 0.58 2.53 0.55 234.54
Page 201 of 304
Page 10 of 10
Respectfully submitted,
Peter J. Penner, P. Eng.
Page 202 of 304
APPENDICES
J.A. Smith Drain – 1974 Weselan Plan
Armtec Storm Drainage System and Areas
Armtec Storm Design Sheet
Armtec Pre-Development Model Schematic
Armtec Post-Development Model Schematic
Draft Geotechnical Report for Armtec Development – EXP 2021
Draft Geotechnical Report for Armtec Development - EXP 2021
Settling Distance Calculations
Draft Geotechnical Report for Armtec Development - EXP 2021
FUS Fire Flow Calculations
Page 203 of 304
Page 204 of 304
Page 205 of 304
125
111115116
126
139
1
1918
2425282961
33
344748545562 74
7587
88 100
101110
AAO/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
B
B
NOR
F
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
NOR
F
O
L
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
TOW
N
O
F
TI
L
L
S
O
N
B
U
R
G
Cyril J. Demeyere Limited
P.O. Box 460, 261 Broadway
Tillsonburg, Ontario. N4G 4H8
Tel: 519-688-1000
866-302-9886
Fax: 519-842-3235
cjdl@cjdleng.com
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
7
CON
C
E
S
SI
O
N
R
O
A
D
3 (
R
O
K
E
B
Y
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
D.)
CULTI
V
A
T
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
EX. R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
LCULTIVATED LANDSWOODLANDSPage 206 of 304
Peak flow = 2.778ACi l/s DATE:
Manning Q = 1000n-1AR0.667s0.5 l/s DESIGNED BY:
PROJECT:5-Year Intensity= 30.8/(t/60)^-0.699 mm/hr CHECKED BY:
MUNICIPALITY:Inlet time= t in minutes JOB No.:
Return Period (Yr.)5 15 min SHEET:1 of 1
SECT.ACCUM.
1 CB9C CB9B 0.43 0.43 0.65 0.280 0.280 0.778 USE 15.00 81 63.0 300 0.013 0.50 68.4 0.97 54.7 0.94
2 CB9B CB9A 0.21 0.64 0.70 0.147 0.427 1.186 0.94 15.94 78 92.5 375 0.013 0.35 103.7 0.94 33.7 0.60
3 CB9A CBMH9 0.23 0.87 0.60 0.138 0.565 1.570 0.60 16.54 76 119.3 450 0.013 0.30 156.2 0.98 30.0 0.51
4 CBMH9 CBMH7 0.18 1.05 0.90 0.162 0.727 2.020 0.51 17.05 74 149.5 450 0.013 0.30 156.2 0.98 32.6 0.55
5 CB8C CB8B 0.11 0.11 0.75 0.083 0.083 0.231 USE 15.00 81 18.7 300 0.013 0.50 68.4 0.97 34.7 0.60
6 CB8B CB8A 0.43 0.54 0.75 0.323 0.406 1.128 0.60 15.60 79 89.1 375 0.013 0.35 103.7 0.94 30.3 0.54
7 CB8A CBMH8 0.30 0.84 0.80 0.240 0.646 1.795 0.54 16.14 77 138.2 450 0.013 0.30 156.2 0.98 28.8 0.49
8 CBMH8 CBMH7 0.28 1.12 0.90 0.252 0.898 2.495 0.49 16.63 76 189.6 525 0.013 0.25 215.0 0.99 32.5 0.55
9 CBMH7 CBMH6 0.06 2.23 0.90 0.054 1.679 4.664 0.55 17.60 73 340.5 675 0.013 0.25 420.3 1.17 29.0 0.41
10 CBMH6 CBMH1 0.30 2.53 0.90 0.270 1.949 5.414 0.41 18.01 71 384.4 675 0.013 0.25 420.3 1.17 36.6 0.52
11 CB5A CBMH5 0.14 0.14 0.60 0.084 0.084 0.233 USE 15.00 81 18.9 300 0.013 0.50 68.4 0.97 77.0 1.32
12 CBMH5 CBMH4 0.29 0.43 0.75 0.218 0.302 0.839 1.32 16.32 77 64.6 375 0.013 0.33 100.7 0.91 38.6 0.71
13 CBMH4 CBMH3 0.19 0.62 0.80 0.152 0.454 1.261 0.71 17.03 74 93.3 450 0.013 0.30 156.2 0.98 35.7 0.61
14 CBMH3 CBMH2 0.20 0.82 0.80 0.160 0.614 1.706 0.61 17.64 72 122.8 450 0.013 0.30 156.2 0.98 36.8 0.63
15 CBMH2 CBMH1 0.13 0.95 0.85 0.111 0.725 2.014 0.63 18.27 71 143.0 525 0.013 0.22 201.7 0.93 58.7 1.05
16 CBMH1 CHANNEL 0.23 3.71 0.90 0.207 2.881 8.003 1.05 19.32 68 544.2 750 0.013 0.25 556.6 1.26 72.9 0.96
1 UPDATED STM DESIGN 08/10/2021 AVM
NO.REVISION DATE (D/M/Y)BY
October 25, 2021
21003
CAPACITY
(l/s)
VELOCITY
(m/s)
LENGTH
(m)
TIME OF
FLOW
(min.)
JP
PJP
n SLOPE
(%)
TOTAL
(ha)
∆
A*C
TOTAL
A*C
TOTAL
2.778 A*CAREASTREETFROM
MH
TO
MH
∆ A
(ha)
website: www.cjdleng.com
e-mail: cjdl@cjdleng.com IDF Curve Based On
LOCATION Area - A
CYRIL J. DEMEYERE LIMITED STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET - METRIC
PHONE: (519) 688-1000 TILLSONBURG - OXFORD COUNTY
FAX: (519)842-3235
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
BOX 460, TILLSONBURG, N4G 4H8 ARMTEC SITE PLAN
MTO 2010 - IDF Online Application V3
PIPE SIZE
(mm)
TIME OF CONC.
(MIN)RAINFALL
INTENSIT
Y (mm/hr)
PEAK
FLOW
(l/s)
RUNOFF
COEFF.
'C'
A X C SEWER DATA
Page 207 of 304
Page 208 of 304
ARMTEC
POST-DEVELOPMENT MODEL
Page 209 of 304
SETTLEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS
MECP SWM PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL, 2003
0.52 m³/s
0.01 m³/s
1.50 m³/s
3.2 m
8 m
41 m
45.8 m
12.8 :1
DEPTH 0.6 m
VOLUME OF SEDIMENT TRAP POOL 145 m3
VOLUME OF TOTAL INFILTRATION POOL 1140 m3
13%< 20%
QP 0.01 m³/s
VS 0.0003 m/s SETTLING VELOCITY
r 12.81
Dist 20.7
Q 1.5 m³/s
Vf 0.5 m/s DESIRED VELOCITY IN BASIN
d 0.6 m
Dist 40.0
Dist 40.0
Provided Dist 41
CLEANOUT FREQUENCY
TABLE 6.3: ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING
85 %
3.8 m³/ha
3.7 ha
145 m³
VOLUME/YEAR 14.06 m³/year
10.3 > 10 years
FOREBAY VELOCITY
Q 1.5 m³/s FLOW INTO FOREBAY DURING 10 YEAR STORM EVENT
S1 4 :1 SECTION SLOPE
A 3.4 m²CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA OF FOREBAY
Velocity 0.446 m/s < 0.45m/s
DESIGN INFLOWS
FLOW INTO FOREBAY DURING 10 YEAR STORM EVENT
FLOW INTO FOREBAY DURING 25mm - 4 HOUR (QUALITY) STORM EVENT
PEAK FLOW FROM MAIN POND OUTLET FOR THE 25mm DESIGN STORM
PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
AVERAGE WIDTH (BOTTOM)
AVERAGE WIDTH (TOP)
LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO (BOTTOM)
LENGTH (BOTTOM)
LENGTH (TOP)
CLEANOUT FREQUENCY (>10 YEARS)
PEAK FLOW FROM MAIN POND OUTLET FOR THE 25mm DESIGN STORM
LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO (BOTTOM)
EQUATION 4.5: SETTLING LENGTH
EQUATION 4.6: DISPERSION LENGTH
FLOW INTO BASIN DURING 10 YEAR STORM EVENT
DEPTH OF SETTLING POOL IN BASIN
SEDIMENT BASIN VOLUME
TRIBUTARY HECTARAGE
ANNUAL LOADING
CATCHMENT IMPERVIOUSNESS
Page 210 of 304
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
ARMTEC SITE PLAN
PROJECT No.21003
FIRE UNDERWRITERS SURVEY FIRE DEMAND CALCULATIONS DATE:21-Jan-22
DESIGN BY:JNP
CHECKED BY:AVM
COLD STORAGE BUILDING
Average Floor Area 847.7 m2
No.Storeys 1
Gross Floor Area 848 m2
Building Height 8.84 m (Height to Underside of Roof Deck, Not Including Crawl Space Below Ground) (OBC Section 3)
Type of Sprinkler System
Fire Resistance/Separation 1.0 h
Building Class F3
Construction Type
Building Contents (Occupancy)(Appendix FUS, 1999)
C 0.8 (Construction Type Coefficient) (FUS, 1999)
1)Base Fire Flow 5124.29 L/min (F=220*C*√Gross Floor Area)(FUS, 1999)
2)Occupancy Safety Rating 15%(Occupancy Safety Rating FUS, 1999)
Revised Fire Flow (F)5892.93 L/min (Fire Flow After Step 2)
3)Sprinkler System Reduction (As)0%(Sprinkler System Reduction FUS, 1999)
Fire Flow Reduction (RF)0.00 L/min (Fire Flow Reduction From Step 3)(F*As)
4)Exposed Structures Factor
SFRONT 0.0%(Distance =213.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SLEFT 0.0%(Distance =1350.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SRIGHT 0.0%(Distance =187.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SREAR 0.0%(Distance =98.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
Party Wall Building Separation 0.0%No Building Has Unpierced Party Wall/Firewall Boundary
SSUM 0.0%
Increase In Fire Flow (IF)0.0 L/min (Fire Flow Increase After Step 4)(F*Ssum)(FUS, 1999)
5)Final Fire Flow 5892.93 L/min (Final Fire Flow = F - RF + IF) (FUS, 1999)
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 5893.00 L/min
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 98 L/s
No.BY DATEREVISION
Non-Combustible Construction (Unprotected Metal Structural Components, Masonry or Metal Walls)
Free Burning
None
Page 211 of 304
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
ARMTEC SITE PLAN
PROJECT No.21003
FIRE UNDERWRITERS SURVEY FIRE DEMAND CALCULATIONS DATE:21-Jan-22
DESIGN BY:JNP
CHECKED BY:AVM
PLASTIC BUILDING
Average Floor Area 7201.9 m2
No.Storeys 1
Gross Floor Area 7202 m2
Building Height 9.75 m (Height to Underside of Roof Deck, Not Including Crawl Space Below Ground) (OBC Section 3)
Type of Sprinkler System
Fire Resistance/Separation 1.0 h
Building Class F3
Construction Type
Building Contents (Occupancy)(Appendix FUS, 1999)
C 0.8 (Construction Type Coefficient) (FUS, 1999)
1)Base Fire Flow 14936.07 L/min (F=220*C*√Gross Floor Area)(FUS, 1999)
2)Occupancy Safety Rating 15%(Occupancy Safety Rating FUS, 1999)
Revised Fire Flow (F)17176.48 L/min (Fire Flow After Step 2)
3)Sprinkler System Reduction (As)-50%(Sprinkler System Reduction FUS, 1999)
Fire Flow Reduction (RF)-8588.24 L/min (Fire Flow Reduction From Step 3)(F*As)
4)Exposed Structures Factor
SFRONT 0.0%(Distance =147.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SLEFT 0.0%(Distance =220.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SRIGHT 2.3%(Distance =38.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SREAR 0.0%(Distance =213.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
Party Wall Building Separation 0.0%No Building Has Unpierced Party Wall/Firewall Boundary
SSUM 2.3%
Increase In Fire Flow (IF)400.8 L/min (Fire Flow Increase After Step 4)(F*Ssum)(FUS, 1999)
5)Final Fire Flow 8989.02 L/min (Final Fire Flow = F - RF + IF) (FUS, 1999)
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 8990.00 L/min
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 150 L/s
No.BY DATEREVISION
Sprinkler System With Proper Monitoring (Water Flow and Control Valve Alarm Service)
Non-Combustible Construction (Unprotected Metal Structural Components, Masonry or Metal Walls)
Free Burning
Page 212 of 304
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
ARMTEC SITE PLAN
PROJECT No.21003
FIRE UNDERWRITERS SURVEY FIRE DEMAND CALCULATIONS DATE:21-Jan-22
DESIGN BY:JNP
CHECKED BY:AVM
STEEL BUILDING
Average Floor Area 2181.5 m2
No.Storeys 1
Gross Floor Area 2182 m2
Building Height 7.62 m (Height to Underside of Roof Deck, Not Including Crawl Space Below Ground) (OBC Section 3)
Type of Sprinkler System
Fire Resistance/Separation 1.0 h
Building Class F3
Construction Type
Building Contents (Occupancy)(Appendix FUS, 1999)
C 0.8 (Construction Type Coefficient) (FUS, 1999)
1)Base Fire Flow 8220.37 L/min (F=220*C*√Gross Floor Area)(FUS, 1999)
2)Occupancy Safety Rating 0%(Occupancy Safety Rating FUS, 1999)
Revised Fire Flow (F)8220.37 L/min (Fire Flow After Step 2)
3)Sprinkler System Reduction (As)-25%(Sprinkler System Reduction FUS, 1999)
Fire Flow Reduction (RF)-2055.09 L/min (Fire Flow Reduction From Step 3)(F*As)
4)Exposed Structures Factor
SFRONT 0.0%(Distance =160.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SLEFT 2.3%(Distance =38.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SRIGHT 0.0%(Distance =140.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
SREAR 0.0%(Distance =218.00 m) (FUS, 1999)
Party Wall Building Separation 0.0%No Building Has Unpierced Party Wall/Firewall Boundary
SSUM 2.3%
Increase In Fire Flow (IF)191.8 L/min (Fire Flow Increase After Step 4)(F*Ssum)(FUS, 1999)
5)Final Fire Flow 6357.08 L/min (Final Fire Flow = F - RF + IF) (FUS, 1999)
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 6358.00 L/min
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 106 L/s
No.BY DATEREVISION
Sprinkler System Without Proper Monitoring (Water Flow and Control Valve Alarm Service)
Non-Combustible Construction (Unprotected Metal Structural Components, Masonry or Metal Walls)
Combustible
Page 213 of 304
15701 Robin’s Hill Road | London, Ontario | Canada
t: +1.519.963.3000 | f: +1.519.963.1152 | exp.com
Geotechnical Investigation
DRAFT REPORT
Armtec
Project Name:
Proposed Armtec Plant
Rokeby Orchard Road
Tillsonburg, Ontario
Project Number:
LON-21001731-A0
Prepared By:
EXP Services Inc.
15701 Robin’s Hill Road
London, Ontario, N5V 0A5
t: +1.519.963.3000
f: +1.519.963.1152
Date Submitted:
April 12, 2020
Page 214 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
i
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Geotechnical Investigation
Armtec
Type of Document:
Draft Report
Project Name:
Proposed Armtec Plant
Rokeby Orchard Road
Tillsonburg, Ontario
Project Number:
LON-21001731-A0
Prepared and Reviewed By:
EXP Services Inc.
15701 Robins Hill Road
London, ON, N5V 0A5
Canada
t: +1.519.963.3000
f: +1.519.963.1152
DRAFT
_______________________________
Eric M. Buchanan, P.Eng.
Geotechnical Services
DRAFT
_______________________________
David G. Speller, P.Eng.
Senior Engineer, Geotechnical Services
Date Submitted:
April 12, 2020
Page 215 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
ii
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................................................... 1
2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
3. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Soil Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Topsoil ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Fill ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Sand .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Methane Gas ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Excavation and Groundwater Control ............................................................................................................... 7
Excess Soil Management ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Excavations ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Excavation Support ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Construction Dewatering .................................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Foundations .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Conventional Strip and Spread Footings ........................................................................................................... 10
Foundations - General ....................................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Slab-on-Grade Construction ............................................................................................................................ 12
4.5 Foundation Backfill ......................................................................................................................................... 13
4.6 Site Servicing ................................................................................................................................................... 13
4.7 Low Impact Development (LID) ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.8 Stormwater Management Facility (SWMF) Construction................................................................................. 15
Earth Liner ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Artificial Liner .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Other SWMF Considerations............................................................................................................................. 16
Inlet/Outlet Structures ...................................................................................................................................... 16
4.9 Groundwater Consideration ............................................................................................................................ 17
4.10 Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 17
4.11 Site Pavement Design ...................................................................................................................................... 18
4.12 Curbs and Sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Page 216 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
iii
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
4.13 Methane Gas Testing ....................................................................................................................................... 20
4.14 Inspection and Testing Requirements ............................................................................................................. 21
5. GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendices
Drawings
Appendix A – Borehole Logs
Appendix B – Grain Size Analyses
Appendix C – Inspection and Testing Schedule
Appendix D – Limitations and Use of Report
Legal Notification
Page 217 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
1
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
EXP Services Inc. (EXP) was retained by Armtec (Client) to carry out a geotechnical investigation and prepare a
geotechnical report relating to the proposed development on Rokeby Orchard Road in Tillsonburg, Ontario,
hereinafter referred to as the ‘Site’. Based on information provided by the client, it is understood the proposed
development will consist of two (2) industrial buildings, loading, staging/bundling and storage areas, access roads
and parking lots.
Based on an interpretation of the factual test hole data and a review of soil and groundwater information from test
holes advanced at the site, EXP has provided geotechnical engineering guidelines to support the proposed Site
development.
1.2 Terms of Reference
The geotechnical investigation was generally completed in accordance with the scope of work outlined through EXP’s
Proposal P20-474 dated December 23rd, 2020. Authorization to proceed with this investigation was received from
Mr. Peter Penner, P.Eng. of Cyril J. Demeyere Limited (CJDL) on behalf of the Client.
