Well, good morning all. I would like to call this meeting to order and welcome everyone. I hope everyone enjoyed their long weekend. Welcome to all members of council and to staff that will provide us facts and information so we can make decisions in the best interest of the corporation of ACW and all of our residents, permanent and seasonal. Also welcome to all members of the public that are here this morning to each and every one and also the media that may be joining us.
Meetings of Council are live streamed on the Township's official website in accordance with the live streaming and virtual participation of meetings policy.
Do any members of council have a generic interest or general nature thereof to indicate at this time of any agenda item that we have today.
very none, I thank you for that.
Thank you.
Is there a general niche on the resident of Colburn and I'd like to speak to nine one.
The property standards by law agricultural zone exemption.
I don't believe that this has anything to do with agriculture.
Our agricultural community is honored by the tremendous land we have to tremendous people we have working in this community.
But I do believe that the exemption is used by people who are non-agriculturalist at times so that they can use to use is that are not agricultural and purpose or do things that are not good for the community as a whole.
I'm going to say a couple of examples and other municipalities are other areas in the world where this has happened.
And I think it's incumbent on this council to have control of what's happening in the community.
That's your job, that's either the husbandry people that are supposed to look after this community.
The first one I'm going to talk about was about two years ago was November 2023 in Caledin, where there was a gunfight.
And there was one person killed two people were injured.
When the OPP did their investigation, it was at an illegal trucking site.
And at that time they found all kinds of different things in the site itself.
Everything from stored vehicles that were stolen to waste that was stored there illegally and should not have happened.
Caledin itself, I've got the article on the clear afterwards, Caledin itself has 300 sites across the town of Caledin.
It's called a town, but it's like our municipality.
And they have 300 sites that they're concerned about where they say they're illegal trucking sites, but they're illegal use sites.
There's been everything from toxic waste buried, asphalt, concrete buried without any permissions from the township.
They have a buy-law, an illegal dumping, and have stated in Caledin, Ontario, illegal dumping is concerned with both municipal and provincial laws prohibiting unauthorized waste disposal.
But if we have an exemption of agricultural properties, how do you know? How do you know what the use is?
And so, in their case, they have an article. And again, you can find this online. I would be given to the clerk addressing illegal trucking.
And there they're citing everything from the storage of stolen goods to toxic waste.
I have an article that the Michigan State had done in regarding the poisoning for profit, the mafia and toxic waste in America.
Do you know that the most lucrative thing that the mafia does is store and get rid of toxic waste?
It's not prostitution, it's not gambling, it's not selling guns, it's not drugs, they get rid of more toxic waste than any other of their profitable items.
It's inherent there. I'd also like to cite mid-Cath townships, Stratford, Stratthrow area, where they've had problems with an agricultural business, setting one of their farms up to store waste from the cities, human waste, piles and piles and piles of human waste.
And there's another article here with CTV fellow, I know this fellow very well. He's a farmer, a cattle farmer in the area, and they're fighting it.
You know, went to the OMB and they allowed this operation to happen. But they've got piles that are bigger than your silo piles. They've got piles of toxic human waste that's there.
The problem is, it's used as a fertilizer, wonderful. I'm on a dronomist at one point in my life. I'm a realtor now, and you can use it as waste, but if you put too much of it on, it will damage the soil, and it will contaminate possibly water.
In this case they're putting it on one farm, putting it on other farm, selling it to other people to put it on their farm.
And that may be fine as you use for a fertilizer, but what's it doing to that land? And the local neighbors are trying to stop that from happening.
Unfortunately, the tribe's funeral said, it's okay, you can do this.
As stewards of our land, you need to protect it. You need to make sure that illegal uses are not happening, and if you don't have this bylaw opened up, you won't be able to do that.
I support you as whatever decision you make, but I think this is an opportune time to make sure that those areas that are doing things that are wrong are known, and are sometimes controlled or licensed or corrected.
We're not talking about people who run a machine shop, or that may have other reasonable business. We're talking about people who are doing illegal things, and they're not farmers.
The farmers and wonderful people, and deserve to be protected. Thank you for the time, and I look forward to your decision.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your comments, and I should have said that they would set that the timeframe is five minutes for any comments.
And at four minutes, 30 seconds, the timer will go up just to indicate there's 30 seconds left. So welcome, and we look forward to your first last name and your agenda, please.
Good morning, Mayor, council and staff. My name is Karen Demerling. My husband and I on a property at 8272500 Road.
I'd like to speak to regarding agenda item 9.1 property standards bylaw agricultural zone exemption. I'd like to support the recommendation to remove the agricultural exemption from part five of the property standards bylaw.
By ensuring all properties required to maintain a similar level of property standards, the bylaws to investigate and enforce complaints and infractions are easier to navigate.
Perhaps there are minimal reporting recorded for complaints on agricultural zone properties as there's no standards to enforce.
Follow up in recording or a mood point if there's nothing to enforce with.
Having a uniform property standards bylaw for all zoning would give the bylaw enforcement department the ease of not trying to determine zoning and minimize discussions with regards to infractions of the bylaw.
More and more agricultural properties are being purchased, not with the intent to farm, but the intent to have a large property.
Outsource cropping of a few fields to gain agricultural tax reduction and using the remaining acreage to operate a home business for recreational use and storage.
Having a property standard bylaw that encompasses all zoning and as for as feel cobb and well-nosh will help to control the misuse of the zoning in the circumstance.
As someone who grew up in a farm, I'm well aware that farms need a lot of space for stuff.
I seldom see farms and other agricultural properties that do not show pride of ownership unless there's estimating circumstances or the farm is not owner occupied by having the bylaw in place the standards can be encouraged and enforced easier.
Esthetically and environmentally having part five of the property standards bylaw enforceable on agricultural zone properties will be a benefit to ECW residents and guests.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make any comments at this time as far as any agenda item.
Hi, I'm Lori McKimlang and I'm at 85211 McKenzie Camp Road.
I'm here with I'm the president of the Cottage Association at.
Can tell beach.
I don't have a prepared speech, but I was sent by someone else by my by our Cottage Association, but we are here for us to support the bylaw of property standards.
Thank you for that.
Is there anyone else who would like to make any comments at this time regarding any agenda item from the public?
Seeing none, I thank you very much for your comments.
We'll now move on to five under delegations and public meetings, and I would like to welcome representative from the hundreds beats residential community to address council at this time.
Please indicate your first last name for council.
And you have up to 10 minutes, sir, and it will the timer again will go off at nine minutes 30 seconds.
Thank you.
I'm just starting a broadcast, Mr. Mayor.
You don't have to call me, sir.
Magic touch.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for letting us come and address you today.
My name is George Dark.
I have been a resident in the summertime of ACW for about 25 years at 82717 Grace Road set down the hill from care.
And the good looking group of people behind you are all neighbors that under speech.
Some of whom have been there for over 60 years.
I'll let you decide which one have been there for 60 years.
Some actually longer.
Some of you know that we have a very long standing issue with the access to our properties.
We have a community which is on the lake.
We have one road that goes to it.
And, you know, one of the reasons that all of us who are from many places want to own property in ACW is because of the pattern that it exists on the land.
It's a beautiful farming community.
This is one of the things we really like.
It has a nested set of hamlets inside that, which are equally wonderful.
And then a very unique set of communities that trace the shoreline
that actually aren't connected to each other.
They are all independent.
They have like an umbilical cord that goes back to highway 21.
And, you know, the effect of that is interesting because on the land side, there's redundancy.
It's under a diagonal grid.
If you can't go one way and go another way.
If you want to go around, you can go around.
The shoreline is totally different.
The roads come down from highway 21 to the communities.
And the communities are not connected to each other.
So it is like a series of cul-de-fact.
I guess it's part of the joy of them.
But it's also one of the things that should access become interrupted or interrupted for a protected period of time.
It does become highly problematic.
And, of course, on the other side, we can't get there because we have this big body water.
So, here's our community.
They're all very similar.
You can see the yellow line is the umbilical between 21 and the community.
