[0:00] everyone and welcome to a meeting of Brent count county council for July the

[0:04] 28th 2026. I have a bit of a sore throat so I'm

[0:08] going to try to get through this and if I can't get through it someone is going

[0:12] to come up and finish it off for me. First thing on our agenda today is our

[0:15] attendance. It's been taken by the clerk and we're all here. Councelor Pierce is

[0:20] online. I think he's in Mexico. The rest of us are all in here. Um, the land

[0:25] acknowledgement is the second thing on the agenda and councelor Kyle's going to

[0:29] do that for us. >> As we gather, we acknowledge that we

[0:34] meet on the lands and territory of the Missosagas of the Credit First Nation,

[0:38] six nations of the Grand River and the traditional territory of the Adawander.

[0:42] We remind ourselves that the county of Brandt is situated on lands that are

[0:46] full of rich indigenous history and home to many First Nations, Inuit, and Matei

[0:51] people. Today, we recognize the significance of their contributions to

[0:55] the past, present, and future of this land. As a county, we have a shared

[1:00] responsibility for the stewardship of the land on which we live and work, and

[1:04] a commitment to the truth and reconciliation calls to action. We

[1:08] commit to continue learning, reflecting on our past, and working in allyship.

[1:12] » Thanks, Councelor Kyle. Uh, the third thing on our agenda is the agenda itself

[1:17] with an addendum. Is there anything else the council wants to put on the agenda?

[1:25] No. >> Councelor Kyle.

[1:28] » Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Uh, not an addition to the agenda, but wondering if we could

[1:32] bring uh the communications uh related to the CPPS ahead of the uh discussion

[1:38] on the CPPS. So, that would be I think it's 10.5.

[1:42] » Yeah. Thank you. Hey, Councelor Miller. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Um, if you look at uh

[1:49] item number, and just bear with me for a second here,

[1:54] 103, and that's a new central library project

[1:58] plan. I'm just wondering, um, should that item not come after the in camera

[2:04] item of 151? To me, it makes sense it should.

[2:11] Okay, everybody's okay with that? Doesn't really matter to me. It does

[2:17] make more sense. >> Yeah, because there's I have questions

[2:21] about that, but I I think I'd I'd like to ask. Anyways, what I would suggest

[2:24] and uh it's up to you obviously, but uh is maybe move 103 to the after camera.

[2:30] Um >> Okay.

[2:32] » And >> anybody else?

[2:35] Okay. We're going to vote on the agenda as it's amended with its addendum. All

[2:40] those in favor? Opposed? Carried.

[2:46] The next [clears throat] thing on the agenda is the declaration of pecinary

[2:49] interest. Does anyone see any that are obvious? Councelor Miller,

[2:54] » I got uh one item on I'll pull it when we get to it, but that's from the admin

[2:58] and OP meeting. >> Okay.

[3:02] Anyone else have any pecunary interest? Seeing none. Okay. We'll go on to number

[3:06] five, which is our delegations. And we have a couple of them. The first one is

[3:10] from the Paris Legion. It's going to be Barry and Cheryl are going to come up

[3:14] and speak

[3:22] and you have 10 minutes. And uh if you can just give us your full

[3:28] names, please and and uh we we understand that you're representing the

[3:32] Paris Legion. >> You bet. I'm my name is Barry Humphrey.

[3:34] I'm the president of Legion 21 in Paris. And uh this is my wife. She's on the

[3:41] committee for uh with the anniversary of raising funds for our anniversary uh

[3:47] which is coming up. October 7th, 1926 was when we uh signed the charter and

[3:54] we've been doing fundraisings for our 100th anniversary. Uh music events,

[3:58] barbecues, high tees, Mother's Day brunches, and uh we're going to have a

[4:05] September 28th October 2 open house, the invitation to schools and public. The

[4:11] theme is women on the home front. stitches, steel, and strength, holding

[4:17] the line at home, women's and World War II. Uh the contributors were Paris

[4:23] Museum, Canadian Military, uh Museums, uh the Paris Library, the

[4:29] Paris Legion Archives, and the general public. I'm going to turn this over to

[4:35] Cheryl, and I'll let her talk about some more issues that we're doing at the

[4:38] Legion.

[4:45] I'm shorter. I got to adjust. With the 100th anniversary, we've plined

[4:51] many of fundraising events. We've done barbecues, Mother's Day, um, uh, brunch.

[4:56] We've done high tea, and, uh, we've worked very hard to raise funds. Uh,

[5:02] some of these funds will be used to, uh, improve some of the facilities at the

[5:06] Legion as well as help us with some celebrations. Our October uh open house

[5:13] is going to be an invite to schools and the open public. We'll have all kinds of

[5:18] displays out there indicating what the women in Paris as well as in Ontario,

[5:24] what they did during the World War II. Many, many things of interest that

[5:29] everybody should come out and see. Part of our celebration also has been the

[5:34] Poppy Project. But I'm going to first show the picture. I think that you're

[5:40] going to have to. So, this is a fiber art picture. It means it's all made of

[5:46] fabric and we have a very talented lady who has donated two pictures to our

[5:52] Legion. The first one will find its permanent home there, but this one is a

[5:57] fundraising effect or event. Um, it's fiber, meaning that it's all fabric

[6:03] stitched down. Uh Donna Visure Campbell, who is a local um um resident, has been

[6:11] very um strong in producing pictures like this, and she does sell them, but

[6:16] she has donated two of these to us us for one for fundraising and one for a

[6:21] commemoration for our 100th anniversary. It's a fragile event, so we say I'm

[6:27] fragile. Please don't pet me. But that's your first inclination is to go up and

[6:32] touch it because you can't believe that it's not paint.

[6:36] The project that I'm really uh involved in is the Poppy project.

[6:42] So I'm you may have seen this project up in different areas. Cambridge did a big

[6:48] display. The Tower of London did a really big one. So we're up there with

[6:52] the big wigs. But this uh we went to the community and this has become a very

[6:59] social and inclusive event. So Mary Maxum Cheler Place Queens View

[7:06] Brandt Seniors Women's Institute Probus Adelide Hunter Hoodless Paris

[7:12] Agricultural Society and the general public have come together to crochet or

[7:17] knit these poppies. Most of the people donated their time, effort, and money to

[7:22] do that. And now we have collected 11,000 poppies.

[7:28] What do we do with them? We're going to put them on netting. So, we'll need to

[7:33] purchase netting to do that. Um, the goal is to get as many done as we can,

[7:38] but if we don't, we still have next year to work on that project. But where will

[7:42] we put them? We're concerned about the fact that we would like to put them in

[7:47] places that really show the respect, remembrance, uh, and reverence that we

[7:52] would like to to send out to our veterans. So, we're going to try to get

[7:57] them at the Senate. We will, um, also put them on our smokehouse, which is the

[8:03] name for our Legion building. And, uh, if there are other areas in the

[8:07] community, we will definitely do that. We will share some of these with Telford

[8:11] Place and with Queens View because they were so in in uh helpful in in getting

[8:16] this project going. So, our fundraising for the poppies has

[8:21] been minimal because most people have donated so much, but now it's time to

[8:25] buy netting and to buy equipment to help uh

[8:31] attach the poppies to buildings and that. So, we are looking for a little

[8:35] bit of help in that area that perhaps we could um get some kind of a

[8:40] » money >> money. We like money, but if we could

[8:43] get some type of uh funding for uh for this event, that would be lovely. Uh the

[8:49] uh poppies can go up the last Friday of October and they're up until the end of

[8:56] Remembrance Day. When they come down, we have a a bit of a logistics. We have to

[9:02] find a place to dry them because they could be very wet. So, we have to do

[9:07] that. And then we're also looking for places to store them. But we've put out

[9:12] an appeal to the community and we have lots of totes that are coming in and

[9:17] people are donating totes to help us with that event, that part. So, tomorrow

[9:22] night we are having a um Poppy B at the Legion. So, I believe

[9:29] Lucas has thrown out a challenge to everyone here to come out and help him

[9:35] because he was there last week. Is that true, Lucas?

[9:40] » Through the mayor. Yes. [laughter]

[9:43] » Anyways, if you can come out and help us in any way, that would be lovely. It's a

[9:48] very social event. There's lots of chatter. There's lots of fun. So, uh if

[9:52] you could come out, that would be great. So, that's what our um Have I got my 10

[9:57] minutes still? Am I good? >> Okay. Three seconds. Three minutes.

[10:02] Okay. Um uh so if you can come out and help us in any way, that would be great.

[10:06] This is a these poppies will be used year after year. It's not a one-time

[10:12] deal just for our 100th anniversary. So, we will put them out on display in the

[10:16] community. And I think that the people who have been very much a part of this

[10:21] will be very they'll be very grateful to see them up

[10:25] there. And I think that they will be very um I think they'll be emotionally

[10:30] uh charged with this as well too. So we have a huge uh amount of veterans in our

[10:35] area and this is just one way for us to help celebrate that and to remember them

[10:39] by. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. Can I get a motion to so we

[10:43] can talk about this? Councelor House, Councelor Coleman. Uh does council have

[10:48] any questions to the delegation? Councelor Haley.

[10:53] » Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I don't know if you're going to be

[10:56] including the farmers. They >> Yes,

[10:59] » they have a film and they were here speaking uh two times I think in Brank

[11:02] County in Onadega and then at Langford Schoolhouse. So,

[11:05] » they will be here. Um the Farmerettes were a group of uh young women who if

[11:11] they had great marks at Christmas time would not have to write exams in the

[11:16] spring and they could go out and work on the farms. And so uh the farmers are

[11:21] also having a display at the Paris Museum on September the 27th. So they

[11:25] will have uh information about that and I have met women around here who are

[11:31] farmerrettes. So it's really interesting to see that.

[11:34] » Any other questions? Okay. Thank you for your delegation.

[11:39] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[11:44] Which is going to take us to Oh, I'm sorry. I need a motion to

[11:47] [clears throat] motion to receive the delegation's information. All those in

[11:51] favor? Opposed? It's carried. Something went

[11:56] wrong there, but we'll catch up. Randy Mason, you're next.

[12:01] Come on up.

[12:06] [snorts]

[12:16] And if you could just give us your name, please, and your address for the clerk.

[12:22] » Uh, my name is Randy Mason. I live on 16 Mount Elgen Street in Paris.

[12:29] » Thank you.

[12:35] » Um, never done one of these before. I was told uh I didn't need anything on

[12:42] paper or anything, but um one thing that's been uh bothering me

[12:48] a little bit is the uh um dog licensing regulations

[12:55] [snorts] of uh Paris or Brandt um in so much that

[13:03] um we charge more for a license for an unfixed

[13:08] animal.

[13:11] And this uh

[13:17] increase in the charge is about 35% over a fixed animal.

[13:24] I'm wondering whether or not this um

[13:31] is still uh necessary to do. Um maybe 50 years ago when I was living

[13:40] over on the flats and everybody let their dog run free.

[13:45] Um it might have been a relatively good idea to have people pay a little bit

[13:52] more to if they didn't have their animal fixed in order to um

[13:59] uh I guess control the pet population a little bit easier.

[14:04] Um,

[14:08] I have a dog myself. I was going to bring

[14:14] her, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed or not. Um, she has just turned five

[14:20] years old. I waited until she was 4 and a half

[14:25] years old and I finally had her spayed.

[14:31] Um, I have not been really sold on whether

[14:36] or not spaying an animal or neutering an animal [clears throat]

[14:41] actually um

[14:45] does good or more harm. Several cancers have been linked to

[14:51] female dogs that are not fixed and several cancers have been linked to dogs

[14:56] that are fixed. Um, I had another dog that I did not get

[15:03] fixed and uh, she died two years ago and I'm

[15:10] sure it was some form of cancer. So, I made a mistake there. But I believe that

[15:17] it should be a choice of the dog owners now as to whether or not they actually

[15:23] spay or neuter their animals. Um, we are a lot more respectable

[15:30] citizens these days, at least most of us, except for those of us who

[15:37] stop and stoop and pick up their animals stuff

[15:44] and a plastic bag and get a half a half a block down the street and they're sort

[15:50] of looking around like this and then it gets tossed.

[15:54] That's probably worse than not picking it up at all. At least the rain would

[15:58] dissolve it. Plastic bags are going to be there until somebody picks them up.

[16:04] But anyway, I would like to propose that we um amend the dog licensing. Am I on a

[16:13] timer? >> Sorry.

[16:15] » You're okay. [laughter]

[16:18] Um, I would like to propose uh uh that we an amendment that we make an

[16:24] amendment to the dog licensing um fees and charge each dog as an

[16:33] individual and an equal to the next dog. Um I think if we most people who are

[16:42] going to have a litter of dogs today

[16:47] plan it and therefore if it is planned

[16:53] maybe it is easier or better to attach a small fee to

[17:00] someone who is allowing their animal to have a litter of pups instead of

[17:07] charging um the people who just choose not to

[17:13] spay their animal because in their minds

[17:18] it's better not to spay them. And that's why it took me four and a

[17:23] half years to decide to do it. and I finally decided that

[17:29] um I was going to take uh my vets's uh uh information and uh I had Tilly

[17:38] spayed. Now, the other thing I wanted to mention

[17:42] was the fact that um in order to have her spade cost me $625.

[17:54] Now, if my only choice or my only concern was that I had to pay a higher

[18:01] fee for an unfixed dog over about 12 years, the additional cost in licensing

[18:09] comes to about a little over $200. So, I would be a lot better off if I did not

[18:16] have my dog spayed at all and just paid the extra fee.

[18:21] Um

[18:32] and I think that's all I have to say. just uh to uh have the uh council

[18:38] consider changing their uh fee schedules and

[18:46] maybe charge people who have a litter of puppies. Uh have them pay a

[18:53] a modest fee for having a litter of puppies.

[18:58] um rather than charge the person who just chooses not to spay their animal.

[19:06] I thank you for your time. >> Oh, thank you. Thank you. Can I get a

[19:09] mover, please, to get on the floor? Councelor House. Second, please.

[19:13] Councelor McCalpine. Any comments or questions for the

[19:17] delegation?

[19:21] So, so you tonight isn't the night that we would deal with that, but we can take

[19:25] it back and have it looked at and uh get a report. And if you can just sign the

[19:30] paper that's on the podium at the back, we'll keep you in the loop as to what

[19:34] what discussion goes on after after tonight.

[19:37] » I have one more question. >> Absolutely.

[19:40] » Um not to offend anyone. >> Can you can you speak to the microphone

[19:44] so that councelor >> Sorry. Not to offend anyone.

[19:48] Um, but I've uh been a residence of Paris my whole life. I was born at the

[19:54] Willlet Hospital, lived over in the flats most of my life. My mom still

[19:58] lives out in the far end of Willow Street.

[20:02] Um,

[20:05] I thought I was the only one that was dumb enough to uh crawl across that

[20:11] train bridge from underneath.

[20:18] Um but uh several months ago I run into a

[20:24] young lady who said, "Oh yeah, we did that last summer."

[20:29] And when I did it I was 15. Well, now I'm 70

[20:34] and it's probably one of the more dangerous things I ever did in my life.

[20:40] Um because when you start crawling underneath that bridge and you look down

[20:45] and there's nothing between you and 200 ft of water except for air,

[20:53] um we may want to uh double check to make sure that that bridge is somewhat

[21:01] more sealed off than it was years ago. One of the abupments actually has an

[21:07] iron um ladder that goes from the top of the

[21:12] abupman up to the railway tracks and I pushed the flap door open and

[21:19] stuck my head out and there's a darn train coming. So I had to get down in a

[21:24] big hurry. But it is uh something of concern. My next my other question if I

[21:29] have another second. it is. Um, this is where I hope not to offend

[21:35] anyone, but um, if

[21:40] I was to contact

[21:45] certain officials or councilman about a question that I may have,

[21:53] approximately how much time should I wait for a response?

[21:58] that that depends on what ward you're you're in and who your counselor is.

[22:03] [clears throat] So, we'll just leave it like that. And uh because I mean you you

[22:09] some questions are answered quickly, some take time to be researched. So, I

[22:14] don't want to start using council members and and and [clears throat]

[22:19] calling them out by name. >> No, I don't mean to call anyone out

[22:24] either. Uh, I'm very sorry, but four and a half years ago,

[22:30] I found myself within weeks of being homeless

[22:35] in Paris here due to un

[22:42] unforeseen things that happen in life.

[22:47] And I think I've waited four and a half

[22:51] years too long for an answer. Um, same as with this dog issue, I also

[23:01] asked my counselors what direction I should take

[23:09] and uh, three months has gone by and I end up here because I haven't got an

[23:15] answer. >> Well,

[23:16] » um, is that [clears throat] is that normal procedure or

[23:20] » No, it's not. We have our bylaw man here. He's listening to your he's going

[23:25] to get back to you much sooner uh than three months.

[23:30] » Oh, >> but I we really do need your information

[23:33] at the back so that we have your email address and things like that.

[23:37] » Okay. I do allow you I do thank you very very much for allowing me to speak and

[23:43] uh listening. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Randy.

[23:48] [clears throat] Okay, so we have it on the floor.

[23:50] There's no other questions. I I want uh we're going to vote to receive as

[23:55] information, please. All those in favor? Opposed? Carried. Teresa and Denise,

[24:01] you're up next.

[24:08] Two very dangerous sisters.

[24:14] [laughter]

[24:17] » You can just give us your full name, please. Uh Teresa Manning for me of

[24:21] Paris many years ago. >> Thank you. Denise

[24:27] [snorts] >> Denise Hagert 61 Bradberry Crescent.

[24:32] » Thank you. >> We're good now.

[24:34] » You're good. >> Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members

[24:37] of council, and guests. Is that loud enough for you?

[24:41] » Yeah. >> My name is Teresa Manning. I was born

[24:43] and raised in the town of Paris, a place that will always hold a special place in

[24:47] my heart. My younger sister Alisa and I were both both born at Willlet Hospital

[24:53] and Paris will always be home to our family. As the town continues to grow,

[24:58] I've noticed many new streets being named after families who helped build

[25:01] and shape our community. Having grown up on Bfield Street, I recognized many of

[25:06] those names, and it inspired me to make this heartfelt request. I respectfully

[25:11] asked council to consider naming a street Zel in honor of my parents

[25:17] Michael and Mary Zel. My parents moved to Paris in 1950.

[25:23] My father always believed that if you wanted to be part of a community, you

[25:27] should get involved. And he lived by those words. My father was also a proud

[25:32] war World War II veteran who answered the call to serve his country. His

[25:37] military service is permanently recognized on the Paris Veterans

[25:41] Memorial Map, honoring his service and sacrifice during World War II, along

[25:47] with his decades of service to the community, his dedication to both his

[25:51] country and his hometown as a legacy that continues to inspire our family.

[25:56] For 40 years, our father managed Matart Building Supplies. There's a name you

[26:02] might not remember. Maybe some of you do. um now known as a home building

[26:07] center. In [clears throat] the days before Sunday shopping, if customers

[26:11] needed supplies, Dad would gladly open the store, help them, and simply tell

[26:17] them to pay him on Monday. That kind of trust, generosity, and community spirit

[26:23] to find who he was. Beyond his career, he was deeply involved in this

[26:27] community. He was an active member of the United Church, the Paris Lions Club,

[26:33] the Board of Trade, and the Masonic Lodge, where he served as pastmaster. He

[26:38] taught public speaking and volunteered as a judge for student competitions at

[26:42] the old Central School, if anybody remembers that great place. And after

[26:47] retiring, coordinated the Christmas hampers for the Salvation Army. our

[26:52] mother, Mary Zelle, who was equally dedicated to our community. Along with

[26:57] several other women, she helped establish the Lady Lions in 1954.

[27:02] She was an enthusiastic curler, an avid bowler, and always brought warmth,

[27:07] kindness, and laughter to everyone she met. My parents were caring, loving, and

[27:12] supportive. They were respected members of this community who devoted countless

[27:16] hours to making Paris a better place. Their generosity, compassion, and

[27:22] willingness to help others. Oh boy.

[27:27] You can do it. Left a lasting impression on everyone who knew them. My sister

[27:32] Denise Hagar still resides in Paris and her family's connection to this

[27:37] wonderful community remains as strong as ever.

[27:41] It would mean a great deal to our family if council would recognize their legacy

[27:45] by naming a street zel. I don't care if you name a crescent, a boulevard,

[27:50] » a [laughter] parkway, >> a parkway, but we really appreciate you

[27:54] would consider. It's an easy name to spell.

[27:57] Thank you for considering my request. I sincerely appreciate your time and look

[28:02] forward to your response. Thank you. >> You if I can get a motion, please, to

[28:06] get this on the floor to Councelor House and Councelor Bell. Um, there is a

[28:11] process for this. Uh, and and uh there there's there's two ways this could

[28:17] happen. We could do it with a poppy for your father or if you wanted to do it

[28:21] for your for your mother, too, we could just do the the last name and and

[28:25] hopefully we could still get it onto the veterans piece of it. So, we'll be in

[28:30] touch with you to the pro on the pro >> Can I tell you that? We we'll get back

[28:35] to you on the process and uh I I thank you for for bringing this to our

[28:40] attention because it's important and uh I I think it's a wonderful thing. Does

[28:44] council have anything to add to to these two sisters before we we release them

[28:50] back into the public? [laughter] >> No.