The purpose of the investigation was to examine the subsoil and groundwater conditions at the site by advancing a
series of boreholes at the locations illustrated on the attached Borehole Location Plan (Drawing 1).
Based on an interpretation of the factual borehole data, and a review of soil and groundwater information from test
holes advanced at the site, EXP Services Inc. has provided engineering guidelines for the geotechnical design and
construction of the proposed development. More specifically, this report provides comments on site preparation,
excavations, dewatering, foundations, slab-on-grade construction, site servicing, low impact development (LID)
opportunities, stormwater management facility construction, seismic design considerations, pavement design, and
curbs and sidewalks.
This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented above, and on the assumption that the design
will be in accordance with applicable codes and standards. If there are any changes in the design features relevant
to the geotechnical analyses, or if any questions arise concerning geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards,
this office should be contacted to review the design.
The information in this report in no way reflects on the environmental aspects of the soil. Should specific information
in this regard be needed, additional testing may be required.
Reference is made to Appendix D of this report, which contains further information necessary for the proper
interpretation and use of this report.
Page 218 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
2
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
2. Methodology
The fieldwork was carried out on February 23rd and 24th, 2021. In general, the geotechnical investigation consisted
of the advancement of fourteen (14) boreholes at the locations denoted on Drawing 1 as BH1 to BH14.
Prior to the drilling, buried service clearances were obtained for the test hole locations by EXP.
The boreholes were completed by a specialist drilling subcontractor under the full-time supervision of EXP
geotechnical staff. The boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of 6.6 m utilizing a track-mounted drill rig
equipped with continuous flight solid and hollow stem augers, soil sampling and soil testing equipment. In each
borehole, disturbed soil samples were recovered at depth intervals of 0.75 m and 1.5 m using conventional split
spoon sampling equipment and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) methods or auger samples.
During the drilling, the stratigraphy in the boreholes was examined and logged in the field by EXP geotechnical
personnel.
Short-term groundwater levels within the open test holes were observed. These observations pertaining to
groundwater conditions at the test hole locations are recorded in the borehole logs found in Appendix A. Following
the drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with the excavated materials and bentonite, to satisfy the requirements
of O.Reg. 903.
Representative samples of the various soil strata encountered at the test locations were taken to our laboratory in
London for further examination by a Geotechnical Engineer and laboratory classification testing. Laboratory testing
for this investigation comprised eight (8) grain size analyses with results shown graphically in Appendix B and routine
moisture content determinations, with results presented on the borehole logs found in Appendix A.
Samples remaining after the classification testing will be stored for a period of three months following the issuance
of report (i.e., until June 2020). After this time, they will be discarded unless prior arrangements have been made
for longer storage.
The location of each test hole was established in the field in conjunction with a site plan provided by the Client.
Ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were surveyed by CJDL and provided to EXP.
Page 219 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
3
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
3. Site and Subsurface Conditions
3.1 Site Description
The subject area is currently covered in agricultural fields and forested areas. A drain crosses the southern part of
the property. The Site is bounded by CN railway tracks to the north, Rokeby Orchard Road to the south, forested
areas and agricultural fields to the west and an industrial building and forested area to the east. The following
sections provide a summary of the soil and groundwater conditions.
3.2 Soil Stratigraphy
The detailed stratigraphy encountered in each test hole is shown on the borehole logs found in Appendix A and
summarized in the following paragraphs. It must be noted that the boundaries of the soil indicated on the borehole
logs are inferred from non-continuous sampling and observations during drilling. These boundaries are intended to
reflect transition zones for geotechnical design and should not be interpreted as exact planes of geological change.
Topsoil
Each borehole was surfaced with a layer of topsoil ranging between 250 mm and 400 mm in thickness. The topsoil
was generally described as black in colour and silty.
It should be noted that topsoil quantities should not be established from the information provided at the borehole
locations only. If required, a more detailed analysis (involving shallow test pits) is recommended to accurately
quantify the amount of topsoil to be removed for construction purposes.
Fill
Below the topsoil and extending to 0.8 m and 2.1 m below ground surface (bgs) in Boreholes BH7 and BH9,
respectively, was a layer of sand fill. In general, the sand fill was brown in colour, fine to medium grained, with trace
clay, trace to some silt and very loose to loose in compactness (based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N Values
of 3 to 6 blows per 300 mm split spoon sampler penetration). Laboratory testing of the sand fill yielded in situ
moisture contents of 7 to 11 percent, indicative of moist conditions.
Trace organics was encountered within the sand fill in Boreholes BH7 and BH9.
Sand
Each borehole was terminated in a stratum of sand. The sand was typically brown becoming grey in colour with
depth, fine to medium grained, contained trace to some silt and occasionally trace clay. It was typically loose to
compact in relative density (typical SPT N Values of 4 to 22) and moist to wet (based on tactile examination and in
situ moisture contents of 4 to 29 percent).
Page 220 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
4
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
3.3 Groundwater Conditions
Two (2) monitoring wells were installed during the drilling on February 23rd and 24th, 2021 at the Site. The wells were
installed to depths of approximately 4.6 m bgs. The summary of well construction details and stabilized groundwater
levels are presented in the tables below.
Table 1 – Monitoring Well Construction Details
Well ID Ground Surface
Elevation (m)
Completion Depth
(m bgs)
Screen Length
(m)
BH3/MW 235.24 4.57 1.52
BH8/MW 235.55 4.57 1.52
Table 2 – Stabilized Groundwater Levels
Well ID Ground Surface Elevation
(m)
Depth to Groundwater, m bgs
(Groundwater Elevation, m)
March 12, 2021 March 30, 2021
BH3/MW 235.24 2.11
(233.13)
2.14
(233.10)
BH8/MW 235.55 2.30
(233.25)
2.26
(233.29)
The monitoring wells have been registered with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), in
accordance with Ontario Regulation 903, and remain intact for the purposes of ongoing monitoring of stabilized
groundwater conditions, as required.
Details of the groundwater conditions observed within the test holes are provided on the attached borehole logs.
Upon completion of drilling, the open test holes were examined for the presence of groundwater and groundwater
seepage. Groundwater was measured near depths of 1.8 m to 2.7 m bgs in the boreholes without monitoring wells
upon completion of drilling.
It is noted that insufficient time was available for the measurement of the depth to the stabilized groundwater table
prior to backfilling the test holes.
It is also noted that the depth to the groundwater table may vary in response to climatic or seasonal conditions, and,
as such, may differ at the time of construction, with higher levels in wet seasons. Capillary rise effects should also
be anticipated in fine-grained soil deposits.
Page 221 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
5
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
3.4 Methane Gas
No methane gas producing materials or significant organic matter was encountered at the borehole locations, except
a thin veneer of topsoil.
An RKI Gx-2003 Gas Detector was used in the upper levels of the open boreholes. The unit measures LEL
combustibles, methane gas, oxygen content, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide in standard confined space
gases. No significant methane gas concentration was detected in the boreholes.
Page 222 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
6
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
4. Discussion and Recommendations
Based on information provided by the client, it is understood that the development will consist of two (2) industrial
buildings, loading, staging/bundling and storage areas, access roads and parking lots.
The following sections of this report provide geotechnical comments and recommendations regarding site
preparation, excavations, dewatering, foundations, slab-on-grade construction, site servicing, low impact
development (LID) opportunities, stormwater management facility construction, seismic design considerations,
pavement design, and curbs and sidewalks.
4.1 Site Preparation
Prior to placement of foundations and/or engineered fill, any surficial topsoil, vegetation and/or otherwise
deleterious materials should be stripped. The surficial topsoil may be stockpiled on site for possible reuse for
landscaping.
Following the removal of the topsoil and deleterious materials and prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade
should be inspected by a Geotechnical Engineer. Any loose or soft zones noted in the inspection should be over-
excavated and replaced with approved fill. In the area of the proposed buildings, it is expected that the loose, natural
sand will be recompacted as per the recommendations in Section 4.3.1.
It is understood that a municipal drain crosses the southern portion of the Site and crosses the proposed building
area. The procedures for inspection of the proposed subgrade, backfilling and compaction should be completed as
outlined below and in the following sections.
It is recommended that construction traffic be minimized on the finished subgrade, and that the subgrade be sloped
to promote surface drainage and runoff.
In the footprint of the proposed buildings where the grade will be raised, the fill material should comprise imported
granular or approved onsite (excavated) material. The fill material should be inspected and approved by a
Geotechnical Engineer, be placed in maximum 300 mm (12 inch) thick loose lifts and uniformly compacted to
100 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) within 3 percent of optimum moisture content. The
geometric requirements for engineered fill are provided on Drawing 2.
The natural and inorganic fill materials on site would be suitable for reuse as engineered fill. The material should be
examined and approved by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to reuse.
In areas along the proposed roadways, fill material used to raise grades may comprise of onsite excavated soils, or
imported granular fill approved by an Engineer. The fill should be placed in maximum 300 mm (12 inch) thick loose
lifts and uniformly compacted to 95/98 percent SPMDD, depending on depth, within 3 percent of optimum moisture
content in order to provide adequate stability for the new pavements. Refer to Drawings 4 and 5 for specified
compaction levels.
In situ compaction testing should be carried out during the fill placement to ensure that the specified compaction is
being achieved.
Page 223 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
7
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
If imported fill material is utilized at the Site, verification of the suitability of the fill may be required from an
environmental standpoint. Conventional geotechnical testing will not determine the suitability of the material in this
regard. Analytical testing and environmental site assessment may be required at the source. This will best be
assessed prior to the selection of the material source. A quality assurance program should be implemented to ensure
that the fill material will comply with the current Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) standards
for placement and transportation. The disposal of excavated materials must also conform to the MECP guidelines
and requirements. EXP can be of assistance if an assessment of the materials is required.
4.2 Excavation and Groundwater Control
Excess Soil Management
It should be noted that Ontario Regulation 406/19 made under the Environmental Protection Act (November 28, 2019)
was implemented on January 1, 2021. The new regulation dictates the testing protocol that will be required for the
management and disposal of Excess Soils. As set forth in the Regulation, specific analytical testing protocols will need
to be implemented and followed based on the volume of soil to be managed. The testing protocols are specific as to
whether the soils are stockpiled or in situ. In either scenario, the testing protocols are far more onerous than have
been historically carried out as part of standard industry practices. These decisions should be factored in and
accounted for prior to the initiation of the project-defined scope of work. EXP would be pleased to assist with the
implementation of a soil management and testing program that would satisfy the requirements of Ontario Regulation
406/19.
The following is the regulated sampling and testing regiment.
Table 3 – Recommended Ex-Situ (e.g., Stockpiles)
Soil Volume Sampling Frequency
<130 m3 Minimum of 3
>130 - 220 m3 4
>220 - 5000 m3 5-32*
>5000 m3 N = 32 + (Volume – 5000) / 300
*refer to stockpile sampling frequency in O.Reg. 153/04 for specifics. Essentially, one sample for every 150 m3 after
800 m3
Table 4 – Recommended In Situ
Soil Volume Sampling Frequency
<600 m3 Minimum of 3
>600 m3 - 10,000 m3 1 sample per every additional 200 m3
>10,000 m3 – 40,000 m3 1 sample per every additional 450 m3
>40,000 m3 1 sample per every additional 2000 m3
Page 224 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
8
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Soil Analytical Testing Requirements:
· Samples to be tested for a minimum of Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) – Fractions F1-F4, Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene & Xylenes (BTEX), Metals & Hydrides, including Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Sodium Absorption
Ration (SAR), only if from an area where de-icing has historically occurred.
· Any potential Contaminant of Concern identified in past uses report (comes into effect January 1, 2022)
· Leachate analysis (not required for volumes under 350 m3: between 350 m3 and 600 m3 (minimum of 3); greater
than 600 m3 (10 % of samples). Note, leachate not required unless address and Area of Potential Environmental
Concern (APEC), as identified in the past uses report (January 1, 2022).
Excavations
All work associated with design and construction relative to excavations must be carried out in accordance with
Part III of Ontario Regulation 213/91 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Based on the results of the
geotechnical investigation and in accordance with Section 226 of Ontario Regulation 213/91, the fill and natural sand
deposits are classified as Type 3 soils.
Where excavations extend into or through Type 3 soils, excavation side slopes must be cut back at a maximum
inclination of about 1H:1V from the base of the excavation. Should groundwater egress loosen the side slopes of
Type 3 soils, slopes of 3H:1V or flatter will be required.
Geotechnical inspection at the time of excavation can confirm the soil type present.
Excavation Support
The recommendations for side slopes given in the above section would apply to most of the conventional excavations
expected for the proposed development. However, in areas adjacent to buried services that are located above the
base of the excavations, side slopes may require support to prevent possible disturbance or distress to these
structures. This concept also applies to connections to existing services. In granular soils above the groundwater
and in cohesive natural soils, bracing will not normally be required if the structures are behind a 45-degree line drawn
up from the toe of the excavation. In wet sandy or silty soils, the setback should be about 3H to 1V if bracing is to be
avoided.
For support of excavations such as for any deep manholes or to minimize disturbance to surrounding lands, shoring
such as sheeting or soldier piles and lagging can be considered. Alternatively, the option of a prefabricated trench
box system may be available depending on the required depths. The prefabricated trench box system, if utilized,
must be designed by a professional engineer to withstand the soil and hydrostatic loading. The design and use of
the support system should conform to the requirements set out in the most recent version of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act for Construction Projects and approved by the Ministry of Labour. Excavations should conform
to the guidelines set out in the proceeding section and the Safety Act.
The shoring should also be designed in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual, 4th Edition. Soil-related parameters considered appropriate for a soldier pile and lagging
system are shown below.
Page 225 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
9
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Where applicable, the lateral earth pressure acting on the excavation shoring walls may be calculated from the
following equation:
p = K (γh+q)
where, p = lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth h;
γ = natural unit weight, a value of 20.4 kN/m3 may be assumed;
h = depth of point of interest in m;
q = equivalent value of any surcharge on the ground surface in kPa.
The earth pressure coefficient (K) may be taken as 0.25 where small movements are acceptable and adjacent footing
or movement sensitive services are not above a line extending at 45 degrees from the bottom edge of the excavation;
0.35 where utilities, roads, sidewalks must be protected from significant movement; and 0.45 where adjacent
building footings or movement sensitive services (gas and water mains) are above a line of 60 degrees from the
horizontal extending from the bottom edge of the excavation.
For long term design, a K at rest (Ko) of a minimum of 0.5 should be considered.
The above expression assumes that no hydrostatic pressure will be applied against the shoring system. It should be
recognized that the final shoring design will be prepared by the shoring contractor. It is not possible to comment
further on specific design details until this design is completed.
If the shoring is exposed to freezing temperatures, appropriate insulation may be provided to prevent outward
movement.
The performance of the shoring must be checked through monitoring for lateral movement of the walls of the
excavation to ensure that the shoring movements remain within design limits. The most effective method for
monitoring the shoring movements can best be devised by this office when the shoring plans become available. The
shoring designer should however assess the specific site requirements and submit the shoring plans to the engineer
for review and comment.
Construction Dewatering
As stated in Section 3.3, groundwater was measured between 2.11 m and 2.30 m below ground surface (bgs)
(Elevations 233.10 m and 233.29 m) in the observation wells over the monitored period. Groundwater was also
measured near depths of 1.8 to 2.7 m bgs upon completion of drilling in the boreholes. Based on the soil texture
encountered during the investigation, significant groundwater infiltration may be encountered within the building
and service trench excavations depending on the depth of excavation.
For excavations extending below the groundwater table, suitable groundwater control measures will be required to
maintain a dry and stable excavation base and sides. Based on the results of the current investigation, significant
groundwater infiltration is anticipated for excavations that extend below elevations of about 233.13 to 233.25 m, in
the area of the proposed buildings. Depending on final site grading, dewatering may be required to maintain a stable,
dry excavation base.
Page 226 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
10
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
In areas where shallow excavations are expected and minor groundwater infiltration is encountered it can most likely
be accommodated using conventional sump pumping techniques; provided that the sump pits are lined with a
suitable geotextile filter fabric and pump inlet is set in a clear stone, which must fill the sump pit completely. Use of
an unfiltered system will result in migration of sandy soil particles that will loosen the soil deposits.
However, if groundwater infiltration persists, more extensive dewatering measures may be required. EXP would be
pleased to provide further information in this regard, upon request.
The hydraulic conductivity of the sand was estimated to typically vary (depending on the texture) between
1.5 x 10-3 cm/s and 6.1 x 10-3 cm/s. One (1) of the grain size analyses yielded an estimated hydraulic conductivity of
2.1 x 10-5 cm/s. The results of the grain size analyses are included in Appendix B. A positive dewatering system (such
as a series of localized well-points) may be required to provide suitable groundwater control for servicing excavations
and pipe installations in the sand units. A specialist dewatering contractor should be consulted in this regard. The
design of the dewatering system should be left to the contractor’s discretion, and the system should meet a
performance specification to maintain and control the groundwater. Successful dewatering operations will depend
on the contractor’s own experience, construction techniques, seasonal influences, sequencing and scheduling of the
work force.
The collected water should be discharged a sufficient distance away from the excavated area to prevent the discharge
water from returning to the excavation. Sediment control measures should be provided at the discharge point of
the dewatering system. Caution should also be taken to avoid any adverse impacts to the environment.
It is important to mention that for any projects requiring positive groundwater control with a removal rate of 50,000
liters (L) to less than 400,000 L per day, an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) will be required. Permit
to Take Water (PTTW) applications are required for removal rates more than 400,000 L per day and will need to be
approved by the MECP per Sections 34 and 98 of the Ontario Water Resources Act R.S.O. 1990 and the Water Taking
and Transfer Regulation O. Reg. 387/04. It is noted that a standard geotechnical investigation will not determine all
the groundwater parameters which may be required to support the application. Accordingly, a detailed
hydrogeological assessment from a quantitative point of view may be required to estimate the quantity of water to
be removed. EXP can assist if the need arises.
