Scotland and Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan

Share Scotland and Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan on Facebook Share Scotland and Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan on Twitter Share Scotland and Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan on Linkedin Email Scotland and Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan link

Scroll down to see the project news feed of information including opportunities to engage, project schedule, supporting information, and more.

The County of Brant has initiated a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) for the communities of Scotland and Oakland. This MESP is being prepared in response to increased interest in community growth in light of Ontario's More Homes Faster Act, 2022, and the update to the 2024 Simply Grand Plan (County of Brant Official Plan).

The primary objective of this study is to prepare a framework for reasonable and sustainable growth in your community, ensuring that no adverse

Scroll down to see the project news feed of information including opportunities to engage, project schedule, supporting information, and more.

The County of Brant has initiated a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) for the communities of Scotland and Oakland. This MESP is being prepared in response to increased interest in community growth in light of Ontario's More Homes Faster Act, 2022, and the update to the 2024 Simply Grand Plan (County of Brant Official Plan).

The primary objective of this study is to prepare a framework for reasonable and sustainable growth in your community, ensuring that no adverse impacts are felt by the existing residents.

As a part of this MESP, the County of Brant is studying:

  • Drinking water quality and supply;
  • Wastewater management strategies and feasibility of ongoing private servicing;
  • Stormwater management;
  • The Natural Heritage system, including all trail networks, linkages and green spaces; and
  • Traffic and transportation conditions.

The County of Brant will be conducting these studies in two phases. Phase one began in March 2024 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2024. Phase two will begin in early 2025.

FAQs


We have included a list of frequently asked questions to help answer some questions you may have about the project.

Stay informed

Scroll down to see the news feed of information including supporting information, opportunities to engage, and more.

Subscribe for updates and be the first to learn more about this project. Add your email to the Stay Informed box on this page and click ‘Subscribe'.

Comments and questions

County of Brant Staff aim to maintain a respectful and constructive dialogue with the public through all forms of communication. We understand and appreciate that people will have differing opinions and concerns, and welcome all feedback, questions, and comments in a respectful and constructive manner.

Please ask your question or leave your comment below. We will do our best to respond within 3 business days. You may also find answers to some of your questions on our FAQs page.

loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share For stormwater management on King's Lane in Scotland, will we see closed in drains? Currently we have a water issue that flows between lots and is not an official drain. Edna MacDonald on Facebook Share For stormwater management on King's Lane in Scotland, will we see closed in drains? Currently we have a water issue that flows between lots and is not an official drain. Edna MacDonald on Twitter Share For stormwater management on King's Lane in Scotland, will we see closed in drains? Currently we have a water issue that flows between lots and is not an official drain. Edna MacDonald on Linkedin Email For stormwater management on King's Lane in Scotland, will we see closed in drains? Currently we have a water issue that flows between lots and is not an official drain. Edna MacDonald link

    For stormwater management on King's Lane in Scotland, will we see closed in drains? Currently we have a water issue that flows between lots and is not an official drain. Edna MacDonald

    E&Gmacdonald asked 3 months ago

    The stormwater management system in Scotland and Oakland will be evaluated as part of the Master Servicing Plan. All options will be evaluated, including expanding the area served by closed in drains in the community. If you have current concerns regarding the existing drainage in your area, we encourage you to submit your concerns via the “Report a Problem” page: www.brant.ca/ReportStormwater

     

    Thank you for your interest in this project. Further updates will be posted to this page – please subscribe to stay informed.