[28:54] » That's dangerous, right? >> Well, that was easy.

[28:58] [clears throat] >> Yeah. So, we're we're going to give

[29:00] direction to staff to bring a report back. And again, if we can if we can

[29:04] have you sign the back with your email so we can keep you in the loop, that's

[29:09] great. Did I call the vote already? No. Call the vote to receive.

[29:15] Thank you.

[29:20] Takes us to 5.4 on the agenda, which is Grand Paris Grand Estates.

[29:26] Who do Who do we have coming up here? Can we get on the floor, please,

[29:31] council? Thank you, Councelor Oakley. Councelor McCalpine, and again, you have

[29:35] 10 minutes, please, if you could just give us your full name and who you

[29:38] represent for the clerk.

[30:21] Uh, good evening, Mayor Bailey and members of council. My name is Alex

[30:24] Lusty. I'm a lawyer at Davies How LLP and I'm here tonight appearing for Paris

[30:30] Grand Estates Incorporated. And they have a a piece of property out on the

[30:35] northeast side of Paris. And I'll just try to pull it up on screen here so

[30:40] everyone can see where that is. just a quick reference for you.

[30:47] And um they're the developer of the Paris Grand subdivision depicted on

[30:52] screen there. And I have one request tonight and that's to please remove this

[30:57] subdivision from the CPP framework. Doing that will simplify the buildout of

[31:03] the subdivision and will not delay implementation of the new framework. So

[31:08] I'm going to explain why we're making that request.

[31:12] Fundamentally, the CPP framework is unclear when it comes to transition.

[31:17] What do I mean by that? Well, there's two contradictory ideas in the

[31:20] framework. The first concept is a discretionary transition for a limited

[31:26] period of time. And the second is a permissible transition until project

[31:31] completion. And I I can't figure out which one applies. So the first concept

[31:36] is based on the wording of section 1.18.5

[31:39] which makes it clear that the application of zoning bylaw 6116

[31:45] may be relied on. That is no guarantee that past provisions will apply. It's

[31:51] just a possibility that they might. So if zoning bylaw 6116 applies and you're

[31:58] lucky enough, it can apply until buildout.

[32:02] But that's only if buildout takes less than 5 years because after that time the

[32:08] transition provisions are somehow automatically removed from the bylaw and

[32:12] you can't rely on them anymore. Um there's no guidance in the transition

[32:16] provisions about what to do if the CPP bylaw has new standards that frustrate a

[32:22] proposal.

[32:25] That can come down. Um, so when you take that framework

[32:31] along with the comments from staff that they don't support excluding the

[32:34] subdivision, the concern is that the transition might not be available when

[32:39] it's needed. So that's one framework. The second is a concept based on section

[32:44] 119.3 of the bylaw and the response later in

[32:49] the response we received on July 9th. And the July 9th response sums it up

[32:54] pretty well. It says draft approved subdivisions may continue to rely on

[33:00] sight specific zoning and applicable provisions of former zoning bylaw 6116

[33:06] until full bu buildout. The use of may rather than shall provides flexibility

[33:11] to use either existing standards or the new CPP standards where they may provide

[33:17] additional flexibility to a property owner. So under this framework, the pass

[33:23] zoning applies to the subdivision's complete, but at best that just creates

[33:27] a contradiction. So like I said, it's it's impossible to know which one

[33:32] applies, and that's not a rational solution. And so a solution is needed to

[33:37] that, which is why I've prepared this alternative motion for you for number

[33:43] 10.1 on the agenda that will exclude the Paris Grand subdivision lands. That's

[33:48] what all the underlining does and that's about it.

[33:53] So why this motion? Well, I'll tell you is because it conforms with the official

[33:59] plan and the one in the agenda doesn't. So it might be said that these lands

[34:05] need to come into the CPP framework because the 2023 official plan, the new

[34:10] one, provides for that method of implementation.

[34:14] Let's look at that a little deeper. You've got to remember that this

[34:19] subdivision was made and approved under the 2012 official plan.

[34:25] And that's important because of what section 1.5 and part one of your

[34:30] official plan says. And it says development applications submitted and

[34:35] deemed complete through a planning act application

[34:38] prior to provincial approval of this plan and uh subsequent development

[34:43] applications implementing such development applications like this

[34:46] subdivision shall be reviewed and this is the key part under the policies of

[34:52] the 2012 county of Brandt official plan. So the current official plan is clear

[34:58] that it doesn't apply to these lands, right? And that means that passing the

[35:04] bylaw as is creates a a compliance problem with section 24 of the planning

[35:11] act because that section of the planning act requires your bylaws to conform with

[35:16] the official plan and your official plan says don't apply the new official plan

[35:21] to this property. So that's one problem. The other is a CPP regulation basically

[35:28] requires the same thing. Requires you to have an official plan that places these

[35:32] lands in a CPP area and that's not happening. So if the CPP framework

[35:42] proceeds as proposed to sum it up, it's contrary to the new official plan. It's

[35:47] contrary to the planning act and it's contrary to the CPP regulation.

[35:54] So, let's just say that one of the concerns with what we're asking for is

[35:57] that it leads to a dual compliance scenario. And that's a resource issue. I

[36:01] get it. And basically what it requires is review under the old zoning bylaw and

[36:07] a review under the new CPP framework. And you got to go through all the

[36:12] numbers and it takes a lot of time and no one wants to do double the amount of

[36:15] work. And I get that. But let's assume we're in a scenario where it's the

[36:21] properties transitioned and we've got that scenario where the

[36:26] lesser standard applies. In order to figure out which is the

[36:30] lesser standard, you have to go through both and run a comparison anyway. So

[36:35] you're going through a dual review process if transition applies the way

[36:39] it's intended to. And that means more work and not less. And to be very clear,

[36:46] what we're proposing by removing the subdivision is to clean that up. You

[36:51] just apply the existing zoning under 6116 like it's meant to be applied in

[36:57] conformity with your official plan. So,

[37:02] this subdivision process has been going on for about a decade.

[37:06] And these processes don't change on a dime.

[37:12] We're working through a phased buildout of about 750 homes. Um, roads have been

[37:18] built. Municipal services have been constructed

[37:24] and all of that is in reliance on the existing framework. That's what has been

[37:29] used so far. And though it may not be intended, what the CPP framework risks

[37:37] is destabilizing that prior approval framework.

[37:42] So to avoid complications, we're proposing a simple solution of

[37:48] removing the subdivision from the CPP framework. Doing so will ensure that at

[37:54] least for this property, it conforms with the new official plan, doesn't

[37:58] contravene the planning act, and it doesn't contravene the CPP regulation

[38:02] under the planning act. So I'd suggest to you that under the

[38:07] current circumstances the correct action is to remove these properties from the

[38:12] CPP framework and that's why we prepared this alternative motion um number 10.1

[38:21] and there's a bunch of underlining that's all the additional stuff and what

[38:25] that does is take the Paris grand lands out nothing more that's all it's

[38:30] supposed to do um so that's all I had intended to say this evening. Thank you.

[38:37] » Thank you. Questions to the presenter. Councelor Miller, you're first.

[38:42] » Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Three to the presenter. Just to be clear, um yeah,

[38:45] you read staff's response obviously. Um and there was I guess staying in it

[38:51] gives you flexibility, but you're saying you don't want that cut carve you out

[38:56] and you'll be happy. Is that fair? >> That's a great summary. Yes.

[39:00] » Okay. Um then uh Mr. Mayor um when when we uh

[39:05] move to receive maybe we can refer it to 101 as well.

[39:10] » Any other questions? >> Okay. So we will make a motion to

[39:15] receive and send to staff or send [clears throat] it to staff. Councelor,

[39:20] » we don't have to send it to staff, Mr. R. We just have to refer it to 101 when

[39:24] that comes up for discussion. >> All right.

[39:27] » Any other questions? All those in favor,

[39:32] we're just sending it on. Thank you.

[39:38] [clears throat] 5.5 has been withdrawn. 5.6 has been withdrawn.

[39:48] 5.7 is Robert Hamilton, Mark Eddie, and who else?

[39:56] Just you. Okay,

[40:01] we get a motion to get it on the floor, please. A mover. Councelor Coleman and

[40:06] Councelor Kyle. >> Thank you.

[40:10] And again, you have 10 minutes. Please, if you can just give us your full name

[40:13] and your address, please, for the clerk,

[40:17] » Mark Eddie, 47 Kitchen School Road. >> Thank you.

[40:25] Bob Hamilton, 193 Brandt County Road 18. >> Thank you.

[40:31] » Um, good evening, uh, Mr. Mayor and the Brandt County Counselors. Uh, we

[40:38] represent the Brand County Federation of Agriculture, and we would like to state

[40:43] our position on the topic of the new CPPS

[40:47] uh, process that's being uh, looked at today. A letter was circulated to all

[40:53] the counselors and the mayor two weeks ago uh on July the 17th which by the way

[41:00] is not listed in the CPP correspondence in section 11 today but everybody I

[41:07] believe received it. Uh at the same time we received a response from Brandon on

[41:14] the questions and the comments uh from the planning department and their

[41:19] position and we thank you for that.

[41:23] But we still have some talking points that we want to make sure that the

[41:27] council is aware of and concerns that uh we would like you to think about as you

[41:34] get ready to vote. applying for the CPP countywide.

[41:40] We feel that the CPPs can work well in the settlement areas to help speed up

[41:47] the processes of the minor variances in the towns and villages where growth has

[41:53] been determined. Agricultural and rural designations

[41:59] are large are not a large growth area but more a land preservation option to

[42:06] ensure society has enough um land to grow the food for itself and for farms

[42:12] to be profitable as they grow and prosper throughout Brat County.

[42:19] This brings us up with one of our our problems on for agricultural land is the

[42:25] lack of agricultural knowledge and experience of the junior planners

[42:30] uh that have just graduated in the last couple years and are still learning

[42:37] what their jobs are. These planners have authority though

[42:42] under the new CPPS uh to choose whether they wish to handle

[42:47] an application under class one or class two and that's looked after by the

[42:54] planning department or if they wish to um

[43:01] involve a class three and which council would then have input on that that

[43:09] situation or or uh application. So these are just some things there from

[43:15] an experienced perspective that uh we don't feel comfortable with.

[43:20] Uh, another question we have is why is Brandt County the only municipality in

[43:26] Ontario to convert completely to the CPS CPPS

[43:32] system when large cities and other counties have taken a more structured

[43:39] introduction to implementing the CPPs in a limited area to see how it works

[43:46] from time to time before going complete with the whole thing.

[43:53] We also would like to uh make sure that uh the planning department uses the

[44:00] agricultural advisory committee uh as they can help these young planners

[44:06] uh if they are asked the options and com and comments on applications that

[44:12] concern agriculture. There has been limited number of

[44:16] meetings of the agricultural advisory committee this past year. And how does

[44:22] planning work with the advisory committee

[44:27] uh to give for them to get egg input and still give the applicants a response

[44:35] within the 25day framework that they're proposing.

[44:40] So meeting once every once every four months or three months, pardon me. But

[44:46] uh having getting back to individuals within less than a month means that that

[44:52] input and that all that experience from the a advisory may not be utilized to

[44:59] its fullest.

[45:02] We also uh have a concern about the notification of the CPPs

[45:08] applicants to neighbors. Notification of new developments will

[45:14] only be posted on the website during pre-conlation

[45:21] with the planning department. My question is, how many Brandt County

[45:27] citizens look at that website weekly to determine

[45:33] if any building is going on near their homes or businesses.

[45:38] At least with the old uh system, anybody within 60 mters uh currently under the

[45:46] bylaws 6116 are aware of new developments

[45:51] in an area prior to the approval.

[46:00] My other question for that on the uh notification is what are the options to

[46:06] be heard if you miss the notification of the

[46:11] website and do neighbors have any recourse to be

[46:16] heard after the fact of a decision being made? With that,

[46:22] is the same said for council when a class one and two application has been

[46:27] approved? Do they have any recourse to check with planning if there are

[46:33] concerns? We at the Brandt County Federation of

[46:37] Agriculture would like to see a phased in CPPs system for agriculture and rural

[46:44] areas in the county after a couple of years of usage in the

[46:49] settlement areas. It could be applied to egg and rural uh

[46:54] rural designated lands if successful. Thank you from the Federation of Brian

[47:02] County Agriculture.

[47:07] Mark, [clears throat] do you want to speak too?

[47:09] » Yeah. >> There's three minutes left, so I'm going

[47:12] to ask council to give you an extended time.

[47:14] » I don't need much time. >> All right.

[47:16] » Um, so I just want to echo my concern from the Grand County Federation of

[47:23] Agriculture. Um, we understand that planners and

[47:27] technical staff are often not farmers. They're not agricultural experts, which

[47:32] may be a weak point. uh municipal staff uh turnover has been

[47:38] very high. Um the careful consideration of an egg advisory committee input will

[47:45] be critical if you move forward with this. I just wanted to add that to what

[47:50] Bob said. >> Thank you. Council questions for the

[47:55] delegation. Councelor Miller.

[47:59] » Thank you, Miss Mr. Mayor. [clears throat] Um Bob, I trust you're

[48:02] going to put in your your resume to the planning department. Help help them out.

[48:07] Um that was a really good presentation. You had a lot of good information, but

[48:11] it sounds like what you're looking for is a carve out, not unlike what Paris

[48:15] Estates was looking for earlier for um anything that's not a settlement area.

[48:21] Is that correct? >> Uh

[48:23] » for two years, give or take. >> Yes. Yes. And and I think it has been uh

[48:27] put forward by the planning department. they're going to evaluate and try to

[48:32] make sure everybody's aware of how the system is working. Uh we're just saying

[48:37] we'd like not to be in that part of it while it's being utilized throughout the

[48:43] uh town of Paris, uh Berford, St. George, or even some of the smaller

[48:48] villages where there's uh settlement areas that have already been designated

[48:52] and approved under the official plan. >> Okay. Just want to be clear on that.

[48:57] Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Haley.

[49:01] » Thank you for your presentation. Very well done. Um, I spoke with the uh

[49:06] senior planner today about this and I just need to understand um appeals

[49:12] because I understand um if there's an application on agricultural land right

[49:17] now and if we say no uh I you can go to the OOLT but I believe with the CPPS

[49:24] uh you don't. So I think my question is more directed to the senior planner

[49:28] related to your question >> Brandon

[49:34] » uh through the mayor. So that that is correct. Under this new system, the way

[49:37] that it will be structured is that amendments to the bylaw cannot be made

[49:41] within the first 5 years and that cannot be appealed to the OOLT. So if someone

[49:45] comes in with a request, as you've given an example, on agricultural land for a

[49:50] non-aggricultural use, it would require an amendment to the bylaw and no

[49:53] amendment can be made. That is not the process that is in place today. That can

[49:58] be appealed to the OOLT under the current zoning bylaw.

[50:01] » Councelor Haley, >> just as a followup, I I didn't know that

[50:05] information, but um um I find that a useful tool that you

[50:11] that it cannot be appealed if if we say no or if if staff say no to development

[50:16] on agricultural land, at least somebody doesn't run to the OOLT. That's

[50:20] something that I just learned today. Councelor

[50:24] Bell. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. May. Probably a

[50:27] question for Brandon related to this this commentary. H how many applications

[50:33] as a percentage of the total do we get from the agricultural area

[50:40] » through the mayor? What I could do, I don't have that off hand. We do have

[50:43] that information. Um, I can look that up for and follow up during the the CPF's

[50:48] conversation if if that's all right. um as a high level percentage I would I

[50:53] would say um at least with with consents consideration in it with CFA and minor

[51:00] variances is probably 50/50 and so that is um I guess one thing

[51:07] maybe I would add here and we can talk about this a bit more during the CPS

[51:10] conversation but when we first actually started this project we did contemplate

[51:14] a pilot project and the pilot project we were contemplating was the rural area um

[51:19] it's a bit of a lowerhanging fruit. It's a bit simpler to to apply some of those

[51:24] standards. Um and as councelor Haley has pointed out, there's some opportunity

[51:27] for more protective measures with the CPPs that we saw would be a very um

[51:32] crucial benefit to the rural area. >> Just a related question, Mr. Mayor, if I

[51:36] may, again for Brandon, um what is the relative complexity of the agricultural

[51:41] applications compared to those from the urban area?

[51:45] » Uh through the mayor, the complexity of those we would say

[51:48] given that they generally end up with CFA, they're minor in nature. Um, and

[51:53] with that in mind that those would be considered the kind of class two

[51:56] applications under the CPPs, which would be um delegated to staff. But just a

[52:02] note on that, it's not an isolated staff member making a decision. It's the

[52:06] entire department division looking at things um and it goes through kind of a

[52:10] chain of command that way. We would also have the opportunity to have that

[52:13] agricultural input through the agricultural advisory committee. Um and

[52:17] if need be down in the future um we could always budget for for additional

[52:22] review um for an agricultural specialist. Um so just to consider that

[52:27] those minor kind of applications would still have that wholesome review um and

[52:31] they wouldn't be decided upon in isolation. Just to make that point.

[52:34] » So just one very final comment if I may. Uh my understanding having read um the

[52:40] CPPS and having conversations with yourself is that the system that we're

[52:45] proposing actually simplifies the approach that needs to be taken

[52:50] » through the mayor. That is correct. It's new so it seems confusing but it is a

[52:55] simpler approach. >> Councelor Haley

[53:00] » through you. Um so I just wonder if we're able to answer um the deleg de

[53:05] delegation's questions about uh agricultural impact assessment and

[53:10] notification and time frame consultation with agriculture advisory committee.

[53:15] When when could we answer those questions for them being as we are

[53:18] voting on it tonight? Is that a question for the senior

[53:22] planner or

[53:28] » there's a there's a letter in your communications that answers that.

[53:31] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[53:32] » And and uh so then as a followup, do you feel that the letter has addressed your

[53:37] concerns?

[53:42] There were uh several comments made that were very nebulous uh loose and not

[53:51] speci specific and uh it could have been and I'm not

[53:56] sure that and I could be wrong on this that all the uh potential new bylaws

[54:02] under the CPP has been created for all the situations or are they still working

[54:09] on those. I It's unclear because nothing was ever uh been provided that way.

[54:15] » Okay. And just as a followup because we we need some of these answers because we

[54:19] vote tonight. So I don't know if there's any more response that we could get from

[54:24] the senior planner on this uh to help us uh with anything that's the gaps that

[54:29] that uh the delegation has. >> There's good there's going to be an

[54:32] opportunity. later. Councelor Chambers, m

[54:36] » Mr. Mayor, I'm getting a little bit confused on the process here. We have a

[54:40] delegation that presents information and we it's important that we understand

[54:44] what the delegation is saying, but to start asking questions of staff and

[54:49] discussing the issue of the CCPS is a little bit beyond what we're supposed to

[54:55] be doing with regard to the delegation. you have a delegation standing there

[54:59] while counselors are asking staff questions which I think is unfair to the

[55:03] delegation. So I would encourage my colleagues to not debate the issue of

[55:09] CCPS but understand and ask questions of the presentation and then when they're

[55:16] finished the presentation then we can debate and discuss ask questions on the

[55:21] C PPS. So just procedurally I think it's confusing to uh start going beyond what

[55:30] the delegations are are trying to >> especially since it is on the agenda

[55:34] coming up shortly for so anyway we're done. We're going to go information

[55:41] councelor Miller >> make a motion to receive and to uh I

[55:45] would like to refer this one as well to 10.1.

[55:48] » Thank you all those in favor. >> Thank you.

[55:51] » Thank you. Thank you. >> Takes us to number six on the agenda,

[55:56] which is the adoption of the minutes from previous meetings. Uh we're going

[56:00] to do them all at the same time. Councelor Mccalpine.

[56:02] » Okay. Moved by myself and seconded by Councelor Bell that the following

[56:06] minutes be approved. County of Brandt Council Minutes of June 23rd, 2026.

[56:11] County of Brand Special Council Minutes of July 6, 2026. County of Brand Special

[56:17] Council Minutes of July 7th, 2026. County of Branch special counsel minutes

[56:22] of July 10th, 2026.

[56:27] » All those in favor?

[56:32] Is there any business arising? >> Is there any business arising from any

[56:35] of those minutes?

[56:41] Seeing none, we'll go to consent items. We have uh 8.1, please. I need a mover

[56:48] to get on the table. Councelor Coleman and Councelor Oakley.

[57:00] Everyone's clear on what it is. The bridge.

[57:07] There's two of them. There's 8.11 and there's 8.12. Councelor Miller.

[57:11] » Question on 812. Uh Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah.