4.3 Foundations
Conventional Strip and Spread Footings
Based on information provided by the client, it is understood that two (2) industrial buildings are proposed at the
Site. The proposed buildings can be supported on conventional spread and strip footings founded below the topsoil
or unsuitable soils on the natural competent subgrade soils or engineered fill.
Page 227 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
11
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Boreholes BH1 to BH8 were advanced in the area of the proposed buildings. Natural, loose sand was typically
encountered near surface in the boreholes. Provided that vibratory compaction with mechanical equipment (i.e.
plate tamper) is carried out at the founding level prior to forming and pouring of foundations, the following allowable
bearing pressures (net stress increase) can be used on the natural, undisturbed soils below a typical depth of
approximately 1 m below existing grade in the area of the proposed buildings:
Bearing Resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) 100 kPa (2,100 psf)
Factored Bearing Resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) 150 kPa (3,100 psf)
Groundwater was measured between 2.11 m and 2.30 m bgs (Elevation 233.10 m and 233.29 m) in the monitoring
wells. It is recommended that the founding elevation of the industrial buildings be at least 1 m above the seasonal
high groundwater elevation.
To increase the bearing capacity of the natural in situ soils to an SLS of 145 kPa, the existing soils can be improved by
removing the top 0.9 m of existing material and replacing and compacting suitable compactable fill material in
uniform lifts as engineered fill. The subgrade at this level must be vibratory compacted with mechanical equipment
prior to the placement of the initial lift of engineered fill.
If the grades are to be raised or restored, engineered fill can be used for foundation support. The geometric
requirements for the fill placement are shown on Drawing 2, appended. The available SLS bearing capacity for the
engineered fill is 145 kPa (3,000 psf) provided that a minimum total thickness of 0.6 m of engineered fill placed in
300 mm lifts as per the recommendations in Section 4.1.
Foundations - General
Footings at different elevations should be located such that the higher footings are set below a line drawn up at 10
horizontal to 7 vertical from the near edge of the lower footing. This concept should also be applied to service
excavation, etc. to ensure that undermining is not a problem.
Provided that the footing bases are not disturbed due to construction activity, precipitation, freezing and thawing
action, etc., and the aforementioned bearing pressures are not exceeded, the total and differential settlements of
footings designed in accordance with the recommendations of this report and with careful attention to construction
detail are expected to be less than 25 mm and 20 mm (1 and ¾ inch) respectively.
All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions should be protected from frost action by at least 1.2 m (4 ft) of
soil cover or equivalent insulation.
7
10 10
7
Lower footing
Service trench
FOOTINGS NEAR SERVICE TRENCHES OR AT DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS
Page 228 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
12
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by EXP from the borehole
information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information
of underground conditions becomes available. For example, if more specific information becomes available with
respect to conditions between boreholes when foundation construction is underway, the interpretation between
the boreholes and the recommendations of this report must be checked through field inspections provided by EXP
to validate the information for use during the construction stage.
4.4 Slab-on-Grade Construction
Preparation of the subgrade should include the removal of all topsoil and/or deleterious material from the proposed
building area. The entire floor slab area should then be thoroughly proof-rolled with a heavy roller and examined by
a Geotechnical Engineer. Any excessively soft or loose areas should be sub-excavated and replaced with suitable
compacted fill. Where the exposed subgrade requires reconstruction to achieve the design elevations, structural fill
should be used. It is recommended that structural fill comprises granular material, such as OPSS Granular ‘B’, or
approved alternative material. The fill should be placed in maximum 300 mm thick loose lifts and compacted to a
minimum of 98 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). For best compaction results, the in situ
moisture content of the fill should be within about three percent of optimum, as determined by Standard Proctor
density testing.
No special underfloor drains are required provided that the exterior grades are lower than the floor slab, and
positively sloped away from the slab. It is recommended that an impermeable soil seal such as clay, asphalt or
concrete be provided on the surface to minimize water infiltration from the exterior of the building. See Drawing 3
for Drainage and Backfill recommendations for slab-on-grade construction.
A moisture barrier, consisting of a 200 mm (8 in.) thick, compacted layer of 19 mm (3/4 in.) clear stone, should be
then placed between the prepared granular sub-base and the floor slab. A less desirable alternative would be to
place 300 mm of OPSS Granular ‘A’ material compacted to 100 percent SPMDD.
The installation and requirement of a vapour barrier under a concrete slab should conform to the flooring
manufacturer’s and designer’s requirements. Moisture emission testing will be required to determine the concrete
condition prior to flooring installation. In order to minimize the potential for excess moisture in the floor slab at the
time of the flooring installation, a concrete mixture with a low water-to-cement ratio (i.e., 0.45 to 0.55) should be
used. Chemical additives may be required at the time of placement to make the concrete workable, and should be
used in place of additional water at the point of placement. Ongoing liaison from this office will be required.
For slab on grade design, the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) can be taken as 20 MPa/m for the compacted stone
layer over the compacted granular subbase.
The water-to-cement ratio and slump of concrete utilized in the floor slabs should be strictly controlled to minimize
shrinkage of the slabs. Adequate joints should be provided in the floor slab to further control cracking. During
placement of concrete at the construction site, testing should be performed on the concrete.
Page 229 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
13
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
4.5 Foundation Backfill
In general, the existing natural soils excavated from the foundation area should be suitable for re-use as foundation
wall backfill if the work is carried out during relatively dry weather. The materials to be re-used should be within
three percent of optimum moisture for best compaction results. Materials should be stockpiled per their
composition; i.e. sandy soils should not be mixed with clayey soils.
If the weather conditions are very wet during construction, then imported granular material such as OPSS
Granular 'B' should be used. Site review by the geotechnical consultant may be advised.
The backfill must be brought up evenly on both sides of walls not designed to resist lateral earth pressures.
During construction, the fill surface around the perimeter of structures should be sloped in such a way that the
surface runoff water does not accumulate around the structure.
4.6 Site Servicing
The subgrade soils beneath the water and sewer pipes which will service the site are generally expected to comprise
sand. For services constructed on the natural soils or engineered fill, the bedding should conform to OPS Standards.
The bedding course may be thickened if portions of the subgrade become wet during excavation. Bedding aggregate
should be placed around the pipe to at least 300 mm (12 inch) above the pipe, and be compacted to a minimum 95
percent SPMDD.
Water and sewer lines installed outside of heated areas should be provided with a minimum 1.2 m (4 ft.) of soil cover
for frost protection.
The bases of excavations which cut into and terminate in competent natural soils are expected to remain stable for
the short construction period. Localized improvement may be required in areas where wet silty soils are present,
and work is carried out in wet weather seasons. The extent of base improvement or stabilization is best determined
in the field during construction, with consultation from a Geotechnical Engineer.
To minimize disturbance to the base, pipe laying should be carried out in short sections, with backfilling following
closely after laying and no section of trench should be left open overnight.
The trenches above the specified pipe bedding should be backfilled with inorganic on-site soils placed in 300 mm
thick loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 95% SPMDD. For trench backfill within 1 metre below the
roadway subbase, the fill should be uniformly compacted to at least 98% SPMDD.
Requirements for backfill in service trenches, etc. should also have regard for OPSS requirements. A summary of the
general recommendations for trench backfill is presented on Drawings 4 and 5. A program of in situ density testing
should be set up to ensure that satisfactory levels of compaction are achieved.
Based on the results of this investigation, the majority of the excavated natural soils material may be used for
construction backfill provided that reasonable care is exercised in handling. In this regard, the material should be
within 3 percent of the optimum moisture as determined in the Standard Proctor density test, and stockpiling of
material for prolonged periods of time should be avoided. This is particularly important if construction is carried out
in wet or otherwise adverse weather.
Page 230 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
14
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Soils excavated from below the stabilized groundwater table may be too wet for reuse as backfill unless adequate
time is allowed for drying, or if the material is blended with approved dry fill; otherwise, it may be stockpiled onsite
for reuse as landscape fill. As noted previously, disposal of excavated materials off site should conform to current
MECP guidelines.
4.7 Low Impact Development (LID)
It is understood that LID stormwater management design requires the practical availability of unsaturated,
sufficiently pervious soil with depth and aerial extent to accommodate the infiltration of stormwater run-off created
by land development.
Based on the information collected at the borehole locations, and the above cited criteria, the near surface soils
encountered at the test hole locations have good potential for use in LID stormwater management design. The
following table summarizes the elevations where the upper surfaces of the soil layers were encountered and the
assumed groundwater elevation.
Table 3 – Low Impact Development Potential
Borehole
No.
Ground
Elevation
(m)
Elevation of
Top of LID
Soil (m)
Highest
Measured
Groundwater
Elevation (m)
Comments
BH1 236.03 235.73 233.291 2.44 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH2 235.47 235.12 233.641 1.48 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH3/MW 235.24 234.84 233.132 1.73 m of LID soil above groundwater table.
BH4 234.70 234.40 232.871 1.53 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH5 235.32 235.07 232.881 2.19 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH6 235.11 234.86 232.371 2.49 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH7 235.90 235.50 233.461 2.04 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH8/MW 235.55 235.25 233.292 1.90 m of LID soil above groundwater table.
BH9 235.81 235.46 233.071 2.39 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH10 234.55 234.25 232.111 2.14 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH11 234.89 234.59 232.151 2.44 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH12 235.30 235.00 232.861 2.14 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH13 235.25 235.00 233.121 1.88 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
BH14 235.99 235.69 233.551 2.14 m of LID soil above observed groundwater level.
Notes: 1. Groundwater elevations in the boreholes are based on observations of the open borehole following drilling and do not represent
the static groundwater elevations.
2. Highest groundwater elevation in monitoring wells BH3/MW and BH8/MW was measured on March 12 and 30, 2021 respectively.
3. Thickness of LID material available for design is typically taken as 1 m above the impermeable strata or seasonal high groundwater
table.
Page 231 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
15
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Eight (8) grain size distribution analyses were carried out on recovered samples of the sand soils, which are generally
representative of the LID soil available at the Site. Based on the grain size distributions, the estimated hydraulic
conductivity (K) of the sand typically ranged between 1.5 x 10-3 cm/s and 6.1 x 10-3 cm/s. One of the sand samples
yielded an estimated K value of about 2.1 x 10-5 cm/s. The results are presented in Appendix B. These K values
correspond with estimated infiltration rates typically ranging between 85 mm/hour and 125 mm/hour. One sample
yielded a lower K value corresponding with an estimated infiltration rate of 30 mm/hour.
It is understood that recommended factors of safety will be applied to the estimated parameters cited above for use
in design.
4.8 Stormwater Management Facility (SWMF) Construction
Earth Liner
At the time of reporting, no firm development plan was available for the Site. However, it is understood that the
proposed location of the Stormwater Management Facility is in the area of BH6. Based on the results of the
investigation, it is anticipated that sandy soils will be encountered throughout the excavation of the SWMF. No
information on the depth of the pond has been provided at the time of writing this report.
The construction and design of the facility should conform to the current Municipality and OPS Standards.
Due to the presence of sandy soils at the base of SWMF, consideration should be given to the installation of an earth
liner. The liner would consist of properly compacted clay (impervious) soils placed on the bottom and sides of the
pond. Material used for the earth liner must satisfy the following criteria:
· A minimum of 50% particle sizes passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve (fine grained soils);
· A minimum of 15% clay content;
· An estimated hydraulic conductivity (k) of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec or less after placement and compaction;
· A plasticity index (PI) greater than 7;
· A maximum aggregate size of 100 mm; and,
· Plot above the ‘A’ Line on the Plasticity Chart.
It is recommended that the base and sidewalls of the proposed SWM facility be over-excavated to allow for an
800 mm thick clay liner to be placed. The clay liner should be placed in lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness and
compacted to a Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) of 95% within 3% on wet side of the optimum
moisture content. Sheepsfoot rollers should be used to compact the liner to reduce the permeability of the clay liner.
Careful subgrade preparation and stringent control of the clay material and the compaction are required.
The finished surface of the clay fill liner is normally hand rolled and to prevent the development of shrinkage cracks
it should be kept moist until the pond is filled. The clay liner must also be protected from erosion and/or scouring
action of the pond waves.
Page 232 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
16
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Artificial Liner
Another option to consider is that of an artificial liner. Artificial lining would be placed on the sides and across the
base of the pond to form an impermeable seal. This could consist of products such as synthetic rubber or plastic
lining or Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL), which comprises a “sandwiched” composite of geotextile and bentonite clay
such as “Bentofix” or equivalent. The liner should be able to sustain foundation movements (settlements/heaving)
up to 50 mm. It is recommended that the manufacturer of the GCL products be approached so that the suitability of
the products, their specifications and the workmanship required can be established. A minimum 600 mm thickness
of compacted soils should be placed on top of GCL at the bottom and side slopes both as a protection of the liner
from damage and to counterbalance the uplift pressures. EXP can provide more information in this regard once
design information becomes available.
Other SWMF Considerations
Sediment build-up will need to be removed from the base of the forebay at regular intervals. It is therefore
recommended that a 200 mm Granular ‘A’ layer be placed over the earth liner or artificial lining and compacted to
100% SPMDD. Following the granular placement, a turf-stone mat should be placed and cover the entire base of the
forebay.
It is recommended that the SWMF slopes be constructed with a maximum inclination of about 3.0 horizontal to 1.0
vertical. If the soil is subject to erosion of inundation from water, then the slopes should be lined with concrete or
rip-rap.
Where required, the rip-rap material should comprise of sound limestone, free of inclusions. The limestone should
be blasted or crushed, with an average size of 150 to 200 mm. When the source of the rip-rap is known EXP should
be notified, so that a site visit may be conducted at the quarry, to verify the source and quality of the material.
The slopes of the entire detention facility, after shaping, should be lightly scarified and a 150 mm thick layer of organic
topsoil should be placed on the surface to assist in establishing grass-type vegetation which will inhibit erosion. A
synthetic erosion blanket can be considered to assist the growth of vegetation. Some routine maintenance of the
slope surfaces will likely be required to address minor long-term weathering and erosion.
During the construction of the SWM facility, it is recommended that inspection and in situ density testing be
conducted as well as soil sampling, laboratory testing and monitoring of fill placement. Full-time geotechnical
supervision is recommended.
Inlet/Outlet Structures
In the vicinity of the proposed inlet/outlet structures, culverts and/or pipes should be carefully backfilled with
excavated natural soils. No bearing problems are anticipated for flexible or rigid pipes founded on the natural
deposits or compacted on site soils. The backfill should be in intimate contact with the complete circumference of
the pipe.
Any headwall should be embedded sufficiently to permit minimum liner thickness up to the headwall inlet. A
vibratory hoe-pack or approved device will likely be required to compact clayey soils around the headwall. In places
where proper compaction may be difficult to achieve, lean concrete backfill should be used.
Page 233 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
17
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
The support for inlet and outlet structures must be derived from the natural soils or engineered fill. Allowable
bearing pressures are identified in Section 4.3.1. Any footing must be protected with a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) of
earth cover or equivalent insulation to provide protection against potential frost damage.
If minor grade changes must be accommodated for the footings of the headwall, the levels can be raised by the
placement of lean mix concrete on the natural subgrade soils.
During the construction of the SWM facility and associated infrastructure, it is recommended that inspection and in
situ density testing be conducted as well as soil sampling, laboratory testing and monitoring of fill placement. Full-
time geotechnical supervision is recommended.
4.9 Groundwater Consideration
Storm sewer connections to the proposed SWMF are expected to be set at conventional depths. The trenches should
be backfilled with the native materials to help prevent hydraulic conditions through the backfill materials.
If sewer excavations encounter shallow groundwater and moderate groundwater seepage occurs, the use of clay
collars or concrete collars may be considered at strategic locations to minimize groundwater flow along the granular
bedding material. A schematic diagram is appended for review (Drawing 7). The indiscriminate use of clay collars is
not recommended. Site review by a Geotechnical Engineer will be required to determine appropriate locations and
suitable conditions for the use of clay collars. EXP would be pleased to provide further recommendations if required.
4.10 Seismic Design Considerations
The recommendations for the geotechnical aspects to determine the earthquake loading for design using the OBC
2012 are presented below.
The subsoil and groundwater information at this Site have been examined in relation to Section 4.1.8.4 of the OBC
2012. The subsoils at the Site generally consist of fill over sand deposits. It is anticipated that the proposed structures
will be founded on the natural deposits or engineered fill.
Table 4.1.8.4.A. Site Classification for Seismic Site Response in OBC 2012 indicated that to determine the site
classification, the average properties in the top 30 m (below the lowest basement level) are to be used. The
boreholes advanced at this Site were excavated to a maximum depth of 6.6 m below existing grade. Therefore, the
Site Classification recommendation would be based on the available information as well as our interpretation of
conditions below the boreholes based on our knowledge of the soil conditions in the area.
Based on the above assumptions, interpretations in combination with the known local geological conditions, the Site
Class for the proposed development is “D” as per Table 4.1.8.4.A, Site Classification for Seismic Site Response, OBC
2012. Additional depth drilling may be advised to determine if the soil conditions below the current depth of
exploration can support a higher Site Classification.
Page 234 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
18
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
4.11 Site Pavement Design
Areas to be paved should be stripped of all fill containing organics and other obviously unsuitable material. The
exposed subgrade must then be thoroughly proof-rolled. Any soft zones revealed by this or any other observations
must be over-excavated and backfilled with approved material. All fill required to backfill service trenches or to raise
the subgrade to design levels must conform to requirements outlined previously. Preferably, the natural inorganic
excavated soils should be used to maintain uniform subgrade conditions, provided adequate compaction can be
achieved.
Provided the preceding recommendations are followed, the pavement thickness design requirements given in the
following table are recommended for the anticipated loading and subgrade conditions.
Table 5 – Recommended Pavement Structure Thicknesses
Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements Light Duty Pavement
Structure (Parking, Cars Only)
Heavy Duty Pavement
Structure (Trucks)
Asphaltic
Concrete
92% MRD1 or
97% BRD1
40 mm HL-3
50 mm HL-8
50 mm HL-3
60 mm HL-8
Granular ‘A’
(Base) 100% SPMDD1 150 mm
(200 mm)2
150 mm
(300 mm)2
Granular ‘B’
(Sub-base) 100% SPMDD1 300 mm 450 mm
Alternative
Granular Sub-base 100% SPMDD1 Existing Natural Sand2 Existing Natural Sand2
*Notes: 1) SPMDD denotes Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, MRD denotes Maximum Relative Density, BRD
denotes Bulk Relative Density.