     

    Stefanie DiGiovanni, P.Eng

    Project Engineer, County of Brant

  • Share Comments: In the first post, the language : "ensuring that no adverse impacts are felt by the existing residents" is dangerous because it is not true . There will always be residents who perceive adverse impacts from growth. Telling residents this won't happen is inviting , in this case justifiable , criticism that the County is not doing what it said it would . Better language would be : "which attempts to minimize adverse impacts on residents". In the second post, the terms "desktops studies " and " high level servicing feasibility study " are used. These are not defined. If you don't define technical or bureaucratic terminology , many residents will instantly be suspicious . Clear language is essential for community engagement . I have a graduate level planning degree and could not accurately explain to a neighbour exactly what these terms mean if they were to ask "what does that mean". If it is typical overblown bureaucratic language, it should be ditched . on Facebook Share Comments: In the first post, the language : "ensuring that no adverse impacts are felt by the existing residents" is dangerous because it is not true . There will always be residents who perceive adverse impacts from growth. Telling residents this won't happen is inviting , in this case justifiable , criticism that the County is not doing what it said it would . Better language would be : "which attempts to minimize adverse impacts on residents". In the second post, the terms "desktops studies " and " high level servicing feasibility study " are used. These are not defined. If you don't define technical or bureaucratic terminology , many residents will instantly be suspicious . Clear language is essential for community engagement . I have a graduate level planning degree and could not accurately explain to a neighbour exactly what these terms mean if they were to ask "what does that mean". If it is typical overblown bureaucratic language, it should be ditched . on Twitter Share Comments: In the first post, the language : "ensuring that no adverse impacts are felt by the existing residents" is dangerous because it is not true . There will always be residents who perceive adverse impacts from growth. Telling residents this won't happen is inviting , in this case justifiable , criticism that the County is not doing what it said it would . Better language would be : "which attempts to minimize adverse impacts on residents". In the second post, the terms "desktops studies " and " high level servicing feasibility study " are used. These are not defined. If you don't define technical or bureaucratic terminology , many residents will instantly be suspicious . Clear language is essential for community engagement . I have a graduate level planning degree and could not accurately explain to a neighbour exactly what these terms mean if they were to ask "what does that mean". If it is typical overblown bureaucratic language, it should be ditched . on Linkedin Email Comments: In the first post, the language : "ensuring that no adverse impacts are felt by the existing residents" is dangerous because it is not true . There will always be residents who perceive adverse impacts from growth. Telling residents this won't happen is inviting , in this case justifiable , criticism that the County is not doing what it said it would . Better language would be : "which attempts to minimize adverse impacts on residents". In the second post, the terms "desktops studies " and " high level servicing feasibility study " are used. These are not defined. If you don't define technical or bureaucratic terminology , many residents will instantly be suspicious . Clear language is essential for community engagement . I have a graduate level planning degree and could not accurately explain to a neighbour exactly what these terms mean if they were to ask "what does that mean". If it is typical overblown bureaucratic language, it should be ditched . link

    Comments: In the first post, the language : "ensuring that no adverse impacts are felt by the existing residents" is dangerous because it is not true . There will always be residents who perceive adverse impacts from growth. Telling residents this won't happen is inviting , in this case justifiable , criticism that the County is not doing what it said it would . Better language would be : "which attempts to minimize adverse impacts on residents". In the second post, the terms "desktops studies " and " high level servicing feasibility study " are used. These are not defined. If you don't define technical or bureaucratic terminology , many residents will instantly be suspicious . Clear language is essential for community engagement . I have a graduate level planning degree and could not accurately explain to a neighbour exactly what these terms mean if they were to ask "what does that mean". If it is typical overblown bureaucratic language, it should be ditched .

    Michael Blythe asked 3 months ago

    Hi Michael,

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Scotland and Oakland MESP. I’m happy to provide clarity regarding the wording from the news feed post. 

    “Desktop studies” refer to preliminary studies that utilize existing, readily available information to compile background information, identify potential data gaps, and inform decisions, recommendations, and future studies. For example, the Hydrogeological Study was a “desktop study” because field work (ie. drilling of wells and borehole sampling) was not done to characterize the existing conditions. Instead, we utilized readily available data from existing well records, the Ministry or Natural Resources and Forestry, the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee, and the Ontario Geological Survey to evaluate site conditions and develop recommendations.  