[57:15] » Um that study for paraces. Um, we're looking at awarding it uh to Dylan

[57:21] Consulting. What's What's the time frame? Do we have something for that? It

[57:26] might be in the report, but I read it like 4 days ago. So,

[57:30] » who has that, Brandon? >> Uh, through the mayor. Yes, thank you

[57:33] for that question. Um, right now we're anticipating a year and a half um as the

[57:37] time frame for for some final reporting. >> Okay. Um, yeah, hopefully that keeps us

[57:43] out of trouble on other fronts. So, thank you. Thank you, Brad. Yeah,

[57:46] councelor Pierce.

[57:50] » Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I guess my my question here in that with that

[57:54] year and a half being stated, um does that suggest that any um anything that

[58:00] might come in within that time span would be deemed premature for that area?

[58:08] » Through the mayor, that will depend which system we are under. Under the

[58:12] community planning permit system, we do have stronger tools for that. Um, under

[58:16] the current system, prematurity is only applicable to plans of subdivision under

[58:20] the planning act.

[58:26] » Okay. >> Unfortunate.

[58:30] » Any other questions, concerns?

[58:35] We're voting on both 8.1 and 8.1.2. Same mover, same seconder. All those in

[58:42] favor? opposed. Carried. 8.2 consent items to

[58:49] be received. There's 20 of them and I'm sure we're not going to be

[58:53] voting on them all at the same time. Does anyone want any of the 20 pulled?

[58:58] Councelor Miller. >> Um, I'll I'll pull uh the last one. Uh,

[59:02] GRCA transition committee. >> 8.2.20.

[59:07] Councelor Haley. >> Uh, 8.2.5.

[59:11] » 8.2.5. Anyone? Councelor Bell?

[59:15] » 8.2.1, please. >> 0.1.

[59:18] » Yes, please. >> Anyone else?

[59:23] We're going to vote on everything. Oh, I'm sorry, Councelor Pierce.

[59:27] » Um, thank you. Uh, the library minutes from May 27th. I'm just trying I've just

[59:32] got one screen here. My apologies. I'm just trying to see what number it is.

[59:35] » It's 8.2.3. >> Thank you.

[59:38] » So, we're going to vote on everything but 8.2.1,

[59:41] 8.2.3, 8.2.5. 2.5 and 8.2.20. All those in favor to receive

[59:50] opposed and carried. And we're going to go back to 8.2.1

[59:54] first, please. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. M. It's the asset

[59:57] management plan update. Um, it caused me to look back at some of the other

[1:00:01] documentation we had a year ago. I looked at the report from July 2025 on

[1:00:07] asset management financial strategy. And in that strategy, it assumes a growth of

[1:00:13] 1 assessment growth of 1.7%. And I think just a couple of weeks ago, we had a

[1:00:18] report from finance which indicated that the average assessment growth was 4%

[1:00:24] which is actually good news. Uh and my question then is will we get an update

[1:00:28] of this asset management financial strategy ahead of the next budget?

[1:00:34] » Heather, >> through the mayor. Uh the next uh update

[1:00:39] to the asset management plan will be um worked through as part of the update to

[1:00:44] the long-term financial plan. Um as we'll have like a smaller update to the

[1:00:50] AM financial plan as part of that >> 8.2.3 [clears throat]

[1:00:58] that's the light councelor Pierce that's the library board minutes that you're

[1:01:02] asking. >> Yep. Thank you Mr. Mayor. So I'm curious

[1:01:04] here uh bear with me two seconds here. Uh so within the business arising from

[1:01:12] that meeting uh it says uh when it talked about uh uh the new website

[1:01:17] development the successful RFP application was Muga a British Columbia

[1:01:22] based firm. Um is there nothing in Ontario that uh that does the same

[1:01:27] thing? I'm curious about that. And then uh when it talked about uh uh the next

[1:01:33] paragraph when it talks about the extended hours for the um municipal

[1:01:38] election night, it said the library will absorb the one-time increase to expand

[1:01:42] services on the election day. I'm curious as to what the cost is on that.

[1:01:47] And then also on the next page, Mr. Mayor, if I could when it talks about

[1:01:51] the the issues at the Berford branch uh for the the issues on the septic

[1:01:57] failure, is that the same septic that the county office uses there? I'd like a

[1:02:02] little more information on that if I could as to uh was that split from the

[1:02:06] county and the library or was that solely the library? If I could get more

[1:02:09] info, please. >> Thank you. Who's going to speak to the

[1:02:12] minutes of the first library board?

[1:02:19] Kelly, do you want to come up? You have the answer. The answers for councelor

[1:02:23] Pierce. >> Yep. Come on up.

[1:02:37] » There was I guess there was three questions. You remember?

[1:02:40] » Yes, I think so. >> Yeah, I can repeat them if you wish, Mr.

[1:02:42] Mayor. >> Pardon me.

[1:02:44] » I can repeat the questions if you wish. I think Kelly's got them down.

[1:02:48] » Perfect. >> Okay. Through the mayor to councelor

[1:02:52] Pierce. Your first question was about the award of our website development

[1:02:56] contract to Mugo. Uh we uh yes, we undertook a competitive purchasing

[1:03:02] process for that that included an RFP and received applications from across

[1:03:06] the country. uh Mugo was selected as the winner based on scoring and which is a

[1:03:13] combination of experience, pricing and and presented plan. So we did consider

[1:03:19] firms that were closer to us than them but Mugo score was uh so far ahead of

[1:03:26] the others that they were the appropriate winner.

[1:03:29] » Okay. So if I could, Mr. Mayor, so just to be clear that this company was so far

[1:03:33] out in front of the other ones, they were the clear winner right off the hop.

[1:03:39] Kelly. >> Uh, yes, that's correct.

[1:03:43] » Okay, thank you for that. And the next one was the cost of the uh being in the

[1:03:47] extended hours on election day. >> Yeah, the approximate cost for that is

[1:03:50] about $3,000 and the library board voted to absorb the cost of that for this

[1:03:56] election season. >> Okay, thank you for that. And do you

[1:03:59] remember the last one? >> It was about the septic.

[1:04:02] » Yes. Yes, the uh septic in question at Berford does share components with the

[1:04:08] county office located on Park Avenue in Berford. The backup was the backup

[1:04:14] originated on the county's end of a branch where the system runs from the

[1:04:21] main line to the library.

[1:04:26] » Okay. And now and if I could through you Mr. Mayor to Kelly. So, was the library

[1:04:31] did the library foot the full bill on this

[1:04:34] » uh through the mayor? The li the bills have been paid on the library accounts.

[1:04:38] We are in discussion with county staff about um any potential um funding

[1:04:44] sources for that. >> Okay. If I could, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to

[1:04:48] understand how those conversations work out because if it's uh uh yeah, I would

[1:04:53] I would just like a little bit more information as to, you know, if in fact

[1:04:56] this is on the library or if it's split or if it's on the county. I'd like more

[1:04:59] info if I could please. >> U through through the mayor. Um I've

[1:05:04] been in conversations with Heather Boyd, unfortunately, who is not here tonight.

[1:05:09] Uh so um our understanding from the plumbers is that the the blockage

[1:05:15] originated on the county's end and caused a backup into the libraries

[1:05:20] section.

[1:05:24] » Okay. I I guess uh I I can I can follow up with Heather on that through you, Mr.

[1:05:29] Mayor, because I would like to understand if in fact that is the case,

[1:05:32] then I think we should revisit the the payment.

[1:05:36] » Yeah, we'll we'll talk to Heather Boyd and it'll be in the Friday file for you.

[1:05:41] » Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, thank you.

[1:05:42] » Thank you, Kelly. >> Thanks, Kelly.

[1:05:45] » 8.2.5, uh City of Brford. Uh that was councelor

[1:05:49] Haley. >> Yes, thank you. I thought it was a very

[1:05:52] good report on a very important topic. I had two questions. Um, uh, how will the

[1:05:58] CPPS affect affordable housing supply? That's page 218,

[1:06:03] page 219. They sort of refer to that. Um, that was one question. Should I give

[1:06:08] you the second question as well? >> Uh, sure.

[1:06:11] » Okay. um the CIP in Brford uh they use the CIP for affordable housing and I

[1:06:19] wonder um how Brand County might use the CIP to help with affordable housing.

[1:06:25] Those are my two questions. >> Who's going to speak to that?

[1:06:35] » Um through your worship. So, uh, not having read the entirety of of the

[1:06:40] Brford resolutions, just speaking generally at the high level, um, the

[1:06:45] facility and services matters would encourage, um, developers to move

[1:06:49] towards the affordability model. Um, Brandon can perhaps provide more

[1:06:53] details. However, there is encouragement um, in that capacity. Uh, with respect

[1:06:59] to the CIP question, uh, Allison will answer that.

[1:07:09] Thank you. Through your worship to council. Um so in regards to a CIP

[1:07:14] it's got um very specific restrictions on how it could be used. Um I don't know

[1:07:19] how the applicability would be. It's meant to incent uh things that may not

[1:07:25] otherwise happen in a specific area. Um but it it does contain a portion of

[1:07:31] public investment. So, um I haven't seen this uh used for affordable housing, but

[1:07:38] I could definitely look into it and see, um how other municipalities may be

[1:07:42] utilizing CIP. Um again, I'm I'm not entirely sure how how it may be

[1:07:47] applicable given the the split um with public private investment, but I can

[1:07:52] certainly look into it and get back to council.

[1:07:55] » You uh I just thought that would be a great tool if they're using it. If

[1:07:58] Franc's Branford's using it, I thought that's a great tool for us. So just a

[1:08:02] suggestion. >> Okay, councelor Pierce.

[1:08:05] » Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. On that same topic, if I could in the report it talks

[1:08:09] of I believe it's 5 and it says uh the plan builds on progress made over the

[1:08:14] last decade which includes 559 new affordable housing units completed or

[1:08:18] underway. Can somebody remind me again how many of those are within the county

[1:08:26] approximately?

[1:08:31] uh through your worship to council. I don't have that number in front of me,

[1:08:34] but I can certainly get it to you. >> 49.

[1:08:38] » Councelor Councelor Bell has that information.

[1:08:41] » What is it? >> 49.

[1:08:42] » 49. Councelor Pierce. >> 49. Okay. Yeah, I didn't think it was.

[1:08:46] Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions?

[1:08:50] Okay, we're back down to [clears throat] 8.2.20.

[1:08:53] Councelor Miller. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I could

[1:08:57] have taken any one of the GRCA ones. Just a a couple uh things I want to

[1:09:00] point out uh to council. Um one is that the the lead the transition

[1:09:06] lead uh for the transition committee is is Samantha Lawson from GRCA. Um I've

[1:09:13] gotten to know S uh Sam pretty good over the last four years. I think she's an

[1:09:16] excellent choice. She's very fair, very balanced, and extremely knowledgeable

[1:09:20] about uh conservation authorities. um she the the province was actually taking

[1:09:25] her advice when they were looking for advice on how to uh implement it. So I

[1:09:30] thought that was pretty good. Um as well um we heard at our last GRCA meeting

[1:09:38] that uh there's an implementation date of February 1st, 2027 and it will most

[1:09:43] likely not happen then. So sometime in 2027 but most likely not February 1st.

[1:09:50] And then the last thing I want to say is um and we seen it here uh in tonight's

[1:09:55] package. Um there's a GRCA draft budget. It's quite early and uh there was a

[1:10:01] direction from the ministry that come out June 26th to have the budget

[1:10:06] timeline accelerated. So kudos to uh GRCA for getting that out, the draft

[1:10:11] budget. I will say it's it's very drafty uh based on the questions I had the

[1:10:15] other day, but uh that's why we're seeing it. So there's an accelerated

[1:10:18] timeline for the 2027 budget because of the transition, because of the election.

[1:10:25] » Thank you. Any other questions? What we'll [clears throat] do is we'll call

[1:10:28] the vote on 8.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.5, and 8.2.20.

[1:10:36] Although Oh, councelor Haley. >> Oh, sorry. I was voting.

[1:10:38] » Are you voting? Okay. All those in favor?

[1:10:42] You can vote again. There you go. Thank you.

[1:10:45] Um, takes us to 9.1 on the agenda, which is the first committee report. That's

[1:10:50] the paramedic services committee report, and that's going to be councelor Miller.

[1:10:56] » Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by myself, second by councelor Pierce, that

[1:10:59] the paramedic services committee meeting minutes and report of July 15, 2026 be

[1:11:06] approved, noting that there is one recommendation.

[1:11:09] » Thank you. Are there any questions for councelor Miller on his report?

[1:11:13] Councelor Haley. >> Yes. Uh on page 326, uh the 12-hour

[1:11:18] ambulance, what happens now if it's delayed until October?

[1:11:22] » Councelor Miller. Um it is delayed till it is coming out

[1:11:28] October. >> Okay,

[1:11:29] » that's the schedule. Um what what we heard from the paramedic chief Longway

[1:11:35] is that the system is running. It's running fine. Um but there are stressors

[1:11:40] in the evening shift and uh as we see the population aging, as we see the

[1:11:45] population growing, we know that uh it is much needed. So um keep in mind this

[1:11:50] was a half ambulance that uh we're actually supposed to put on in 2025, got

[1:11:56] delayed till 2026, and now it's been delayed till October 1st, 2026.

[1:12:01] » Thank you. Any other questions for councelor Miller on his report?

[1:12:06] So then call the vote to receive the report. All those in favor?

[1:12:11] Thank you. 9.2 which is the administration and operations committee

[1:12:16] report of July the 21st. And that's going to be councelor Pierce.

[1:12:22] » Yep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by myself, seconded by councelor HS that

[1:12:25] the July 21st administration and operation committee report be received,

[1:12:28] noting there's 17 recommendations. >> Any questions to councelor Pierce on his

[1:12:33] report? Councelor Miller. >> Mr. Mayor. Um, could we take out item 13

[1:12:37] and vote on that separately? >> Right.

[1:12:42] » Take out 13. >> Item 13. Yes.

[1:12:46] » Okay. >> Yeah. Councelor Miller did uh did call

[1:12:49] that at the meeting as well. >> Any other questions or concerns? We're

[1:12:54] going to vote on everything but 13. All those in favor?

[1:12:58] Opposed? Carried. And then councelor Pierce or councelor Miller.

[1:13:04] What? He's just as a conflict, Mr. Mayor.

[1:13:05] » Just a conflict. >> Okay. Well, then we have to go back and

[1:13:10] do 13, too. We have to vote on 13 also. All those in favor?

[1:13:16] » Sorry about that. Council, I forgot that you had a conflict.

[1:13:25] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. 10.2 is um Oxbow Road Branch

[1:13:30] School. Sorry. 10.1

[1:13:36] » 10.1 Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, 10.1. >> Okay, so this is where do we want to

[1:13:43] break before we go into all of this or are we all right?

[1:13:47] I'm the one with laryngitis. Everybody's okay to keep going.

[1:13:53] Okay. So, we're at 10.1.

[1:13:59] » 11 point. I'm sorry. >> 11.5.

[1:14:02] » 11.5. That's the one we moved up.

[1:14:08] 11.5. Everyone's okay with 11.5. Do you want to talk about it or just vote on

[1:14:13] it? Any conversation about 11.5? Councelor Oakley.

[1:14:19] » Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll just pull out of that. um the the

[1:14:24] correspondence that we got from Six Nations of the Grand River elected

[1:14:26] council. Um I've we've already had this debate plenty around the table and I've

[1:14:30] lost that debate, but just to highlight um that the concerns over uh uh making

[1:14:36] our parking requirements too stringent and thus uh causing urban sprawl. Thank

[1:14:41] you. >> Okay. Any other comments on 11.5?

[1:14:47] Seeing [clears throat] none, call the vote to receive. All those in favor?

[1:14:51] Sorry. >> Oh, we need on the floor. Sorry.

[1:14:55] Councelor Oakley, need a seconder. Councelor House. Thank you. And we voted

[1:14:59] and it's unanimous. Okay, we're going to go back now to

[1:15:04] 1110.1. Councelor Kyle.

[1:15:08] » Sorry, Mr. Mayor. It was the correspondence about the CPPS. I think

[1:15:12] it was 11.4. There's one, two, three, and four. The letters that were related

[1:15:17] to CPPS. >> Okay. 11.4.1

[1:15:22] 2 3 and four. >> It's 11.5.

[1:15:30] » It's 11.5. >> It is here.

[1:15:34] » Sorry, your worship. It's 11.5, but it's um listed as subheadings as 11.5.1

[1:15:41] through to 11.5.

[1:15:44] » Okay, it's 11.4 for in my package, but that's as long as we've got that before

[1:15:48] the CPPS was all I was going for because they're all the letters that are with

[1:15:52] respect to the CPPS discussion. >> Yeah,

[1:15:56] » I think I think there's everyone's package might be a little different

[1:16:00] tonight. >> No, [laughter]

[1:16:01] » mine got very councelor Miller, >> there there's an amended package and I

[1:16:05] think you're not looking at the amended package.

[1:16:08] » Yeah, >> that's right. Okay.

[1:16:11] So, are we going to go back to 10.1? 10.1 Brandon, you're up.

[1:16:19] Can I get a mover to get on the floor, please? Councelor Bell and Councelor

[1:16:22] House.

[1:16:26] [clears throat]

[1:16:29] Okay. Do you have a presentation, Brandon? Are

[1:16:33] you here for questions? >> Uh, through the mayor. I have no

[1:16:36] presentation. Um, I'm happy to address some of the commentary and questions

[1:16:40] that have come up so far, but otherwise, if I can start with that. Um,

[1:16:45] » okay. >> If council would like to ask specific

[1:16:48] » the floor has a secondary, why don't you start with the questions that have been

[1:16:51] brought up tonight and then we'll go back to council for our

[1:16:54] » questions. Thank you. >> Um, and through the mayor, if I I do

[1:16:57] miss anything that has come up tonight, we can circle back to that. But please

[1:17:00] just remind me of that and we can have that conversation. So um what I I'll

[1:17:04] start with is just the the discussion about kind of keeping two separate

[1:17:08] systems. Um so what I'd like to note about that is um one of the main reasons

[1:17:13] that we are moving towards this community planning permit system as a

[1:17:16] unified system is to help simplify planning in the county of Brandt. Um

[1:17:21] that was one of the biggest points of feedback we've heard through this

[1:17:23] project. We've heard that through the official plan project. Um and based on

[1:17:27] the feedback we have heard from other municipalities that have undertaken a

[1:17:30] CPPS operating two separate planning systems creates confusion. Um it

[1:17:35] increases administrative complexity and it makes future updating difficult

[1:17:39] because you're amending twice the amount of stuff um you're amending to begin

[1:17:43] with. Um so we have had those conversations and staff are are of the

[1:17:47] opinion that moving forward with one framework is the best choice for the

[1:17:51] municipality. That doesn't mean that every every area

[1:17:56] will be treated the same. Um just as our zoning bylaw contains different

[1:18:00] standards for different communities, different land uses, the CPS does

[1:18:04] exactly that as well. Um it's just all contained within a single single

[1:18:08] planning framework. Um so what I would maybe ask councils to

[1:18:12] consider is is what planning problems are being solved by excluding areas from

[1:18:16] our CPPs. If specific policies or standards need refinement, we can do

[1:18:22] that. Um we've we've shown the ability to do that over the last several weeks.

[1:18:26] Um making refinements based on the commentary we're receiving. Um we've had

[1:18:31] some good discussions about monitoring. Um we can come back monthly if we need

[1:18:34] to to to update. Um and so we've been doing doing exactly that those

[1:18:39] refinements throughout throughout the process. Um this is very different than

[1:18:43] than maintaining two systems. Um, so it uh it goes to show that moving forward

[1:18:49] with one and being able to be um consistent with that will be of a

[1:18:55] benefit to the municipality and will be helpful to to staff and to everyone

[1:18:58] trying to understand how we're moving forward. Um, with respect to to existing

[1:19:03] developments and transition, uh, I would say that staff are satisfied. The

[1:19:07] transition provisions protect the existing approvals. Um, approved

[1:19:11] development can proceed. permissions that exist today are being copied and

[1:19:15] pasted essentially into the the new bylaw. Um we've not identified any

[1:19:20] approved development rights that are being lost as a result of the CPPS.