When they get to essentially the lake bank, they morph into really odd,
idiosyncrack road systems that, you know, people 50, 60 years ago carved into the lake bank.
Most of the roads from 21 go through farmers fields.
So this is ours.
This is the condition of our road, as it stands out, which is privately owned.
That's what it looks like, of course, when it hits the lake bank.
The farming stops.
The lake bank vegetation takes over.
There's a lot of great change.
You go down.
It's really similar.
Here in San Frode is very typical as well.
This one's paved.
Runs through the farms goes back.
It becomes a set of private roads when it actually gets to the lake bank.
Or maple, cedar, grow up road.
Almost identical.
A melical, a highway 21 going into a community.
The infrastructure that's required to feed these communities is deadly simple.
You can't get more simple than that.
It's a right of way.
Two Virges and gravel.
I listen to one of your council meetings where Thomas was explaining about gravel on the road.
It was absolutely fascinating.
It wasn't fascinating.
It was fascinating.
Talking about the percentage of silt in the gravel, we don't have any gravel.
We just have silt.
That's the result of having absolutely no maintenance done on our road for about six years
because it is prohibited.
We also share the road with a very large industrial complex.
It has an agricultural zoning, which is modified.
I don't know if I...
So there are no property standards applied to it. It's allowed to be whatever it wants to be. This is a picture that probably isn't completely accurate, but you could see from the top that our road has to feed through that.
And on many occasions, the operation is both on the road and both sides of the road simultaneously requiring us to drive through and around in order to get to our properties.
So for a good 30 years, our late to highway 21, unlike the others that are public, have become inappropriate. It's out of a line with the use and the function.
There was a draft plan of subdivision done in 1954. Essentially, because the farmer was selling the lots that needed a way for people to get to them.
So the draft plan was created to allow us to get to our lots.
It was never the intention that that road system would be restricted, stop from being maintained or blocked in our fresh to get to our properties.
That would make it a sense. The road system was created to let us get there.
We're here today as a group because this is having the effect of destabilizing our community, our security, financially and functionally.
We are at a point now where we're really at the last part of what we could possibly think of to do.
We've given you a written brief. I know you're not going to make a decision today, but we have a brief. We've given you a further consideration.
It's based around 17 themes and 25 explicit reasons with a basis for an exploration.
I'm not going to go through the morning detail because they're in the brief and I'll let you read those.
But life safety and security is a real issue.
If there's a defined time for access down the road for life safety, we won't meet it because you can't drive down our road on most times.
More than 5 or 10 miles an hour.
That becomes a real difficulty because there are people living in our community who do require access to those facilities. They're not well.
And they have to have those facilities.
The road from time to time is blocked.
The bigger problem is that service vehicles to service our community will no longer come down the road.
Service our septic systems, contractors, meals on wheels, which one of the clients requires will no longer come down the road.
This is an incredibly destabilizing effect.
As I said, the original intention of the access road was to provide access to the lots that the farmer sold at the time down on the shoreline.
This this leaving it in private hands.
We would consider fundamentally a mistake in 1954. You wouldn't allow today.
It was a mistake to do with them.
And it has allowed essentially one owner to stipulate how the access is used to 30 in excess of 30 tax paying properties.
And that's just not a system that can be continued.
The right of way was originally for a farm and recreational properties.
Today it's used by large tractor trailers, trucks heavy machinery.
Maintenance is not allowed.
Thomas, it isn't that we're not doing maintenance or we're doing it improperly.
It is disallowed by the owner.
And for the last six years there have been no maintenance applied to that road.
This isn't the same as other communities along the shoreline, which have a regular pattern as capital is available to bring them up to a standard to get to the properties.
So, primarily owned access roads to communities don't match your policy today.
They haven't for years.
If you look at your official plan, your zoning by law, any law is required to be on a public road.
You can't make a new one.
Unless you have a public road.
And the reason for that is completely obvious, it avoids the entire situation we've been living through for the past 30 years.
Or as some people here in the crowd would say longer than 30 years.
There are future development parcels in the official plan, which we fully support.
To have additional people join the community.
You have to have a public road in order to gain those lots in the zoning for it.
You have had a long standing policy essentially prohibiting the kind of access system that we have going to our properties.
So, you know, we've also wondered if Margaret Road is a common situation being here.
We're coming in front of you and saying, here's not one problem, but 15 problems.
And I think we've discovered it's an anomaly.
The application of policy required public roads for many new subdivisions, but also even back when ours was created, they were public.
They were not private.
And so, you know, there's the list that are public.
There's the app, which comes from your documentation.
We're almost the only one.
Sorry, not me this time.
We're almost the only one that is in this situation that isn't a kind of special condition where someone owns all of the land.
And so, we don't think it's a anomaly that we don't think it's a common situation.
It's an anomaly.
In fact, we think it's an error.
And it's time to fix that error.
Our resident issue can be just becoming unstable.
People are choosing not to come.
People are trying to sell their properties to get out.
Because they can't deal with it anymore.
And this is doing an interesting thing.
I apologize that your time has expired now.
I'm just going to ask council.
With council's permission, we can extend the time.
Specifically, if we would like to hear any more, or it's concluded, what is the will of council?
Council member, please.
I'd like it to continue.
Maybe not for another 10 minutes.
You're going to grant job minutes.
Yeah.
Do I need to make a motion?
No, just maybe up to five minutes.
Sure.
Is that okay?
Is council in support of this?
And I would ask for sure of hands.
Okay, you have up to five minutes.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Florence warned me.
I'm a man of too many words.
You were nice about it.
And this is usually at my time, so stop.
It has a negative effect on our land values.
Our prices are going down.
Our market ability is very hard.
You can't get agents to list our properties when the new rules for disclosure come forward.
And you explain the whole situation with access.
The buyer's walk away.
It's a tainted access system.
At impact, it's having an impact of dropping the property values, which you'll see in your taxation.
Because our values on like others along the shoreline are going down.
The appropriate role of public infrastructure and community type in the official plan.
You know, you have a spectrum of agriculture, villages, and communities along the shoreline.
To protect the communities along the shoreline, they have to be connected to highway 21 with public infrastructure.
If they aren't, they'll go through the spiral of failure that we're having in our longstanding community.
Honestly, everything's failed.
Since 1993, we've been attempting to perfect the situation.
We've not gotten up the hill one inch.
And so all situations to try and perfect this have failed were kind of at our last effort.
And so we would request that council not directly make a decision for this because we understand it's not an easy decision to make.
But if you could instruct staff to begin a process to scope and then undertake the exploration in 2025 to understand what it would mean.
We would really appreciate it.
We have one outstanding concern and that is that we've had two fires in the community that have totally destroyed buildings to the point that they're gone.
We've had one property completely vandalized to the point that it's unoccupiable.
And we have people who have life safety needs and we need to have the road established and designate it as a fire route and a life safety route.
And be maintained in a situation at the point up to we get exploration that can allow us to live there safely.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Now this is not a debate. However, I will open it up to council.
If you have any questions or comments for clarification, please.
Council of Milton bird first.
I don't have any comments beyond great pictures. Great presentation.
My question is can we have a staff report come back on this and I'm going to assume it may well need to be in camera.
Okay. Thank you.
Absolutely. We can't if that is the will of council.
And I will ask for sure of hands if council is in support of directing staff for staff report on this.
And that is the will of council. Thank you.
Any further comments from council?
If not, thank you very much for your presentation to us today.
We'll now move on to a treasury and the payment of the current accounts and I will entertain a mover and a seconder
to authorize the payment of the May 25, 2025 accounts as presented.
And that is Councillor Forster and Milton bird. Are there any questions on these accounts?
Councillor Deputy Mayor of Amsterdam, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On page three.
Council survey equipment.
Is that for us or is that for the people who are doing this?
Thank you for the question and I will defer to staff.
CAO, do you have a comment this?
Sorry Bill, will this the vendor's name?
Yes. Council survey equipment.
Thank you.
It's on page three.