    “High Level Servicing Feasibility Study” refers to the evaluation that the County completed regarding the potential water and wastewater servicing solutions for the community, as documented in the Servicing and Grading Report in the “Documents” section of EngageBrant. This evaluation aimed to answer whether it was feasible to continue to service the community via the existing private servicing structure or if an alternative servicing solution should be investigated. This study focused on the over-arching, general impacts of each servicing solution and as such was referred to as high level, so as to not misrepresent the study as a detailed evaluation at this point. A detailed study will be completed as part of Phase 2 of the MESP.

    Thank you again for your comments. Please continue to stay engaged and informed as we undertake this study.

    Stefanie DiGiovanni, P.Eng

    Project Engineer, County of Brant

  • Share Subject: Public Comment on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) – Phase 1 Dear County of Brant Administration and Operations Committee, As a long-term resident of Scotland/Oakland for the past 13 years, I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Phase 1 and the evaluation of alternatives for water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation infrastructure in our community. The responsible development of our area is important to me, and I want to ensure that future growth is sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible while considering the needs of current residents. I would like to raise the following questions and concerns regarding the study and the evaluation of servicing alternatives: 1. Water Quality and Supply The report highlights that 95% of the community relies on a shallow, vulnerable aquifer and that nitrate contamination is already an issue. How will the County ensure safe drinking water quality for both current and future residents if private wells remain the primary source? What proactive measures will be taken to protect groundwater from further nitrate contamination due to additional septic system use? If municipal servicing is implemented, will it be sourced from a new local wellfield or an existing municipal system (e.g., Brantford or another supply)? Will existing homeowners on private wells be forced to connect to municipal services, and if so, what would be the associated costs? 2. Costs and Financial Impact on Residents How will the County fund municipal servicing—through increased property taxes, developer fees, or government grants? If municipal water and sewer infrastructure are introduced, what are the expected costs for connection fees, ongoing maintenance, and monthly utility costs for existing residents? What financial contributions will developers be required to make to ensure that existing residents do not bear the majority of the infrastructure costs? 3. Private vs. Municipal Servicing and Development Restrictions Given the report's concerns about nitrate contamination, will future private well and septic system development be allowed? If so, what lot size restrictions will apply under the Reasonable Use Concept (B-7 guideline)? Has the County considered a phased or hybrid approach, where certain areas remain privately serviced while denser developments transition to municipal servicing? If private servicing continues, how will the County ensure ongoing water quality monitoring and protection? 4. Transportation and Road Safety What road improvements (such as turn lanes, traffic lights, road widening) are planned to accommodate increased traffic from future developments? How will the County ensure safe traffic flow at key intersections such as King Street and Oakland Road, especially with projected population growth? Have alternative public transit options been considered to improve connectivity to Brantford and surrounding areas? 5. Environmental and Stormwater Management The report emphasizes that stormwater infiltration is critical for replenishing the aquifer. What measures will be taken to ensure proper stormwater management in new developments? How will the County protect natural wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife corridors during development? What role will the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and Indigenous communities play in environmental planning and decision-making? 6. Development Timeline and Community Engagement When will the County make a final decision on the preferred servicing approach? Will additional public consultations be held before key infrastructure decisions are finalized? How will the County ensure transparency and keep residents informed throughout this process? Conclusion I strongly support responsible and sustainable development in Scotland and Oakland that ensures safe drinking water, cost-effective infrastructure, and well-planned transportation solutions. I urge the County to carefully consider the long-term financial and environmental implications of private vs. municipal servicing and to engage the community in these critical decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I look forward to the County’s response and ongoing engagement with the community. Sincerely, George Kosch Resident of Scotland/Oakland 23 Augustus Street on Facebook Share Subject: Public Comment on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) – Phase 1 Dear County of Brant Administration and Operations Committee, As a long-term resident of Scotland/Oakland for the past 13 years, I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Phase 1 and the evaluation of alternatives for water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation infrastructure in our community. The responsible development of our area is important to me, and I want to ensure that future growth is sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible while considering the needs of current residents. I would like to raise the following questions and concerns regarding the study and the evaluation of servicing alternatives: 1. Water Quality and Supply The report highlights that 95% of the community relies on a shallow, vulnerable aquifer and that nitrate contamination is already an issue. How will the County ensure safe drinking water quality for both current and future residents if private wells remain the primary source? What proactive measures will be taken to protect groundwater from further nitrate contamination due to additional septic system use? If municipal servicing is implemented, will it be sourced from a new local wellfield or an existing municipal system (e.g., Brantford or another supply)? Will existing homeowners on private wells be forced to connect to municipal services, and if so, what would be the associated costs? 