[1:19:23] We've had those conversations with developers and have asked um developers

[1:19:27] and applicants to to point that out. If there are ones that we've noticed, we

[1:19:31] we've made those changes. Um we've also reviewed concerns related

[1:19:36] to conformity with our own official plan compliance with the planning act. Um

[1:19:40] we've chatted in in depth with our consulting team and with legal counsel

[1:19:43] who um who's on the line tonight as well. Um and we're satisfied that our

[1:19:47] CPPS will conform with the OP. Um it will be the main implementation tool of

[1:19:51] this official plan that you approved back in 2023. Um and it's been prepared

[1:19:55] in accordance with the planning act. So uh to that degree we wouldn't recommend

[1:20:00] creating a sight specific exemption or continuing um or moving forward with two

[1:20:05] separate frameworks. We continue to support a municipalitywide frame CPPS

[1:20:09] framework. Um, and we're happy to have some more discussion on that context

[1:20:12] tonight. From the rural perspective, um, what I

[1:20:16] would say is the CPS is good for for rural brand because it will provide more

[1:20:20] flexibility, um, some clearer rules, fewer planning applications for people,

[1:20:25] uh, more certainty for farmers, for rural land owners. Um it will modernize

[1:20:28] how we administer planning not just in urban areas but also in rural areas

[1:20:32] which I think um is well deserved to be applied across the municipality. And as

[1:20:36] I mentioned when when this project first began we had talked about a pilot

[1:20:40] approach to staff. Um and we had thought about starting with the rural areas. Um

[1:20:45] rural areas often have fewer sight specific zoning provisions. They have

[1:20:49] fewer legacy developments. Um that makes them kind of well suited for this

[1:20:53] streamlined approval approach. And when we did just look at our um our

[1:20:57] applications that are currently in the the system, we're sitting at a split of

[1:21:01] about 60% of the applications being rural, 40% of them being urban. Just so

[1:21:06] understand that. Um

[1:21:10] we've mentioned this a few times as well, but there's more predictability

[1:21:13] and local control, which I think is a very important thing across the county,

[1:21:17] but especially in the protection of agriculture. Um third parties cannot

[1:21:22] seek amendments to change the rules to the bylaw. council does not wish to have

[1:21:25] that happen. Uh that also creates consistency for land owners. They'll

[1:21:30] understand the rules that are applied today and it puts us in charge of

[1:21:32] changing our own rules.

[1:21:36] Uh so why why do this now? Um what we're trying to do is bring multiple planning

[1:21:43] processes into one framework. Um what it will do is give property owners, farmers

[1:21:48] alike, more flexibility. It modernizes some outdated regulations.

[1:21:52] » [clears throat] >> Um, parking has come up a couple times.

[1:21:54] It'll streamline our approval system. It provides up to five years of planning

[1:21:58] certainty without the amendments. So, these aren't theoretical benefits. These

[1:22:03] are practical improvements that we've heard from other municipalities

[1:22:05] implementing the CPPs. And they're practical improvements that residents,

[1:22:08] farmers, business owners alike will experience when they they interact with

[1:22:12] the system, when they come in and they apply for their their planning

[1:22:14] applications. Um so what I would just say I guess is

[1:22:19] that uh council adopted the official plan in 2023. We set the foundation for

[1:22:23] this work. Um we've invested time and money into this. Um the research, the

[1:22:28] consultation, the technical analysis and that investment doesn't mean that

[1:22:31] council has to approve this project per se. Um but what it does mean is that the

[1:22:35] recommendation before you is informed by that extensive amount of work. It's not

[1:22:38] being brought forward to you lightly. Um what we're proposing through the CPS is

[1:22:43] to modernize our planning framework. something we we hear probably daily, I

[1:22:48] would argue, um, in the county. Um, and we've already established that policy

[1:22:53] direction through the official plan. The CPS really is a tool that can help put

[1:22:57] that vision into action. Um, and so with that, I would leave it or I'll turn it

[1:23:01] back over to the mayor. Um, happy to address any specific comments or

[1:23:04] questions about it. But, um, that's kind of my my final pitch for the discussion.

[1:23:09] » Thanks, Brandon. Councelor Chambers.

[1:23:14] just just uh uh I wonder if you can clarify uh something with regarding the

[1:23:21] transition uh on one hand we're saying that through

[1:23:25] the transition process there will be flexibility and and this kind of stuff

[1:23:31] uh and uh being able to work with the applicants and that kind of stuff. And

[1:23:36] then we say that uh uh you you can't amend anything for five years. It seems

[1:23:43] contradictory and uh taking both sides. I wonder if you

[1:23:49] can just elaborate on that in terms of the

[1:23:56] prohibition for amendments, that kind of stuff because we're seem to be saying,

[1:23:59] "Yeah, we'll work with you, but we you can't do anything." Explain that to me.

[1:24:05] » Yes. through the mayor. Um what I would point out there is that when we look at

[1:24:09] flexibility, we're talking about administrative flexibility and

[1:24:13] legislative flexibility. So um the CPS is flexible in how it administers and

[1:24:19] approves development, how it kind of goes people go through the system.

[1:24:23] There's flexibility in that. That doesn't mean that there's less certainty

[1:24:26] for them. Um existing approvals are protected. Um if a decision has been

[1:24:31] made on a development, it's only fair to carry that over. We recognize that

[1:24:35] that's principle clergy principle that's built into planning. Um so those rules

[1:24:40] will continue to apply. They're being kind of copied and pasted as I said into

[1:24:44] this new system. But the flexibility is really coming from the framework through

[1:24:48] which people are working, the process through which people are going. Um it's

[1:24:51] reducing the need for someone to come in for multiple applications, pay multiple

[1:24:55] fees to the to the municipality. Um it's not removing the established

[1:25:00] permissions. is just making it easier for us to apply those and easier for

[1:25:04] residents um to move forward with their projects through a system that that

[1:25:08] already exists. >> If if the parameters for approval are

[1:25:15] modified, which they are through the the process,

[1:25:19] what you're telling me is the process going through that there'll be

[1:25:22] flexibility, but the modifications that are made are not going to be flexible.

[1:25:27] Is that what you're saying? the modifications

[1:25:31] » to the point where >> you won't be able to appeal them.

[1:25:35] » So through the mayor to that degree it will depend on the instance and the

[1:25:41] situation. The way that we've built the community planning permit system is that

[1:25:45] the um the topics that we've heard the most about that we want the most um

[1:25:52] finite decisions being made on with no kind of opportunity to adjust them.

[1:25:58] We've built that into the system with respect to the amendments for someone to

[1:26:02] come in um within the framework as it is and work within that. The flexibility is

[1:26:08] there. So there's two kind of like highle bumpers that we've put up to say

[1:26:12] okay the official plan sets the standard here. You have to kind of fall within

[1:26:15] that but everyone that falls within that has the flexibility.

[1:26:20] If I might just continue the discussion, you know, and I know that there have

[1:26:25] been times when people have come forward and say, "Well, when did that change?

[1:26:31] This guy did that and how come I those are the modifications that uh the

[1:26:38] parameters I I call them that you're telling me that aren't going to be that

[1:26:42] flexible." And I'm just cautioning that there's

[1:26:49] going to be people coming forward that did not know

[1:26:54] the changes are being made and I don't know them all either. uh and they will

[1:26:59] be confronted with new parameters which they're not used to and that may cause

[1:27:06] problems and there may be situations where

[1:27:11] flexibility may be uh amendable to to be gotten through the

[1:27:18] political process rather than the technical planning process. Can you

[1:27:24] comment on that? >> Um yes. So through the mayor, what we've

[1:27:27] done is we've built in many opportunities in the bylaw for people um

[1:27:32] to have further discussions with respect to their applications. So someone can

[1:27:35] always bump up an application council for a decision. Um that is an

[1:27:39] opportunity. Um, I would say that I guess distinguishing

[1:27:45] between the flexibility and kind of the uncertainty. Um, what we're trying to do

[1:27:50] with this bylaw, um, there's development standards within the bylaw and all of

[1:27:56] the development standards we're proposing through the CPS. We did a a

[1:27:59] large analysis of those comparative to the current zoning bylaw. And all of

[1:28:03] those development standards, none of them are becoming more restrictive in

[1:28:07] the sense that we get applications. So if if we have a common application that

[1:28:11] comes in of people asking for relief, we've done that analysis and we've

[1:28:16] looked at at the bylaw and those standards are now being changed to match

[1:28:19] the relief that's being asked. So in that sense, we're improving the

[1:28:23] standards that were in the zoning bylaw knowing that people are already asking

[1:28:26] for those changes. Um it's certain things around like uses where they can

[1:28:31] and can't be put. um some of the specific um kind of land use

[1:28:36] compatibility pieces that we've heard from people, those are where um some

[1:28:40] changes are being made to make them a bit more finite. So the development

[1:28:44] standards themselves, I think when we're thinking about how a zoning bylaw

[1:28:47] functions and the standards that people come in and ask for, well, if I can't

[1:28:50] meet 1.5 m, but I can meet 1.2, we're not going to be requiring someone to

[1:28:55] amend the bylaw for instances like that. We've looked at situations that those

[1:28:59] would apply. um and we've we've incorporated that that opportunity to

[1:29:04] change into the bylaw. So again in terms of flexibility the a lot of bylaw amend

[1:29:11] or applications are for amendments to the bylaw which in and of themselves are

[1:29:16] asking for relief from the parameters I call them and if there's inflexibility

[1:29:23] on from the staff perspective on the parameters then uh the applications will

[1:29:30] obviously be refused if there's there's no flexibility. That's the purpose of a

[1:29:36] application to modify the zoning or the the parameters in order to uh do what

[1:29:44] maybe people want to do. So there has to be some flexibility involved with that

[1:29:49] or there's no sense applying just it's black and white. So I'm concerned that

[1:29:57] it's going to be black and white and not gray in some areas. That makes sense.

[1:30:02] And that's a concern I have. The other thing that you didn't uh comment on is

[1:30:07] this this uh prohibition for amendments. Can you just explain to me how that is

[1:30:15] uh can be carried out and what is prohibited and what isn't

[1:30:22] » uh through the mayor too. If if I could just return to the um your first comment

[1:30:25] about amendments as well. I just want to make one thing clear. So, um, when we

[1:30:29] think about zoning, flexibility is often achieved through amending the zoning

[1:30:32] bylaw. That that is a fundamentally different approach than what a CPS does.

[1:30:38] The CPPS framework, the skeleton of it, is what would need to be amended. It's

[1:30:42] the stuff inside of it, the zoning provisions that are built in and

[1:30:46] intended to be flexible enough that you do not need amendments for. So, I just

[1:30:50] want to make that clear that amending the bylaw is is a different game than

[1:30:56] amending a zoning bylaw. Um, and then with respect to the um the amendments

[1:31:02] themselves and that prohibition, um, again, that points to the the the idea

[1:31:06] that what we're doing here is setting up a framework. We're setting up this

[1:31:10] foundation, the skeleton for us to use and the the planning act puts that

[1:31:15] opportunity in place for prohibitions for 5 years. We you can council can wave

[1:31:20] that for individual applications. They can wave it um for the whole whole time.

[1:31:25] Um that is up to council. That will always be in council's um opportunity

[1:31:29] for council. Um but what what the province or what what I believe the

[1:31:33] intent of that is is to provide that certainty and that stability in your

[1:31:37] framework to be able to get it up and running, start it, see what works,

[1:31:41] change it yourself um without having the individual applications kind of chip

[1:31:45] away at it. And why would that be bad for

[1:31:53] being chipped away at if it's not right in the first place? H how are we to know

[1:32:01] and and gauge what people want I I guess is

[1:32:07] » yep and through through the mayor. So what we would do is we would set up a

[1:32:10] process specifically for that. It may look similar to the zoning bylaw

[1:32:13] amendment process, but um we would have that pre-conultation that if someone's

[1:32:17] interested in amending the bylaw, they would have to come have a conversation

[1:32:20] with staff. Um that conversation, we would gauge what needs to be changed. If

[1:32:25] it's an amendment that staff can support, that may be something that's

[1:32:27] automatically included in our monitoring reports that come forward every month or

[1:32:31] every two months. Um it may be something we're already thinking about. If it's

[1:32:34] fundamentally something that staff are not willing to support, um that's a

[1:32:38] different conversation. Um the idea there would be that um if it doesn't

[1:32:44] meet the objectives or conform with our official plan, those are the types of

[1:32:48] things that we are not allowing amendments for. The other stuff more

[1:32:52] than willing to do that. It's just that the municipality retains the control of

[1:32:57] how we do that and when we do that.

[1:33:03] » I I'll I'll stop writing the puck here and let somebody else talk.

[1:33:07] » Councelor Oakley, you're next. uh through you, Mr. Mayor, uh to

[1:33:12] Brandon. Um sorry, I don't have to pull it back up. My apologies. Um so I was

[1:33:17] just curious about two things here. Um one would be um in

[1:33:23] section 3.1.9 um natural heritage system boundary can

[1:33:29] be modified up to 450 square meters as part of a class 2

[1:33:33] variation. Um is there any um tracking tool that say it's an

[1:33:39] individual property quite large multiple applications come through over time

[1:33:43] chipping away at that 450 meters at a time um and avoiding the class 3 as a

[1:33:48] result that would be my first question. >> Yes, through the mayor. So there is a

[1:33:51] tracking system through our GIS we have um extensively mapped our natural

[1:33:55] heritage system um and the intention is to track any potential changes

[1:34:00] modifications to that system through there. We are already doing that as part

[1:34:03] of the kind of OPA process. Um, but the idea would be that we can pull that

[1:34:07] information up and see where modifications have been made to the

[1:34:10] system. If we are still tracking like when we first adopted our official plan,

[1:34:15] do we have the same amount of natural heritage? Has it gone down? Have we been

[1:34:18] compensated for that amount? So, there is a tracking um a way that we will be

[1:34:22] tracking that and ensuring that people aren't kind of chipping away at the at

[1:34:26] the system. >> Thank you. So, there is a a sort of um

[1:34:30] guardrails around that. Um and then the other question um that I have that I got

[1:34:34] from constituent here um just so we've talked about coming back in terms of uh

[1:34:40] revisiting the bylaw after implementation after set frames of time.

[1:34:45] What's sort of baked into the resolution this evening if anything in terms of

[1:34:49] when staff are um required to come back with updates

[1:34:54] for this >> um through the mayor. So what we have

[1:34:58] done it was we put a general clause in the the final clause in the

[1:35:01] recommendation um about monitoring and implementation. Um we had originally

[1:35:06] proposed to come back within six months but we've heard differently from council

[1:35:09] and from the public. Um so what we will are proposing to do with considering the

[1:35:13] election um is to provide updates monthly whether that be at a council

[1:35:17] meeting whether that be through Friday file and project updates online. um

[1:35:21] we'll find a way to communicate that at least monthly. Um and then we'll come

[1:35:25] back um with whatever changes are needed to the bylaw when we when we um

[1:35:29] recognize they're needed. So September is our next council meeting. You very

[1:35:33] well could see changes on on the bylaw if things are adopted tonight.

[1:35:37] » Thank you, >> Councelor Bell. Mr. May,

[1:35:40] » I I have three questions. Uh first one is a follow-up from the earlier

[1:35:44] conversation about the um split between rural and urban applications which

[1:35:50] you've now confirmed to be 60% rural, 40% urban. If you weighted them by

[1:35:56] complexity, how much of your staff time is taken up by

[1:36:01] rural versus urban? I'm saying that because my guess is the urban

[1:36:07] » applications are complex larger uh typically the ones we see in council

[1:36:12] rather than things that you would see on your desk

[1:36:15] » and through the mayor. I don't know if Jeremy maybe has some comments on that,

[1:36:18] but I would I would tend to agree with that. The urban ones take up um a bit

[1:36:22] more time, but I'll ask Jeremy to jump in with some comments on on the

[1:36:25] applications >> for the mayor to counselor. Yeah, I I

[1:36:30] would say our urban applications do take more of our staff time, especially if

[1:36:35] you're looking at a subdivision mix with a zone change, etc., and reviewing draft

[1:36:40] plans and draft plan conditions and drawings,

[1:36:43] uh, site plans, etc. do take a lot more in an urban scale. Um,

[1:36:50] I would say day-to-day dealing with the rural stuff goes a little quicker, but

[1:36:54] it is through staff that we deal with them. It's they're just handled quicker

[1:36:58] because they are simpler processes to deal with and I can easily give staff

[1:37:02] direction on the rural ones and they can move forward. We do try to keep it

[1:37:04] simple in the rural area to make agriculture move forward in a simpler

[1:37:09] process because it doesn't need to be as complex sometimes.

[1:37:12] » Okay. Thank you. My second question relates to FSM. Um, it's been a

[1:37:18] continuous frustration of mine while I've been a council member that

[1:37:21] developers come to this table and they as for multiple variances to our what

[1:37:28] would today are our uh zoning bylaws and that demand seems to just ratchet up

[1:37:37] every every year and it is given for the most part and if we don't give we seem

[1:37:44] to be taken to Ontario Land Tribunal to make sure we do give it, but it comes

[1:37:49] with no benefit, no direct benefit to the county. It it clearly aids the

[1:37:56] economic case for the developer. I think the CP and correct me if I'm wrong, uh

[1:38:02] helps by putting a framework around that. So variances we know what the

[1:38:07] starting point is the development standards there the class one in the

[1:38:11] CPPs set the frame set the base and you set uh limits for what becomes class two

[1:38:17] what becomes class three and we have indicated that for increased density inc

[1:38:23] and increased height that comes with a a price. So um you and I have had this

[1:38:29] conversation before. Uh I think the starting point for FSM should be if we

[1:38:35] permit uh a change from class one to class two and it benefits the uh

[1:38:43] developer economically that benefit should be shared between them and us.

[1:38:49] Can you tell me if we charge $3,000 per unit for an extra extra height, what's

[1:38:56] the share that we get of the increased profitability of that venture?

[1:39:04] » Uh through the mayor, I'd have to pull up my notes specifically, but I believe

[1:39:06] if it was 3,000, it was around 20%. Um, but I can confirm that if you just

[1:39:14] give me a moment. Um, but I guess what I would note here is

[1:39:18] that um, we're not trying to take the full

[1:39:24] what we call as uplift. Um, and I recognize we've had this conversation

[1:39:28] about kind of that 50/50 split idea. Um, there's lots of other factors right now

[1:39:34] we've taken into account. One of them being um, a not so great housing market

[1:39:39] um, and the need for some kind of affordable housing. And that's why part

[1:39:43] of our study with FSM was offer the opportunity for incomeind contributions

[1:39:48] of of housing. So even if they provided 3,000 for a unit, there's also the

[1:39:53] opportunity to provide x number and I believe we came up with a number of 10%

[1:39:56] based on the um the evaluation, but 10% of their housing units could be

[1:40:00] affordable housing. So I think that conversation kind of came up with

[1:40:03] respect to the Brford CIP and and the affordable housing and what maybe the

[1:40:07] CPS can offer. Um, so that inind um I think that that inind opportunity will

[1:40:16] be very crucial because one dwelling unit, one affordable dwelling unit will

[1:40:20] be more worth well more than $3,000, right? Um so I think there's an

[1:40:24] opportunity there to work um with the development community and you'll see in

[1:40:27] the letter from them too there's concerns about FSM. So something we're

[1:40:30] trying to do is just balance that conversation, get that framework in

[1:40:33] place, take we're taking zero dollars right now. Um so to start somewhere and

[1:40:39] and kind of keep that conversation going. We we've um committed to coming

[1:40:43] back with an FSM strategy and working on that next year. And I think there'll be

[1:40:47] some more conversation about okay, what what is an appropriate level um of that

[1:40:51] fee um that we can maybe increase or decrease over time. But, um, yeah, I

[1:40:56] believe that the the $3,000 per unit fee sits at about 20%. Um, it depends on the

[1:41:00] the the situation, but that's roughly where it is.

[1:41:03] » So, to to just to to be clear, the FSM strategy that you've talked about, the

[1:41:10] if we approve the CPPs tonight, it's saying yes, we approve FSM. There are

[1:41:15] numbers in there. There are $3,000 in in that particular example. Are we saying

[1:41:20] then that part of what we approve is also that we direct you to keep on

[1:41:24] looking at what is the best strategy for FSM?

[1:41:28] » That is correct. So the second last um the second last piece of the

[1:41:32] recommendation is that staff direct um or that we're directed to implement FSM.

[1:41:37] So as it stands in the bylaw today the framework um and what we would do is

[1:41:40] consider further consider a long-term strategy for SFM FSM to inform future

[1:41:45] budget and capital planning. And how if we wanted to change it, how would we

[1:41:48] change it? >> To change FSM itself, you mean? Um so we

[1:41:52] could make amendments to our own bylaw. Um that would be the the process through

[1:41:56] which we would do that. >> Thank you. Final question, a very brief

[1:41:59] one. Um if if I understood your response to the six nations regarding parking

[1:42:03] that councelor Oakley mentioned, um do I understand correctly that the CPS does

[1:42:09] not consider visitor parking anymore? uh through the merit does it does

[1:42:15] require visitor parking still. Um just what we have done is instead of

[1:42:19] requiring it above and beyond um the way that the zoning bylaw uh approaches it

[1:42:24] now it's considered within the um overall parking framework. So when we

[1:42:29] say two exterior spaces per unit, one of those hypothetically could be um a

[1:42:35] visitor parking space. Um if it's in a driveway, it's it's kind of visitor

[1:42:39] parking. Um but we would look at the total calculation for that that

[1:42:42] development um and we would apply um the two spaces per unit on their site and

[1:42:48] then the additional parking for um for the visitors.