Okay, yes. That's for the survey of a property that we have in our litigation.
No, no, no, no.
Okay, go ahead, Tom. I will defer to our CBO, please join.
The council survey equipment is GPS that is used for the council program as well.
This is this, we own this and it's not for the people who are doing it for us.
That's about what's my question more or less.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you. Any further questions or comments?
If not, we have a motion moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion.
And that is carried. Thank you.
Six two is the payment of the previous months accounts.
And I would entertain a mover and a seconder for this, please.
Councillor Milton bird, Deputy Mayor of Amsterdam, that Ashfield, Colburn, Walvin,
and Ash Council hereby approves the payment of the April 2025 accounts in the amount of
923,194 dollars and 55 cents. Do we have any questions on any of these numbers?
If not all in favor of the motion.
And again, that is carried. Thank you.
Six three is the summary revenue slash expenditure reports for the count to chip the
luck-none district medical center, luck-none district recreation from January to April 2025,
but entertain a mover and a seconder for these, please.
Councillor Hickey and Councillor Milton bird, any questions on these numbers?
If not all in favor of the motion.
And then again, it's carried. Thank you.
Six four is the community grants policy amendment.
It is coming back to Council for further consideration.
Do we have any questions or comments on this?
And I will go first to Councillor Milton bird, please.
Yeah, I would say. Excuse me. It appears to echo exactly what we said.
So I'm happy to move it.
The other comment I would make is, since we do, this is a work in progress.
I'm wondering if we could just have it come forward next year organically, rather than us going,
oh, we didn't get it right.
If staff notices or whatever, say, you know, maybe we need to do something a little different
until we're sure we have it right, because we've looked at it three years in the
background and said, that's not quite right.
So those are my comments, but I'm happy with, we've caught it so far.
Okay, so your sentiment is that you'd like it to come forward next year.
Again, just for review if there's any adjustments.
Any other questions or comments?
Councillor Hickey, please.
Thank you.
Clarification for staff.
We've dropped the maximum from 5,000 to 2,500 request, but then they can also ask for 2,000 in-kind
services.
So, could one organization still get both the in-kind plus the donation to equal 4,500,
or are they restricted to either or in the request?
Thank you for the question.
And I will defer to staff for clarification on that please, if you would.
Treasure McNus.
I think the way that the policy is written is that 2,500 is for direct financial contribution,
which could be in addition to 2,000 dollars in-kind.
That's my interpretation, but again, if it is the will of council to be otherwise,
we can add a note or clarification on that.
Okay.
Councillor Hickey, please.
Thank you for that.
Sorry.
That's how I read it.
I just, so that would equal 40 up to 4,500 or 4 an organization that asked for it, essentially, right?
So I was just clarifying that.
That was the, it was the way it was supposed to be read.
Thank you.
Thank you for that, Councillor Miller.
Please.
Yeah, and I agree that's how it should be written.
And I don't, I don't envision that we're going to give them 2,500 plus 2,000.
I envision we'll give them 2,500 plus dump fees or something like that, right?
Like, and I think that's how it should be interpreted.
So thank you.
Thank you for that.
Any further questions or comments on this?
So the sentiment is directing staff to bring that back next year for review.
If there's consideration for that, and I'm going to ask for a show of hands.
If we were in support of this, and we will consider it off.
We have nothing under planning today under building department. The CBOs report is for information purposes. Do we have any questions or comments on this report? Very similar last year.
E2 is the community onsite inspection program, missed inspections. We do have, we will deal with this. Is there any questions or comments on this? It is the recommendation for option A.
Do council have any questions or comments on this? And I will go first to Councillor Snowblendley's.
Yes, thank you.
I had some time to review this and look at this and I think that she's building this official for bringing this sunflower word and the court for sort of filling that loophole that we discovered on the, on the penalty part of that bylaw.
I think that option A in my personal opinion feels a little bit too lenient.
I feel that it's a bit of a multi-step and I'm not sure entirely, although I have no way of sort of verifying that that it's as cost effective as what the option A allows or shows it to be.
I feel option B is quite strict but it can be modified and maybe we can modify the timeline, modify the annual fee and make it more palatable to our residents across the township.
I feel that option A being too lenient leaves a bit of a crack in the door and I'd rather when I look at bylaws, I'd rather than particularly in this instance.
I'd rather that they'd be a little bit more on the strict side with the ability of staff to, you know, work with residents as opposed to having it lenient and then trying to keep
and forcing it with layers of layers of different ways of people being able to get around it.
I think that we've had a soft opening on the septic inspection and as we've discussed it short-term rentals, we appreciate a soft opening.
It kind of gives our residents a chance to sort of buy in everybody gets a chance to get their toes wet.
And I think we've had a good chance for the soft opening, but I think what we found with the soft opening was there was a fairly big loophole when it comes to the penalty part of not complying with the septic inspection program.
In instituting this septic inspection program was a long process.
It required a lot of consultation. It wasn't cheap to implement it.
And I think that staying on the strict side will have a greater cost recovery than being on the lenient side.
I'm hope if we do have a, if council decides to do a more strict option that we leave it with staff under exceptional circumstances where warranted to work with residents under exceptional circumstances and it's up to staff to decide when those exceptional circumstances occur.
I guess I would like to see personally something between A and B, something that looks like instead of 90 days go to 30 days or 40 days instead of an annual annual fee for properties, maybe it's a buy annual fee.
Anyway, that's my, that's my feeling on it. I know that there's a property in, in mind that has, that kind of highlighted where this loophole existed.
And that's where I'm coming from that with this. I don't say that this happens all the time, but I think as long as people, you know, respect the buy lot there won't be any problem.
But it's people that will continue to take advantage of council and I think with the delegation that came forward just just a few moments ago we can see where a council maybe was a little too lenient or didn't come down hard enough and after a few years, 30 years I guess it's more than to something that has become.
Almost a hurry, her, her currently in task to fix now and I wouldn't want to be a counselor that contributed to having a buy lot that ends up getting abused and misused somewhere down the line, but that's my feelings. I'd be open to hearing other people's opinion on this.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Councilor Snowman before I go to to staff on this. Do you have a sentiment as far as you you commented about modifying the time frame in the amount do you have a sentiment on what you would like to see.
Well, it's a start with I guess for discussion. I would like to see that unpaid invoices should let me say here. We should change it from a 90 days to a 30 days.
I'm trying to read my own writing on here.
I think that if a missed or canceled inspection fee, it says in here to revise the title of the fee to missed or canceled inspection fee to include appointments canceled without rescheduling.
There should be a fee if that rescheduling appointment now gets canceled or rescheduled. So every time there's a rescheduling and it doesn't occur, another fee should be added on that.
The $1,200 annual fee for properties that do not complete an inspection within the calendar year. I think it should be.
We can still keep at that $1,200, but $600 at six months and other $600 at another six months so it accumulates. So it hopefully gets people to act fast within the six months rather than the full year.
Okay, thank you for that. I'm going to go to our clerk at this point in time. Please.
So just we've spent joy and I spend a bit of time working at this together.
So the problem that we have with doing something less than an annual is that the inspection programs themselves only happen between June and September.
So if we're trying to find the balance, you know, if you're scheduled to be in September and you ignore the request, you know, within, you know, within a certain timeframe it becomes difficult to, again, I think we need to highlight that this is a
tool in the enforcement box that when things become instantiating and difficult to manage that we have the tool available to issue.
So if it becomes very clear that this is a constant repeat that there is that fee fine in there if need be.
So I think setting some some tighter parameters around the timing of it. I think it can be a little bit problematic in terms of the practicality of it on the logistics on the boots in the ground.
And the application of it.
Yes.
Yeah.
No, yeah.
Okay, and I actually do you have a follow up comment.
Comments.
I would like to hear up my colleagues might have to say on this.
Okay, perfect. Thank you.
And actually, I will make a comment that I, I share your sentiment that we don't have many that are a problem over the ones that I need to get with.
So I'm going to go to now to councilmember.
Yeah. First of all.