2. Costs and Financial Impact on Residents How will the County fund municipal servicing—through increased property taxes, developer fees, or government grants? If municipal water and sewer infrastructure are introduced, what are the expected costs for connection fees, ongoing maintenance, and monthly utility costs for existing residents? What financial contributions will developers be required to make to ensure that existing residents do not bear the majority of the infrastructure costs? 3. Private vs. Municipal Servicing and Development Restrictions Given the report's concerns about nitrate contamination, will future private well and septic system development be allowed? If so, what lot size restrictions will apply under the Reasonable Use Concept (B-7 guideline)? Has the County considered a phased or hybrid approach, where certain areas remain privately serviced while denser developments transition to municipal servicing? If private servicing continues, how will the County ensure ongoing water quality monitoring and protection? 4. Transportation and Road Safety What road improvements (such as turn lanes, traffic lights, road widening) are planned to accommodate increased traffic from future developments? How will the County ensure safe traffic flow at key intersections such as King Street and Oakland Road, especially with projected population growth? Have alternative public transit options been considered to improve connectivity to Brantford and surrounding areas? 5. Environmental and Stormwater Management The report emphasizes that stormwater infiltration is critical for replenishing the aquifer. What measures will be taken to ensure proper stormwater management in new developments? How will the County protect natural wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife corridors during development? What role will the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and Indigenous communities play in environmental planning and decision-making? 6. Development Timeline and Community Engagement When will the County make a final decision on the preferred servicing approach? Will additional public consultations be held before key infrastructure decisions are finalized? How will the County ensure transparency and keep residents informed throughout this process? Conclusion I strongly support responsible and sustainable development in Scotland and Oakland that ensures safe drinking water, cost-effective infrastructure, and well-planned transportation solutions. I urge the County to carefully consider the long-term financial and environmental implications of private vs. municipal servicing and to engage the community in these critical decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I look forward to the County’s response and ongoing engagement with the community. Sincerely, George Kosch Resident of Scotland/Oakland 23 Augustus Street on Twitter Share Subject: Public Comment on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) – Phase 1 Dear County of Brant Administration and Operations Committee, As a long-term resident of Scotland/Oakland for the past 13 years, I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Phase 1 and the evaluation of alternatives for water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation infrastructure in our community. The responsible development of our area is important to me, and I want to ensure that future growth is sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible while considering the needs of current residents. I would like to raise the following questions and concerns regarding the study and the evaluation of servicing alternatives: 1. Water Quality and Supply The report highlights that 95% of the community relies on a shallow, vulnerable aquifer and that nitrate contamination is already an issue. How will the County ensure safe drinking water quality for both current and future residents if private wells remain the primary source? What proactive measures will be taken to protect groundwater from further nitrate contamination due to additional septic system use? If municipal servicing is implemented, will it be sourced from a new local wellfield or an existing municipal system (e.g., Brantford or another supply)? Will existing homeowners on private wells be forced to connect to municipal services, and if so, what would be the associated costs? 2. Costs and Financial Impact on Residents How will the County fund municipal servicing—through increased property taxes, developer fees, or government grants? If municipal water and sewer infrastructure are introduced, what are the expected costs for connection fees, ongoing maintenance, and monthly utility costs for existing residents? What financial contributions will developers be required to make to ensure that existing residents do not bear the majority of the infrastructure costs? 3. Private vs. Municipal Servicing and Development Restrictions Given the report's concerns about nitrate contamination, will future private well and septic system development be allowed? If so, what lot size restrictions will apply under the Reasonable Use Concept (B-7 guideline)? Has the County considered a phased or hybrid approach, where certain areas remain privately serviced while denser developments transition to municipal servicing? If private servicing continues, how will the County ensure ongoing water quality monitoring and protection? 