2) The existing natural sand can replace the granular subbase requirement subject to the recommendations
following this table. Granular base thickness must be increased if no imported granular sub-base is placed.
3) The subgrade must be compacted to 98% SPMDD.
4) The above recommendations are minimum requirements.
The existing natural sand was examined and eight (8) grain size analyses were carried out on the material. The results
indicated that the existing sand material generally contained trace to some silt and was described as silty in one
sample. The percentage of fines (percent by mass passing the 0.075 mm sieve) in the samples ranged between 9.8
and 35.6. In this regard, inspection of the exposed soils at the level of the granular sub-base by a Geotechnical
Engineer will be necessary prior to the placement of the granular base. Any areas observed to be too silty should be
sub-excavated and replaced with OPSS Granular ‘B’ Type 1 or equivalent alternative to avoid pumping of the silty
soils into the granular base causing premature pavement failure. The extent of sub-base repairs is best determined
in the field at the time of excavation. Vibratory compaction of the natural soils with mechanical equipment to 100
percent SPMDD at the granular sub-base level must be carried out.
It is understood that the northerly portion of the site is to be used for storage. Some consideration may be given to
placing asphalt for the driveways in this area and placing 200 mm to 300 mm of Granular A over the sandy subgrade
as shown in Table 4 in the storage areas.
Page 235 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
19
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
If the presence of silty soils is determined to be extensive at the granular sub-base level, it is recommended to use
the standard pavement structures detailed in Table 4 (Light Duty Pavement: 90 mm asphalt, 150 mm Granular A, 300
mm Granular B. Heavy Duty Pavement: 110 mm asphalt, 150 mm Granular A, 450 mm Granular B).
The recommended pavement structures provided in the above table are based on the existing subgrade soil
properties determined from visual examination and textural classification of the soil samples. Consequently, the
recommended pavement structures should be considered for preliminary design purposes only. Other granular
configurations may also be possible provided the granular base equivalency (GBE) thickness is maintained. These
recommendations on thickness design are not intended to support heavy and concentrated construction traffic,
particularly where only a portion of the pavement section is installed.
If construction is undertaken under adverse weather conditions (i.e., wet or freezing conditions) subgrade
preparation and granular sub-base requirements should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. If the sub-base
is set on wet or dilatant silty soils, a geotextile will be required. A woven type geotextile such as Terrafix 200W or
equivalent would be suitable for this application.
If only a portion of the pavement will be in place during construction, the granular subbase may have to be thickened,
and/or the subgrade improved with a geotextile separator or geogrid stabilizing layer. This is best determined in the
field during the site servicing stage of construction, prior to road construction.
If a geogrid stabilizing layer is recommended at the time of construction, the source of the granular material should
be reviewed to verify its compatibility with the geogrid. For example, where Tensar BX1100 (or equivalent) is utilized,
the Granular B material should have a nominal size of 26.5 mm, with a maximum of 25 percent (by mass) passing the
4.75 mm sieve size. EXP would be pleased to review the project specifications and proposed source of imported
materials to verify compatibility.
Samples of both the Granular 'A' and Granular 'B' aggregate should be checked for conformance to OPSS 1010
requirements prior to utilization on Site, and during construction. The Granular 'B' subbase and the Granular 'A' base
courses must be compacted to 100 percent SPMDD.
The asphaltic concrete paving materials should conform to the requirements of OPSS MUNI 1150. The asphalt should
be placed in accordance with OPSS 310 and compacted to at least 97 percent (%) of the Marshall mix design bulk
relative density or 92% of maximum relative density. A tack coat should be applied between the surface and binder
asphalt courses.
Good drainage provisions will optimize pavement performance. The finished pavement surface should be free of
depressions and should be sloped (preferably at a minimum grade of two percent) to provide effective surface
drainage toward catch basins. Surface water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the outside edges of
pavement areas. In low areas, sub drains should be installed to intercept excess subsurface moisture and prevent
subgrade softening, as shown on Drawing 6. This is particularly important in heavier traffic areas at the site entrances.
The locations and extent of sub-drainage required within the paved areas should be reviewed by this office in
conjunction with the proposed grading.
A program of in situ density testing must be carried out to verify that satisfactory levels of compaction are being
achieved.
Page 236 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
20
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Additional comments on the construction of roadways are as follows:
1. The most severe loading conditions on pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction.
Consequently, special provisions such as restricted lanes, half-loads during paving, etc., may be required,
especially if construction is carried out during unfavourable weather.
2. It is recommended that EXP be retained to review the final pavement structure designs and drainage
plans prior to construction to ensure that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report.
4.12 Curbs and Sidewalks
It is recommended that the concrete for curb and gutter and sidewalks should be proportioned, mixed, placed, and
cured in accordance with the requirements of OPSS 353 and OPSS 1350 Specifications.
During cold weather, the freshly placed concrete must be covered with insulating blankets to protect against freezing.
Three cylinders from each day's pour should be taken for compressive strength testing. Air entrainment,
temperature, and slump tests should be made from the same batch of concrete from which test cylinders are made.
The subgrade for the sidewalks should comprise undisturbed natural competent soil of well-compacted fill. A
minimum 150 mm thick layer of compacted Granular 'A' type aggregate should be placed beneath the sidewalk slabs.
It is recommended that the Granular 'A' be compacted to a minimum 100 percent SPMDD, to provide adequate
support for the concrete sidewalk. Construction traffic should be kept off the placed curbs and sidewalks as they are
not designed to withstand heavy traffic load.
4.13 Methane Gas Testing
No methane gas producing materials or significant organic matter was encountered at the borehole locations, except
a thin veneer of topsoil.
An RKI Gx-2003 Gas Detector was used in the upper levels of the open boreholes. The unit measures LEL
combustibles, methane gas, oxygen content, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide in standard confined space
gases. No significant methane gas concentration was detected in any of the boreholes.
Based on the present information, no special methane gas abatement measures are indicated at this site.
Page 237 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
21
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
4.14 Inspection and Testing Requirements
An effective inspection and testing program is an essential part of construction monitoring. The Inspection and
Testing Program typically includes the following items:
· Subgrade examination following removal of existing services, fill and organics, prior to foundation installation
and engineered fill placement (if required);
· Inspection and materials testing during engineered fill placement (full-time supervision is recommended)
and site servicing works, including soil sampling, laboratory testing (moisture contents and Standard Proctor
density test on the pipe bedding, trench backfill and engineered fill material), monitoring of fill placement,
and in situ density testing;
· Footing Base Examinations to confirm suitability to support the design bearing pressures and visual
examination of concrete reinforcing steel placement;
· Inspection and testing for underfloor subgrade and granular placement;
· Materials testing for concrete foundations, floor slab, curbs and sidewalks;
· Inspection and materials testing during paved area construction, including subgrade examination of the
paved area subgrade soils following site servicing, laboratory testing (grain size analyses and Standard
Proctor density tests on the Granular A and B material placed on site roadways), and in situ density testing;
· Inspection and materials testing for base and surface asphalt, including laboratory testing on asphalt
sampling to confirm conformance to project specifications and standards.
EXP would be pleased to prepare an inspection and testing work program prior to construction, incorporating the
above items.
Page 238 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
22
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
5. General Comments
The information presented in this report is based on a limited investigation designed to provide information to
support an assessment of the current geotechnical conditions within the subject property. The conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report reflect site conditions existing at the time of the investigation.
Consequently, during the future development of the property, conditions not observed during this investigation may
become apparent. Should this occur, EXP Services Inc. should be contacted to assess the situation, and the need for
additional testing and reporting. EXP has qualified personnel to provide assistance in regards to any future
geotechnical and environmental issues related to this property.
Our undertaking at EXP, therefore, is to perform our work within limits prescribed by our clients, with the usual
thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession.
The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of design engineers. The number of test holes
required to determine the localized underground conditions between test holes affecting construction costs,
techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc. would be much greater than has been carried out for design
purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should in this light, decide on their own investigations,
as well as their own interpretations of the factual test hole results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as
to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.
EXP Services Inc. should be retained for a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that this report
has been properly interpreted and implemented. If not afforded the privilege of making this review, EXP Services Inc.
will assume no responsibility for interpretation of the recommendations in this report.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Armtec and may not be reproduced in whole or in part, without
the prior written consent of EXP, or used or relied upon in whole or in part by other parties for any purposes
whatsoever. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any part thereof, or any reliance on or decisions to
be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. EXP Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for
damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
We trust this report is satisfactory for your purposes. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Page 239 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Drawings
Page 240 of 304
BH3/MW
ROKEBY ORCHARD RDBELL M
ILL
S
IDE
RD
CN RAIL
BH2
BH5
BH4
BH6
BH7
BH1
BH8/MW
BH14
BH9
BH12
BH10
BH11
BH13
EXP Services Inc.
15701 Robin's Hill Road, London, ON, N5V 0A5
MARCH 2021 1:4,000 LON-21001731-A0 1
-NOTES-
1. The boundaries and soil types have been established only at test hole
locations. Between test holes they are assumed and may be subject to
considerable error.
2. Soil samples will be retained in storage for 3 months and then destroyed
unless client advises that an extended time period is required.
3. Topsoil quantities should not be established from the information provided
at the test hole locations.
4. The site plan was reproduced from Google Earth and drawing provided by
the client and should be read in conjunction with EXP Geotechnical Report
LON-21001731-A0.
Armtec
-LEGEND-
Approximate Borehole Location
Borehole Location Plan
Prepared By: E.B.Reviewed By: R.B.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Armtec Plant
Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, Ontario
BH1
Page 241 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
DRAWING 2 – GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS FOR
FOUNDATIONS ON ENGINEERED FILL
SECTION VIEW
NOTES:
1. The area must be stripped of all topsoil contaminated fill material and proof rolled. Soft spots must be dug
out. The stripped native subgrade must be examined and approved by an EXP engineer prior to placement of
fill.
2. The approved engineered fill must be compacted to 100% Standard Proctor dry density throughout. Granular
fill is required.
3. Fulltime geotechnical inspection by EXP is required during placement of the engineered fill.
4. The fill must be placed such that the specified geometry is achieved. Refer to sketches for minimum
requirements.
5. An allowable SLS bearing pressure of 145 kPa (3,000 psf) may be used provided that all conditions outlined
above, are adhered to. A minimum footing width of 500 mm (20 inches) is suggested and as a precautionary
measure, footings should be provided with nominal steel reinforcement.
6. All excavations must be done in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation of Ontario
(Construction Projects - O.Reg. 213.91)
7. These guidelines are to be read in conjunction with the attached EXP Report for Project Number
LON-21001731-A0.
Page 242 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
DRAWING 3 – DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS
(NOT TO SCALE)
NOTES:
1. Drainage tile to consist of 100 mm (4 in.) diameter weeping tile or equivalent perforated pipe leading to a
positive sump or outlet. Invert to be minimum of 150 mm (6 in.) below underside of interior floor slab.
2. Pea gravel 150 mm (6 in.) top and sides of drain. If drain is not on footing, place 100 mm (4 in.) of pea gravel
below drain. 20 mm (3/4 in.) clear stone may be used provided if it is covered by an approved porous
geotextile fabric membrane (Terrafix 270R or equivalent).
3. C.S.A. fine concrete aggregate to act as filter material. Minimum 300 mm (12 in.) top and side of drain. This
may be replaced by an approved porous geotextile membrane (Terrafix 270R or equivalent).
4. Impermeable backfill seal of compacted clay, clayey silt or equivalent. If original soil is free-draining, seal may
be omitted. Compact backfill to 95 percent Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.
5. The interior fill may be any clean, inorganic soil which may be compacted to at least 95 percent Standard
Proctor density in this confined space.
6. Do not use heavy compaction equipment within 450 mm (18 in.) of the wall. Do not fill or compact within 1.8
m (6 ft) of wall unless fill is placed on both sides simultaneously.
7. Moisture barrier to be at least 200 mm (8 in.) of compacted 20 mm (3/4 in.) clear, crushed stone or equivalent
free-draining material.
8. If the 20 mm (3/4 in.) clear stone requires surface binding, use 60 mm (1/4 in.) clear stone chips.
9. Slab on grade should not be structurally connected to wall or footing.
10. Exterior grade to slope away from building.
This system is not normally required if the floor is at least 300 mm (1 ft.)
above exterior grade.
Page 243 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
DRAWING 4 – TYPICAL BACKFILL DETAIL
STORM AND SANITARY SEWER (COMMON TRENCH)
SECTION VIEW
NOTES:
ZONE A
Granular bedding satisfying current OPS Standards compacted to 95% Standard Proctor maximum
dry density.
ZONE A-l
To be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor maximum dry density.
ZONE B
To be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor maximum dry density.
ZONE C
To be compacted to 98% Standard Proctor maximum dry density.
The excavations shown above are for Type 1 or 2 soils. Where excavations extend through Type
3 soils, the side walls should be sloped back at a maximum inclination of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical
from the base (Reference O.Reg 219/31).
Page 244 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
DRAWING 5 – TRENCH BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS
Requirements for backfill in service trenches, etc. should conform to current OPSS
requirements. A summary of the general recommendations for trench backfill is presented on
Drawing 4.
The bedding materials for the services designated as Zone A on the attached drawings should
consist of approved granular material satisfying the current OPSS minimum standards and
specifications. (Class B bedding should provide adequate support for the pipes). These
materials should be uniformly compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor dry density. Some
problems may be encountered in maintaining alignment when bedding pipes in wet sandy soil.
If Granular ‘A’ or other sandy material is used for bedding, they may become ‘spongy’ when
saturated. If significant amounts of clear stone are used to stabilize the base, a geotextile
should be incorporated to avoid problems with migration of fine grained materials and
differential settlement under the pipes as the groundwater rises after backfilling. For minor
local use of crushed stone without a geotextile filter, a graded HL3 stone is preferable.
The backfill in Zone B will consist of the native material. This material should be placed in loose
lifts not exceeding 300 mm (12 inches) and be uniformly compacted to 95 percent of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density. Material wetter than 5 percent above optimum must
be allowed to dry sufficiently or should be discarded or used in landscaped areas.
The upper 1 meter of the general backfill (i.e. Zone C) should be placed in loose lifts not
exceeding 300 mm (12 inches) and be uniformly compacted to at least 98 percent of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density. To achieve satisfactory compaction, the fill material
should be within 3 percent of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at placement.
Page 245 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
DRAWING 6 – PAVEMENT SUBDRAIN DETAIL
NOTES:
1. All dimensions in millimetres.
2. All sub drains to be set on at least 1% grade draining to a positive outlet.
3. Subgrade soil conditions should be verified onsite, during subgrade preparation works, following
site servicing installations.
Scale: NTS
Page 246 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
DRAWING 7 – SCHEMATIC CONCEPT OF CLAY COLLAR/TRENCH PLUG
PLAN AND SECTION VIEW
NOTES:
i) Clay collar/trench plug can be installed strategically along the sewer line to slow down the groundwater
transfer through bedding materials.
ii) Clay collar/plug shall be constructed of plastic silty clay with moisture content about 3 percent above
optimum moisture as determined by the standard Proctor density test.
iii) Excavation shall be carried out to the minimum dimensions indicated on the sketches. Excavation below 600
mm depth below the groundwater table through the granular soils may require dewatering to maintain the
stability.
iv) The excavation shall be backfilled with compacted silty clay or approved native materials to at least 98 percent
SPMDD with the material specified in Item ii) to minimize settlement.
v) Clay collar locations, if required, can typically be installed at 50 m intervals or as determined on site by the
geotechnical consultant.
vi) Required height of the clay collar shall be determined by the engineer and should be at least 600 mm above
and below the pipe.
Page 247 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Appendix A – Borehole Logs
Page 248 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS
1. All descriptions included in this report follow the 'modified' Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) soil
classification system. The laboratory grain-size analysis also follows this classification system. Others may
designate the Unified Classification System as their source; a comparison of the two is shown for your information.
Please note that, with the exception of those samples where the grain size analysis has been carried out, all
samples are classified visually and the accuracy of the visual examination is not sufficient to differentiate between
the classification systems or exact grain sizing. The M.I.T. system has been modified and the EXP classification
includes a designation for cobbles above the 75 mm size and boulders above the 200 mm size.
2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log, it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the
boring process. The reader is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree of
compaction. The borehole description therefore, may not be applicable as a general description of the site fill
material. All fills should be expected to contain obstructions such as large concrete pieces or subsurface
basements, floors, tanks, even though none of these obstructions may have been encountered in the borehole.
Despite the use of boreholes, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the exact and correct
composition of the fill. Most fills contain pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This organic
material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or significant ongoing and future settlements. The fill at
this site has been monitored for the presence of methane gas and the results are recorded on the borehole logs.
The monitoring process neither indicates the volume of gas that can be potentially generated or pinpoints the
source of the gas. These readings are to advise of a potential or existing problem (if they exist) and a detailed
study is recommended for sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be
contaminated by toxic waste that renders the material unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land fill
sites; unless specifically stated, the fill on the site has not been tested for contaminants that may be considered
hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be carried out if you so request. In most
residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common, but not detectable using
conventional geotechnical procedures.
3. Glacial Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process
associated with glaciation. Because of this geological process, the till must be considered heterogeneous in
composition and as such, may contain pockets and/or seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often
contains cobbles (75 to 200 mm in diameter) or boulders (greater than 200 mm diameter) and therefore,
contractors may encounter them during excavation, even if they are not indicated on the borehole logs. It should
be appreciated that normal sampling equipment can not differentiate the size or type of obstruction. Because of
the horizontal and vertical variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited area;
therefore, caution is essential when dealing with sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till material.
Page 249 of 304
235.7
229.5
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 300 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceclay, trace to some silt, compact, moist
- becoming very moist near 2.1 m bgs
- becoming wet near 2.9 m bgs
- becoming grey near 4.0 m bgs
End of borehole at 6.6 m bgs.