I don't know what that is this morning.
Great. Great job councilor snoblin of putting in towards far more eloquently than I was uneasy with this but I was unclear why.
And.
Most of your comments I 100% agree with.
I think that we've gone in with the soft sell.
We are trying to get people to comply the people who are not going to comply are probably the ones who aren't planning on complying.
So I would in my mind.
Option A is where we would maybe want the bylaw to end up with.
And option B is the structure we want to make people.
Take the bylaw seriously.
I'm less interested in the nuts and bolts of days or.
Cost recovery or because with any new program.
I mean let's let's talk about the dump in the in the let's not but.
Something that's supposed to be revenue neutral often takes a while to get there and I'm far less interested in cost recovery right now than I am with compliance.
And I think that.
The no you need to take this seriously is a good approach.
And once we've gone through the township and everyone has been told you need to take this seriously then maybe back off and as opposed to.
So I'm open to let's say we do with which is almost draconian, but I'm okay with that in the sense that the $1,200 annual fee.
I'm quite happy with an appeal process whether you say to the staff makes it or I mean if there was genuinely a I didn't get it or something really happened in my personal life I wasn't able to do this.
But there is a structure to bring it down or make it disappear completely if the reason the meeting was missed was genuine or or something like things happen life happens.
If it's because they're just not answering and they're not continuing to answer then that's another thing so I personally would like option be I'm happy with however staff thinks that that's the best way to deliver it.
I think in the long run run it's probably too strict but for the next three years until everybody gets their first notice and realizes no you have to pay attention or there are consequences that that is the better route to go and the tools for enforcement like Florence I think you explained it very well and I agree with that that's why I'm not really to concern about how you're going to do it I think the intention should be that we make them take it seriously so repeat offenders are treated.
that way and then once everybody has has a full understanding of the program which is not there yet.
We put a more okay now going forward this is how we're going to do it those are my comments.
Thank you for that.
Deputy Mayor of Aniston please.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Yeah I agree there should be definitely a $1200 set because people will if you could just we go back to the gravel like if you're only going to pay $200 a year.
I'm why while I fix it I just pay the $200 is cheaper than fixing it but I'm hoping and I'm not hoping I want to see it happen is that after September say first of October we revisit this and look at it really seriously and that way we can come down some really hard fast figures so I'm asking the staff to bring this back in the first meeting of October if that's okay with everybody thank you.
Thank you for that.
I'm going to make a comment before I go to staff and that's the fact I concur with option B as I indicated we don't have many that are that would fall under this category however there needs to be something done with those that do.
Do I do have any comments I know on on option B if council would decide to go with that and he concerns from an application standpoint please.
So as I said that in the report it is a punitive way of looking at it going with the $1200 charge at if they miss their inspection for the entire year and do not communicate.
And it is.
Very.
Oh I think that's.
It's a lot of money for anyone who has missed it by mistake.
$200 is more reasonable for most of our residents the ones who will not listen I don't know if $1,200 will even matter.
Okay thank you for that and I'm going to ask a secondary question there's a sentiment that this come back to council for consider reconsideration of point and time what is the time frame that that you would suggest that from your knowledge of the application that this would come back to council for reconsideration.
When what would when would you have some information you know the would enable us to to make a further consideration.
Typically statistical numbers will be available closer to December than in October.
Yeah yeah okay thank you for that.
Part do you have a comment please this.
Just a point of clarification on the provincial offenses act the line item in the by law ensures that the entire by law is enforceable under the law.
So it ensures that if there is even despite the missed inspection fee that is included in the consolidated fee by law.
If there's any other element inside that by law that is determined by an enforcement officer to be a non compliance we can essentially make application to court.
So that's that is the purpose of that line item in there.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I support option A. I think it's got everything in there that needs to be the days, the money, the process of how to go about it. As far as the $1,200 fee, if someone has their heels dug in and they're not going to allow it, they're not going to allow it.
And if the $1,200 gets applied, I think it's going to be appealed in the next step after that. So I don't think it's going to be an easy process for the time and the money that's going to take.
So I think option A has everything in it that needs to be, and I'll be supporting that. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for that. Any further questions or comments from Council? Council or Milton Brook, please?
Yeah, based on Evans actually everyone's, but while I actually think item B is the better way to go, but that's me.
I'd be willing to go along with item A or what is it, not option A, just because we, so we have something in place right now and then with the staff report in December, whatever we can look at it more individualized with statistics and see if we do need to be more.
More.
Keep saying your calling and it's not your calling, but it's not good either more punitive, I guess.
I'd be, I'd be willing to spell it option A with the understanding that everything comes back when joy has it ready.
Okay. Councilor Snowblend, please.
I'm still more in favor of a consolidated option A and option B. However, I could live with option A if it was amended from 90 days to 30 days.
And if the second bullet property owners will be contacted by annually, meaning twice a year until their inspection is completed.
I'd rather than annually, and I know as the clerk pointed out that there's because of the time, excuse me.
The timeline of what was in the counterparts June to June to September, but I think it would be fairly easy still to do that even even if it doesn't fall within the timeline of the actual inspections.
And yeah, I'll leave it at that.
Okay, thank you very much. Clerk, do you have a comment, please?
Just speaking to the 90 day item, I believe that's an account.
You'll have to, I'll get more to speak to that. I think I've rang a bell here.
Okay, so that's with respect if they don't pay the invoice, it'll be added to taxes, so that'd be similar with that if everything.
So, the 90 days isn't when you do it, it's just added to taxes if they don't pay the invoice.
Okay, please.
So just to clarify, any invoice that goes out from the township, regardless if it's the co-sip program, if it's unpaid within 90 days, it gets put to taxes.
So that is, that's just a internal system.
So if the invoice isn't paid, what you're asking for is that if the invoice isn't paid in 30 days, that it gets put to taxes, and I'm not sure if that can happen.
I'm not, I'm not first in that.
Does that make sense?
That's what I'm asking is that you don't let go unpaid for 90 days.
I was in business if you didn't pay it within 30 days, you got, you know, you got a phone call.
So I don't know very many businesses that allow a 90 day window before they even get called, that you're behind on your invoice.
So I think 30 days come in, and I think that's the way to tighten it up, whether it goes on the tax still at what point,
but you've got to bail now at 30 days.
That's what I'm getting at.
And when last point that I forgot, if it's pointing option A, I would, I would live with it as Councilor Miltonberg said to have it come back in October that we can tighten it up, but just to have something for now would be good.
Okay, I'm going to defer to our CAO as far as the timeframe, just for clarification, please.
Just want to clarify, the invoice goes out if they don't pay within 30 days, there's interest, and it just will occur until 90 days, and then we'll add it to the tax roll.
So they are getting, um, the penalty interest added.
Okay.
Um, so, uh, you count there's no benefit.
But to follow through on that, that's not with the bullet says, right?
It says, unpaid invoices are transferred to the tax roll after 90 days.
There's nothing else that explains that it's past due at 30 days, and then interest accrues, and there's nothing in that bullet that explains that.
Okay, CAO, please.
Okay, good, we can make that change.
Okay.
So now, in stages, Deputy Mayor, are you okay if this comes back, and I will suggest December when there's statistical information for reconsideration of Council?
Um, yeah, and I look to joy.
If that's when all the information is there, um, as long as it comes back, that's my biggest concern is that we look at this.
And if we need to be more aggressive at that point in time, then we will be.
And if it's flowing very well, then, um, that's great.
So, but I really want it to come back so we can look at it again, and if, if, if Joyce 100% sure December's in months, that's the month.
Okay.
So the, the sentiment of Council, I will suggest is that to direct staff to bring this back to us in December when we have some statistical information.
Councilor Milton.
Uh, kind of my sentiment is we go with option A and then bring it back in December.
Um, as to the 30 day thing, um, speaking as someone who may or may have not.
Miss township payments and they the next day slap on one and a half percent.
And I have just set it up electronically so that doesn't happen again.
It's quite a punishment to miss that 30 day mark.