[1:42:52] » Will that result in fewer parking spaces? Let me take any development

[1:42:56] around take my peninsula as an example. Will it result in fewer parking spaces

[1:43:01] » through the mayor? No. It will what we're trying to do is find a balance

[1:43:07] here to increase the parking in situations like that with town homes

[1:43:11] specifically um condominium developments where we recognize that maybe a single

[1:43:16] wide driveway doesn't work with a single wide garage. Um so there would still be

[1:43:20] that requirement for a visitor parking above and beyond that. Um, but in

[1:43:25] situations where say the garage is double wide or the the driveway is

[1:43:29] double wide, it just adds that opportunity for flexibility because as

[1:43:33] as expressed in the letter with Six Nations um parking takes up space and uh

[1:43:38] we need to be considerate of that as well. But we recognize public transit

[1:43:42] not um widely available here. Um so the the offset for transport demand

[1:43:46] management, transportation demand management um with respect to cars, more

[1:43:50] people have cars. Um so we're trying to find a balance with the realistic

[1:43:52] approach there. Thank you, >> Councelor Haley.

[1:43:59] » Through you. Um, I just wanted to follow up. I I know that there was a response

[1:44:04] from staff to the Brand Federation of Agriculture, but that was um before they

[1:44:09] came tonight. So, they received a set of answers and they still came and they

[1:44:13] still asked um uh about they still had concerns about the agricultural impact

[1:44:19] assessment. Uh they had concerns about notification uh about it um often only

[1:44:26] being on the website um and uh is that adequate notification? are people in the

[1:44:32] country that are farming, rural people, anybody are they watching the website

[1:44:36] for the notification and then the frequency of the agriculture advisory

[1:44:41] meetings and whether that's adequate for the review of the uh so I wonder I I I

[1:44:47] know that staff answered their questions earlier but they came tonight again and

[1:44:52] asked the same question so it leads me to believe that they still aren't

[1:44:56] convinced and um I don't know who has an answer for that. That's why I was asking

[1:45:00] the delegation. I know that staff has replied, but um I don't know if you can

[1:45:05] speak to their further questions tonight.

[1:45:09] » Yeah, through the mayor. I'm happy to speak um I can speak to those three

[1:45:12] points specifically, the AIAS, the and the egg advisory. Um so with respect to

[1:45:16] agricultural impact assessments or AIAS, um they are they will be required and

[1:45:22] they're required under official plan um as a required study in many areas,

[1:45:26] notably outside of our settlement areas. Um we have a a working terms of

[1:45:31] reference from the province of Ontario that they've provided um to

[1:45:34] municipalities to use. We intend to use that um and we'd also get um some of

[1:45:39] that information peer reviewed by experts. Um we have that opportunity. We

[1:45:42] do the same thing with natural heritage reviews. Um, so if if there is um if

[1:45:47] there are questions about kind of the quality of of the reporting that's been

[1:45:50] put together, um we can have those discussions with with the the

[1:45:54] professionals that um would uh would assist us in the review. Um with that

[1:45:59] said, that's the type of thing that would go to the egg advisory committee.

[1:46:02] That's why we we have that committee and we've heard that tonight about um uh

[1:46:06] that expertise. We would we would take advantage of that that expertise um to

[1:46:10] have them review and provide comments on applications of that nature as well. So

[1:46:14] um there will be opportunities outside of the meetings um for for us to

[1:46:18] circulate applications um to those committees. We do a similar thing with

[1:46:22] our our heritage committee right now with heritage impact assessments um

[1:46:25] circulating those and then a discussion happens kind of following that

[1:46:28] circulation on the agenda of the meeting. we would take a similar

[1:46:31] approach. Um, and then with respect to notifications, what I would say is the

[1:46:35] class one, so where we're proposing that there only be an online notification,

[1:46:40] there is no notification today of those. Um, the class one applications are stuff

[1:46:46] that goes almost directly to building permit nowadays. Um, so what we're

[1:46:50] proposing is more of a transparency piece. Um, all of that information would

[1:46:54] be available online to residents. um it admittedly is something they will need

[1:46:58] to seek out, but we've also talked internally about um opportunities for

[1:47:02] mailing lists, email lists, those types of things, recognizing that not everyone

[1:47:06] has internet access or reliable internet access. So um what we're doing is kind

[1:47:11] of two pieces there. We're improving the access to the information um that is

[1:47:14] already coming in. And then we're going to provide other opportunities for input

[1:47:18] um through that system. the class two permits themselves, you'll see that

[1:47:22] there's an on-site signage that's proposed and there's always the

[1:47:25] opportunity to bump the requirements up um for notification. Um and that can be

[1:47:30] a discussion we have with the applicant depending on on the um the application,

[1:47:34] but what we need is a starting point. Um and that starting point is the kind of

[1:47:39] for class two is the dual the dual notification. So one online and the site

[1:47:43] um the sign on site as well. >> Okay, thank you. Uh so I have a few more

[1:47:47] questions. Um, this is from one of our constituents here. Sorry. Um, just uh

[1:47:53] it's about the major facilities. Just a moment. I have to find it for you. Um,

[1:48:00] sorry, just a moment here.

[1:48:04] Sorry. Okay. Um, so you have the CN National CN

[1:48:11] area northwest of downtown Paris was formerly unzoned. Now it's zoned major

[1:48:16] facility. Okay. Um and then you have uh major facility includes

[1:48:23] so major facility includes um pipelines, oil and gas pipelines, energy gener uh

[1:48:30] general facilities, data centers, uh airports, rail facilities. So if Brandt

[1:48:37] retains the airport lands, if we don't annex it, does that mean that these

[1:48:42] lands are vulnerable to a data center being developed? That's a question

[1:48:45] coming from a constituent.

[1:48:49] through the mayor. Um

[1:48:54] uh there will be many other considerations um for permissions with

[1:48:58] respect to data centers um and battery storage and those types of um major

[1:49:04] facilities that use use or store a lot of resources. Um what we have put into

[1:49:09] the bylaw specifically is wording around those types of uses. Even though they're

[1:49:13] included in major facilities, that's what they're considered. um is that

[1:49:18] we're limiting the size and scale of them to very minor so that we can have

[1:49:21] the conversation about these major ones we're seeing in the news come forward.

[1:49:25] Um they would essentially be prohibited and require an amendment to the bylaw.

[1:49:30] So we don't know enough information about those things. I don't want to um

[1:49:33] comment per se specifically on that property, but I commenting on that use.

[1:49:38] We don't know enough about about them yet. Um and so our safe bet right now is

[1:49:42] by planning opinion is is a prohibition um so that we can have the trigger for

[1:49:47] an assessment for a review um and then that information can come forward to

[1:49:51] council to make a decision. >> Thank you. So battery storage has come

[1:49:54] forward to us and it is a major facility and so how would the CPS deal with

[1:49:59] battery storage uh battery storage proposal? Um so through the mayor

[1:50:04] depending on the zone that it is proposed in and the permitted uses um

[1:50:08] the major facility where it is permitted in we would assess that um but if it is

[1:50:13] not a permitted use in that zone it would require an amendment to the bylaw.

[1:50:18] » Okay. Um and then I had another question from a constituent. Can staff assure

[1:50:23] council that the county has the governance, staffing, monitoring,

[1:50:28] enforcement, reporting, and corporate risk management systems necessary to

[1:50:33] implement and administer the CPPs effectively over the long term

[1:50:38] » through the mayor. Yes, that is one of the key objectives that we have of this

[1:50:42] this system. As with any new system, there will be consistent monitoring over

[1:50:46] time. We'll be presenting that information to council. We'll look at

[1:50:49] what the issues end up being. um we'll iron those out, have those discussions

[1:50:52] with people. Um but yes, I would that that's one of the key foundational

[1:50:58] pieces of of of making a large change like this.

[1:51:02] » And finally, just to clarify, um this reduces the risk of an application going

[1:51:08] to the OOLT. Is that correct? >> Uh through the mayor in the context of

[1:51:12] not being able to make amendments to the bylaw for 5 years, yes, it does.

[1:51:16] » Thank you, >> Councelor Kyle.

[1:51:20] Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Through you to staff Brandon, a couple of questions. So, we

[1:51:24] had a delegation earlier tonight um that had concerns about a essentially a

[1:51:29] pre-approved application. So, can you just reiterate what the process is for

[1:51:36] any sort of these subdivision applications that are already in

[1:51:40] progress, they've been approved, there may be an oil tea um decision that's

[1:51:44] tied to them. Uh can you just clarify very clearly what what happens with

[1:51:51] those ones >> through the mayor? Yes. Um so those

[1:51:54] applications that have already there a decision has already been rendered on

[1:51:58] them to some form um would simply just go through the the old process but

[1:52:04] carried over into the new framework. So we're deleting our zoning bylaw. We're

[1:52:09] deleting our site plan bylaw. That's the intent of this. Um, we're creating a new

[1:52:13] development processing framework for the county, but what we have done as part of

[1:52:17] our transition is copied the stuff that has gone through already and pasted it

[1:52:22] into the the new system so that we don't have to sit there and read two separate

[1:52:27] frameworks with two separate kind of interpretations. Um, it will essentially

[1:52:32] be those two frameworks but in one spot. >> Okay. And and then a followup to that um

[1:52:40] through the mayor. Um so something that kind of seems to be the theme from lots

[1:52:46] of the questions from around the table here, but even from the delegations just

[1:52:50] they kind of center around uncertainty. It's it's a new system. It's new to us.

[1:52:56] Um, so could you very specifically specifically um outline how how staff

[1:53:04] will know that it's working as intended and therefore how will council know that

[1:53:10] it's working? And kind of as a a followup to that, how quickly if there

[1:53:14] is something that comes up, what's that threshold for um

[1:53:21] bringing it back right away? what's what's the timeline for how quickly we

[1:53:25] could change something if we needed to. So, just trying to kind of gauge, you

[1:53:30] know, it's a new process to all of us and if we were to go ahead with it, how

[1:53:35] quickly can we make those changes and tweak them and how will we know if there

[1:53:40] is a problem? >> Um, so through the mayor, what we are

[1:53:44] doing here um with the new system is we will have um a monitoring system. We're

[1:53:49] going to be creating a dashboard that will be available like internally during

[1:53:54] August. But the idea is come September provided everything goes well with um

[1:53:58] the bylaw that we will make that available to to anyone to look at. Um so

[1:54:02] what that would do is have our kind of key performance indicators. I'll throw

[1:54:05] throw that out there. But um we'll be looking at how many transition files are

[1:54:09] left, how much natural heritage system is being refined, um how long is an

[1:54:14] application taking from inquiry all the way to buildout. Um so those will be our

[1:54:18] high level indicators and everyone will be able to kind of follow along and and

[1:54:21] see that. We'll also post like um the information about where that threshold

[1:54:26] is to know that it's not working. Um I think admittedly we need to s dive into

[1:54:30] the implementation of the bylaw to understand that a bit more. Um but

[1:54:34] that's our intention for the next month. Um so what I would say to to that is is

[1:54:40] kind of stay tuned for for some of that extra information there. There's been

[1:54:43] provided some information in the reporting just about implementation um

[1:54:46] and monitoring. But if there are other ideas um about that, we we can take

[1:54:52] those back. Um we can come forward at any point. Um council hold regular

[1:54:57] meetings. Council holds special meetings. Um there's plenty of

[1:55:00] opportunities. Not that I want to be coming to every single council meeting

[1:55:03] in the future or any of the planning department, but um there's plenty of

[1:55:07] decision-making points um to be had about about making adjustments. and we

[1:55:11] as staff recognize that this is this is a new framework. It's new. Um there will

[1:55:15] need to be very clear communication about that in regular reporting. Um so

[1:55:19] again, I wouldn't be surprised if you see a report in September um just on an

[1:55:22] implementation provided everything goes tonight um what that looks like and the

[1:55:26] next steps. >> Okay. And uh last question through the

[1:55:30] mayor to you Brandon to kind of put [clears throat] you a little bit on the

[1:55:32] spot maybe, but um is there anything that staff still have concerns about as

[1:55:39] far as the implementation

[1:55:43] uh through the mayor? Um what I would say is my concern right now is that we

[1:55:49] haven't had the chance to test like we aren't getting the chance to test this

[1:55:53] out further than it just being in a testing phase. we're at the point where

[1:55:57] we've we're confident in the framework that's been established, the the best

[1:56:02] way to move this forward and be further confident in it is to apply it. Um, and

[1:56:08] so that would be my kind of backhanded hesitation, I suppose, with this, but

[1:56:13] um, we can go through as many mock applications as as possible. Um, but we

[1:56:19] won't know the full depth and breadth of the of the framework and our

[1:56:24] opportunities to change that. um until we are implementing it.

[1:56:30] » Councelor Miller, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Three to Brandon.

[1:56:33] Brandon, um so you said there's transition provisions for two years,

[1:56:39] correct? >> Through the mayor, there are.

[1:56:41] » Yes. >> So, you also said uh in your response

[1:56:45] that um they u use the word may. draft approved

[1:56:51] subdivisions may continue to rely on sight specific zoning. Are you saying

[1:56:57] they can? >> Correct.

[1:56:59] » I >> So they they they would continue to rely

[1:57:02] on their zoning. >> Okay.

[1:57:03] » Unless they want to switch to the new system,

[1:57:05] » unless they want, but they may. So um even if those buildouts take 5 years, 10

[1:57:11] years, 25 years, or in your response to councelor K used the word carry it over

[1:57:17] to the new system. I don't like that response because I don't know what it

[1:57:20] means. Um, but are they allowed to go under 6116 until the full buildout?

[1:57:26] » Correct. Yes, they are. >> Even if it takes 5 years, 10 years, 20

[1:57:28] years. >> Okay. When does the f when do we start

[1:57:32] collecting FSM? >> Uh, provided the bylaw is passed, it

[1:57:35] would be the date of enactment. >> Okay. Do we collect FSM under bylaw

[1:57:39] 6116? >> We do not. So, if I already had an

[1:57:43] application in for a subdivision, why would I switch over to the new system

[1:57:47] and have to pay the FSM? Does that make sense? If you're the developer,

[1:57:51] » yeah, through the mayor, that's it's a great question.

[1:57:54] » I'm I if it were me as a hypothetically, if I was a developer, um I would keep my

[1:58:01] my application under the former system and not um okay, not make amendments.

[1:58:06] But to that degree um we what we are doing is trying to offer flexibility so

[1:58:11] that if someone does come in >> Yep.

[1:58:12] » there's opportunity for that. [laughter] >> Yeah. Flexibility to pay extra. So

[1:58:17] that's what it sounds like. Um and then I wanted to ask the last question. Um it

[1:58:23] was brought up by when uh we had uh Robert Hamilton and uh Mark Eddie. Um

[1:58:29] they talked about agriculture expertise on the part of our planners. I I thought

[1:58:33] that was a kind of a I don't know how do you respond to that

[1:58:40] » um through through the mayor as a professional planner. Um I often joke

[1:58:45] that we are the jack of all trades but the master of none.

[1:58:48] » Um but with that said we have plenty of staff that have specialties um in

[1:58:53] various subject matters. Um several have gone to the University of G which is

[1:58:58] more agriculture on nature some have done college some have done university.

[1:59:01] there's plenty of expertise and where that expertise is not readily available

[1:59:05] among staff. We're not guessing um we would seek that expertise out in other

[1:59:10] ways. >> Yeah. Uh it doesn't mean you're

[1:59:13] guessing, but sometimes you don't know that you have a sometimes you don't know

[1:59:17] what you don't know and and I know sitting around at planning sometimes I

[1:59:21] seen some that come from the agriculture sector and I I question what what I'm

[1:59:25] reading in the report. So that that I kind of I kind of thought uh that they

[1:59:29] had made a good point, but I wanted to get your your comments on. So Okay. Uh

[1:59:33] thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um I will make an amendment at the appropriate time.

[1:59:39] » Any other comments? Councelor Haley.

[1:59:43] I just wonder for myself and I think the general public I'm trying to understand

[1:59:48] the difference between the agricultural countryside and rural zones and the

[1:59:52] criteria that you would use for that >> uh through the mayor. So those have

[1:59:56] already been designated in the official plan and the zoning will match that. Um

[2:00:00] agriculture and countryside zones are intended to be our prime agricultural

[2:00:04] areas for the county of Brand um which the objective is permanently protected

[2:00:08] land. uh rural lands were done through an an um were analyzed um in uh

[2:00:15] collaboration with the province um with OMAFA based on um a methodology that

[2:00:20] they provide. Um and those lands based on the provincial direction now um have

[2:00:25] some contemplation or potential for development. Um but our um approach here

[2:00:31] is still to restrict that and include them as part of the agricultural system

[2:00:35] » and countryside >> and country. So countryside and

[2:00:38] agriculture essentially mimic each other. It's that countryside is

[2:00:41] recognizing where there are areas of existing non-aggricultural development.

[2:00:46] Um I guess I would point to our former rural residential um designation and the

[2:00:53] rural residential zone. Um that is kind of a a common um commonly um a common

[2:01:00] area where the countryside zoning or designation has been.

[2:01:04] » Thank you. And then some um some uh areas have no class two or three.

[2:01:11] Aggregate I think only has class one and some have no class two or three. Um do

[2:01:18] you see that as a problem through the mayor? Not at this point. And what we

[2:01:22] intend to do with that is like I say add some st or provide some stability in the

[2:01:27] bylaw so there isn't the opportunity for amendments um outside of the framework.

[2:01:33] Um and if changes are needed then staff and council would have control over the

[2:01:37] changes that are are made to the bylaw to to consider that.

[2:01:40] » So to try out aggregate if it's class one what notification would there be to

[2:01:45] the public? >> So specifically for aggregates there's a

[2:01:47] 500 meter radius notification that's soon for the public. Um and I will note

[2:01:51] that aggregate um decisions and and processing is mostly done at the

[2:01:56] provincial level. Um but what we're intending to do there is provide that

[2:02:00] information well in advance um and provide an opportunity for the um the

[2:02:06] folks within that radius and and beyond if they wish um to speak to the

[2:02:10] aggregate operator um and have those conversations before an application is

[2:02:13] approved. >> Thank you. And then you mentioned in

[2:02:16] your um briefing July 17th you mentioned boundary expansions would require a CPP

[2:02:22] amendment. Uh, and uh, I think you and I spoke. I think there's three boundary

[2:02:26] expansion applications right now. Is that correct?

[2:02:30] » Yeah, through the mayor. That Yeah, two or three, I believe. Um, in process.

[2:02:34] » Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Oakley. You're next.

[2:02:38] » Through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, did I hear you correct? Are we on to comments now

[2:02:42] or just questions? >> Comments. Fine.

[2:02:44] » Okay. Uh, so through you, Mr. Mayor, some some comments on it. Um, so in

[2:02:50] regards to some of the conversation around class one and and notifications

[2:02:53] and I got some emails and questions about that as well. Um, what I would say

[2:02:57] in regards to class one is I think it's important for people to recognize with

[2:03:00] class one. It's it it means fundamentally it's a project that checks

[2:03:04] every single box. Um, so it's what we say we want in our official plan. It's

[2:03:09] what's allowed uh with no modifications whatsoever. Um, and I would propose that

[2:03:17] while yes, there's not an initial um, notice that goes out before um, I and

[2:03:23] we're just including it basically as a transparency measure. If my neighbors

[2:03:27] want to build a triplex next door and it's allowed within our

[2:03:32] official plan, they're requiring no parking amendments, no boundary

[2:03:35] adjustments, no um, you know, uh, they're requiring no changes. quite

[2:03:42] frankly, it's none of my business. It's their property to do what they they wish

[2:03:45] within the guidelines that we've set up. And if there's a problem with how that's

[2:03:49] going, the problem document is the official plan, not this this process.

[2:03:52] So, I just wanted to to state that. Um, yeah, that that's sort of my my my

[2:03:58] initial comments there. >> Councelor Coleman.

[2:04:02] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, more of a comment. Um,

[2:04:06] I've had concerns about this plan ever since day one whenever it was brought

[2:04:12] forth sometime early in the year. Um, I can't support it the way it is and um at

[2:04:19] the and I think councelor Miller's going to make an amendment too, but I will

[2:04:23] propose an amendment too because of of the way things have been going. So,

[2:04:27] thanks. >> So,

[2:04:31] councelor, did you have your hand up? Councelor McCalpine,

[2:04:38] » one of my concerns was the onfarmm diversified uses and I'm wondering if

[2:04:43] you could give examples of things that would not be allowed under un onfarm

[2:04:48] diversified uses for like a small business or something like that. How how

[2:04:53] would you separate um through the mayor? Um admittedly that

[2:04:59] would be a difficult question to answer because the provincial guidelines um and

[2:05:04] quite frankly meeting meeting with the province to ask them about the

[2:05:06] guidelines. Um essentially say that there there's a very broad variety of

[2:05:12] things that can be an onfarmm diversified use. Um there's certain

[2:05:15] criteria that are listed in um the permitted use guidelines um that it be

[2:05:22] like limited in area. So it the the size and scale of it is kind of the more

[2:05:26] important piece in our minds um than the use itself. Um but what we are have done

[2:05:32] through the recent OPA and what would be done through this this CPPs um is to

[2:05:37] ensure that there are kind of we go beyond what the guidelines are saying.