13
14
15
12
15
12
17
400
400
410
400
450
450
450
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
13
10
5
19
22
23
22
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
SA 6
SA 7
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.7 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.7 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
236.0
W
Dynamic Cone
February 23, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH1
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 23, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 250 of 304
235.1
228.9
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 350 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceclay, trace to some silt, loose to compact, moist
- becoming wet near 2.1 m bgs
- becoming grey near 2.9 m bgs
End of borehole at 6.6 m bgs.
9
9
9
7
11
8
13
500
400
300
400
300
400
450
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
12
13
17
20
22
20
21
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
SA 6
SA 7
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 1.8 m bgs and groundwater measured near 1.8 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.5
W
Dynamic Cone
February 23, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH2
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 23, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 251 of 304
234.8
228.7
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 400 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist- weathered in upper levels
- becoming wet near 2.3 m bgs
- becoming grey near 3.1 m bgs
End of borehole at 6.6 m bgs.
6
7
13
12
11
13
12
400
300
400
450
400
400
400
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
21
9
21
22
22
22
22
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
SA 6
SA 7
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.3) bgs denotes below ground surface.4) Water Level Readings: March 12, 2021 - 2.11 m bgs; Elevation 233.13 m March 30, 2021 - 2.14 m bgs; Elevation 233.10 m
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.2
W
Dynamic Cone
February 23, 2021 Mar 30/21
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH3/MW
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 23, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 252 of 304
234.4
228.2
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 300 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist
- becoming very moist near 0.8 m bgs
- becoming finer grained and wet near 1.5 mbgs
- becoming grey near 3.1 m bgs
- silty near 4.6 m bgs
End of borehole at 6.6 m bgs.
6
11
11
9
10
13
20
450
450
400
450
450
400
450
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
21
17
21
20
20
23
24
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
SA 6
SA 7
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 1.8 m bgs and groundwater measured near 1.8 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
234.7
W
Dynamic Cone
February 23, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH4
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 23, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 253 of 304
235.1
230.3
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 250 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist- weathered in upper levels
- becoming grey and wet near 2.3 m bgs
- becoming finer grained near 3.0 m bgs
End of borehole at 5.0 m bgs.
6
6
11
12
11
20
450
400
450
450
450
450
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
8
14
20
22
20
27
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
SA 6
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.4 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.4 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.3
W
Dynamic Cone
February 23, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH5
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 23, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 254 of 304
234.9
231.6
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 250 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist- weathered in upper levels
- becoming very moist near 1.4 m bgs
- becoming grey and wet near 2.3 m bgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
6
6
9
12
16
450
450
450
400
450
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
15
14
20
24
25
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.7 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.7 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.1
W
Dynamic Cone
February 23, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH6
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 23, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 255 of 304
235.5
235.1
232.4
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 400 mm
FILL - sand, dark brown, fine to mediumgrained, trace silt, trace organics, moist
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist
- becoming wet near 2.3 m bgs
- becoming grey near 3.0 m bgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
6
18
7
9
13
500
400
400
300
350
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
8
4
12
29
27
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.7 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.4 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.9
W
Dynamic Cone
February 23, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH7
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 23, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 256 of 304
235.3
230.5
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 300 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceclay, trace to some silt, loose to compact, moist- weathered in upper levels
- becoming very moist near 1.5 m bgs
- becoming finer grained and wet near 2.3 mbgs
- becoming grey near 4.6 m bgs
End of borehole at 5.0 m bgs.
9
5
6
5
7
10
450
300
400
400
450
450
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
15
7
19
22
21
23
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
SA 6
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.3) bgs denotes below ground surface.4) Water Level Readings: March 12, 2021 - 2.30 m bgs; Elevation 233.25 m March 30, 2021 - 2.26 m bgs; Elevation 233.29 m
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.6
W
Dynamic Cone
February 24, 2021 Mar 30/21
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH8/MW
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 24, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 257 of 304
235.5
233.7
232.3
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 350 mm
FILL - sand, brown, fine to medium grained,trace clay, trace to some silt, loose to veryloose, moist
- trace organics encountered near 0.8 m bgs
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist
- becoming grey and wet near 3.0 m bgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
6
3
3
9
22
500
300
350
400
400
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
13
7
11
16
21
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.7 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.7 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.8
W
Dynamic Cone
February 24, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH9
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 24, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 258 of 304
234.3
231.0
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 300 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist
- becoming silty and wet near 1.5 m bgs
- becoming grey near 2.3 m bgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
7
7
4
18
9
500
300
400
450
450
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
6
9
24
22
24
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.4 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.4 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
234.6
W
Dynamic Cone
February 24, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH10
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 24, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 259 of 304
234.6
231.4
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 300 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist
- becoming very moist near 1.5 m bgs
- becoming grey and wet near 2.3 m bgs
- becoming finer grained near 3.0 m bgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
5
7
10
6
16
300
300
400
300
400
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
16
13
18
27
28
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
SA 5
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.7 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.7 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
234.9
W
Dynamic Cone
February 24, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH11
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 24, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 260 of 304
235.0
231.8
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 300 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist- weathered in upper levels
- very loose near 1.5 m bgs
- becoming grey and wet near 2.3 m bgs
- becoming finer grained near 3.0 m bgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
5
3
13
10
300
450
300
400
SS
SS
SS
SS
9
13
22
24
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.4 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.4 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.3
W
Dynamic Cone
February 24, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH12
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 24, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 261 of 304
235.0
231.7
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 250 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceclay, trace to some silt, loose, very moist- weathered in upper levels
- becoming wet near 1.5 m bgs
- becoming grey and finer grained near 2.3 mbgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
5
5
7
6
350
400
300
400
SS
SS
SS
SS
15
20
24
26
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.1 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.1 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
235.3
W
Dynamic Cone
February 24, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH13
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 24, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 262 of 304
235.7
232.5
TOPSOIL - black, silty, 300 mm
SAND - brown, fine to medium grained, traceto some silt, loose to compact, moist
- becoming very moist near 1.5 m bgs
- becoming finer grained and wet near 2.3 mbgs
- becoming grey near 3.0 m bgs
End of borehole at 3.5 m bgs.
5
6
10
13
350
400
350
400
SS
SS
SS
SS
7
10
22
25
SA 1
SA 2
SA 3
SA 4
1) Borehole Log interpretation requires assistance by EXP before use by others.Borehole Log must be read in conjunction with EXP ReportLON-21001731-A0.2) Borehole open to 2.4 m bgs and groundwater measured near 2.4 m bgs uponcompletion of drilling.3) No significant methane gas concentration was detected upon completion.4) bgs denotes below ground surface.
CU Consolidated Undrained TriaxialCD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
K Lab PermeabilityP Field Permeability Unit Weight
C Consolidation
AS Auger Sample
S Sieve AnalysisH HydrometerG Specific GravityOTHER TESTS
Rock Core (eg. BQ, NQ, etc.)ST Shelby TubeSS Split SpoonSAMPLE LEGEND
Artesian (see Notes)MeasuredApparent
WATER LEVELS
DS Direct Shear
VN Vane Sample
UU Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialUC Unconfined Compression
NOTES
100 200 kPa
10 20 30 40
P
DESCRIPTION
WELL
LOG
Water LevelRokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
ARMTEC LP c/o Cyril J Demeyere
SPT N Value
WELL
LOG
STRATA
PLOT
PROJECT NO.
ELEVATION L
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
SAMPLES SHEAR STRENGTH
Penetrometer
236.0
W
Dynamic Cone
February 24, 2021
L
(m bgs)
LON-21001731-A0
DATES: Boring
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
Torvane
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
BH14
Sheet 1 of 1
N
BOREHOLE LOG
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(blows)
( m)~
S
P WW
PenetrometerDEPTH
SHEAR STRENGTH
Atterberg Limits and Moisture
W
VALUENUMBER W
NUMBER
TYPE
February 24, 2021
(%)
Torvane
SSTRATA
PLOT
ELEVATION W
PROJECT
SAMPLES
RECOVERY
TYPE
Water Level
CLIENT
LOCATION
VALUE
DATES: Boring
DATUM
STRATA
LON-21001731-A0
(mm)
DEPTH
Dynamic ConeSPT N Value
STRATA
DATUM
Field Vane Test (#=Sensitivity)
Proposed Armtec Plant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 263 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Appendix B – Grain Size Analyses
Page 264 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Sand (BH2 S2, 0.8 to 1.2 m depth)Figure 1Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Fine to Medium Sand, some Silt, trace ClayEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 1.5 x 10-3cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 85 mm/hourPage 265 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Sand (BH2 S5, 3.0 to 3.5 m depth) Figure 2Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Fine to Medium Sand, trace SiltEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 5.9 x 10-3cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 125 mm/hourPage 266 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Sand (BH3 S4, 2.3 to 2.7 m depth)Figure 3Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Fine to Medium Sand, trace SiltEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 3.9 x 10-3cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 110 mm/hourPage 267 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Silty Sand (BH4 S6, 4.6 to 5.0 m bgs)Figure 4Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Silty SandEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 2.8 x 10-3cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 100 mm/hourPage 268 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Sand (BH8 S3, 1.5 to 2.0 m depth)Figure 5Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Fine to Medium Sand, some Silt, trace ClayEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 2.1 x 10-5cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 30 mm/hourPage 269 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Sand (BH9 S2, 0.8 to 1.2 m depth)Figure 6Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Fine to Medium Sand, trace Silt, trace ClayEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 2.3 x 10-3cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 95 mm/hourPage 270 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Sand (BH11 S3, 1.5 to 2.0 m depth)Figure 7Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Fine to Medium Sand, trace SiltEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 6.1 x 10-3cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 125 mm/hourPage 271 of 304
MECHANICAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS01020304050607080901000.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100GRAIN SIZE DIAMETER (mm)PERCENTPASSINGSILTSANDGRAVELFINEMEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUMCOARSEFINE MEDIUMCOARSECLAYMODIFIED M.I.T. CLASSIFICATIONSample Description: Sand (BH13 S3, 2.3 to 2.7 m depth)Figure 8Proposed Armtec PlantProject: LON-21001731-A0Fine to Medium Sand, trace Silt, trace ClayEstimated Hydraulic Conductivity, K ~ 4.6 x 10-3cm/sEstimated Infiltration Rate: 115 mm/hourPage 272 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Appendix C – Inspection and Testing Schedule
Page 273 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
INSPECTION & TESTING SCHEDULE
The following program outlines suggested minimum testing requirements during backfilling of service trenches
and construction of pavements. In adverse weather conditions (wet/freezing), increased testing will be
required. The testing frequencies are general requirements and may be adjusted at the discretion of the
engineer based on test results and prevailing construction conditions.
I TRENCH BACKFILL
ZONE A - one in situ density test per 100 cubic meters or 50 linear metres of
trench whichever is less
- one laboratory grain size and Proctor density test per 50 density
tests or 4000 cubic metres or on change of material (source, visual)
ZONE A1 - one in situ density test per 75 cubic metres of material or 25 linear
metres of each lift of fill
- one laboratory grain size and Proctor density test per each 50
density tests or 4000 cubic metres of material placed or as directed
by the engineer
ZONES B & C - one in situ density test per 150 cubic metres of material or 50
linear metres or each lift whichever is less
- one laboratory grain size and Proctor density test per 50 density
tests or 4000 cubic metres of material placed or as directed by the
engineer
II PAVEMENT MATERIALS
GRANULAR SUBBASE - one in situ density test per 50 linear metres of road
- one laboratory grain size and standard Proctor test per 50 density
tests or 4000 cubic metres or each change of material (visual,
source), as determined by the engineer
GRANULAR BASE - one in situ density test per 50 linear metres of road
- one laboratory grain size and Proctor per 50 density tests or 8000
cubic metres or change in material (visual, source), as determined
by the engineer
- Benkelman beam testing at 10 metre intervals per lane, after final
grading and compaction. Asphaltic concrete should not be placed
until rebound criteria have been satisfied.
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE - one in situ density test per 25 linear metres of roadway
- one complete Marshall Compliance test including stability flow,
etc. for each mix type to check mix acceptability. One extraction
and gradation test per each day of paving to be compared to job
mix formula
NOTES: Where testing indicates inadequate compaction, additional fill should not be placed until the area is
recompacted and retested at the discretion of the engineer.
Page 274 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Appendix D – Limitations and Use of Report
Page 275 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT
BASIS OF REPORT
This report (“Report”) is based on site conditions known or inferred by the geotechnical investigation undertaken as
of the date of the Report. Should changes occur which potentially impact the geotechnical condition of the site, or if
construction is implemented more than one year following the date of the Report, the recommendations of EXP may
require re-evaluation.
The Report is provided solely for the guidance of design engineers and on the assumption that the design will be in
accordance with applicable codes and standards. Any changes in the design features which potentially impact the
geotechnical analyses or issues concerning the geotechnical aspects of applicable codes and standards will
necessitate a review of the design by EXP. Additional field work and reporting may also be required.
Where applicable, recommended field services are the minimum necessary to ascertain that construction is being
carried out in general conformity with building code guidelines, generally accepted practices and EXP’s
recommendations. Any reduction in the level of services recommended will result in EXP providing qualified opinions
regarding the adequacy of the work. EXP can assist design professionals or contractors retained by the Client to
review applicable plans, drawings, and specifications as they relate to the Report or to conduct field reviews during
construction.
Contractors contemplating work on the site are responsible for conducting an independent investigation and
interpretation of the borehole results contained in the Report. The number of boreholes necessary to determine the
localized underground conditions as they impact construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment and
scheduling may be greater than those carried out for the purpose of the Report.
Classification and identification of soils, rocks, geological units, contaminant materials, building envelopment
assessments, and engineering estimates are based on investigations performed in accordance with the standard of
care set out below and require the exercise of judgment. As a result, even comprehensive sampling and testing
programs implemented with the appropriate equipment by experienced personnel may fail to locate some conditions.
All investigations or building envelope descriptions involve an inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected.
All documents or records summarizing investigations are based on assumptions of what exists between the actual
points sampled. Actual conditions may vary significantly between the points investigated. Some conditions are
subject to change over time. The Report presents the conditions at the sampled points at the time of sampling.
Where special concerns exist, or the Client has special considerations or requirements, these should be disclosed to
EXP to allow for additional or special investigations to be undertaken not otherwise within the scope of investigation
conducted for the purpose of the Report.
Page 276 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED
The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report are based on conditions in evidence at the time of site
inspections and information provided to EXP by the Client and others. The Report has been prepared for the specific
site, development, building, design or building assessment objectives and purpose as communicated by the Client.
EXP has relied in good faith upon such representations, information and instructions and accepts no responsibility
for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the Report as a result of any misstatements, omissions,
misrepresentation or fraudulent acts of persons providing information. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the
applicability and reliability of the findings, recommendations, suggestions or opinions expressed in the Report are
only valid to the extent that there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the information
provided to EXP.
STANDARD OF CARE
The Report has been prepared in a manner consistent with the degree of care and skill exercised by engineering
consultants currently practicing under similar circumstances and locale. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the Report does not contain environmental consulting advice.
COMPLETE REPORT
All documents, records, data and files, whether electronic or otherwise, generated as part of this assignment form
part of the Report. This material includes, but is not limited to, the terms of reference given to EXP by its client
(“Client”), communications between EXP and the Client, other reports, proposals or documents prepared by EXP for
the Client in connection with the site described in the Report. In order to properly understand the suggestions,
recommendations and opinions expressed in the Report, reference must be made to the Report in its entirety. EXP
is not responsible for use by any party of portions of the Report.
USE OF REPORT
The information and opinions expressed in the Report, or any document forming part of the Report, are for the sole
benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely upon the Report in whole or in part without the written consent
of EXP. Any use of the Report, or any portion of the Report, by a third party are the sole responsibility of such third
party. EXP is not responsible for damages suffered by any third party resulting from unauthorized use of the Report.
REPORT FORMAT
Where EXP has submitted both electronic file and a hard copy of the Report, or any document forming part of the
Report, only the signed and sealed hard copy shall be the original documents for record and working purposes. In
the event of a dispute or discrepancy, the hard copy shall govern. Electronic files transmitted by EXP have utilize
specific software and hardware systems. EXP makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the
Client’s current or future software and hardware systems. Regardless of format, the documents described herein are
EXP’s instruments of professional service and shall not be altered without the written consent of EXP.
Page 277 of 304
EXP Services Inc.
Draft Report
Project Name: Proposed Armtec Plant – Rokeby Orchard Road, Tillsonburg, ON
Project Number: LON-21001731-A0
Date: April 12, 2020
Earth and Environmental Division - Geotechnical
Legal Notification
This report was prepared by EXP Services Inc. for the exclusive use of Armtec and may not be reproduced in whole
or in part, or used or relied upon in whole or in part by any party other than Armtec for any purpose whatsoever
without the express permission of Armtec in writing.
Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties. EXP Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any
third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.