And I'd be horrified if it went on my taxes because that would just mean that was a terrible bookkeeper.
So I'm okay with that 30 days and if you need to be added within trust because that's kind of understood by people who sometimes, oh concurred or incurred.
That's fine.
I do agree with Anita about whether, whether we say you have to get it inspected in 60s 30 days or within the year or by annual year or whatever.
I think they do need to be notified by annually that you just remind or you have missed this has happened and this will happen like communication right.
But I and I also agree with Bill that it we'd like it to come back. So my suggestion is we go with option A for now.
And we bring it back in December or whenever joy has all the that a compiled so we can look and see if we made the right decision.
Would you like to make that a motion. Councilor Milton.
If doesn't need to be a motion.
No, I think I think we can just go with the show of hands if we are in support.
Oh, absolutely. Councilor Voster please.
Thanks Glenn. So that the door knocker you leave has all this information on it or you just have to call her.
How does that all go down.
Thank you. Enjoy please.
I can get a copy of the door knocker for you proves after the meeting.
However, it just says that a missed inspection fee may apply if you don't call in reschedule.
Okay. Thank you for that. Councilor Snowblum. Please speaking of the door knocker.
I would be incredibly interested to see what the success of the door knocker is from the point of view that we know the worst one in this subject inspection.
We know which property that is and I don't think that the owners are there very often.
So I question them if it's STRs certain rentals that are possibly being non-compliant.
How often is the owner of the property getting the door knocker?
Is it more advisable successful to reach out through email, phone, other modes of communication as opposed to a door knocker and or both?
And maybe that's something we should think about for option A because a door knocker on a short term rental where the owner is rarely there.
I have a feeling the door knocker is going in the recycle bin.
Okay. Thank you for the sentiment. Joy. Do you have a comment on that?
In the terms of short term rentals, if they are not being communicative and looking at their door knockers, they can be contacted by mail.
Note that most of those people that are not going to pick up their door knocker, do not provide an email or phone number of people at hand.
Okay. Thank you. Councillor Snowblum please.
Well, if I think that if we're making suggestions about amendments and so on, then with the door knocker, there should be an additional mode of communication either email, phone,
letter that goes with the door knocker automatically.
Just to safeguard the door knocker getting knocked off in a wind storm even, you know, for people that are owners that are there.
Speaking as someone that's done a lot of campaigning over the last couple of years,
door knockers do get blown off, removed somehow.
Okay. Thank you for that. So the I'm going to ask we have a sentiment of going with option A in this coming back to council for revisit when there's statistical information in December.
Councillor Snowblum please.
I thought I understood Councillor Snowblum or Councillor Snowblum.
Councillor Snowblum heard to say option A with some of the suggested revisions like changing it from 90 day to 30 day.
And for now, and then still having a report from back in December, that was my understanding.
Yeah, I'll ask for clarification and please Councillor Snowblum.
So what I think should happen or what you are referring to as option A for now.
And if it's necessary to add I don't think it should go 30 to 90 days if it's necessary to add the wording that plus interest will be added to.
And I also think that it should be communicated by annually as opposed to annually.
That's what I think should happen.
Well, that's up to I think we've given staff here some additional ways that I would call that operational.
I don't think we have to tell them that.
Okay, thank you for that clerk please.
Just to clarify what we're hearing is we want to make sure and it's in our interest as well.
We want to make sure that everybody knows this is coming.
So they're we're going to make sure that they're aware.
One way or another be it a registered letter or a letter.
If they're non-communicated, you know, the last thing we want to do is not do do course because that also gives reason not to pay.
Right, like there's there's justification on the other end of it.
The task would be to ensure that they understand that there are fines and repercussions to what's happening.
So that's the understanding of council.
Okay, I am going to ask for sure of hands if we are in support of council members comments.
Post.
And that is supported by council. Thank you.
Staff clear.
Okay, thank you. We'll move on to administration department and the property standards by law.
And we will seek direction of council on this.
We have heard some comments today on this.
And I will open it up to council for any comments.
Please and the first will be deputy mayor of council.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I've always wondered why we had the exemption on agricultural.
Like way back when COVID never had an exemption.
So all properties were looked at under the property standards by law.
So I'd be more than willing to take that out of there.
If that's the will of council. Thank you.
Thank you for that. Councilor Milton word. Please.
Well, I'm going to disagree with Bill on this one.
Good. Back to normal here, Bill.
I think we have we had conversations other times.
Like I think the property standards are not allowed to have your old junkie vehicles.
I know currently there are three trucks of the same year in model that are.
Some day going to become one truck hopefully in 2025 or 26.
And some of us consider them an I so are but they are behind.
My shed and not visible from the road.
But by property standards, they're actually probably not allowed.
So I think some of that the burning stuff.
There's and I haven't looked at it closely because we talked about it many, many times because this comes forward.
So I'm going to speak more to the two individuals that came forward to talk about their comments.
The first gentleman.
It was really impressive.
What he cited, especially when he is.
I just wanted to clarify one thing.
Michigan State is the top agricultural university in Michigan.
And it's one of the top 10 in the United States.
So when he said Michigan State did this study.
It's because they're an agricultural one and that's.
There was not a direct bank, but I almost went to Michigan State University for agriculture.
So I know that.
So that study to me was a significant.
And I think what his point was not that there wasn't a need for property standards.
It was more there's a.
We have to find a mechanism to stop the people using rural properties for illegal.
It's like, let's talk about the tire.
Remember that when they burnt tires was a heggersville or something.
That was agriculture, right?
So.
That is a separate to me topic.
Then the actual.
It's it's.
It's.
Cository.
It's not.
It's collateral.
It's linked but it's not.
A reason.
The bylaw isn't going to catch that necessarily.
I think.
Because we are complaint driven.
It's partly.
Lots of people know things that are people are breaking bylaws, but they're not reporting it.
They're not interested in putting their name on documents, which you need to do, which by the way,
I think are protected by hip-hop, but.
The second speaker.
What's talking about decisions that could be made based on what might happen?
And I don't tend to make my decisions that way. I think it's good to keep tracking them like we did.
But I think two complaints in ACW, which is, you know, the size of Toronto, is not enough to remove the property standards.
It sounds more either like one individual or two. Like that's enough. That's not enough data for me to say, okay, this warrant's removing this.
I think we should monitor it. I think we should look at how to stop illegal uses like I'm really interested in those cases like maybe in the stuff that you gave the clerk. They have tools that we could build into our by-law.
But based on the data that we were given, I don't see any reason to remove the property standards on agriculture. And those are my comments.
Okay, thank you for that.
We'll make a comment, and I concur with Deputy Mayor Van Stoney. You've often said everyone should be treated the same in our municipality and I agree with that.
And I think we have maybe some instances where individuals are skirting around the situation because they're under the agricultural umbrella.
And I would support treating everyone the same on this.
So, any further comments from Council on this and Councilor Milton Burke piece?
I'd like to address your treating everyone the same.
I think if you're seriously thinking of removing this, then we need to look at that actual by-law very closely, because I know there's burn bands.
I know there's things about a little truck sitting there because we've talked about this before.
If you're going to tell, if you're going to do this without at least taking some public input from the mass of a amount of people who are going to be affected by this, I think that's the mistake.
And what you're talking about is changing a by-law to catch the baddies.
And there's a lot of good farmers that need to burn the brush or, you know, we're talking about again, the people who are doing it improperly.
And that's the same reason we set up a short-term rental committee.
We don't want to come up with something that doesn't punish the people who are doing it correctly, but educates and reforms the people who are doing it incorrectly.
And, you know, all or nothing is not the approach on anything.
And so I am really against just saying, okay, let's drop it. We don't even know what we're dropping.
Based on two complaints we're saying, okay, let's drop the property standards.
When was the last time anyone here read all the property standards by-law?
I read about the last time we had this conversation when she was a year ago.
So, if that's the will of council that we think it should be dropped and it should at least be reviewed before we do that.
Okay, thank you for that sentiment.