4. Transportation and Road Safety What road improvements (such as turn lanes, traffic lights, road widening) are planned to accommodate increased traffic from future developments? How will the County ensure safe traffic flow at key intersections such as King Street and Oakland Road, especially with projected population growth? Have alternative public transit options been considered to improve connectivity to Brantford and surrounding areas? 5. Environmental and Stormwater Management The report emphasizes that stormwater infiltration is critical for replenishing the aquifer. What measures will be taken to ensure proper stormwater management in new developments? How will the County protect natural wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife corridors during development? What role will the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and Indigenous communities play in environmental planning and decision-making? 6. Development Timeline and Community Engagement When will the County make a final decision on the preferred servicing approach? Will additional public consultations be held before key infrastructure decisions are finalized? How will the County ensure transparency and keep residents informed throughout this process? Conclusion I strongly support responsible and sustainable development in Scotland and Oakland that ensures safe drinking water, cost-effective infrastructure, and well-planned transportation solutions. I urge the County to carefully consider the long-term financial and environmental implications of private vs. municipal servicing and to engage the community in these critical decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I look forward to the County’s response and ongoing engagement with the community. Sincerely, George Kosch Resident of Scotland/Oakland 23 Augustus Street on Linkedin Email Subject: Public Comment on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) – Phase 1 Dear County of Brant Administration and Operations Committee, As a long-term resident of Scotland/Oakland for the past 13 years, I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Phase 1 and the evaluation of alternatives for water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation infrastructure in our community. The responsible development of our area is important to me, and I want to ensure that future growth is sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible while considering the needs of current residents. I would like to raise the following questions and concerns regarding the study and the evaluation of servicing alternatives: 1. Water Quality and Supply The report highlights that 95% of the community relies on a shallow, vulnerable aquifer and that nitrate contamination is already an issue. How will the County ensure safe drinking water quality for both current and future residents if private wells remain the primary source? What proactive measures will be taken to protect groundwater from further nitrate contamination due to additional septic system use? If municipal servicing is implemented, will it be sourced from a new local wellfield or an existing municipal system (e.g., Brantford or another supply)? Will existing homeowners on private wells be forced to connect to municipal services, and if so, what would be the associated costs? 2. Costs and Financial Impact on Residents How will the County fund municipal servicing—through increased property taxes, developer fees, or government grants? If municipal water and sewer infrastructure are introduced, what are the expected costs for connection fees, ongoing maintenance, and monthly utility costs for existing residents? What financial contributions will developers be required to make to ensure that existing residents do not bear the majority of the infrastructure costs? 3. Private vs. Municipal Servicing and Development Restrictions Given the report's concerns about nitrate contamination, will future private well and septic system development be allowed? If so, what lot size restrictions will apply under the Reasonable Use Concept (B-7 guideline)? Has the County considered a phased or hybrid approach, where certain areas remain privately serviced while denser developments transition to municipal servicing? If private servicing continues, how will the County ensure ongoing water quality monitoring and protection? 4. Transportation and Road Safety What road improvements (such as turn lanes, traffic lights, road widening) are planned to accommodate increased traffic from future developments? How will the County ensure safe traffic flow at key intersections such as King Street and Oakland Road, especially with projected population growth? Have alternative public transit options been considered to improve connectivity to Brantford and surrounding areas? 5. Environmental and Stormwater Management The report emphasizes that stormwater infiltration is critical for replenishing the aquifer. What measures will be taken to ensure proper stormwater management in new developments? How will the County protect natural wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife corridors during development? What role will the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and Indigenous communities play in environmental planning and decision-making? 6. Development Timeline and Community Engagement When will the County make a final decision on the preferred servicing approach? Will additional public consultations be held before key infrastructure decisions are finalized? How will the County ensure transparency and keep residents informed throughout this process? Conclusion I strongly support responsible and sustainable development in Scotland and Oakland that ensures safe drinking water, cost-effective infrastructure, and well-planned transportation solutions. I urge the County to carefully consider the long-term financial and environmental implications of private vs. municipal servicing and to engage the community in these critical decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I look forward to the County’s response and ongoing engagement with the community. Sincerely, George Kosch Resident of Scotland/Oakland 23 Augustus Street link