Page 278 of 304
21-130.1DRAWING TITLESCALE7ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.JAN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.05JAN22ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL217SEP21ISSUED FOR DISCUSSION313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW420OCT21ISSUED FOR PRE-PERMIT REVIEW503NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT606DEC21ISSUED FOR PERMIT705JAN22REVISED PER COMMENTSA100HDP PLASTIC BUILDINGPROJECT INFORMATION & OBC MATRIXSITE PLAN DRAWING - BY OTHERS1NORTHCLADDING1.ALL APPLICATIONS OF CLADDING SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 9.27 OF THE ONTARIOBUILDING CODE (2012).2.INSTALLATION OF CLADDING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS. THESE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING;2.1.SEALING2.2.FASTENING2.3.AIR GAPS2.4.OVERLAPS2.5.PENETRATIONSGENERAL1.THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL WORK ON THIS PROJECT IS TO CONFORM TOTHE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE - 2012 INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS, AND THE RELEVANTLISTED CSA STANDARDS INCLUDING THE LATEST REVISIONS.2.READ STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT ARCHITECTURALAND SERVICES DRAWINGS AND OTHER CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONED DRAWINGS AND REPORT ANYDISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.4.DO NOT EXCEED DESIGN LIVE LOAD DURING CONSTRUCTION.5.ALL WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTHAND SAFETY ACT AND REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - O.REG. 213/91.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT INSPECTION AND TESTINGCOMPANY TO ENSURE THAT ALL WORK IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS. TESTING SHALL INCLUDE REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT,CONCRETE TESTS, SOIL BEARING AND COMPACTION TESTS, AND STRUCTURAL STEEL.7.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THEENGINEER OF REQUIRED INSPECTION AND TESTING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDETHE ENGINEER WITH A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK.GENERALLY, INSPECTION BY THE ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR REBAR PRIOR TOCONCRETE PLACEMENT, FOOTING AND FOUNDATIONS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING, ANDABOVE GRADE FRAMING PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF INTERIOR FINISHES.8.SITE VISITS AND REVIEWS BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER OR REPRESENTATIVE AREINTENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THEDESIGN CONCEPT. THE SITE REVIEWS DO NOT MEAN THAT THE DESIGN ENGINEER HASSEEN ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.9.REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER DOES NOT RELIEVE THECONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS AND FOR MEETINGALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.10.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVALOF FINISHES REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS OR TESTING THAT IS COVERED BEFOREINSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED.11.SUBSTITUTIONS FROM SPECIFIED PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS MUST BE APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER PRIOR TO ORDERING OF MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLREIMBURSE ALL CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OFREVIEWING ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.12.IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DESIGN ALL SHORING ANDTEMPORARY BRACING PER O.REG 213/91 AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN ANENGINEER AS REQUIRED.SUBJECT BUILDINGTYPICAL STANDARD DOOR3'-0"2'-0"HEIGHT PER TABLE WIDTHPER TABLED1180"36"PRIMARY ENTRANCE86"76"TYPICAL OVERHEAD DOORHEIGHT PER TABLE
WIDTH PER TABLEHEIGHT PER TABLE
WIDTH PER TABLESUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSPROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR REVIEW & COMMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION:1.MISCELLANEOUS STEEL & STAIR SHOP DRAWINGS, CONNECTIONS DESIGNED & STAMEDBY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.2.STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS, CONNECTIONS DESIGNED & STAMPED BY ALICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.3.LIGHT GAUGE METAL FRAMING (METAL STUD WALL), CONNECTIONS DESIGNED &STAMPED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.4.REBAR SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEWPROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR REVIEW DURING CONSTRUCTION:2.GEOTECHNICAL SUBGRADE INSPECTION REPORT3.COMPACTION REPORT FOR BACKFILL4.REBAR INSPECTION REPORT5.CONCRETE ORDER SLIPS & TEST CYLINDER BREAK RESULTS (AS REQ'D BY APPLICABLECODES)TYPICAL WINDOWMMA SUPPLEMENTARY STANDARD SB-10 - TABLE 5.5.5[# OF DD BELOW 18° = 3840] CLIMATE ZONE: 5NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTSOPAQUE ELEMENTSREQUIREDPROPOSEDROOFSMIN. R-VALUEMAX. U-VALUEDESCRIPTIONEFFECTIVE U-VALUEMETAL BUILDING*R-25 + R-11 LsU-0.033THERMAL 10" ROOF SYSTEMU-0.031WALLS, ABOVE GRADEMIN. R-VALUEMAX. U-VALUEDESCRIPTIONEFFECTIVE U-VALUEMETAL BUILDINGR-13 + R-6.3 c.i.U-0.045R20 MBI FACED INSUL.U-0.035SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORMIN. R-VALUEMAX. U-VALUEDESCRIPTIONEFFECTIVE U-VALUEUNHEATEDR-15 for 48 in.F-0.468R-15 for 48 in.F-0.468OPAQUE DOORSMAX. U-VALUEEFFECTIVE U-VALUENON-SWINGINGU-0.45U-0.45FENESTRATIONMAX. SHGC = 0.40METAL FRAMING: FIXED= 0.38METAL FRAMING: OPERABLE= 0.45METAL FRAMING: ENTRANCE DOOR= 0.69NOTE:BEHLEN TO PROVIDE INSULATION DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONSTO THE MUNICIPALITY FOR PERMIT REVIEW.ABBREVIATIONS#J, #K# JACK STUDS, # KING STUDSABANCHOR BOLTAFFABOVE FINISHED FLOORALTALTERNATEAPPROXAPPROXIMATE(LY)ARCHARCHITECTURALCJCONTROL JOINTCLCENTRELINECLRCLEARCMUCONCRETE MASONRY UNITCONTCONTINUOUSCSNCOMMON SPIRAL NAILDIADIAMETERDNDOWNEAEACHEQUIPEQUIPMENTEXIST.EXISTINGF.D.FLOOR DRAINFFFINISHED FLOORGAGAUGEGALVGALVANIZEDLLVLONG LEG VERTICALLLHLONG LEG HORIZONTALLSVLONG SIDE VERTICALLSHLONG SIDE HORIZONTALLVLLAMINATED VENEER LUMBERMAXMAXIMUMMINMINIMUMNTSNOT TO SCALEO.C.ON CENTREOHOVERHEADPLPLATEPROP.PROPOSEDPSFPOUNDS PER SQUARE FOOTPSIPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHRRADIUSRDROOF DRAINR.O.ROUGH OPENINGRWLRAINWATER LEADERSFSQUARE FEETSIMSIMILARSPFSPRUCE PINE FIRSSSTAINLESS STEELT&BTOP AND BOTTOMT>ONGUE AND GROOVETEMPTEMPORARYT/TOP OFTYP.TYPICALUNOUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEU/UNDERSIDE OFW/RWASHROOMW.A.WORKING POINTWWMWELDED WIRE MESHPage 279 of 304
12350'-0"34567891011131214A1525'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"PMPROPOSED PLASTIC 'HDP' BUILDINGGROUP F-2 MEDIUM HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL OCCUPANCYAREA = 77,750ft2 (7,223m2)BUILDING IS SPRINKLEREDLKIGFEDCBNOJFECBLGHDAM50'-0"200'-0"250'-0"25'-0"1234567'25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"5"150'-5"22'-2 3/4"22'-2 3/4"22'-2 3/4"17'-9 1/4"17'-9 1/4"17'-9 1/4"16'-0"16'-0"28'-0"20'-0"
16'-8"16'-8"16'-8"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"17'-9 5/16"17'-9 5/16"17'-9 5/16"22'-2 11/16"22'-2 11/16"22'-2 11/16"LABS20'-0'x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE20'-0'x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE20'-0'x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE20'-0'x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE20'-0'x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE20'-0'x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE15'-0'x20'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARE
24'-0'x20'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARE10'-0'x10'-0"O/H DOOR10'-0'x10'-0"O/H DOOR10'-0'x10'-0"O/H DOOR10'-0'x10'-0"O/H DOORUTILITY ROOMELECTRICALROOMMAINTENANCE ROOMRESIN TRANSITION ROOM10'-0'x10'-0"O/H DOORGRINDERS &SHREDDERS16'-0'x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE10'-0'x10'-0"O/H DOOR16'-0'x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE16'-0'x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWAREWASH BASINUNIVERSAL W/RTYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDINGCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @6'-0" O.C. MAX.R20 MBI FULL HEIGHTPRE-ENG FRAMES @25'-0" O.C.INTERIOR METAL LINERD3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D3D4D1REINFORCED MASONRY WALLTO UNDERSIDE OF HOLLOW-CORESEE STRUCTURALUP 19R @7.58"D6D5D4D4D4D4D4D6D6D6D6D7D7D8D8D8D8D8D8D7D6D4D9D10TYPICAL INTERIOR METAL PARTITIONW10x15 @GRIDLINES (±22'-0" O.C.)CFC8x3.4 GIRTS @6'-0" O.C.METAL LINER E.S. TYP.PARTITION WALL AROUND GRINDERS/SHREDDERSW10x15 @GRIDLINES (±22'-0" O.C.)CFC8x3.4 GIRTS @6'-0" O.C.METAL LINER E.S. TYP.W1D2W1W2W2W2GIRTS TO CONNECT TO PRE-ENG GIRTSMATCH SPACING TYP.D2TYPICAL PARTITION WALL (UNDER MEZZANINE)INTERIOR METAL LINER E.S.HORIZONTAL STRAPPING @24" O.C. E.S.350S125-33 @24" O.C.6'-0"x8'-0"ROLL-UP DOORD4MEN'S LOCKER ROOMWOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM21-130.1DRAWING TITLESCALE7ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.JAN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.05JAN22ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL217SEP21ISSUED FOR DISCUSSION313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW420OCT21ISSUED FOR PRE-PERMIT REVIEW503NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT606DEC21ISSUED FOR PERMIT705JAN22REVISED PER COMMENTSA201HDP PLASTIC BUILDINGGROUND FLOOR PLANPage 280 of 304
STORAGEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICELUNCHROOMMEN'S W/RWOMEN'S W/RD11D11D11D4D116'-5"7'-0"15'-0"21'-6"25'-2"21'-0"16'-11"10'-0"9'-8 1/2"10'-1 1/2"4'-3"10'-0"5'-2"9'-0"11'-0"8'-6"8'-6"W2W3W3W3W3D4D4D4D4W2W2W3D46'-6"5'-0"14'-0"10'-3"13'-10"D4D4STORAGE 11'-2"12'-0"21'-10"9'-10"8'-10"1'-0"
12'-0"
19 RISERS @7.58"TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL GUARDØ112" SCH. 40 PIPECONT. RAILS & POSTS @4'-0" O.C. MAX.4'-0"3'-6"6'-0"10'-0"x10'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR12'-0"9'-10"8'-10"OFFICES / LUNCH ROOM AREALAB12" COLD-FORMED CEILING JOISTS12" DRYWALLUNDERSIDE OF PRE-ENG ROOF GIRTSFOUNDATION PER STRUCTURALFOUNDATION PER STRUCTURAL2" CONC. TOPPING8" HOLLOW-CORE SLAB(10" TOTAL THICKNESS)INTERIOR METAL LINER E.S.HORIZONTAL STRAPPING @24" O.C.E.S.STUDS PER STRUCTURALINTERIOR METAL LINER E.S.HORIZONTAL STRAPPING @24" O.C.E.S.STUDS PER STRUCTURAL8'-8"
8'-0"
1'-6 1/2"1'-6 1/2"UNIVERSAL WASHROOM REQUIREMENTSSHALL BE SERVED BY A BARRIER FREE PATH OF TRAVEL (3'-8" MIN)PROVIDE COAT HOOK CONFORMING TO 3.8.3.8 (1) & SHELVE LOCATEDNOT MORE THAN 4'-0" ABOVE FIN. FLOORLIGHTING - O.B.C. 3.8.3.12(1)(K)PROVIDE LIGHTING CONTROLLED BY A MOTION SENSORCONFORMING TO 12.2.4.1(2)BARRIER FREE DOOR·TYP. 2'-11" CLEAR FOR DOORS IN BARRIER FREE PATH OF TRAVEL·DOOR CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED FROM THE INSIDE ANDRELEASED FROM THE OUTSIDE IN CASE OF EMERGENCY O.B.C.3.8.3.12.(B)·SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A POWER DOOR OPERATOR AS PEROBCEMERGENCY CALL SYSTEM - O.B.C. 3.8.3.12(2)·WITH AUDIBLE AND VISUAL SIGNAL DEVISES INSIDE AND OUTSIDEOF THE WASHROOM.·ACTIVATED BY A CONTROL DEVICE INSIDE THE WASHROOM·PROVIDE EMERGENCY SIGN AS PER O.B.C. 3.8.3.12.(2)(B)WATER CLOSETS - O.B.C. 3.8.3.9·SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH HAND OPERATED FLUSHINGCONTROLS THAT ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO A WHEELCHAIRUSER OR BE AUTOMATICALLY OPERABLE. SHALL BE EQUIPPEDWITH A BACK SUPPORT WHERE THERE IS NO SEAT LID OR TANK·MUST NOT HAVE A SPRING-ACTIVATED SEAT1'-5" MIN.
1'-7" MAX.
1'-11 1/2"
3'-0" MAX.
2'-9" MIN.
6"
2'-5"
2'-9" MAX.1'-7"10"3'-0"3'-3 1/2"
4'-0" MAX.1'-0"CADET UNIVERSAL BASINC/W CEROMIX LEVER & OFFSET DRAINPAPER TOWEL DISPENSER OR HAND DRYER·4'-0" MAX. DISPENSING HEIGHT FORM F.F.·LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 2'-0" MAX.MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM THEEDGE OF THE LAVATORY2'-0" x 3'-0" MIRROR(UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN SCHEDULES)TO BE INSTALLED ABOVE VANITYSINK, TILTED FOR BARRIER-FREE USESOAP DISPENSER·ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS IN WHEELCHAIRS·4'-0" MAX. DISPENSING HEIGHT FORM F.F.·LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 2'-0" MAX.MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM THE EDGE OFTHE LAVATORYCLEARANCES BENEATH LAVATORY·3'-0" WIDE·2'-5" HIGH AT THE FRONT EDGE·2'-3" HIGH AT A POINT 8" BACK FROM THE FRONT EDGE·1'-2" HIGH AT A POINT 12" BACK FROM THE FRONT EDGE TO THE WALL30"x30"x112" GRAB BARAS PER O.B.C. 3.8.3.8 (5)&(7)PROVIDE 34" PLYWOODBLOCKING BETWEEN STUDS TYPAT ALL GRAB BAR LOCATIONS24"x112" GRAB BARTOILET PAPER DISPENSERO.B.C. 3.8.3.8(1)(g)Ø5'-7
"3'-0"x5'-0" CLEAR SPACEBESIDE WATER CLOSEDPER OBC 3.8.3.8(2)3'-0"x4'-6" CLEARIN FRONT OF LAVATORYPER OBC 3.8.3.11(1)(f)PDOPER OBC 3.8.3.3.(17)2'-11" CLEAR MIN.8'-8"21-130.1DRAWING TITLESCALE7ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.JAN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.05JAN22ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL217SEP21ISSUED FOR DISCUSSION313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW420OCT21ISSUED FOR PRE-PERMIT REVIEW503NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT606DEC21ISSUED FOR PERMIT705JAN22REVISED PER COMMENTSA202HDP PLASTIC BUILDINGMEZZANINE PLAN & DETAILSUNIVERSAL W/R DETAILSScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2ND FLOOR MEZZANINE PLAN1Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"MEZZANINE ELEVATION (FACING PLANT)2Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"MEZZANINE CROSS SECTION3Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"UNIVERSAL W/R DETAILS4Page 281 of 304
GDAM10'-4"66'-8"53'-4"80'-0"200'-0"27'-1 1/16"REFER TO PRE-ENGINEERED DRAWINGS BY BEHLEN
19'-10 1/8"
REFER TO PRE-ENGINEERED DRAWINGS BY BEHLEN
73'-8"REFER TO PRE-ENGINEERED DRAWINGS BY BEHLENROOF CONSTRUCTIONSTANDING SEAM ROOF DECK10" UNFACED INSULATIONTHERMAL ROOF SYSTEM (BY BEHLEN) C/W LINERTYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTIONEXTERIOR METAL LINER6" R20 MBI (INCLUDES VAPOR BARRIER)8" GIRTS BY BEHLENINTERIOR METAL LINERCONNECT TO PRE-ENG FRAME3" FROM TOP OF FRAME& PROVIDE VERTICAL SLOT FOR 3" DEFLECTIONCOLUMNS AS SHOWN ON PLANINTERIOR METAL LINER E.S.8" CFC @6'-0" O.C.SEE PLANScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"BUILDING CROSS SECTION132'-0"8'-4 1/4"40'-4 1/4"12112121-130.1DRAWING TITLESCALE7ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.JAN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.05JAN22ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL217SEP21ISSUED FOR DISCUSSION313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW420OCT21ISSUED FOR PRE-PERMIT REVIEW503NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT606DEC21ISSUED FOR PERMIT705JAN22REVISED PER COMMENTSA301HDP PLASTIC BUILDINGBUILDING CROSS SECTIONPage 282 of 304
APMLKIGFEDCBNO50'-0"200'-0"250'-0"22'-2 3/4"22'-2 3/4"22'-2 3/4"17'-9 1/4"17'-9 1/4"17'-9 1/4"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"16'-8"16'-8"16'-8"APMNO50'-0"200'-0"250'-0"16'-8"16'-8"16'-8"JFECBLGHD20'-0"28'-0"16'-0"16'-0"17'-9 1/4"17'-9 1/4"17'-9 1/4"22'-2 3/4"22'-2 3/4"22'-2 3/4"40'-11" TO PEAK
32'-0"
TYPICAL EAVE HEIGHT
27'-10"LOW EAVE HEIGHT
27'-10"
LOW EAVE HEIGHT
32'-0"TYPICAL EAVE HEIGHT41'-0" TO PEAKScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION125'-8"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATION2PRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDINGTYPICAL WALL PACK LIGHTPRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDING24'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR15'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR21-130.1DRAWING TITLESCALE7ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.JAN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.05JAN22ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL217SEP21ISSUED FOR DISCUSSION313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW420OCT21ISSUED FOR PRE-PERMIT REVIEW503NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT606DEC21ISSUED FOR PERMIT705JAN22REVISED PER COMMENTSA401HDP PLASTIC BUILDING ELEVATIONSSOUTH & NORTHPage 283 of 304
12350'-0"345678910111312141525'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"12350'-0"345678910111312141525'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"32'-0"TYPICAL EAVE HEIGHT41'-0" TO PEAK
32'-0"