[2:05:42] We recognize that there are some questions about um onfarmm diversified

[2:05:47] uses of certain sizes and scales and certain uses um and we've tried to limit

[2:05:52] those specifically um in more detail um and the CPS would do that. So um one

[2:05:59] that is talked about quite often is kind of the wedding venue or wedding barn um

[2:06:03] thing. There's a certain size and scale of that that may be appropriate. Um but

[2:06:07] large event venues on agricultural land are not something that are is supported

[2:06:13] by the arfund of diversified use like the permitted use guideline and that's

[2:06:17] something that we included in our recent OPA and that's something that would be

[2:06:21] moved forward with with the CBPs.

[2:06:26] » So I'm also thinking like you're we're going to allow businesses to be like not

[2:06:32] related but they're supposed to support the farm. So it might be a small

[2:06:36] business in um

[2:06:42] a cabinet shop or something like that. Um so that'll be allowed underneath on

[2:06:47] this program or an automotive shop or something like that. But is there a

[2:06:51] limit to that type of business that could be allowed

[2:06:54] » uh through the mayor? Yes, there is. So there's size and scale limits to that.

[2:06:57] Those are already in place through our zoning. Um at a high level, I believe

[2:07:01] it's 2% of the property to a maximum of one hectare. And then within that one

[2:07:05] hectare, there's a 20% limit on building area. So,

[2:07:09] » um we'd have to do the math specifically on a property maybe to give people

[2:07:13] context, but there's specific numbers in place to restrict um what can happen in

[2:07:18] those instances. >> Okay. And does that have to be within

[2:07:21] the sort of farm cluster of buildings? >> It's yes through the mayor. So what we

[2:07:26] have done with the CPP bylaw is we've structured it in a way that um what

[2:07:31] we're using for the the OFDUs is the requirement that [snorts] things be

[2:07:34] clustered because we don't want things to be taking up land unnecessarily. So

[2:07:39] if there are existing farm buildings like someone built a farm and they want

[2:07:43] to renovate that and convert that into some sort of other use to um to

[2:07:48] diversify their farming operation and and bring in some more income, that

[2:07:51] existing farm building would be able to be renovated. But if they're building

[2:07:54] something new and it's specifically for the purpose of a non-farmm diversified

[2:07:57] use, there's more limitations in place to that. And one of those is clustering.

[2:08:01] » Okay. >> Um my understanding it doesn't

[2:08:04] necessarily have to be a um the home doesn't you don't have to have a house

[2:08:09] on that property. It could be on a property is that excludes a home

[2:08:14] » through the mayor. Yes. The the qualification is that it is a farming

[2:08:17] operation. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Bill.

[2:08:23] I have comments, but if maybe I should wait until the amendment's on the table

[2:08:27] because I might say something different. >> Councelor Chambers,

[2:08:32] » I could say the same thing. I I I don't have any questions. I was just going to

[2:08:35] make some comments, but if you want to proceed with the amendments, that's

[2:08:39] fine. >> Is it a friendly amendment or we have to

[2:08:41] go back? >> It's not friendly.

[2:08:43] » It's not friendly at all. Right. >> Okay. So, Council Chambers,

[2:08:49] » maybe I'll make my comments first. [laughter]

[2:08:52] I u I don't want to get unfriendly here. Uh I I just wanted to make some

[2:08:57] generalized comments. Uh I I if if someone asked me to explain the

[2:09:04] present system, I could do a pretty good job on it. I I think I've been around

[2:09:08] enough that I understand how we do things. Now,

[2:09:14] if someone asked me to explain the new system,

[2:09:18] I would have to say, "You'll have to get staff

[2:09:22] to explain it to you." And what that's telling me is that

[2:09:28] we're tending to move planning from around the horseshoe in

[2:09:35] the community to the staff. It's it's becoming more

[2:09:39] and more the complexities are

[2:09:45] staff orientated and some people will agree with that,

[2:09:51] some people won't. Uh but the fact is that planning is

[2:09:58] becoming complicated through this system that

[2:10:03] we're going to be relying on staff to ensure that it works.

[2:10:10] And I'm hoping

[2:10:14] that staff is up to the task. I I know we've had staff turnovers in

[2:10:20] the past. Sometimes we have a lot of turnover. Heaven, help us. If at the

[2:10:24] crux of this we have staff turnover and the new staff doesn't understand this,

[2:10:31] it it could be very very difficult moving forward.

[2:10:37] I I'm

[2:10:41] in favor of more staff uh input and decision making because

[2:10:50] essentially it's been moving that way for years.

[2:10:55] But this is a huge huge leap into the trusting staff to do what needs to be

[2:11:02] done rather than counselors that hopefully can understand the process

[2:11:07] enough that they can make decisions on applications and uh of the such

[2:11:14] that they feel confident in doing that.

[2:11:19] Again, I could not pass a test on this new system and I'll admit that right

[2:11:25] from the outset, which is I think not unlike anybody around here. If we

[2:11:31] had an exam tomorrow on this, I don't know whether anybody could pass it to

[2:11:35] tell you the truth. Uh the old system, I think we could all pass it.

[2:11:40] and let's leap forward to the new council where people will be elected and

[2:11:46] they'll have to they won't know the old system and the new system. They'll have

[2:11:50] to learn the system. So maybe that will rescue the system. If nobody knows

[2:11:56] what's going on, they'll all learn it together. So those are my comments and

[2:12:00] I'm I'm dying to hear the amendments and uh

[2:12:05] hopefully they uh will make it a little bit more clearer to understand. But

[2:12:10] before we go to the really unfriendly amendments, I think we should speak to

[2:12:13] councelor Bell. >> Yeah. Um, well, having heard what

[2:12:17] councelor Chambers has said, it reminds me of the first meeting I think I ever

[2:12:22] went to as a counselor when we were given a bit of education and I remember

[2:12:29] the statement, it's not our job to row the boat, it's our job to set the

[2:12:34] direction. So I have the the uneasy feeling that

[2:12:41] what councelor James Chambers was talking about would take us too much

[2:12:44] would put the os in our hands or keep the os in our hands and I I don't think

[2:12:48] that's what we should be doing. So that I'm I'm sort of philosophically

[2:12:54] different from from Robert in that respect. But I'll make I'll make my

[2:12:57] comments then if if I may because I was skeptical. I really was skeptical,

[2:13:02] probably more skeptical and vocally skeptical than anybody else about a

[2:13:07] complete revision to what is a familiar if somewhat inflexible and to my mind

[2:13:13] abused planning system. To quote the uh the head of the US Senate, I wasn't sure

[2:13:20] the uh the juice was worth the squeeze on this one. There's so much effort is

[2:13:26] required. It's a huge change management effort starting perhaps with people

[2:13:30] around this table and it puts a challenge on our staff uh

[2:13:36] in many respects. I think somebody asked can we meet the 45day turnaround

[2:13:41] deadline that was a a comment from from the public but I think staff have done a

[2:13:46] terrific job of preparing the CPPs. Think about the number of steps we've

[2:13:51] gone through as council. I think this must be the seventh or eighth time

[2:13:56] Brandon has stood up there and taken us through it. Yes, it's a complete

[2:14:00] different system. And yes, we have to learn it, but we don't have to run it.

[2:14:04] We're not rowing this boat. We're steering the ship.

[2:14:09] And they've done a good job on on thinking about the implementation as

[2:14:12] well. So, I think the introduction of a CPPs

[2:14:16] will be an improvement too. uh I think it will turn out to be a simplification

[2:14:20] of our existing system and I think it will strengthen our control as council

[2:14:26] and I think it will make the develop the process we follow much more transparent

[2:14:32] yes there's some effort required there's a willingness to accept change by us by

[2:14:37] the community but I think there's a willingness and I

[2:14:41] think I've heard it from staff to adapt as we get experience so we won't get it

[2:14:45] right 100% first I was worried that we should why would

[2:14:51] we move to a new system in one go? Let's pilot somewhere else. But I'm

[2:14:57] convinced now uh from what staff have done and that the analysis they've taken

[2:15:02] upon themselves to find out that if they considered other municipalities that

[2:15:08] have taken that pilot step, their recommendation is don't just go straight

[2:15:12] to the full system. So are we taking a risk? I don't think so. I mean, Paris is

[2:15:18] essentially built out from a planning perspective. There's so little left to

[2:15:23] decide about how planet how Paris will be developed within the current

[2:15:27] settlement area. I think St. George is getting there. There's an awful lot

[2:15:31] that's already predetermined. Nothing that we're going to change.

[2:15:35] And the relative simplicity of rural applications, albeit that there may be

[2:15:39] more of them, leads me to believe that if staff are prepared to tune this new

[2:15:44] system based on experience and make good use of of groups like the agricultural

[2:15:50] advisory committee, then I can be very supportive of what they recommend,

[2:15:55] including FSM um given that you are going to keep on looking at what's the

[2:16:00] best outcome for that. So I will be supportive of what is the staff

[2:16:05] recommendation assuming that the uh amendment that's coming is not too

[2:16:10] unfriendly. >> Councelor Oakley and then we're going to

[2:16:14] go to [clears throat] the not too unfriendly amendment.

[2:16:18] » Thank you, M. May. Uh I'm I'm largely going to agree with councelor Bell here

[2:16:21] and and just add a couple of comments. Um, I think in terms of if if you

[2:16:27] dropped us blind into um an option A or option B, option A being the current

[2:16:34] system, option B being the one we're proposing, um, without the additional

[2:16:40] famili familiarity we currently already have with the current system, I I

[2:16:44] fundamentally don't believe that you're going to look at option A and go, this

[2:16:48] is the least complex system. I think fundamentally system B will be the least

[2:16:52] complex system. It's just by its very nature planning is complex. There's no

[2:16:58] way to simplify it enough that it really truly speaks to a lay person like

[2:17:03] myself. It's fundamentally a complex topic. Um and in terms of the types of

[2:17:09] people it would help uh as councelor Bell highlighted you know in terms of

[2:17:12] the large broadstroke developments uh lots of it's already spoken for but to

[2:17:18] sort of speak from a sort of personal antidote um my mother recently moved um

[2:17:23] out of Paris out of being councelor Bell's neighbor um and moved up north

[2:17:29] moved in with my grandfather and throughout that process they had to

[2:17:31] renovate the the current home that my grandfather was in and throughout that

[2:17:35] process they undergo a very similar process to as we do now in Trent Hills

[2:17:41] and numerous times over the course of that process. They'd apply, get their

[2:17:45] permits, go great, we can go now. There was another step that they didn't wasn't

[2:17:51] quite clear because there's another process to apply for and then another

[2:17:54] process to apply for. You know, it it's not very concise. This process, I think,

[2:18:00] fundamentally helps folks like that. And I've heard similar comments from local

[2:18:04] residents who are trying to do something and then there's another step and

[2:18:07] another step. This I think packages it so people have an understanding from the

[2:18:11] outset what they're getting into and I think that will really help sort of

[2:18:15] people trying to do things to their own property uh rather than necessarily how

[2:18:19] it might benefit a developer. So I think ultimately this is the right direction

[2:18:23] to go forward. There will be things to figure out. Every process is like that.

[2:18:27] Nothing should be set in stone. Everything is intended to be iterative.

[2:18:30] So, um I'm supportive of the staff recommendation. Again, we'll see about

[2:18:34] the friendly unfriendly amendment. >> Councelor Pierce.

[2:18:39] » Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, there's great discussion here and I I think if I

[2:18:44] look back to when this all first when Brandon first brought this to us, the

[2:18:48] question I asked, I said, is this going to make the process easier or is it

[2:18:54] going to expedite the process? And what I meant by that was the fact of we don't

[2:19:00] want things just flowing through, coming and going, coming and going, coming and

[2:19:03] going. But the process itself has to be made easier. And and it's been said a

[2:19:08] couple times tonight, planning is is one of the most complex, if not the most

[2:19:12] complex thing as far as anybody around this horseshoe, I I think would agree as

[2:19:19] what we have to know as council. there are there are so many policies and so

[2:19:22] many uh stipulations put through by the province and stuff like that and we know

[2:19:27] it more than um general public and I think if we can do a process that makes

[2:19:32] it easier for the general public not expedites things there's still a process

[2:19:37] there's still parameters and I think the key here and and Brandon has said it at

[2:19:41] every single meetings we are able to make amendments and and it was alluded

[2:19:45] to a couple times tonight we're not going to get this perfect right off the

[2:19:48] hop we are going to make amendments ments to it and we will go and you know

[2:19:53] as things come forward staff will look at them Brandon will look at them we

[2:19:57] will we will discuss them as council and if we need to amend things we can we've

[2:20:01] talked so many times around this horseshoe about putting some more

[2:20:05] delegation back into staff hands this I think this allows that to happen but as

[2:20:11] has been stated also staff at any time can bump this to council and council at

[2:20:16] any time can ask to have it bumped to us as well so I don't think it's going to

[2:20:20] exclude council from from input or making some of the decisions if we feel

[2:20:25] we need to have input on it. Again, um what councelor Chambers had said,

[2:20:30] absolutely. You know, the the current process we have, uh we know it. Why do

[2:20:34] we know it? Because it's the only one we've had for as long as any of us have

[2:20:37] been on council. Yes, this is new. It's going to be some growing pains to it,

[2:20:41] but I too feel that this is definitely heading in a right direction. Um is it

[2:20:46] going to be perfect right off the hop? No. And we've even had Brandon say that

[2:20:50] numerous times. It's not going to be perfect, but we will get there. And in

[2:20:53] my mind, if we can have parameters out there that have some flexibility within

[2:20:58] them, but they are parameters that we can set and stay within, I think that's

[2:21:03] a plus because as councelor Bell alluded to, and as I've said many times before,

[2:21:07] he's absolutely right. We get these things that come in and they want they

[2:21:11] want an amendment to this, an amendment to that, and and shorter distance here

[2:21:14] and and setbacks and reduce this and reduce that. I think that's going to

[2:21:18] alleviate a lot of that. So, I'm I'm I'm willing to to to hear what these uh

[2:21:23] friendly non-friendly amendments are. Uh but I I I must admit even in the short

[2:21:28] it's not been a short time. It's been well over a year that he's brought this

[2:21:30] to us. And I think we've all learned a lot a lot more than what it was off the

[2:21:35] hop. And I think as we go with this and if it goes through, we will continue to

[2:21:39] learn from it. And we'll find that it is a it's a good move to make. And I am in

[2:21:43] support of it. Councilman Calpine.

[2:21:49] » So, I'd like to speak in support of it as well. Um I went through the process

[2:21:53] about 10 years ago personally building a house and I can see where um sitting

[2:21:59] down at the very beginning with staff and having uh understanding of what are

[2:22:04] the needs of the the reports that we have to bring forward for it and bring

[2:22:09] it into a more concise process so that could be done in a more um expedient

[2:22:15] manner I think will be a real advantage especially for the lay person coming

[2:22:20] into this process. not understanding the system and not

[2:22:23] understanding necessarily everything. Um having that opportunity to have a staff

[2:22:28] lead you through it and also eliminating the things that you don't necessarily

[2:22:33] have to um go through. So I think this will be definitely a step forward for

[2:22:37] the average person applying for this pro.

[2:22:43] » Anything else before [clears throat] we go to councelor Miller?

[2:22:47] Councelor Miller. Yeah. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. And uh

[2:22:52] this evening we had a request from Paris Grand Estates. Uh they are looking for a

[2:22:58] carveout from the CPPS. So um that would be uh I'd like to make that uh an

[2:23:04] amendment to the CPBS motion. Um and the actual wording is it's pretty much as

[2:23:11] written that they provided us. Um but basically that uh Paris Grand Estates be

[2:23:18] allowed to continue under what they uh originally got approval for and that's

[2:23:22] zoning bylaw 6116 until the full build out. So that's that's that's the

[2:23:27] amendment. >> That's secondary.

[2:23:32] » Secretary Keler Coleman that that's [clears throat] your

[2:23:36] unfriendly amendment. >> Well, I didn't say it was unfriendly or

[2:23:41] friendly. It just depends on your >> your viewpoint, I guess.

[2:23:45] » I thought you were going to slap somebody.

[2:23:49] » Okay. So, it's on the floor. It has a seconder. Um, councelor Oaklay.

[2:23:53] » To you, I'm sir, I I won't be supportive of this amendment. Um, I think from uh

[2:23:57] what I heard from the delegation and what I heard from from staff as well, I

[2:24:01] think it's it's it at least to me it's quite crystal clear um that as the bylaw

[2:24:06] is written now, the developer can choose to continue using what is already been

[2:24:11] approved or if they felt it necessary, they could jump in with the new process.

[2:24:16] Uh I don't see the purpose of the carveout. Um and I think it's wholly

[2:24:20] unnecessary. Thank you, >> Councelor Chambers.

[2:24:24] » Yeah, I I do support the amendment. I I believe that uh the group would have the

[2:24:29] legal right to u be uh uh follow the system which they made the application

[2:24:36] under. I think that's their right legally.

[2:24:40] » Anything else before we call the vote? Everyone's clear what we're voting on.

[2:24:46] [clears throat] Can the clerk read it back?

[2:25:02] Mr. Mayor, I think it's a very long amendment.

[2:25:09] » Well, I'm just going to pull it up.

[2:25:18] » [snorts] >> We've talked about it for an hour, so I

[2:25:21] I think it need it deserves the time to be read so that we know exactly what

[2:25:24] we're voting on.

[2:25:36] Everyone confident about voting without it being read back?

[2:25:41] » Okay. Okay. All those in favor of [clears throat] the amendment

[2:25:48] opposed.

[2:25:52] So the amendment fails.

[2:25:56] Now we'll go back. We'll go [clears throat] back and vote on the

[2:26:00] original resolution. Councelor Cohen. >> Hey, Mr. Mayor. And uh at this time I'm

[2:26:05] going to propose another amendment is that uh we had a delegation here earlier

[2:26:10] Federation of Agriculture of Brand County and they were looking that we

[2:26:14] could maybe propose this to ask us for a two-year delay for the rural areas and

[2:26:20] and and put this in the system for the settlement areas right now for the

[2:26:24] county and see how this works in two years. Seeking a seconder.

[2:26:30] » Councelor Miller is your seconder. Is [clears throat] there any conversation

[2:26:33] on the amendment? Councelor Kyle. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Through you to to

[2:26:38] staff. Um, so if we were to support this amendment,

[2:26:44] what would be the additional administrative burden for running

[2:26:51] essentially operating two separate systems? Are we looking at um increase

[2:26:56] in cost to do so, delays anywhere? Um, is there any benefit to pilot versus

[2:27:06] going all in? >> Um, through the mayor, I may ask Jeremy

[2:27:11] to jump in on this one, but just from this project um perspective, um, just so

[2:27:18] that you're aware of of the budget that's been spent on the project to

[2:27:20] date, considering the entire municipality, $200,000 have gone into

[2:27:24] this as well as the staff time for that. um and that has been to consider this

[2:27:29] municipalwide. But um with respect to to adopting it specifically for the

[2:27:34] settlement areas and and that administrative burden, I'll ask maybe

[2:27:36] Jeremy to comment on that. >> Uh so through the mayor to the councelor

[2:27:41] definitely the administrative burden you're going to be running two parallel

[2:27:43] systems as Brandon mentioned which is going to be complex for staff to define

[2:27:48] define to people and explain to people as well as the public to understand. So

[2:27:52] there there's going to be confusion for everyone and a lot of complexity. What

[2:27:55] will also have to happen is you'll need to continue with the committee of

[2:27:59] adjustment for the rural areas. So you're now going to have an

[2:28:01] administrative cost which we were not intending to carry forward. So you're

[2:28:05] adding extra costs, staff time and resources and impacts that will be

[2:28:10] taking place here. Mult different reports structures

[2:28:13] etc. So yes, there'll be a lot more duplication of elements that are

[2:28:18] unnecessary. And then the question will lie still

[2:28:23] part of the reason we're doing the CPPS is when we completed the official plan

[2:28:27] under the planning act, we are required to update our zoning to bring be brought

[2:28:30] into conformity. So you've only then addressed a portion of the problem. we

[2:28:35] will have to address that rural portion at some point and bring it into

[2:28:38] conformity in accordance with the planning act or we're going to be

[2:28:41] outside of the planning act and in trouble potentially that way. So there's

[2:28:45] at some point we have to resolve this. Um, and as Brandon mentioned, it is,

[2:28:50] we've been told by other municipalities, don't run do both systems. Who've done

[2:28:53] it? They said, don't go right to it. It's less complicated, less complex. I

[2:28:59] would reiterate repeatedly, it's not going to like

[2:29:03] when you change the systems, the same issues are still going to be there to

[2:29:07] some extent that was raised by the agricultural community is who's

[2:29:11] reviewing, how often they're reviewing, and are they going to the agricultural

[2:29:13] advisory committee? Those are all be can be addressed in the CPPS just as well.