And I would suggest that it is complaint driven and you're citing of two trucks of the same year behind a building.
I'm not convinced that that is the concern of the public.
It's more the abuse of the overall agricultural being exempted from it in some instances.
Deputy Mayor, please.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I'd be more than willing to bring this back and look at it again because it's very important.
Everybody has their own property.
And one man's junk is another man's treasure.
So, we should look at this.
And again, I know it's billet, you know, billet, but I think it's important because there should be some restrictions on some of the stuff that goes on in the farming community.
But not to the point where it stops them from, as you say, having two old trucks behind their shed.
That's all fine and dandy.
And we don't want somebody that just drives around the country and says, oh, I don't like him.
I'm going to put a report in.
So, we need to refine this.
And I would be more than happy to have it come back.
And I don't know, maybe if we had to have special meeting on or something, but it is important.
So, I think we should look at it again. Thank you.
Thank you for that CAO.
Do you have a comment?
Sure.
Okay.
All right.
So, what is the sentiment of council?
Would you like to come back to a future meeting for consideration?
Do you want to deal with it today?
What is the sentiment of council?
Councillor Hickey and then for Councillor Hickey and then Snowblum please.
Thank you.
I support the comments about jumping into quickly on this.
I think it's important that we review it.
And we can't punish some just because of a few bad apples in the group.
So, I think it should be looked through thoroughly before we agree on anything.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Snowblum please.
I agree that it should come back too.
But I guess I just, I was looking over the background of it.
Find out why is it here in the first place today.
Isn't it here today to discuss?
I thought that was the intention today was to discuss it.
Now we, so staff have brought it to here to discuss.
And we're saying let's bring it back to discuss.
Is that what we're doing?
It kind of sounds like that to me.
Okay.
Thank you for that sentiment.
That'd be near please.
Yes, it is here for it to discuss.
But it was left that we either taken in or put it in or taken out.
I think we need to refine it.
Is what I'm looking at is so that we can leave it in or take it out.
I guess it wants to council decide.
But I think we need to refine the specification and make it more.
I guess I would say user friendly.
Thank you.
Okay.
Councillor Snowblum please.
I guess that if it's to be refined, I would be looking to,
Are we supposed to give staff direction then as to what refined might look like?
Because if we just say refined it without giving any parameters to that,
I'm not sure that staff is going to be clear as to what we're looking for.
Mark is nodding his head.
So I think that was asked of me when I brought it up at the subject inspection.
The mayor asked me if I had some suggestions, which kind of caught me off guard.
But I, you know, I'd had some things written down.
So we'd had a chance to look at it.
I think we should be at least, at the very least, giving staff something to work with.
Okay. Thank you.
I'm going to go to.
Do you have a comment please?
Just that Councillor Snowblum kind of pulled the thoughts out of my head.
With all due respect, you know, it's it's great to say let's bring it back.
But you need to give me a good reason why otherwise it's just stalling it.
You know, and these folks who are here, they may not be here or different people.
It.
Yes, I will.
Okay.
Councillor Forster.
Did you have a comment to make before I go to Councilman.
But please.
Just quit comments.
So like that picture that was in that presentation.
Like, I take it.
That's what we're trying to deter.
Like, like, ten.
Like, four months from now, you might have ten more of them sitting there.
Or there's another place he has five acres of abandoned farm machinery.
Is that what we're trying to deter?
Okay.
Thanks for the comment.
The complaints that have been issued have been issued on properties that are
I'm zoned.
Age four.
So agricultural small holdings.
So these are properties that are not necessarily agriculturally related properties.
They are, you know, in essence, they are, you know, a village residential in the urban area, or in the rural area
villages.
So I, that's, that has been something that has not been mentioned today.
So I thought I would say that out loud.
And maybe that's a direction that Council could request that they, maybe the exemption that
be put in is, or that the exemption that is removed is age four properties specifically.
So that they are treated like a settlement area in, in the scope of the bylaw.
For consideration.
Thank you very much for that clerk.
And I think that may address the concerns that, that some Councillors have that
Age fours is maybe what we need to consider.
I'm going to go to our sale and then Councillor Milton, please.
So just to clarify the age four properties are small.
Like the, the floors refers to.
So I'm going to give me an example.
If you go down the loyal here and hang it right, there's a few little small little houses.
Those are all age four.
They're all small little parishes of property, a couple acres of size.
But they're exempt through this lila.
And if you could, like, Florence referred to, you could zoom in on those particular properties.
But it's not going to catch the mall.
So it's not going to catch the larger parishes that you're talking about.
Okay.
Our council.
Excuse me.
I'll go to Councillor Miltonburg and then our clerk, please.
Yeah.
I based my decisions on facts in front of me.
So first of all, I think the age four complaints changes it dramatically.
The only way I would be content to say, let's change 25 pages of a by-law is to go through each point.
Because this by-law has in place for decades.
So bills.
Okay.
I'm doing this again.
Bill, you're right in that.
At the very least, I think it would need to be done point by point.
The fact that it's the complaints were AG4.
To me, it changes it directly.
And I would go through it point by point, thinking AG4 instead of farmlands.
I have not done that yet.
I think it would be a large amount of time.
Because I would want to go through all 25 pages with a different lens.
So I am requesting this be brought back.
Yep.
Now I can see that clerk and then councillors told me.
So for the purpose of bringing this back with something to consider or to consider it further,
would council be interested in seeing a property standards by-law with the AG4 parcels removed from that.
So that there's something to consider and this discussion can further happen.
I think that would make absolute sense.
councillors, no, please.
I think that's a great idea.
I'll expand on that though.
And not that I'm looking to attend more meetings.
But this is a huge by-law.
And it has a lot of implications.
And I think as councillor Milton Bergs, that this by-law has been around for quite a number of years.
And because it's so extensive, would it be reasonable to consider having,
instead of having a special meeting of council to discuss just this particular by-law,
as opposed to being in a regular council meeting where it would quite possibly take up a great deal of hard of the meeting.
I'm thinking, you know, an hour and a half meeting or a two hour meeting,
even if it's at four o'clock or something right after,
for thirty-one staff has normally done for the day.
Just so that we have a chance to really get a good scope of it and be able to go as council Milton Bergs that line by line.
Okay, thank you for that.
Any further sentiment from council on this?
Would we like a special meeting for this?
Does staff feel that we can do this within a council meeting?
And I will defer to Deputy Mayor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I would like to see the scenario of the A, G, fours taken out.
But also, I'll have to admit that I would like time to look at this and go through it,
because there's things I'd like to see left in.
There's things I'd like to see taken out.
And I haven't done that, I'll be honest with you, so that was why I asked it to come back.
And I don't care if it comes back in two weeks or a month,
because it is going to take a while to go through this and pick out,
because I can just take a few off the top of my head, like trailer parks, for instance.
I know of a few farms that have almost become a trailer park, and they shouldn't,
but they're exempt because they're ageing one.
So there's a whole lot of things in there that I'd like to look at and bring back.
And because today, I can't tell you what I want to take other put in or anything else.
That's why I asked it to come back. Thank you.
Okay, thank you for that.
From a staff standpoint, the bylaw is already in place.
Like, could we meet a week from today to discuss that?
Councillor Miltonberg, please.
That's why I want to jump in.
It's, we're dairy farmers.
You have not your choice, and this is prime agriculture of season.
I actually do not have time to go through 25 pages line by line,
and think about AG for an AG and do a good job.
I don't want to phone it in.
And I don't think there's any particular hurry for this.
We asked for it to come back based on complaints.
Can we, I think it's a full-sum conversation.
I think Bill is bang on, right?
He probably was just reading my mind.
But if we're talking about having a special meeting because we need the time,
I'm saying let's do it more timely.
There is no rush for this.
Let's do it either in the fall or after the crops are in the ground.
Or, you know, if we want to do it in the middle of the summer,
I don't know.
But a week is way too short to turn around.
No problem.
Thank you.
So what are we looking at on time frame,
because a staff needs some direction on this,
and we don't have to nail down a date.