41'-0" TO PEAK27'-10"LOW EAVE HEIGHT Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION1Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION2PRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDINGPRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDING20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR16'-0"x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR16'-0"x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR16'-0"x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR21-130.1DRAWING TITLESCALE7ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.JAN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.05JAN22ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL217SEP21ISSUED FOR DISCUSSION313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW420OCT21ISSUED FOR PRE-PERMIT REVIEW503NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT606DEC21ISSUED FOR PERMIT705JAN22REVISED PER COMMENTSA402HDP PLASTIC BUILDING ELEVATIONSWEST & EASTPage 284 of 304
21-130-.2DRAWING TITLESCALE4PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.18NOV21ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.05JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21REVISED PER CLIENT REQUEST227AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW418NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMITA101STEEL & OFFICE BUILDINGPROJECT INFORMATION & OBC MATRIXDOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULESSITE PLAN DRAWING - BY OTHERS1NORTHCLADDING1.ALL APPLICATIONS OF CLADDING SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 9.27 OF THE ONTARIOBUILDING CODE (2012).2.INSTALLATION OF CLADDING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS. THESE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING;2.1.SEALING2.2.FASTENING2.3.AIR GAPS2.4.OVERLAPS2.5.PENETRATIONSGENERAL1.THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL WORK ON THIS PROJECT IS TO CONFORM TOTHE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE - 2012 INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS, AND THE RELEVANTLISTED CSA STANDARDS INCLUDING THE LATEST REVISIONS.2.READ STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT ARCHITECTURALAND SERVICES DRAWINGS AND OTHER CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONED DRAWINGS AND REPORT ANYDISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.4.DO NOT EXCEED DESIGN LIVE LOAD DURING CONSTRUCTION.5.ALL WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTHAND SAFETY ACT AND REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - O.REG. 213/91.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT INSPECTION AND TESTINGCOMPANY TO ENSURE THAT ALL WORK IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS. TESTING SHALL INCLUDE REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT,CONCRETE TESTS, SOIL BEARING AND COMPACTION TESTS, AND STRUCTURAL STEEL.7.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THEENGINEER OF REQUIRED INSPECTION AND TESTING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDETHE ENGINEER WITH A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK.GENERALLY, INSPECTION BY THE ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR REBAR PRIOR TOCONCRETE PLACEMENT, FOOTING AND FOUNDATIONS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING, ANDABOVE GRADE FRAMING PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF INTERIOR FINISHES.8.SITE VISITS AND REVIEWS BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER OR REPRESENTATIVE AREINTENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THEDESIGN CONCEPT. THE SITE REVIEWS DO NOT MEAN THAT THE DESIGN ENGINEER HASSEEN ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.9.REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER DOES NOT RELIEVE THECONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS AND FOR MEETINGALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.10.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVALOF FINISHES REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS OR TESTING THAT IS COVERED BEFOREINSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED.11.SUBSTITUTIONS FROM SPECIFIED PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS MUST BE APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER PRIOR TO ORDERING OF MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLREIMBURSE ALL CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OFREVIEWING ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.12.IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DESIGN ALL SHORING ANDTEMPORARY BRACING PER O.REG 213/91 AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN ANENGINEER AS REQUIRED.SUBJECT BUILDINGTYPICAL STANDARD DOOR3'-0"2'-0"HEIGHT PER TABLE WIDTHPER TABLED8 TYPICAL80"36"D1 & D2 TYPICAL86"76"TYPICAL OVERHEAD DOORHEIGHT PER TABLE
WIDTH PER TABLESUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSPROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR REVIEW & COMMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION:1.REBAR SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEWPROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR REVIEW DURING CONSTRUCTION:2.GEOTECHNICAL SUBGRADE INSPECTION REPORT3.COMPACTION REPORT FOR BACKFILL4.REBAR INSPECTION REPORT5.CONCRETE ORDER SLIPS & TEST CYLINDER BREAK RESULTS (AS REQ'D BY APPLICABLECODES)W1 TYPICALMMA SUPPLEMENTARY STANDARD SB-10 - TABLE 5.5.5[# OF DD BELOW 18° = 3840] CLIMATE ZONE: 5NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTSOPAQUE ELEMENTSREQUIREDPROPOSEDROOFSMIN. R-VALUEMAX. U-VALUEDESCRIPTIONEFFECTIVE U-VALUEMETAL BUILDING*R-25 + R-11 LsU-0.033THERMAL 10" ROOF SYSTEMU-0.031OFFICE (METAL BLDG)R-25 + R-11 LsU-0.03312" R 3.6/inU-0.026WALLS, ABOVE GRADEMIN. R-VALUEMAX. U-VALUEDESCRIPTIONEFFECTIVE U-VALUEMETAL BUILDINGR-13 + R-6.3 c.i.U-0.045R20 MBI FACED INSUL.U-0.035OFFICE (METAL BLDG)R-13 + R-6.3 c.i.U-0.045SEMI-RIGID BATTU-0.036SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORMIN. R-VALUEMAX. U-VALUEDESCRIPTIONEFFECTIVE U-VALUEUNHEATEDR-15 for 48 in.F-0.468R-15 for 48 in.F-0.468OPAQUE DOORSMAX. U-VALUEEFFECTIVE U-VALUENON-SWINGINGU-0.45U-0.45FENESTRATIONMAX. SHGC = 0.40METAL FRAMING: FIXED= 0.38METAL FRAMING: OPERABLE= 0.45METAL FRAMING: ENTRANCE DOOR= 0.69NOTE:BEHLEN TO PROVIDE INSULATION DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONSTO THE MUNICIPALITY FOR PERMIT REVIEW.ABBREVIATIONS#J, #K# JACK STUDS, # KING STUDSABANCHOR BOLTAFFABOVE FINISHED FLOORALTALTERNATEAPPROXAPPROXIMATE(LY)ARCHARCHITECTURALCJCONTROL JOINTCLCENTRELINECLRCLEARCMUCONCRETE MASONRY UNITCONTCONTINUOUSCSNCOMMON SPIRAL NAILDIADIAMETERDNDOWNEAEACHEQUIPEQUIPMENTEXIST.EXISTINGF.D.FLOOR DRAINFFFINISHED FLOORGAGAUGEGALVGALVANIZEDLLVLONG LEG VERTICALLLHLONG LEG HORIZONTALLSVLONG SIDE VERTICALLSHLONG SIDE HORIZONTALLVLLAMINATED VENEER LUMBERMAXMAXIMUMMINMINIMUMNTSNOT TO SCALEO.C.ON CENTREOHOVERHEADPLPLATEPROP.PROPOSEDPSFPOUNDS PER SQUARE FOOTPSIPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHRRADIUSRDROOF DRAINR.O.ROUGH OPENINGRWLRAINWATER LEADERSFSQUARE FEETSIMSIMILARSPFSPRUCE PINE FIRSSSTAINLESS STEELT&BTOP AND BOTTOMT>ONGUE AND GROOVETEMPTEMPORARYT/TOP OFTYP.TYPICALUNOUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEU/UNDERSIDE OFW/RWASHROOMW.A.WORKING POINTWWMWELDED WIRE MESHD9 TYPICALHEIGHT PER TABLE
WIDTHPER TABLEW2 TYPICALW3 TYPICAL1'-6"MATCH D8
3'-2"MATCH D9 3'-4"5'-0"Page 285 of 304
PROPOSED STEEL FABRICATION BUILDING & WASH BAYSGROUP F-2 MEDIUM HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL OCCUPANCYAREA = 16,946ft2 (1,575m2)10897654321HFDBA84'-0"
21'-4"20'-8"20'-8"21'-4"CEGA25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"14'-10"20'-0"x20'-0" OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALL REQ'D HARDWARE20'-0"x20'-0" OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALL REQ'D HARDWARE20'-0"x20'-0" OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALL REQ'D HARDWARE20'-0"x20'-0" OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALL REQ'D HARDWARE16'-0"x16'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARE
16'-0"x16'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARE
16'-0"x16'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARE
16'-0"x16'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARE
16'-0"x16'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARE
16'-0"x16'-0"
OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL
REQ'D HARDWARETRUCK BAYTRUCK BAYTRUCK BAYTRUCK BAYLOCKERROOMWASHING STATIONLUNCH ROOM/KITCHEN/FILINGCUBICLE(8' x 8')CUBICLE(8' x 8')CUBICLE(8' x 8')CUBICLE(8' x 8')CUBICLE(8' x 8')CUBICLE(8' x 8')CUBICLE(8' x 8')CUBICLE(8' x 8')SERVER RMOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICECOFFEESTORAGEBOARD ROOM41'-6"7'-6"10'-0"8'-0"11'-7" TYP.CSR / RECEPTIONSHIPPINGRECEIVING72'-9"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"20'-0"20'-0"40'-0"175'-0"MEN'SW/RWOMEN'SW/R7'-0"24'-2"5'-0"21'-3"15'-3"8'-0"12'-8"9'-4"9'-10 1/2"29'-0"9'-0"VESTIBULE(PRINCIPLE ENTRANCE)UNIVERSALW/RUNIVERSALW/RD25'-0"D3D3D3D4D4D4D6D5D5D7D6D8D8D8D8D8D8D9D10D11D12D12D12D12D13D13D13D13D13D13D1D5D5D1D2D1D2D1TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDINGCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @6'-0" O.C. MAX.R20 MBI FULL HEIGHTPRE-ENG FRAMES @25'-0" O.C.INTERIOR METAL LINERD3D3D3D3TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY (FRAMELESS BUILDING)26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDING41" FRAMELESS WALL PANELSWOOD STRAPPING @4'-0" O.C. MAX.6.5" R 4.2/in SEMI-RIGID BATT INSULATIONFURRING CLIPSINTERIOR METAL LINER (ACTS AS INTEGRAL VAPOR BARRIER)12'-0"19'-0"TYPICAL INTERIOR PARTITION WALL12" DRYWALL362S125-33 @24" O.C.12" DRYWALLFINISH PER OWNER SPEC.12" DRYWALL E.S.600S162-43 @24" O.C.ACOUSTIC INSULATION1A301PDO PER OBC3.8.3.3.(17)2A30112'-4 1/2"12'-0"10'-7"9'-7 1/2"W2W2W3W3W3W3W3W3W3W3W3W2W2W2W2EXITS TO BE INSTALLED NO MORE THAN 30m ON CENTERAROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDINGIN ACCORDANCE WITH OBC 3.4.2.5.(f)19'-0"PROPOSED ACCESSORY OFFICEAREA = 6,535ft2 (607m2)6'-0"6'-0"11'-0 1/2"PDO PER OBC3.8.3.3.(17)Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"GROUND FLOOR PLAN1TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)INTERIOR METAL LINERCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @6'-0" O.C. MAX.INTERIOR METAL LINERD111'-6 1/2"1'-6 1/2"7'-4"8'-0"Ø5'-7"3'-0"x5'-0" CLEAR SPACEBESIDE WATER CLOSEDPER OBC 3.8.3.8(2)2'-11" CLEAR MIN.PDOPER OBC 3.8.3.3.(17)UNIVERSAL WASHROOM REQUIREMENTSSHALL BE SERVED BY A BARRIER FREE PATH OF TRAVEL (3'-8" MIN)PROVIDE COAT HOOK CONFORMING TO 3.8.3.8 (1) & SHELVE LOCATEDNOT MORE THAN 4'-0" ABOVE FIN. FLOORLIGHTING - O.B.C. 3.8.3.12(1)(K)PROVIDE LIGHTING CONTROLLED BY A MOTION SENSORCONFORMING TO 12.2.4.1(2)BARRIER FREE DOOR·TYP. 2'-11" CLEAR FOR DOORS IN BARRIER FREE PATH OF TRAVEL·DOOR CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED FROM THE INSIDE ANDRELEASED FROM THE OUTSIDE IN CASE OF EMERGENCY O.B.C.3.8.3.12.(B)·SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A POWER DOOR OPERATOR AS PEROBCEMERGENCY CALL SYSTEM - O.B.C. 3.8.3.12(2)·WITH AUDIBLE AND VISUAL SIGNAL DEVISES INSIDE AND OUTSIDEOF THE WASHROOM.·ACTIVATED BY A CONTROL DEVICE INSIDE THE WASHROOM·PROVIDE EMERGENCY SIGN AS PER O.B.C. 3.8.3.12.(2)(B)WATER CLOSETS - O.B.C. 3.8.3.9·SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH HAND OPERATED FLUSHINGCONTROLS THAT ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO A WHEELCHAIRUSER OR BE AUTOMATICALLY OPERABLE. SHALL BE EQUIPPEDWITH A BACK SUPPORT WHERE THERE IS NO SEAT LID OR TANK·MUST NOT HAVE A SPRING-ACTIVATED SEAT1'-5" MIN.
1'-7" MAX.
1'-11 1/2"
3'-0" MAX.
2'-9" MIN.
6"
2'-5"
2'-9" MAX.1'-7"10"3'-0"3'-3 1/2"
4'-0" MAX.1'-0"CADET UNIVERSAL BASINC/W CEROMIX LEVER & OFFSET DRAINPAPER TOWEL DISPENSER OR HAND DRYER·4'-0" MAX. DISPENSING HEIGHT FORM F.F.·LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 2'-0" MAX.MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM THEEDGE OF THE LAVATORY2'-0" x 3'-0" MIRROR(UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN SCHEDULES)TO BE INSTALLED ABOVE VANITYSINK, TILTED FOR BARRIER-FREE USESOAP DISPENSER·ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS IN WHEELCHAIRS·4'-0" MAX. DISPENSING HEIGHT FORM F.F.·LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 2'-0" MAX.MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM THE EDGE OFTHE LAVATORYCLEARANCES BENEATH LAVATORY·3'-0" WIDE·2'-5" HIGH AT THE FRONT EDGE·2'-3" HIGH AT A POINT 8" BACK FROM THE FRONT EDGE·1'-2" HIGH AT A POINT 12" BACK FROM THE FRONT EDGE TO THE WALL30"x30"x112" GRAB BARAS PER O.B.C. 3.8.3.8 (5)&(7)PROVIDE 34" PLYWOODBLOCKING BETWEEN STUDS TYPAT ALL GRAB BAR LOCATIONS24"x112" GRAB BARTOILET PAPER DISPENSERO.B.C. 3.8.3.8(1)(g)Scale: 3/8" = 1'-0"UNIVERSAL W/R DETAILS221-130-.2DRAWING TITLESCALE4PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.18NOV21ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.05JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21REVISED PER CLIENT REQUEST227AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW418NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMITA201STEEL & OFFICE BUILDINGGROUND FLOOR PLANUNIVERSAL W/R DETAILSPage 286 of 304
23'-1 1/4"14'-0"9'-1 1/4"HEADER BY BEHLEN9'-0"VESTIBULEHALLWAYBOARD ROOMCOFFEECUBICLECUBICLECUBICLECUBICLETYPICAL ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLYCORRUGATED ROOF CLADDINGVENTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH OBCSEMI-RIGID BATT CEILING INSULATION BY BEHLENFRAMELESS TRUSS SYSTEM BY BEHLENINTERIOR METAL LINER AT UNDERSIDE OF TRUSS12112125'-0"TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDINGCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @6'-0" O.C. MAX.R20 MBI FULL HEIGHTPRE-ENG FRAMES @25'-0" O.C.INTERIOR METAL LINERTYPICAL ROOF CONSTRUCTIONSTANDING SEAM ROOF DECK10" UNFACED INSULATIONTHERMAL ROOF SYSTEM (BY BEHLEN) C/W LINERAGAG14'-10"75'-0"TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY (FRAMELESS BUILDING)26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDING41" FRAMELESS WALL PANELSWOOD STRAPPING @4'-0" O.C. MAX.6.5" R 4.2/in SEMI-RIGID BATT INSULATIONFURRING CLIPSINTERIOR METAL LINER (ACTS AS INTEGRAL VAPOR BARRIER)Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"OFFICE CROSS SECTION1Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"PRE-ENG STEEL CROSS SECTION2FOUNDATION PER STRUCTURALR-15 INSULATION FOR 48"AROUND PERIMETER OF BUILDING75'-4"TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDINGCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @6'-0" O.C. MAX.R20 MBI FULL HEIGHTPRE-ENG FRAMES @25'-0" O.C.INTERIOR METAL LINER21-130-.2DRAWING TITLESCALE4PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.18NOV21ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.05JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21REVISED PER CLIENT REQUEST227AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW418NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMITA301STEEL & OFFICE BUILDINGBUILDING CROSS SECTIONSPage 287 of 304
1089765432120'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR16'-0"x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR16'-0"x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR16'-0"x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR16'-0"x16'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR1089765432120'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR28'-1 1/2"24'-6"±23'-1"14'-0"
28'-7 1/2"
25'-0"
14'-0"
28'-7 3/4"25'-0"28'-7 3/4"25'-0"Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION1Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATION2Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION3Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION4PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM CLADDINGPRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM CLADDINGPRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM CLADDINGWALL PACK LIGHT TYP.21-130-.2DRAWING TITLESCALE4PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.18NOV21ARMTECPROJECT BOSS0REV.05JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21REVISED PER CLIENT REQUEST227AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW418NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMITA401STEEL & OFFICE BUILDINGBUILDING ELEVATIONSPage 288 of 304