    Subject: Public Comment on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) – Phase 1 Dear County of Brant Administration and Operations Committee, As a long-term resident of Scotland/Oakland for the past 13 years, I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Scotland-Oakland Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Phase 1 and the evaluation of alternatives for water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation infrastructure in our community. The responsible development of our area is important to me, and I want to ensure that future growth is sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible while considering the needs of current residents. I would like to raise the following questions and concerns regarding the study and the evaluation of servicing alternatives: 1. Water Quality and Supply The report highlights that 95% of the community relies on a shallow, vulnerable aquifer and that nitrate contamination is already an issue. How will the County ensure safe drinking water quality for both current and future residents if private wells remain the primary source? What proactive measures will be taken to protect groundwater from further nitrate contamination due to additional septic system use? If municipal servicing is implemented, will it be sourced from a new local wellfield or an existing municipal system (e.g., Brantford or another supply)? Will existing homeowners on private wells be forced to connect to municipal services, and if so, what would be the associated costs? 2. Costs and Financial Impact on Residents How will the County fund municipal servicing—through increased property taxes, developer fees, or government grants? If municipal water and sewer infrastructure are introduced, what are the expected costs for connection fees, ongoing maintenance, and monthly utility costs for existing residents? What financial contributions will developers be required to make to ensure that existing residents do not bear the majority of the infrastructure costs? 3. Private vs. Municipal Servicing and Development Restrictions Given the report's concerns about nitrate contamination, will future private well and septic system development be allowed? If so, what lot size restrictions will apply under the Reasonable Use Concept (B-7 guideline)? Has the County considered a phased or hybrid approach, where certain areas remain privately serviced while denser developments transition to municipal servicing? If private servicing continues, how will the County ensure ongoing water quality monitoring and protection? 4. Transportation and Road Safety What road improvements (such as turn lanes, traffic lights, road widening) are planned to accommodate increased traffic from future developments? How will the County ensure safe traffic flow at key intersections such as King Street and Oakland Road, especially with projected population growth? Have alternative public transit options been considered to improve connectivity to Brantford and surrounding areas? 5. Environmental and Stormwater Management The report emphasizes that stormwater infiltration is critical for replenishing the aquifer. What measures will be taken to ensure proper stormwater management in new developments? How will the County protect natural wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife corridors during development? What role will the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and Indigenous communities play in environmental planning and decision-making? 6. Development Timeline and Community Engagement When will the County make a final decision on the preferred servicing approach? Will additional public consultations be held before key infrastructure decisions are finalized? How will the County ensure transparency and keep residents informed throughout this process? Conclusion I strongly support responsible and sustainable development in Scotland and Oakland that ensures safe drinking water, cost-effective infrastructure, and well-planned transportation solutions. I urge the County to carefully consider the long-term financial and environmental implications of private vs. municipal servicing and to engage the community in these critical decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I look forward to the County’s response and ongoing engagement with the community. Sincerely, George Kosch Resident of Scotland/Oakland 23 Augustus Street