[2:29:18] Uh we have the staff, we have the resources and we still can rely on the

[2:29:21] agricultural uh advisory committee for questions or applications and uh we're

[2:29:27] working with them on terms of reference to adjust to give them that greater

[2:29:30] flexibility to see some applications as necessary because their current terms of

[2:29:34] reference are actually more limited than they think of what they can see. So

[2:29:38] we're providing some greater flexibility.

[2:29:43] Councelor Chambers. Yeah, I I was just going to say I think

[2:29:47] the vast majority of the applications in the

[2:29:51] rural areas uh would benefit from this system

[2:29:55] because they are simpler and it it could be expedited and uh

[2:30:04] made it easier to understand provided that the staff has an

[2:30:11] understanding of the rural areas. this uh if you're born in metro Toronto,

[2:30:20] you have a difficult time in understanding how rural Ontario works uh

[2:30:25] just the way it is. And it's not that they don't can't be made aware, but

[2:30:32] there is a a difference. And I think staff through training and and and I

[2:30:39] think Brandon has has mentioned this, there is that uh expertise and and

[2:30:43] that's readily available. So I think it actually is a benefit to the rural areas

[2:30:49] to have this in place provided that our staff develops that understanding for

[2:30:56] the rural areas and I think that is one thing that I can say that I do feel

[2:31:02] confident in uh that that awareness uh will be there.

[2:31:09] » Councelor House. Um [clears throat]

[2:31:12] thank you Mr. mayor through you. Uh, normally I I try to be respectful and uh

[2:31:19] uh responsive to the voices from our rural counterparts and on this one I'm

[2:31:24] I'm not going to be able to. I I believe we need a policy framework

[2:31:29] that's municipalwide and and I have confidence in the the

[2:31:36] staff and the incredible work they've done. I I really enjoyed counselor Bell

[2:31:41] reminding us of that training session rowing the boat. Um and and and that's

[2:31:47] always stuck with me too. So, but I on this particular issue I I

[2:31:53] I'm listening to senior staff and their discussion of some of the challenges

[2:31:58] that would be attached to running parallel systems. I just can't support

[2:32:01] it. So, >> councelor Haley.

[2:32:06] » Uh yes. Um, I was quite troubled by the CPPS and I came in tonight with mixed

[2:32:11] feelings and probably leaning the way that councelor Miller has um, uh,

[2:32:16] proposed. Uh, but um, I I spoke with staff and and I've been listening. I

[2:32:21] guess I really appreciate that we could reduce uh, cases that go to the OOLT.

[2:32:27] That's really important to me. Um, my priority would be to protect farmland

[2:32:31] and to make sure that onfarmm diversified and onfarm industrial is not

[2:32:36] misused, that we protect farmland and the farming community. Um, I'm a bit

[2:32:42] puzzled by councelor Bell's comment um because he mentioned that Paris is

[2:32:47] pretty well built out and St. George is pretty well planned to be built out, but

[2:32:51] we in W five we have Kainesville, Mount Pleasant, Airport, Oakland, Anadega,

[2:32:56] Middleport. So um uh when councelor Bell implies that um Paris is pretty well

[2:33:02] built out then this will really apply to our communities uh in W 5 especially um

[2:33:09] I really feel that the public needs to understand this. It's been really hard

[2:33:12] for us for myself to understand it. It's it's pretty complex. Um and I I just

[2:33:18] feel that we really need to help the public to understand it. Um so those are

[2:33:23] some of my thoughts on it. I I do appreciate that we could reduce the

[2:33:26] cases going to oil to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

[2:33:32] » Anyone else have a comment before we call the vote on the amendment?

[2:33:35] Councelor Coleman. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I'm in favor of

[2:33:40] the amendment. I guess I put it forward, but [sighs and gasps]

[2:33:44] councelor Chambers brought it up here a little earlier about a half an hour ago

[2:33:48] or maybe 45 minutes ago about planning. planning is black and white, but most of

[2:33:55] it falls in a gray area. And this is what I'm concerned about this new

[2:33:59] system. It's gray area. How do you make it work?

[2:34:05] And we've [clears throat] talked about maybe not always having the most

[2:34:08] expertise and in our staff sometimes on agriculture uh

[2:34:13] adisement and whatnot to make those things work. But I think we need to take

[2:34:18] it slower on the rural area for two years. That's all I'm asking for. And we

[2:34:26] keep referring to that boat. Well, some boats sink. And I don't want

[2:34:31] to see this happen. >> Oh my god. Councelor Miller.

[2:34:36] » No, I I I support the two-year slowdown. Um, even Brandon admitted, you know,

[2:34:42] that's the biggest concerns. We're not quite sure. We we're hoping when we go

[2:34:46] live it works, and I don't doubt it will. There will be adjustments along

[2:34:50] the way. Um, nobody's asking it not to be applied to the rural areas. What

[2:34:54] we're asking for is just a two-year pause. That's it. And I find, especially

[2:34:59] government, municipalities, uh, the quicker you go, the more likely you make

[2:35:03] a mistake. So usually uh cautious and plotting is is the best way forward.

[2:35:11] » Okay. Anyone else have anything else to say before we call the vote?

[2:35:17] So the vote is on the amendment to delay the rural [clears throat] for two years.

[2:35:25] All those in favor? Opposed?

[2:35:32] fails. Anything else anyone has to put on the

[2:35:36] table? Councelor Kyle, >> nothing else to put on the table, but I

[2:35:39] have comments whenever there's >> Yeah,

[2:35:41] » this is a good time for your comments. >> Yeah. So, um I just wanted to talk a

[2:35:47] little bit about why I I support the CPS P CPPS recommendation as staff had laid

[2:35:53] it out. Um, if I think about ourselves, we just recently went through a barn, a

[2:36:01] new barn building. And, um, having gone through the the process, I can agree

[2:36:07] with lots of residents who have come to me with with questions and complaints

[2:36:12] over the years about how, you know, how complicated it is. They don't know where

[2:36:16] to start. So, I do really think that especially for some of these more simple

[2:36:21] um less complex things that this is a good a good system. Um I know by nature

[2:36:27] that because I'm raised by farmers, I'm married to a farmer, surrounded by

[2:36:32] farmers, work for farmers. Farmers are some of the most change averse people

[2:36:37] that I've ever met. Um and I am one of those. So, uh I definitely can say that.

[2:36:42] Um, but one thing that I hear all the time over and over again and and um I've

[2:36:48] even heard my father-in-law utter it um in with respect to people asking us, you

[2:36:52] know, how is the new barn? How's the new barn working out? And my father-in-law

[2:36:56] said, it's working out great. Why didn't we do it sooner? So, I think that's

[2:37:01] that's a common comment for a lot of our our rural a lot of our rural neighbors

[2:37:07] and friends that we all wish we would have done something sooner than we

[2:37:11] actually did it. Um, but it takes us a long time to get there. Um, so I do

[2:37:17] think that staff has put a lot of time and and effort. There's been a lot of uh

[2:37:21] resources put into this planning exercise and making sure that we've got

[2:37:26] as much of it figured out as we possibly can before we put it into play. Um, and

[2:37:31] so now it's just time to fire up the robot and see if it milks the cows, so

[2:37:35] to speak. So, um, I don't see today's decision as the end of the work either.

[2:37:41] I think that's been made very clear by the staff that it's the beginning of the

[2:37:45] implementation and that there'll be lots of checks and balances and ability to

[2:37:49] bring it back. So, if there are things that aren't quite firing the way we need

[2:37:53] them to fire, um they can they can come back. We can listen to residents, we can

[2:37:57] listen to staff, we can we can bring those concerns forward and we can make

[2:38:01] adjustments and improve as we as we see fit. So, with that in mind, um I'm going

[2:38:06] to support the staff recommendation, noting that I will certainly be

[2:38:12] following it closely to make sure that there are those things that are being

[2:38:15] tweaked that need to be tweaked as we go.

[2:38:18] » Yeah. Any other comments, councelor Chambers?

[2:38:24] Um yes, I I just wanted to u make a comment and and then uh perhaps

[2:38:30] another amendment and just to show you the complexity the

[2:38:36] recommendation that's before us. Uh one of the uh operative clauses that council

[2:38:41] approve the necessary amendments to related operational bylaws including

[2:38:46] fees and charges, committee of adjustment, sign bylaw, fence bylaw,

[2:38:50] property standards bylaw, delegation authority bylaw. So this does have

[2:38:54] farreaching uh uh feelers into the whole operation of of of the uh the county in

[2:39:02] many ways. But that's not what I wanted to uh amend. Uh I I'm concerned about

[2:39:09] the operative clause that council directs staff to implement the facility

[2:39:14] services and matters framework and further consider a long-term FSM

[2:39:19] strategy to inform future budget. Why are we implementing it before we have a

[2:39:26] consideration of the uh long-term strategy? Why don't we understand it

[2:39:33] first and know what it's going to be before we implement it?

[2:39:38] » Brandon, >> uh through the mayor. So, what I would

[2:39:40] say to that is that we do understand that we need it and that we have the

[2:39:44] opportunity to um to leverage this tool. We would have done the same thing with

[2:39:49] community benefits charges. that's kind of the outside of the the CPPS. What

[2:39:55] this strategy will do is give us the opportunity to have the conversation

[2:39:58] specifically with the public about where they want the funds to go. So, we have

[2:40:02] ideas of that. We know where those gaps are. Um, but we've heard from from

[2:40:08] council and from the public that there's certain things that maybe aren't well

[2:40:11] understood or maybe haven't had that conversation with the public. And the

[2:40:15] intention behind this direction is simply to to point out that this

[2:40:19] specific piece where that money is spent is going to go back for public

[2:40:23] consideration. And if I might just ask you to further expand on on there was a

[2:40:28] comment in comment in one of the u u addendum uh submissions with regard to

[2:40:36] double dipping. Why are we charging this on top of development charges? And is

[2:40:42] that not just uh milking the cow to use the uh analogies that are being uh used

[2:40:51] » uh through the mayor. This is a tool enabled by uh the planning act and by

[2:40:55] the provincial government. We are not allowed to double dip. We will not be

[2:40:59] double dipping. And that is part of why this strategy will be necessary for that

[2:41:02] transparency to show people where that money is going to be going um and how it

[2:41:07] will be spent.

[2:41:10] » Does that come with a recommendation or a anything? No,

[2:41:15] » I just wanted the explanation to to clarify what that actually is meaning to

[2:41:19] the to the people. >> Okay. Any other comments, concerns

[2:41:23] before we call the vote on the original the original [clears throat] resolution

[2:41:27] that's in front of us? My only comments are for the

[2:41:32] [clears throat] for the eight years that I've been the mayor, I've watched senior

[2:41:36] staff um call expert witnesses, farmers. I sit on the agricultural committee. We

[2:41:44] we know where the information lies. We know we're not afraid to call them in

[2:41:49] and ask them things. It's it's why the county of Brandt has been successful.

[2:41:54] The 11 people around the horseshoe have never said they know everything, but we

[2:41:59] know the right people to ask. And I see the people in the room and and half of

[2:42:03] them are the people that would be on the list of people to ask if we had

[2:42:08] concerns. And this is only um farming, but we do it for everything. We do it

[2:42:13] for everything we're not sure of. We ask people and I think that's the magic of

[2:42:18] counselors and the mayor is we get elected because we know people and we

[2:42:22] know people and we don't forget who elected us and we make sure that we make

[2:42:29] good decisions. And I think with staff being as as professional and and putting

[2:42:34] in the time for this report, this is a a crazy involved uh system for us to be

[2:42:40] going on. if they say it's easier and it's c we know the people to ask when we

[2:42:45] need to know answers before we make decisions. So I have confidence in staff

[2:42:50] and I have confidence in the people in this room that know um and we would ask

[2:42:54] them. We would consult them. So I have no trouble supporting uh this in front

[2:42:59] of us because I know that we won't do it alone. Why would we when we have all

[2:43:03] this uh talent or expertise at our fingertips?

[2:43:08] If there's nobody else that has anything to say, I'm going to call the vote on

[2:43:12] the original recommendation in front of us. Could I have it read just for the u

[2:43:17] the clerk read the for the people that are watching it which I Okay

[2:43:29] worship um it reads as follows that report 0257-26

[2:43:34] community planning permit system final final recommendation of um adoption be

[2:43:39] received as information that report 0298-26

[2:43:44] updated ating report 027 or 57-26B received as information. The council

[2:43:50] adopt the official plan amendment for the community planning permit system

[2:43:53] policies within the county of Brand official plan. The council passed the

[2:43:56] final version of the CPP bylaw with an effective date of August 22nd, 2026. The

[2:44:02] council repeal zoning bylaw 61-16 as amended in the site plan control bylaw

[2:44:08] on August 22nd, 2026 to be replaced by the CPP bylaw. The council authorizes

[2:44:14] staff to implement the CPPs, including the transition provisions,

[2:44:18] administrative procedures, public education materials, staff training,

[2:44:22] application form updates, city view integration, and related implementation

[2:44:26] activities described in this report for the purposes of creating a one window

[2:44:30] development application process. The council approves a delegation of

[2:44:34] decision-making authority for a CPP uh in accordance with the community

[2:44:39] planning permit bylaw. The council approved the necessary amendments to

[2:44:43] related operational bylaws including the fees and charges bylaw, committee of

[2:44:47] adjustment bylaw, sign bylaw, offense bylaw, property standards bylaw, and

[2:44:51] delegation of authority bylaw generally as described in this report and attached

[2:44:55] that council direct staff to implement the facilities services and matters

[2:44:59] framework and further consider a long-term FSM strategy to inform future

[2:45:03] budget and capital planning discussions and that council direct staff to monitor

[2:45:07] the implementation of the CPPs with regular reporting to council and

[2:45:11] continued opportunities for count for public input into the new framework.

[2:45:16] » Everyone's clear. All those [clears throat] in favor?

[2:45:22] Opposed? Noted. Thank you.

[2:45:28] Okay. Are we going to keep going or you want a break?

[2:45:32] » Break. Take take a 10 five minute break.

[2:55:55] Thank you. Okay, so we are now at 10.2 and I need a mover to get on the floor.

[2:56:04] Councelor Coleman, Councelor House,

[2:56:10] does anyone have any questions to what's in front of us? Councelor Miller,

[2:56:16] » just a quick question. Mr. Mayor, and I I don't want to say that no good deed

[2:56:20] goes unpunished, but and I know where this come from, councelor Coleman

[2:56:23] brought forward, and in the report, it states how how bad a shape Oxbow Road

[2:56:28] is. And my question is, if it's in that bad a shape, and don't we do a um a

[2:56:34] roads assessment um condition every year when why wasn't this identified earlier?

[2:56:40] And are we saying that there's just so many bad roads in the county that this

[2:56:44] just didn't make the list? I'm just trying to understand why it got missed.

[2:56:50] » So through the mayor uh to councelor Miller. Um yeah, it wasn't so much as it

[2:56:55] it was missed. We we did know that the condition was in poor shape. Just that

[2:57:00] road in itself is very very low volume. So when we're planning our capital

[2:57:06] program, it's it's the later of your your statement is it's hard to

[2:57:10] prioritize. But then when councelor Coleman brought it forward, we went and

[2:57:14] looked at it and and at the end of the day, we need to fix the roads. So we

[2:57:17] went back, some projects were ending and we we basically found the money to be

[2:57:21] able to proceed with it. >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:57:26] » Any other questions before we call the vote? And all [clears throat] those in

[2:57:30] favor? Opposed? Carried. Thank you. Uh we've

[2:57:36] moved 10.3 to after the in camera session. uh to talk about the library

[2:57:43] and then [clears throat] we have already talked about 10.4,

[2:57:49] » haven't we? Oh, okay. I need I need someone to get

[2:57:54] on the floor then. Councelor Bell and Councelor Coleman.

[2:57:59] [clears throat] Who's going to speak to this then?

[2:58:01] » Cheryl is here to answer questions. >> Cheryl is here to answer questions.

[2:58:06] questions on this report that's in front of you.

[2:58:12] No. Call the vote. All those in favor?

[2:58:18] Opposed? Carried.

[2:58:22] Communications is next. 11.1. Can I get it on the

[2:58:27] floor? Councelor House and Councelor Kyle.

[2:58:33] Thank you. Uh, it's a min a minister a ministry

[2:58:39] letter for uh housing for strong mayor's powers. Any questions to that?

[2:58:47] Are those in favor just to receive it? Uh 12 or 11.1 I need on the floor

[2:58:54] please. Councelor somebody councelor councelor Pierce seconded by

[2:59:01] councelor Oakley just to receive any questions all those

[2:59:08] in favor opposed carried uh [clears throat] 11.3

[2:59:14] which is grand river conservation authority letter get on the floor please

[2:59:19] councelor Miller and councelor house questions

[2:59:24] about the letter. Seeing now, we'll call the vote. All those in favor

[2:59:29] opposed carried. Um 11.4, which is the Grand River

[2:59:35] Conservation Authority letter. Uh just the draft budget. Can I get a mover to

[2:59:39] get on the floor, please? Councelor Coleman and Councelor Haley. Any

[2:59:45] questions to the letter for the opposed draft budget? All those in favor?

[2:59:50] Opposed? carried community planning permit system correspondence to staff.

[2:59:56] Oh, we did that already. Resolutions. We have 12.1 which is a proclamation

[3:00:02] request for the suicide prevention. Uh Brandt, can I get it on the floor,

[3:00:07] please? Councelor Haley, councelor Kyle, any questions or concerns about doing

[3:00:11] that proclamation? Seeing none, all those in favor?

[3:00:16] Opposed? Carried. Uh 12.2, 2 which is a proclamation again

[3:00:22] the international society of research and advoc advocacy development

[3:00:26] coordinator disorder it's a long one different uh get it on the floor

[3:00:32] councelor Pierce wants to put it on the floor I need a seconder councelor house

[3:00:36] thank you any [clears throat] conversation or concerns about that

[3:00:41] proclamation call the vote all those in favor

[3:00:46] carried and the [clears throat] Last one is the

[3:00:50] Grand River Grand River Eerie Public Health. I'm sure that councelor Bell

[3:00:56] wants to put that on the floor. Yeah, you have a second. Councelor House. Any

[3:01:01] concerns about this request? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. All

[3:01:06] those in favor? Opposed and carried. Other business.

[3:01:11] Does anyone have any other business? I didn't ask earlier because I couldn't

[3:01:14] talk very well earlier. I'm talking better now. Do you have anything that

[3:01:18] you want to add further business? Seeing nothing. Councelor updates. Is

[3:01:24] there anything in anyone's ward that you want the public to know about? It's time

[3:01:29] to talk about it. No, nothing going on. Councelor Oakley, what's going on?

[3:01:34] » Yes. Through through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh we did have a delegation earlier on it

[3:01:37] about the uh the the the Poppy workshop tomorrow. I attended last week. I uh

[3:01:43] they've had them all throughout the month of July throughout the day. and I

[3:01:46] uh commented on Facebook just half-hazardly wish I could make it. I

[3:01:50] work during the day. So, they've opened up two evening sessions which was very

[3:01:54] wonderful. I attended last week. I'll be attending tomorrow and I encourage

[3:01:57] everyone to come out and uh help attach some poppies to nets and uh it'll be a

[3:02:02] good time. >> Okay, Councelor Chambers.

[3:02:06] and and that jogs my memory. The U u crosswalk uh for celebrating the

[3:02:12] Legion's 100th anniversary in in Berford very very well received and and I thank

[3:02:19] Councelor Miller for for sticking with that and uh I know I was at the Legion

[3:02:23] the other night and and that was uh one of the topics of conversation and it was

[3:02:28] it's wellreceived in the community. >> Yeah, it's great that it all I'm glad

[3:02:31] that we got them done on time too. Councelor Miller um maybe through

[3:02:36] [clears throat] through to the clerk possibly. Um there was a request from uh

[3:02:41] ambulance committee. Uh maybe we get a delegation going at AMO, but has has

[3:02:46] those requests has that date come and gone? Does anybody know?

[3:02:50] » I I I think they have come and gone >> through your worship to councelor

[3:02:55] Miller. Um yes, they they do require those uh quite early unfortunately. So

[3:03:00] um that date has definitely passed for for AMO. Um, but if there's something

[3:03:04] you want us to put forward moving forward, we can

[3:03:08] » have we received uh notification if if we've got if we've received any um

[3:03:13] delegations like I know we put in a couple requests.

[3:03:17] » Through your worship to council, I believe we only have MTO that's been

[3:03:20] granted at this time. I' I'd look to Adam to confirm that.

[3:03:24] » Excuse [clears throat] me. Uh through your worship. Uh yes. So we have

[3:03:27] received word we received word late last week. There'll be a briefing note coming

[3:03:31] to you. Okay. uh for the Bishop's Gate Road interchange with the MTO. The other

[3:03:35] delegation request was um with energy and mines for the rural natural gas and

[3:03:39] we have yet to hear back from that. >> Okay. Yeah. Cuz um we won't get a chance

[3:03:44] to ask before uh AMO. So um and the bishop's gate I mean that's should be

[3:03:48] straightforward presentation just the same one we presented the last five

[3:03:51] times. So okay. Thank you. 15. Yeah. >> You sound so cynical about it council

[3:03:57] really. I I've got I've got a couple of meetings. Uh yeah, with Six Nations and

[3:04:03] and actually one with Mayor Davis. So it'll be a fun-filled event. Um anything

[3:04:10] else? Our mural in St. George on the Legion is finished and it looks

[3:04:14] beautiful. So we don't get a crosswalk, but we get a pretty dandy looking mural.