It can be a proximate.
Counselors, no, please.
Generally, the first week at June is a good time for farmers.
And another comment.
I hate procrastination.
Speaking.
Please.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
Counselor Snowblin.
We do have a council meeting on the third day of June.
Councilor Milton Burke, do you have a comment, please?
I would suggest that every single dairy farmer in ACW is busy June 1st.
Okay.
Yes, and is it going to rain? Okay, so when or when are we thinking of a time frame? Staff need direction on this. Do we counsel or deputy mayor and then counsel or something?
Can we bring it back to say in July? I think that would be quite appropriate, you know, nice sunny day. You said it back and read it. Thank you.
Okay, so we're thinking of July. By my memory, we have one council meeting in July is that correct staff.
So the we could do it the eighth of July if if that. I'm a way. Oh, you're a ways to each to do it. Okay, you're a way the first two weeks. Okay, no problem.
Councillor Snowblum, please.
Not being a dairy farmer. I'm not aware of when the hey comes up and so on, but could we extend the meeting on June the 17th to have a discussion.
Just the property standards after the June 17th meeting.
Okay, but please. So you're looking for a special council meeting after the June 17th council meeting.
Yes, okay.
Yeah, I mean, my intent if to bring back the property standards by I wouldn't propose any amendments to it. I would bring it to you as draft and it would up to you to decide what you would want to change on that by law.
If it's a, if it's a, like a continuation of a council meeting, it would have to be a call to a separate place at separate time. I mean, be it to be considered.
I'm thinking even from a administrative side of things. So either it'd be included in the June 17th meeting as an item that is discussed, or you come back at one o'clock or four o'clock to discuss that item specifically.
We could always do it within the council meeting and extend the hour. That's a possibility and you know, rather than, you know, that is one option. Councilor Milton, please.
Okay, we have one councillor Anita. Well, I love dearly, would like it done quicker. I, you have a councillor, remember who is asking for grace in the beginning of June. Can we do it in July and I will tell you, I could do it June 17th it will be a hardship.
And I would do my best, but I'm asking for the extension to July because as far as I can tell, there is no pressing pressing reason to do it in June for me and there's a lot of pressing reasons not to do it in June for me.
Okay, so we have one meeting in July that would be on the 15th of July. We could extend the hour and have it within that meeting CAO comment, please.
I'm just trying to bring it back full circle. The intent is to decide whether you're going to include all-way properties or just some.
The by-law itself, I don't know if it needs much amending itself, but I think it's more about what zones you want to include.
Right now includes all zones except those agriculture, so I think it's more of that.
There might be a few little minor changes to the by-law, but like this by-law has been around for quite some time and they are in their for reason they're consistent.
So I think we need to wrap our head around whether you want to include the agriculture as a whole, every particular zone or just particular ones.
And I would suggest from our discussion that our consideration was to whether to currently AG4 is excluded and whether that is our intent as opposed to you know agricultural land of farmers.
Take the thing and we will look at the full some by-law. However, I would suggest that that is something we're kind of discussing today.
Counselors, no, please.
Could we come to a compromise and start the discussion at the June, whatever, meeting that was June 17, December 17.
The June 17th discussion and if we finish the discussion at the July 15 meeting and ahead of time have staff provide for us not only the definition of AG4.
And how it dovetails and effects any possible amendments to this by-law, but also any other zoning that might as well.
But I'm not familiar with all the zones for it, but perhaps you could, you know, have a few of the different zoning that might have a great deal of effect or a little effect on this.
Just so that we can wrap our head around it.
Okay, so this suggestion was on the 17th of June and further discussion in the 15th of July.
I'm not, I don't know, we'll see how it goes. I'm not sure it's going to be that long conversation if we have the by-law and advance for what we want to accomplish.
However, that is at the Willow Council. Councilor Milton Bergen and Hickey please.
I've said I can make the June 17th work and I can't, but I would also comment you are talking about something that affects farmers.
And when we talk about something that affects the seasonal residents we try to do it at a time that's handy for them.
I'm not hanging by June 17th, but everybody else who has beef cattle is or they're spraying their soybeans.
So if you want people who are interested and are going to be affected by this to have time, there's a reason why both most dairy farmers, not dairy farmers, farmers get married in the middle of July, because there's a break in the middle of July organically.
I personally got married in October, so I can make June 17th work.
I think it's a disservice to the people who will be affected by this by-law.
Everyone knows what I need and I think, so I'd like to know what the other councilors think.
Okay, so with that sentiment, let's consider the 15th of July and I'm going to go to Councillor Hickey and then snow bun please.
Thank you. As far as the package comes back at the meeting, I just asked staff to do a breakdown of all AG zones.
Just so we know what's allowed on AG, whatever it is.
Size wise, how large the properties are or could be if there's a restriction on AG for size wise, just so we can go through AG step by step.
All those zoning. Thank you.
Okay, just to follow up on that, I'm going to ask a question.
Do you have a brief explanation on AG for holdings, and you cited the loyal that we're all familiar with, compared to a 100-acre farm?
Difference and zoning, please.
I don't have that information here in Italy.
No problem.
It's cool.
Okay, Councillor Snowblum, you'd like to make a comment, please.
I would just say in the spirit of doing things that are handy for everybody, seasonal and farmers, the seasonal people that we're here today at the delegation.
I'm sure that they would like to see this come to discussion sooner rather than later, as opposed to at a time when they're not in the area.
So just for consideration.
July is good, not October.
Okay, so if I would ask Councillor for the sentiment, can this work for our July 15th meeting, and staff would provide us information in advance of that meeting.
Deputy Mayor.
Oh, yeah, you're away.
No, I'm not away, but like that's getting into wheat season, but as long as it's in the morning, that's fine.
But July 15th, that regular Councillor means, yeah, as long as it doesn't get too late, that might be just concerned.
So I'm going to ask for a show of hands of Councillors in support of this property standards by law, agricultural zone exemption, coming back to our July 15th meeting that will start at 9 a.m.
Council and support it as a show of hands, please.
That's part of my council.
Okay, staff, go to this.
Thank you.
The by law enforcement report is for information purposes.
Do any members of council have any questions or comments on this report?
Seeing none, we have the report also from Viola, water operations and maintenance, again, information purposes.
Questions or comments?
I'll read that.
Nothing under drainage.
Yes, I do.
That's right.
Thank you very much, clerk.
I'm nothing under drainage.
Public works.
We do have a report that has been prepared by our public works superintendent on progress.
Do we have any questions or comments of Tom on this report?
Councillor forster, please.
Okay, thank you, Glenn.
I'm really impressed with the job.
You guys getting the crown on the road.
But one of my concerns is this gravel you've put in the grass, like, for grass cutting, like, what's going to happen with that?
Thanks for the question, Councillor forster, Tom, please.
The grass is cut over top of the gravel, and then the grass is going to dry up.
If we're going to use the reclamer, it's a set of discs that you used to pull stuff out.
That's always going to pull grass and saw it out of the side of the road.
So I would look to time the grass cutting with the reclaming a gravel so that you're not pulling a large amount of, hey, onto the road.
But the way it, like some places, like, there's a mound like that.
I think you can't cut grass.
I also say that creek line and the report got an extra thick layer of gravel, and we're trying that out.
I'd have to go and look to see how much if there's a particular area that's got a lot of gravel that's pushed to the side.
I'd have to go and have a look at it.
Yeah, I'm talking creek line, but so other roads aren't the same way to get that crown on the road.
We have a beautiful crown on all the roads.
The guys have been very diligent trying to achieve that 5%.
From what I've seen from the roads that have had gravel applied to them, I don't feel like there's a lot of gravel that's been pushed to the side.
So we just on Friday added an additional thickness to creek line, so it'll have to go see how it's looking today.
But we can always pull it back. It'll be okay.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for that.
And thank you for this Thomas far as a follow-up that Council has asked for in a residence of asked for it too.