    GeorgeK asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your interest in this project and your thoughtful questions. The next phase of the MESP will consist of a Master Plan Study, wherein all servicing options for water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation will be evaluated to determine the best path forward for Scotland and Oakland. See below for responses to your questions, many of which will be answered better upon completion of the Master Plan Study.

    1. Water Quality and Supply: The County will be evaluating all options for drinking water servicing through the next phase of the study, which will include strategies for both private and municipal systems. The evaluation will include criteria that aim to ensure that the preferred solution will provide safe drinking water to all residents, both current and future. All water servicing options will be evaluated, including the construction a new wellfield, and connecting to an existing municipal source (such as Mount Pleasant, Airport, or Brantford). At this stage in the study, the County cannot confirm whether all existing residents would be forced to connect, nor the costs associated with connecting. These details will be dependent on the preferred servicing solution determined through the Master Plan Study.
    2. Costs and Financial Impact on Residents: If municipal servicing is determined to be the preferred solution, the capital costs could be funded through a combination of development charges, water/wastewater rates, reserve funding, and provincial/federal grants (where applicable). At this point, the expected costs to the existing community cannot be estimated, as they would vary greatly depending on the municipal servicing structure that is chosen (i.e. water servicing only vs. both water and wastewater servicing, a new wellfield vs. connecting to an existing source). Developers will be required to cost share the portion of the infrastructure that is directly related to their developments and associated growth – discussions regarding these cost sharing agreements will be initiated once the preferred servicing solution is determined through this next phase of study.   
    3. Private vs. Municipal Servicing and Development Restrictions: The next phase of the study will determine if and how further development on private wells and septic systems can be considered to ensure the safety of the existing community and the environment. Currently, all developers must prove that potable water is available for their lands, and that their development will not negatively impact the water resources of the surrounding area. Given the known background nitrate concentrations in the existing community and on the developable lands, all development applications going forward will have to conform with the findings of the Phase One study. The County needs to consult with the provincial government regarding the applicability of the Reasonable Use Concept – lot size requirements will be informed by the Ontario D-5-4 and D-5-5 Guidelines, with provisions for background nitrate concentrations, in the meantime. Hybrid and/or phased solutions such as the approaches you have suggested will be evaluated as part of the next phase of the study. Ongoing water quality monitoring and prevention would be part of regular operations and maintenance for a municipal system. However, maintaining private well quality is the responsibility of the homeowner, and therefore the County is evaluating alternative options to ensure all residents will have access to clean drinking water.
    4. Transportation and Road Safety: A traffic study was completed as part of the Phase One MESP, wherein the additional traffic from the proposed developments was modeled to evaluate the impact to the existing roadways and intersections. The results of this exercise indicated that the construction of turning lanes would be recommended at the intersections of Vanessa Rd./Simcoe St. and King St./Oakland Rd. to accommodate the projected increase in traffic volume. The active transportation network (ie. bike lanes and trails) and public transport were also evaluated as a part of this study. Please see the documents section of EngageBrant to review the traffic report. 
    5. Environmental and Stormwater Management: New developments will have to implement re-infiltration measures such that the post-development infiltration rate equals the pre-development infiltration rate. This is standard practice for all new developments.  This can include methods such as reinfiltrating treated stormwater from stormwater management facilities, and implementing low-impact development (LID) measures such as rainwater harvesting, increased topsoil depth, bioretention facilities, grass swales, permeable pavement, and perforated pipe systems. All alternatives evaluated as a part of this study will be evaluated in part by their environmental impact in order to best protect the existing natural heritage system. The GRCA and Indigenous communities will be consulted throughout the Master Plan Study and will be informed of all opportunities for consultation and discussion. 
    6. Development Timeline and Community Engagement: The County aims to complete the Master Servicing Plan and have a preferred servicing solution chosen within the next 12 – 15 months. There will be two Public Information Centres (PICs) throughout this process. During the first PIC, the County will present all options that are being evaluated for water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation. The feedback received from this PIC will inform the evaluation of the alternatives and the determination of the preferred solution. The preferred solution will then be presented during the second PIC, at which point the public will be able to provide further feedback to refine and better the preferred solution. Project updates will be shared as they happen on EngageBrant. 

    The County is initiating this Master Plan Study to fully evaluate all potential servicing options for Scotland and Oakland to determine a cost-effective solution that protects the health of its residents and the surrounding environment. We appreciate your questions and comments and encourage you to stay engaged and informed as we undertake this study.

    Stefanie DiGiovanni, P.Eng

    Project Engineer, County of Brant

Page last updated: 17 Mar 2025, 03:20 PM