[3:04:18] So if you're driving by St. George, uh take a look. It's really beautiful. So,

[3:04:25] okay, we're going to go in camera now and councelor Oakley is going to take us

[3:04:28] there. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by myself

[3:04:30] and seconded by councelor Coleman that the county branch council convene in

[3:04:34] Cameron to discuss S.2392C, a proposed or pending acquisition or

[3:04:40] disposition of land by the municipality or local board, new central branch

[3:04:45] library property acquisition. uh an S2392K,

[3:04:50] a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any

[3:04:54] negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality

[3:05:00] administration and operations committee in camera report July 21st, 2026. County

[3:05:05] and Brandt Special Counsel in camera minutes July 6, 2026. And county and

[3:05:11] branch special counsel in camera minutes July 10th, 2026. All those in favor.

[3:05:17] » Okay, we're going in camera.

[3:39:53] Okay, we're back in open session. We're now [clears throat] what we've done is

[3:39:57] we we're going to do 10.3. Now, I don't know who's coming up to speak on behalf

[3:40:03] of the library.

[3:40:27] Well, good evening everyone. I've been introduc

[3:40:37] with me tonight is Kelly, our CEO. Fred Glatting had hoped to be able to join

[3:40:42] us, but I think he's um on route somewhere and that's not working.

[3:40:47] So, thank you very much for your time this evening. The public has every

[3:40:52] reason to wonder what's been happening to the library since 2005. As members of

[3:40:57] the library board, we've personally been asked that many times, and I'm sure your

[3:41:00] constituents have been asking you that question, too. Our community has

[3:41:05] remained deeply invested and interested in this project and we sincerely hope

[3:41:10] we'll all be able to share a good news story soon.

[3:41:13] The library board has remained committed to its mandate to cultivate inclusiv

[3:41:19] inclusivity and power lifelong learning. In February 2025, the library board went

[3:41:25] back to square one. We checked our assumptions, verified the data, and

[3:41:30] re-engaged with the community. Today, on behalf of the library board, I share a

[3:41:35] plan that demonstrates a number of things. We have been thorough and have

[3:41:39] balanced the many important aspects of this project. We have contemplated

[3:41:44] future needs of our rapidly growing community and remain committed to fiscal

[3:41:48] responsibility. We have anticipated questions from the

[3:41:52] community and from council and seek to work collaboratively for the benefit of

[3:41:56] the community. We remain forward thinking and believe

[3:42:00] deeply that our community deserves a library that is free and open and

[3:42:05] accessible to everyone. So for all that I say thank you to the

[3:42:09] seven volunteer citizen library board members, our three councelor members,

[3:42:14] councelor Bell, counselor Kyle and counselor house and our CEO for our

[3:42:19] collective persist persistence, creativity and dedication. We are also

[3:42:24] very grateful to the various county staff and various departments and

[3:42:28] divisions who have made valuable contributions to this work at many

[3:42:32] points along the way. So the work is not over but this is an important line

[3:42:37] milestone. And just so I'm clear, how do I get to the next slide?

[3:42:42] » Just the arrow button up top. Okay, thank you.

[3:42:48] Be helpful. Did I get there? >> Try this one on the end.

[3:42:54] There we go. So, the why our community needs a

[3:42:58] central library and you've heard this story um a few times and the information

[3:43:03] hasn't changed. We are a growing community. We projected out to what our

[3:43:09] community could look like in 2031 and found that the type of space we need,

[3:43:14] what is it we need? Uh we need 26,250 ft. And that's not changed significantly

[3:43:20] in any of the conversations that we've had with you about the space

[3:43:23] requirements that we need. It would be lovely if we had the opportunity to

[3:43:28] project out to 201, but we know that that's not uh a realistic thing to do

[3:43:33] for for anybody to do that. To speak to uh councelor Kyle's comment earlier

[3:43:38] about why didn't we do it sooner, you know, we all would have liked to have

[3:43:43] done everything that we do in life sooner.

[3:43:50] There we go. So, what we envision for a a library is it's modern and it's

[3:43:54] accessible for everyone. The libraries are the one pa place in our community

[3:43:59] where everyone is welcome, no matter who you are, where you come from, or what

[3:44:03] you look like. No money is needed to participate in library services.

[3:44:08] In our design phase, we will ensure the new library remembers our past, reflects

[3:44:13] our present, and is aspirational about tomorrow. We will honor the indigenous

[3:44:18] history of this land. The library is an anchor institution and it belongs to all

[3:44:23] of us.

[3:44:29] A library space should be bright and filled with natural light. There will be

[3:44:33] books of course, but also spaces for families to come together, for children

[3:44:38] and adults to learn, and neighbors and community to connect. The library will

[3:44:43] reflect our world today. There will be elements of high-tech, low tech, and no

[3:44:48] tech. From 3D printers to sewing machines to butterfly watching kits,

[3:44:56] a library for every individual across our community will be accessible in

[3:45:01] every sense of the word. Built for all ages and abilities.

[3:45:07] Oops. Thank you.

[3:45:12] There we go. I'll let Kelly speak to some of the finer details.

[3:45:31] Okay. So, uh what we are presenting to you tonight uh is a high level summary

[3:45:37] of the project plan for this project. Um we are Uh important to remember we are

[3:45:44] not asking council for the entire sum tonight. Let me explain why this budget

[3:45:49] is included. We are committed to full transparency on this project and we

[3:45:53] understand the degree of investment that we're asking the council to make and we

[3:45:59] understand the degree of accountability council will require of us. So the

[3:46:05] estimated project budget that you have in front of you demonstrates our

[3:46:10] understandings of what we can expect the cost for this project to be. And this

[3:46:15] was created uh [clears throat] in consultation with the consultants that

[3:46:19] the library board engaged with a specialized

[3:46:25] quantity surveyor uh and industry professionals who have built libraries

[3:46:30] before. Uh so the budget that you see we have great confidence in uh but we are

[3:46:36] not asking for your approval for the full amount tonight because it needs a

[3:46:41] lot of refining. This is a high level budget because that reflects the stage

[3:46:44] in the process that we're at. So tonight what you'll hear us present and request

[3:46:50] are related to uh phase one of what we're calling phase one of this phased

[3:46:55] plan that we propose to take. Uh before moving on, I'll note that the project,

[3:47:00] the projected budget is $26,838,000.

[3:47:06] Uh that includes construction uh and uh for construction plus a $ 1.5 million

[3:47:12] budget for furniture and equipment uh to bring it to an upset total of $28.3

[3:47:18] million. But again, that is not what we're asking council for tonight. It's

[3:47:22] giving you an idea of what the commitment for this project would look

[3:47:27] like in the long term.

[3:47:33] Uh so speaking of budget, I'll address fun projected funding sources uh as

[3:47:37] well. And again, this is projected based on conversations with finance staff

[3:47:42] based on uh preparations of budgets for previous library plan iterations. Um but

[3:47:49] the projected sources include fundraising, uh some previous frequent

[3:47:54] donations that the library has received, uh possible contributions from the

[3:47:58] library's reserve fund. Uh development charges will account for 46% of the cost

[3:48:04] of this project and that leaves a tax levy of up to 13 thou $13 million uh

[3:48:12] that would typically be debentured over 20 to 25 years.

[3:48:16] You may have noticed that grants are not listed here as a funding source. Uh we

[3:48:22] have researched available grant programs and the sad sad reality is there are no

[3:48:28] grant programs for libraries right now. Not for infrastructure, not for anything

[3:48:32] substantial. Uh our staff will pursue every grant opportunity that comes along

[3:48:38] and even the long shots just to find any possible money that we can. But we have

[3:48:44] to be realistic and accept that grants will not be a reliable source of funding

[3:48:48] for this project. We don't want to pretend otherwise. Our aim is to be

[3:48:52] transparent and as realistic as possible.

[3:48:58] So let me explain the phased approach that we are proposing to take.

[3:49:04] Phase one of the project if approved will be initiation of course property

[3:49:09] acquisition. We'll need a site to build on. uh the site analysis um due

[3:49:14] diligence studies to better understand the site and all of the realities of

[3:49:18] building on that site. Uh we will be looking to hire an architectural firm as

[3:49:23] well as project management firms to uh to conduct uh concept design for the

[3:49:29] project. So concept designs we are asking for council's permission to uh

[3:49:35] authorize the library board to review and approve a concept design. Uh phase

[3:49:40] two again if approved will be planning and planning and detailed design which

[3:49:45] is the engineering specialty consultants the blueprints this is this is the meat

[3:49:49] of uh what would actually get built again if we get there uh that would

[3:49:53] include class budgeting uh site preparation zoning approval like we'd be

[3:49:57] full into the project by then um everything that every step that it would

[3:50:02] take to prepare us for the construction itself which would be phase three uh

[3:50:06] construction site works everything to complete the building. And phase four

[3:50:10] would be opening, commissioning the building, moving in the furniture,

[3:50:14] setting up the equipment, and of course hosting a public grand opening.

[3:50:23] Here's the projected timeline uh that we're working with. Again, pending

[3:50:27] approval, but uh um it uh would start the pre-planning, as Marilyn said,

[3:50:33] started last year, right? We're well into pre-planning. And um tonight we're

[3:50:38] seeking council's approval to move into phase one of the project. So phase one

[3:50:44] uh would be targeted for completion in winter 2027.

[3:50:48] So uh so approvals from phase one will go to the next council for

[3:50:52] consideration. Uh detailed design and construction will take from summer uh

[3:50:57] 2027 to through to summer 2028 approximately 11 months. And uh on this

[3:51:03] timeline from now until finish, we would expect to move in uh to our new library

[3:51:08] at the end of 2028 and open to the public by winter of 2029.

[3:51:17] So again, to clarify and address the recommendations that are in your report,

[3:51:23] what we're asking for tonight is $2.6 6 million and that is to fund further

[3:51:29] study on the site and pending approval uh as well as project management and

[3:51:35] architectural services for concept design. The entire goal of phase one is

[3:51:40] to get us to a refined budget where we can stand in front of you and say with

[3:51:45] confidence that we're requesting approval for x number of dollars. And

[3:51:50] this process, this next process is what will determine whether that eventual

[3:51:54] request would be for $21 million or $26 million. The goal is to reduce the

[3:52:00] contingencies uh to know everything we possibly can about the project when we

[3:52:05] come back to council for approval.

[3:52:10] Uh so between uh Marilyn explaining the overall vision for the library uh and

[3:52:15] the process that we propose to take to get there uh we are both oh sorry

[3:52:21] forgive me. Uh so we're here in this process currently uh we are at this

[3:52:24] stage pending council approval to move into phase one. Um but having summarized

[3:52:30] everything for you Marilyn and I are happy to take questions.

[3:52:34] » Thank you. Are there any questions from council to the delegation? Councelor

[3:52:39] Haley, >> thank you for your presentation.

[3:52:43] [clears throat] Uh, I just wanted to ask you from your report um how you

[3:52:47] calculate the annual economic benefit um on this page. I didn't quite know how

[3:52:53] you calculate it. I see it's broken up, but I didn't quite know how the

[3:52:57] consultant or whoever did it. >> Yeah. So through your worship, councelor

[3:53:02] Haley is referring to the libraries economic impact study, the valuing

[3:53:06] Ontario libraries study that we published for the first time at uh the

[3:53:11] end of 2024, beginning of last year. So what goes into that graphic that you're

[3:53:15] describing, the one that found the value that the library provides to the

[3:53:20] community is based on a thorough methodology developed by academic

[3:53:25] institutions and library associations within the province. So there are

[3:53:29] hundreds of metrics and processes and analyses calculations that go into

[3:53:34] determining that and they are they fall under what the process calls domains but

[3:53:40] it seeks to understand what's the library's cultural value, what's the

[3:53:44] library's entertainment value, what's the library's education value, what are

[3:53:48] we providing in each of those themes to the community. Councelor

[3:53:55] Miller, >> I was wondering if um if Gary

[3:53:58] [clears throat] could get that off there in case Council Pierce might have a

[3:54:01] question. And I have two questions. He doesn't have his hand raised. Uh two

[3:54:06] questions. Uh so three, Mr. Mayor to Kelly, the $1 million that you're um

[3:54:12] projecting in uh donations, um do you believe that's realistic?

[3:54:18] » Um through your worship, we do. We believe that's realistic. Uh I couldn't

[3:54:24] stand up here and say $5 million because that's not realistic. But based on our

[3:54:29] experiences from the pocket center process, based on speaking with

[3:54:33] community members, uh having community members express interest in supporting a

[3:54:37] library financially, we believe that is realistically attainable.

[3:54:41] » Okay. Then the second question, architectural design, 1.5 million. If

[3:54:45] you had guess if I had to guess at how much it costs for architectural design,

[3:54:49] I would have thrown out a4 $50,000 price tag. So obviously I have no clue what

[3:54:54] it's going for these days. Um have you gone you haven't gone to market yet for

[3:54:58] that, have you? You haven't gotten a tender for that.

[3:55:00] » No. Through your worship, that is one of the permissions we're requesting

[3:55:03] tonight. Phase one would authorize the library board to uh to take undertake a

[3:55:08] competitive purchasing process, an RFP to hire for architectural services. And

[3:55:14] I should u you know clarify this would be up to this is our maximum budget. We

[3:55:19] have every hope and we'll make every plan to come in under budget.

[3:55:24] » Okay. That's that's the only two questions I have. Thank you. Councelor

[3:55:28] Councelor Pierce. >> Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So, a question

[3:55:32] in regards to the uh the 450,000 for the project manager because it states in

[3:55:37] there that um that the library board will act as project manager for phase

[3:55:42] one. Um and in your chart there phase four is really the opening. So you don't

[3:55:47] need a project manager for that. So in essence the project manager would just

[3:55:51] be for phase two and phase three. Is that correct?

[3:55:54] » So through your worship uh we'd like the project manager in place in phase one so

[3:55:59] they have a full understanding of the project from the early days and also so

[3:56:04] that person can provide the capacity to coordinate and manage the studies the

[3:56:09] site analysis and due diligence studies. Uh that's work that we don't have the

[3:56:13] capacity for on staff.

[3:56:17] » Okay. So just clarification through you Mr. Mayor. So the library board will not

[3:56:23] be the project manager. It will be a project manager project manager if that

[3:56:27] makes sense for the entire project. >> So through your worship I I apologize

[3:56:32] for any confusion but I can see what you mean. Uh what we're asking for is for

[3:56:36] the library to act as project manager, meaning the library board has the

[3:56:41] authority to undertake certain steps, make certain approvals. Um and uh

[3:56:47] project management for a consulting service that we would hire is much more

[3:56:52] of the day-to-day everything. Although they bear the same name, they're two

[3:56:55] very different spheres of influence. It's um rowing the boat versus steering

[3:57:01] the ship. We've heard that a few times now.

[3:57:05] » Okay. >> Councelor Oakley

[3:57:10] [clears throat] >> through you, Mr. Mayor, to to Kelly.

[3:57:12] Just sort of picking on a thread here from councelor Miller. So, um, you've

[3:57:16] picked a million dollars for sort of the donation goal or fundraising goal. Um,

[3:57:23] now I believe, unless I'm unaware of us changing our policy at some point, I

[3:57:28] believe our policy for countyled projects when they're over a million

[3:57:31] dollars is a 25% fundraising allotment. Now, not stating that I am agreement

[3:57:37] with that policy. I I think largely it's unrealistic um for most projects, but

[3:57:43] just I I I'm curious to hear you address um where if we were following what is

[3:57:48] the county policy that we should be looking somewhere in the range of 56

[3:57:52] million. >> Sure. So through your worship um and as

[3:57:56] council has heard from your own staff in recent years that 25% goal may not be

[3:58:02] realistic or attainable. So we are not suggesting that that would be realistic

[3:58:06] or attainable for this project. Um we are quickly facing a time where the

[3:58:11] community is oversaturated and there are people who will support libraries

[3:58:16] because they support libraries but the uh the more general donor pool who are

[3:58:23] looking to fund causes may very well be tapped out by the time we get to them.

[3:58:27] So um we we would not stop at a million dollars for fundraising. We would

[3:58:32] absolutely continue to try to find more and anything we raise above that would

[3:58:38] be put directly into the project to reduce the other reduce the burden on

[3:58:43] the other funding sources. >> Thank you,

[3:58:45] » Councelor Coleman. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Motion to go past

[3:58:50] the hour 10:00. >> Okay, seeking a second.

[3:58:55] All those in favor? Okay. [clears throat]

[3:59:00] Uh, councelor Bell. >> Thank you, Mr. May. Just to follow up on

[3:59:06] councelor Pierce's question about project management, and I know u

[3:59:10] councelor mccalpine will bear me out on this. Uh, we do not have the experience

[3:59:16] in the library board to actually do the hands-on project management. Neither did

[3:59:20] we have the ability in John Noble home to do the project management, but we

[3:59:25] tried to do it and it and it kind of failed. So ultimately we had to hire a

[3:59:29] project manager and you know the number that we got in there I think it reflects

[3:59:34] the same kind of cost that we've experienced in John Noble home and our

[3:59:40] experience is there are invaluable. So whilst the library board will be

[3:59:45] owners of the project they will not be hands-on managers that just is not the

[3:59:50] skill set we have.

[3:59:54] » Any councelor Haley Yes, I I'm trying to understand um

[4:00:01] uh with this library project, I see

[4:00:04] development charges, but I believe the county it's it would be a county owned

[4:00:10] building. And so why would there be development charges for the county?

[4:00:14] That's what I'm trying to understand. So through your worship, the development

[4:00:18] charge legislation is entirely based on the purpose of the project and libraries

[4:00:23] are one of the purposes that the municipality can collect development

[4:00:27] charges for. So it is perfectly acceptable and quite common for the

[4:00:31] municipality to own a building. As long as it is being built and operated as a

[4:00:36] library, then it is eligible for development charges.

[4:00:43] » Any other questions? Councelor Chambers >> just so sorry I understand the timeline

[4:00:48] the U phase one the initiation initiation phase uh when that's

[4:00:55] completed then the library board will have to come back for additional

[4:01:00] approvals to move forward uh and that will u occurs according to

[4:01:06] the time frame sometime you said next summer

[4:01:10] » through your worship we're anticipating winter Um, we'll stick as close to that

[4:01:16] as we can. >> So, this this winter,

[4:01:19] » yes, winter 2027. >> So, that that is a

[4:01:22] » Forgive me. [laughter] >> Makes a little bit more sense because I

[4:01:25] » And then you move on. Okay, I understand.

[4:01:29] » Any other questions? [clears throat]

[4:01:33] No. Okay. Thank you.

[4:01:37] Thank you. Thank you. Uh, we have this on the floor. We have a seconder. All

[4:01:42] those in favor just to receive this information.

[4:01:45] I'm sorry. >> Oh,

[4:01:49] just a just a minute. Councelor Councelor Pierce.

[4:01:57] » Are you Did you have >> I'm here.

[4:01:59] » Did you have another question? >> Nope.

[4:02:04] » No. Okay. We do have it on the floor, right?

[4:02:10] » For approval. What did I say? >> Oh,

[4:02:16] I'm delirious. I'm delirious. >> Is there is there any other comments

[4:02:22] before we call the vote? All those in favor?

[4:02:27] Opposed and carried. Thank you. Takes us number 16 on the agenda and it's the

[4:02:33] bylaws. Councelor Bell, you have those.

[4:02:40] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh moved by myself and seconded by councelor Chambers that

[4:02:45] bylaws 83-26 to 88-26 and 96-26 to 105-26 be read a first

[4:02:53] time. >> All those in favor of the first reading

[4:02:56] of the bylaws. Second reading, please. Councelor Bell.

[4:03:01] Moved by myself, seconded by councelor Chambers, that bylaws 83-26

[4:03:06] to 88-26 and 96-26 to 105-26

[4:03:12] be read a second time and all preamles and clauses be adopted.

[4:03:16] » Are there any questions to the second reading of the bylaws?

[4:03:21] Seeing none, all those in favor and councelor Bill, if you could do it

[4:03:25] one more time, please. Moved by myself, seconded by councelor Chambers, that

[4:03:30] bylaws 83-26 to 88-26 and 96-26 to 105-26

[4:03:38] be read a third time, passed, signed, and executed.

[4:03:42] » All those in favor of the third reading of the bylaws.

[4:03:47] Thank you. >> [clears throat]

[4:03:49] » Number 17 on the agenda is the next meeting which is

[4:03:55] August the 12th, 2026, 6 o'clock.

[4:04:08] That's a statutory meeting, not a council meeting.

[4:04:12] With that being said, is there anything else for

County of Brant Council

Transcript