And I have also received comments in the last two weeks from residents that have been very appreciative of the quality of the gravel, the amount of stone in it, the quantity that has been applied and also on the crown that has been applied to the road.
And this is what our residents have asked for.
So thank you very much for that Tom and we will continue to monitor this.
And the fact that you're putting an additional amount on, we have to try different things to improve it.
And this is what both Council and our residents have requested and thank you very much for doing this.
And we will continue to do it to upgrade our and improve our roads to what they have been.
Any further questions or comments at Tom? Other than job well done?
You continue it?
Perfect. Thank you very much, Tom, for this.
Is there any Council committee reports that anyone would like to share with Council? Please no go first to Councilor Hickey.
Thank you.
Councilor Blake reached out to me last night and asked me to report for him on the Ben Miller Hall.
June the fifth is the annual supper.
There will be a silent auction with proceeds going to the playground project.
And also the committee is very excited to share that they have raised nearly $61,000 to date for the playground project.
Which I think is excellent amount and the time they've had.
Thank you.
It absolutely is. That's wonderful. Congratulations and thank you to all that are involved in that fundraising effort.
Any additional committee reports, Councilor Snowblum, please?
Yes, on May 14th, I met in Clinton with the community safety and well-being oversight committee.
And it was discussed at fairly great length since this is a mandated committee of municipalities across Ontario.
There is no funding for this.
And we've discussed this before at the oversight committee.
And there is an appetite from the Oxford County to take the lead in approaching possibly the Minister of Finance at AMO,
about seeking funding for this mandated committee across the municipalities of Belief or another 440 or some municipalities.
But I believe there's 380 of them not mistaken committees that are mandated through the province of Ontario with no funding.
We talked about different ways to approach how to highlight that there's no funding and so on.
It's about $4,600 for a booth, which seems a little high to bring awareness to.
This, but there is, like I said, an appetite for the Oxford County to take the lead on us.
I guess the ask is the committee has asked me to approach our local MPP to have a discussion about this at the committee, which I have not done yet, but I will be approaching her.
And also for the councils that are associated with the nine lower tiers to, if they have anyone going to aim on, I believe, Councilor Miltonberg is.
If they would be supportive of Oxford County and other counties that are, you know, taking the lead on us to approach if they can get a delegation to the Minister of Finance or whatever ministry is available to talk about funding for this mandate.
That was the great deal at this question, but we also have some other things coming up.
New.
Some new.
I'm the last for words.
The next priority, the next in July, first we have a new launch coming forward and the new campaign community safety and security, and that will be launching in July.
And we'll be highlighting that at the multicultural festival in Gaudrich. I believe it's July first.
Okay. Thank you very much for that. Any additional committee reports?
Anyone?
Approximately two weeks ago I did attend the South here in Mayors breakfast in Exeter and also the Gaudrich mayor's luncheon in Gaudrich.
And we had a mid here in landfill meeting a week ago and almost want to touch would we are seeing the least shade amount decrease at the landfill, which has been a priority in a concern of the committee and we are monitoring that as to different ways.
We can further enhance that of less the shade because it's an absolute cost.
Is there any new business that anyone who would like to bring forward to a future meeting at this time?
Seeing none we have no correspondence for direction there are a number of items for information.
Do any members of council have a comment to make on this and I will go first to Councillor Milton, please.
Thank you. I have a comment on several of them and the first one is 16.1 the AMO delegation.
I would suggest that we make a delegation request both for what I need to spoke about and I'm not sure.
Maybe think of maybe more than just a minister of finance. We send the same thing out to several ministers and see who will take a bite.
And the other one is I think we should try to make another delegation to short term rental.
We're doing a lot of good work. We could talk to them about it but I still believe it should be far more direction from the province and there is they there let us do everything and I'd like to point that out again.
So do we want to talk about that for move on to the next one?
Well absolutely and that delegation of STRs would be the minister of housing I would suggest would that be appropriate.
The floor it sent it in last year. I think that's who it was.
My memory doesn't ring about.
But I mean if there isn't the deadline is May 30th. So if we're open to those suggestions I could get a draft STR1.
I need I'm guessing could get a draft.
For whatever that word was give them show the council so we can kind of agree that's more or less it so Florence can get the paperwork done and again that doesn't.
It wouldn't be the full some report because we don't even know if we'll get an ear but it would give staff some direction of what to send by May 30 if we're interested in that.
Okay. Thank you very much. Councillor Snowblum please.
Just I would suggest that perhaps we could get Kelly or Florence to reach out to Michaela Johnson or Stacey Jeffree with other general.
Because they would have the lead people from Oxford County that they might be able to get more information.
Okay. Staff good with that and the sentiment for an STR request of a delegation to address that with the appropriate ministers. Okay and continue please council member.
Okay. Thanks to the questions CAO please.
I knew that question was coming so I thought hey I emailed the month Friday and he says they haven't forgotten there's going to be something coming back to council for to look at shortly.
Okay. Thank you. Continue.
Yeah. Please. Thank you for that to see you.
There's two here in county sled grants and we're successful for the Ben Miller playground and I want to really particularly shout out.
They're both great accessibility one is great but initially I was like I don't think there's any point in putting in the Ben Miller project one and we did request quite a bit more but quite happy that they did support it so.
Color me wrong and willing to admit staff was smarter to me on that one instance so good for them.
And the last comment I wanted to make was 16.8 the strap for festival civic invitation night.
My very first play ever was Annie so I'm really interested in that but I'm guessing I'm to contact them myself is that how it reads. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for that and I will also plan to attend that civic night.
Any other items of information the council would like to comment on and I will go first to Councilor Hickey please.
Thank you. I'd like to just acknowledge 16 to the McKay Center update.
That's an program that we supported and help get going.
They've got part-time custodian and part-time program consultant that started earlier this May and it looks like they have a barbecue coming up in June to get awareness out and events.
So I'd just like to acknowledge that. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that and that is very positive. Totally. Absolutely.
Anything additional?
Seeing none under unfinished business the aim of conference that Councilor Milton Bergen myself plan to attend.
We have one by law and I would entertain a mover and a seconder for this by law.
And it would be Deputy Mayor of Antstone, Councilor Milton Bergen the leave be given to introduce by law number 31.
Dash 2025 being a by-law to adopt a community grants policy for the Township of Ashefield, Coburn, Walbon, Osh and then it will now be read separately.
A first second and third time and finally pass this 20th day of May 2025 all in favor of the motion is written.
That is carried. We do have a closed session today and I would entertain a mover and a seconder for this.
And that is Councillor Snowbland and Hickey, the Ashefield Coburn Walbon Osh Township Council move into a closed session in accordance to section 239 and brackets 2 and brackets B, E and F and brackets of the municipal act.
With the CAO, the clerk, the public works remaining in attendance for the duration and the CBO remaining in attendance for items 191 and 2 at 10.
A 40 AM for the purpose of discussing personal information about an identifiable individual, including municipal employees, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for the purpose.
And that would include property standards, building code and zoning by law contraventions and public works, all in favor of the motion is written.
And that is carried and how we have a break for five minutes to allow our clerk, the opportunity to secure the meeting and we will resume in our closed session.
Thank you.
We are back in our open session, and I will ask our clerk for reporting on our closed session, please.
There is nothing to report today.
Thank you very much. We have our confirmatory by-law, and I will entertain a mover of the seconder for this, please.
Deputy Mayor Van Stone, Councillor Snowblend, that the given to introduce by-law number 32-2025, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the
bunch of of Ashfield Cobra and Walden-Oge Council meeting held on May 20, 2025. And then it will be read separately.
A first second and third time and finally passes 20th day of May 2025, all in favour of the motion is read.
And that is carried. Thank you very much for everyone's input today, and I will entertain a mover and a seconder to adjourn.
This meeting.
Councillor Sforcer, Milton Berg, that Ashfield Cobra and Walden-Oge Council, does now adjourn to me to gain on June 3,
2025 at 9 a.m. or at the Call of the Mayor, all in favour of this motion, and that again is carried.
Thank you. Meeting adjourn.