21-130.3DRAWING TITLESCALE5PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.07DEC210REV.06JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ARMTECPROJECT BOSSROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL219AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW408NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT507DEC21REVISED KEY PLAN - A100A100STORAGE BUILDINGKEY PLAN, OBC MATRIX & NOTESCLADDING1.ALL APPLICATIONS OF CLADDING SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 9.27 OF THE ONTARIOBUILDING CODE (2012).2.INSTALLATION OF CLADDING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS. THESE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING;2.1.SEALING2.2.FASTENING2.3.AIR GAPS2.4.OVERLAPS2.5.PENETRATIONSGENERAL1.THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL WORK ON THIS PROJECT IS TO CONFORM TOTHE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE - 2012 INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS, AND THE RELEVANTLISTED CSA STANDARDS INCLUDING THE LATEST REVISIONS.2.READ STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT ARCHITECTURALAND SERVICES DRAWINGS AND OTHER CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONED DRAWINGS AND REPORT ANYDISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.4.DO NOT EXCEED DESIGN LIVE LOAD DURING CONSTRUCTION.5.ALL WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTHAND SAFETY ACT AND REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - O.REG. 213/91.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT INSPECTION AND TESTINGCOMPANY TO ENSURE THAT ALL WORK IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS. TESTING SHALL INCLUDE REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT,CONCRETE TESTS, SOIL BEARING AND COMPACTION TESTS, AND STRUCTURAL STEEL.7.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THEENGINEER OF REQUIRED INSPECTION AND TESTING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDETHE ENGINEER WITH A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK.GENERALLY, INSPECTION BY THE ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR REBAR PRIOR TOCONCRETE PLACEMENT, FOOTING AND FOUNDATIONS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING, ANDABOVE GRADE FRAMING PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF INTERIOR FINISHES.8.SITE VISITS AND REVIEWS BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER OR REPRESENTATIVE AREINTENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THEDESIGN CONCEPT. THE SITE REVIEWS DO NOT MEAN THAT THE DESIGN ENGINEER HASSEEN ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.9.REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER DOES NOT RELIEVE THECONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS AND FOR MEETINGALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.10.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVALOF FINISHES REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS OR TESTING THAT IS COVERED BEFOREINSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED.11.SUBSTITUTIONS FROM SPECIFIED PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS MUST BE APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER PRIOR TO ORDERING OF MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLREIMBURSE ALL CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OFREVIEWING ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.12.IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DESIGN ALL SHORING ANDTEMPORARY BRACING PER O.REG 213/91 AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN ANENGINEER AS REQUIRED.SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSPROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR REVIEW & COMMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION:1.REBAR SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEWPROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR REVIEW DURING CONSTRUCTION:2.GEOTECHNICAL SUBGRADE INSPECTION REPORT3.COMPACTION REPORT FOR BACKFILL4.REBAR INSPECTION REPORT5.CONCRETE ORDER SLIPS & TEST CYLINDER BREAK RESULTS (AS REQ'D BY APPLICABLECODES)ABBREVIATIONS#J, #K# JACK STUDS, # KING STUDSABANCHOR BOLTAFFABOVE FINISHED FLOORALTALTERNATEAPPROXAPPROXIMATE(LY)ARCHARCHITECTURALCJCONTROL JOINTCLCENTRELINECLRCLEARCMUCONCRETE MASONRY UNITCONTCONTINUOUSCSNCOMMON SPIRAL NAILDIADIAMETERDNDOWNEAEACHEQUIPEQUIPMENTEXIST.EXISTINGF.D.FLOOR DRAINFFFINISHED FLOORGAGAUGEGALVGALVANIZEDLLVLONG LEG VERTICALLLHLONG LEG HORIZONTALLSVLONG SIDE VERTICALLSHLONG SIDE HORIZONTALLVLLAMINATED VENEER LUMBERMAXMAXIMUMMINMINIMUMNTSNOT TO SCALEO.C.ON CENTREOHOVERHEADPLPLATEPROP.PROPOSEDPSFPOUNDS PER SQUARE FOOTPSIPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHRRADIUSRDROOF DRAINR.O.ROUGH OPENINGRWLRAINWATER LEADERSFSQUARE FEETSIMSIMILARSPFSPRUCE PINE FIRSSSTAINLESS STEELT&BTOP AND BOTTOMT>ONGUE AND GROOVETEMPTEMPORARYT/TOP OFTYP.TYPICALUNOUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEU/UNDERSIDE OFW/RWASHROOMW.A.WORKING POINTWWMWELDED WIRE MESHSITE PLAN DRAWING - BY OTHERS1NORTHSUBJECT BUILDINGPage 289 of 304
12345121'-8"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"DCBA75'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"
20'-0'x20'-0" OVERHEAD DOOR
C/W ALL REQ'D HARDWARE8'-0'x10'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWAREScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN18'-0'x10'-0"OVERHEAD DOORC/W ALLREQ'D HARDWARE50'-0"CONT. INDUSTRIAL GUARDON TOP OF RETAINING WALL TYP.SEE DETAIL ON S301SLOPE DOWN
EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDINGCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @5'-4" O.C. MAX.PROPOSED LOADING DOCKSEE STRUCTURALD1D1D3D1D2D21A301PROPOSED STORAGE BUILDINGGROUP F-2 MEDIUM HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL OCCUPANCYUNOCCUPIED AND UNHEATED SPACEAREA = 9,125ft2 (848m2)EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDINGCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @5'-4" O.C. MAX.EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY26ga. PRE-PAINTED METAL CLADDINGCOLD-FORMED GIRTS @5'-4" O.C. MAX.21-130.3DRAWING TITLESCALE5PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.07DEC210REV.06JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ARMTECPROJECT BOSSROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL219AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW408NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT507DEC21REVISED KEY PLAN - A100A201STORAGE BUILDINGGROUND FLOOR PLANPage 290 of 304
25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"ABCD75'-0"29'-0"4'-0"4'-0"5'-4"5'-4"4'-3"4'-0"2'-1"Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"CROSS SECTION1PRE-ENG BUILDING FRAMEBY SUPPLIERFOUNDATION PER STRUCTURALMETAL GIRTSBY PRE-ENG SUPPLIERCONC. SLAB ON GRADEREFER TO STRUCTURAL4'-6"4'-0"6"121121UNINSULATED ROOF(UNHEATED BUILDING)21-130.3DRAWING TITLESCALE5PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.07DEC210REV.06JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ARMTECPROJECT BOSSROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL219AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW408NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT507DEC21REVISED KEY PLAN - A100A301BUILDING CROSS SECTIONPage 291 of 304
29'-0"TO EAVES32'-9 1/2" TO PEAK 15234121'-8"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"8'-0"x10'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR8'-0"x10'-0"OVERHEAD DOOR29'-0"TO EAVES32'-9 1/2" TO PEAK
15234121'-8"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION1Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION2PRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDINGPRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDING21-130.3DRAWING TITLESCALE5PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.07DEC210REV.06JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ARMTECPROJECT BOSSROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL219AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW408NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT507DEC21REVISED KEY PLAN - A100A401STORAGE BUILDINGELEVATIONSPage 292 of 304
29'-0"TO EAVES 25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"DCBA75'-0"32'-9 1/2" TO PEAK29'-0"TO EAVES
25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"ABCD75'-0"32'-9 1/2" TO PEAK
20'-0"x20'-0"OVERHEAD DOORScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATION1Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION2PRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDINGPRE-FINISHED METAL CLADDING21-130.3DRAWING TITLESCALE5PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.07DEC210REV.06JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ARMTECPROJECT BOSSROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL219AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW408NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT507DEC21REVISED KEY PLAN - A100A402STORAGE BUILDINGELEVATIONSPage 293 of 304
12345121'-8"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"30'-5"DCBA75'-0"25'-0"25'-0"25'-0"6" CONC. SLAB-ON GRADE6x6 6x6 WWMREFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORTFOR REQUIREMENTS OF SUBGRADE MATERIALS & SPECIFICATIONS SAWCUT CONTROL JOINTS @15'-0" O.C. MAX.DOCK LEVELER HL830BY SUPPLIER; SEE DETAILTYP. (x2) LOCATIONS20M x 20'-0" LG. HAIRPIN TYP.PIER 1aPIER 3PIER 3PIER 1bPIER 4PIER 3PIER 3PIER 4PIER 2aPIER 2aPIER 2bPIER 2aPIER 2aPIER 2a8" CONC. SLAB-ON GRADEAIR ENTRAINED 32 MPa CONC.6x6 6x6 WWMREFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORTFOR REQUIREMENTS OF SUBGRADE MATERIALS& SPECIFICATIONSSAWCUT CONTROL JOINTS @15'-0" O.C.50'-0"RECESS FOUNDATION WALLFOR OVERHEAD DOORSEE TYPICAL DETAIL ON S30110" CONC. RETAINING WALLON 6'-0"x18" CONC. STRIP FOOTINGTYP. (x2)STEP FOOTING AS REQ'D PER DETAIL 4/S201
STEP FOOTING AS REQ'D PER DETAIL 4/S2013S2018S3012S2014'-6"
4'-0" MINIMUM 6"GRADEUNDISTURBED8" POURED CONC.FOUNDATION WALL8"x16" CONT. STRIP FOOTING2-15M CONT.10M DOWELS (36"x6" HOOK) @24" O.C.2-15M CONT. @TOP15M VERT. @24" O.C.15M DOWELS (12"x36" LG.) @16" O.C.Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"FOUNDATION WALL @O/H DOOR24'-6"
4'-0" MINIMUM 6"GRADEUNDISTURBED8" POURED CONC.FOUNDATION WALL8"x16" CONT. STRIP FOOTING2-15M CONT.10M DOWELS (36"x6" HOOK) @32" O.C.1'-4"8"Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"TYPICAL FOUNDATION WALL35Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"STEPPED FOOTING DETAIL45'-6"2'-0" MAX.1'-6" MIN.SPECIFIED FOOTING REINFORCEMENTSEE PLANSNOTE:STEP DOWN @4'-0" O.C. MINIMUM2-15M CONT. @TOPSAWCUT SLAB t/4 (X")(15'-0"x15'-0" GRID)LEAVE OPEN FOR 28 DAYS& FILL W/ SEALANTCONC. SLAB AS NOTED ON PLANINDUCED CRACKNOTE: SAWCUT SLAB 18-24 HRS AFTER POURING SLABScale: 1" = 1'-0"SAWCUT CONTROL JOINT6SECOND POURFIRST POUR4"x2" KEYAT END OF POUR TYP.REINFORCEMENTCONTINUOUS THROUGH JOINTScale: 1" = 1'-0"FOUNDATION WALL JOINT DETAIL54"4"TOP OF PIER3"PROJECTIONTOP OF BPVARIES
1" MAX.
4" THREAD
LENGTH
2'-0"Ø3/4"Ø1"2'-6"Scale: 1" = 1'-0"ANCHOR BOLT DETAILS721-130.3DRAWING TITLESCALE5PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.07DEC210REV.06JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ARMTECPROJECT BOSSROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL219AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW408NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT507DEC21REVISED KEY PLAN - A100S201STORAGE BUILDINGGROUND FLOOR PLANGENERALCONCRETESLAB ON GRADEFOUNDATIONSNOTES:1.REFER TO PRE-ENGINEERED STEEL BUILDING DRAWINGSPREPARED BY BEHLEN (S.O. 107996) FOR THE FOLLOWINGINFORMATION:1.1.PLACEMENT OF BASE PLATES & ANCHOR BOLTS1.2.LOCATION OF OPENINGS1.3.REACTIONS & DESIGN LOADSBEHLEN BUILDING SYSTEMS CONFORMS TO THE OBC 2012.BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL PER EXP SERVICES REPORT#LON-21001731-A0, DATED APRIL 12, 2020SLS = 100 KPa (2,100 PSF)ULS = 150 KPa (3,100 PSF)CLIMATIC DATA (TILLSONBURG)Ss = 1.3 kPaSr = 0.4 kPaq (1/50) = 0.44 kPaIMPORTANCE CATEGORY: NORMALPage 294 of 304
20M x 20'-0" LG. HAIRPIN2'-0"8"4"3'-0"4"2'-0"8"3'-0"1'-6"2'-6"1'-0"5'-0"5'-0"1'-6"2'-0"1'-6"3'-0"
9"1'-6"9"1'-6"1'-6"1'-0"4'-0"4'-6"4'-0" MINIMUM 6"1'-0"2-10M IN TOP 4"CONT. BOND BREAK4-15M VERT.10M TIES @9" O.C.4-15M VERT.W/ 9" LG. HOOKED ENDS15M BARS @8" O.C.BOTH DIRECTIONS2'-0"4"2'-8"3'-0"4'-6"
4'-0" MINIMUM 6"
1'-0"2-10M IN TOP 4"CONT. BOND BREAK8-15M VERT.W/ 9" LG. HOOKED ENDS15M BARS @8" O.C.BOTH DIRECTIONS2'-6"1'-0"4'-6"5'-6"4'-6"
4'-0" MINIMUM 6"
1'-0"2-10M IN TOP 4"CONT. BOND BREAK6-15M VERT.W/ 9" LG. HOOKED ENDS15M BARS @8" O.C.BOTH DIRECTIONS1'-6"1'-0"3'-0"4'-0"20M x 20'-0" LG. HAIRPINScale: 1/2" = 1'-0"PIER 1a - PLAN & SECTION1Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"PIER 2a - PLAN & SECTION2Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"PIER 3 - PLAN & SECTION3GRADEGRADEGRADEUNDISTURBEDUNDISTURBEDUNDISTURBED1'-2"10"2'-0"8"8'-0"7'-6" MINIMUM 6"1'-5"2-10M IN TOP 4"CONT. BOND BREAK4-15M VERT.10M TIES @9" O.C.4-15M VERT.W/ 9" LG. HOOKED ENDS15M BARS @8" O.C.BOTH DIRECTIONS2'-0"2'-8"4'-2"Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"PIER 1b - PLAN & SECTION4GRADEUNDISTURBED0"20M x 20'-0" LG. HAIRPIN1'-6"2'-6"1'-0"5'-0"5'-0"1'-6"2'-0"1'-6"8'-0"
7'-6" MINIMUM 6"
1'-0"2-10M IN TOP 4"CONT. BOND BREAK8-15M VERT.W/ 9" LG. HOOKED ENDS15M BARS @8" O.C.BOTH DIRECTIONS2'-6"20M x 20'-0" LG. HAIRPINScale: 1/2" = 1'-0"PIER 2b - PLAN & SECTION5UNDISTURBED1'-8"2'-8"2111'-6"1'-6"4'-0"GRADEUNDISTURBED3'-6"
1'-6"DRAIN @8'-0" O.C. MAX.GRAVEL DRAIN COMPOSED OFCLEAR STONE W/ FILTER CLOTH2-15M CONT. @TOPCONT. INDUSTRIAL GUARDØ112" SCH. 40 PIPE POSTS & RAILSHOT-DIPPED GALVANIZEDCAST-IN PLATE TO TOP OF CONC. W/ 2-10Mx18" LG. BARS10"20M VERT. @12" O.C.15M HORIZ. @16" O.C.20M VERT. DOWELSW/ 12" HOOK @12" O.C.1'-6"10"3'-8"6'-0"8'-0"
7'-6" MINIMUM 6"
1'-6"2-LAYERS 15M BARS @8" O.C.BOTH DIRECTIONS8" CONC. SLAB ON GRADESEE PLAN FOR SPECIFICATIONSLOADING DOCK4'-0"UNDISTURBED4'-0"
8'-0"4'-0"4'-0"2'-4"1'-8"FIELD BENDREFER TO SUPPLIER DRAWINGSANCHOR PAD PER SUPPLIER15M BARS @12" O.C. BOTH DIRECTIONS2'-0" MIN.Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DETAIL6SLOPE PER GRADING PLANDRAINAGE BY OTHERSCOORDINATE W/ GRADING & SERVICING PLANSCONT. BOND BREAK15M DOWEL @16" O.C.FIELD BEND AS REQ'D15M DOWELS @12" O.C.FIELD BEND9"1'-8"DOCK LEVELER HL830SUPPLIED & INSTALLED BY OTHERSScale: 1/2" = 1'-0"LOADING DOCK DETAIL82'-0"1'-9"1'-3"5'-0"10"2'-6"1'-8"5'-0"10M TIES @9" O.C.Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"PIER 4 - PLAN & SECTION74'-6"4'-0" MINIMUM 6"1'-0"2-10M IN TOP 4"CONT. BOND BREAK2'-6"1'-0"4'-6"5'-6"GRADEUNDISTURBEDCONT. BOND BREAK8-15M VERT.W/ 9" LG. HOOKED ENDS15M BARS @8" O.C.BOTH DIRECTIONS8-15M VERT.10M TIES @9" O.C.8-15M VERT.10M TIES @9" O.C.8-15M VERT.4'-2"1'-6"2'-8"2'-0"8"SAWCUT SLAB t/4 (X")(15'-0"x15'-0" GRID)LEAVE OPEN FOR 28 DAYS& FILL W/ SEALANTCONC. SLAB AS NOTED ON PLANINDUCED CRACKNOTE: SAWCUT SLAB 18-24 HRS AFTER POURING SLABScale: 1" = 1'-0"SAWCUT CONTROL JOINT9SECOND POURFIRST POUR4"x2" KEYAT END OF POUR TYP.REINFORCEMENTCONTINUOUS THROUGH JOINTScale: 1" = 1'-0"FOUNDATION WALL JOINT DETAIL1021-130.3DRAWING TITLESCALE5PROJECT TITLEDATEDRAWNDESIGNEDCHECKEDAS NOTEDEPZLZLPROJECT NO.SHEET NO.07DEC210REV.06JUN21REMARKSDATEISSUED FOR APPROVALTHESE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THEUSE BY THE PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALHAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AND THERE ARE NOREPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MADE BY THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECKAND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BEUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MARKED AS "ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION", CERTIFIED AND DATED.ARMTECPROJECT BOSSROKEBY ORCHARD ROADTILLSONBURG, ONTARIO112JUL21ISSUED FOR APPROVAL219AUG21ISSUED FOR COMMENT313OCT21ISSUED FOR REVIEW408NOV21ISSUED FOR PERMIT507DEC21REVISED KEY PLAN - A100S301STORAGE BUILDINGFOUNDATION DETAILS & SECTIONSPage 295 of 304
TSPC 7-211July 14/21Page 296 of 304
Page 297 of 304
Page 298 of 304
Page 299 of 304
Page 300 of 304
Page 301 of 304
Page 302 of 304
Page 303 of 304
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
BY-LAW 2022-018
A BY-LAW to confirm the proceedings of Council at its meeting held on February
22, 2022.
WHEREAS Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that the
powers of a municipal corporation shall be exercised by its council;
AND WHEREAS Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that
municipal powers shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of the Town
of Tillsonburg at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law;
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Tillsonburg as follows:
1. All actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg at its meeting
held on February 22, 2022, with respect to every report, motion, by-law, or other
action passed and taken by the Council, including the exercise of natural person
powers, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if all such proceedings were
expressly embodied in this or a separate by-law.
2. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to do all the things necessary to
give effect to the action of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
referred to in the preceding section.
3. The Mayor and the Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents
necessary in that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of The Corporation of the Town
of Tillsonburg.
4. That this By-Law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is passed.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND PASSED THIS 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY,
2022.
_______________________________
MAYOR – Stephen Molnar
_______________________________
CLERK – Michelle Smibert
Page 304 of 304