everyone and welcome to a meeting of Brent count county council for July the
28th 2026. I have a bit of a sore throat so I'm
going to try to get through this and if I can't get through it someone is going
to come up and finish it off for me. First thing on our agenda today is our
attendance. It's been taken by the clerk and we're all here. Councelor Pierce is
online. I think he's in Mexico. The rest of us are all in here. Um, the land
acknowledgement is the second thing on the agenda and councelor Kyle's going to
do that for us. >> As we gather, we acknowledge that we
meet on the lands and territory of the Missosagas of the Credit First Nation,
six nations of the Grand River and the traditional territory of the Adawander.
We remind ourselves that the county of Brandt is situated on lands that are
full of rich indigenous history and home to many First Nations, Inuit, and Matei
people. Today, we recognize the significance of their contributions to
the past, present, and future of this land. As a county, we have a shared
responsibility for the stewardship of the land on which we live and work, and
a commitment to the truth and reconciliation calls to action. We
commit to continue learning, reflecting on our past, and working in allyship.
» Thanks, Councelor Kyle. Uh, the third thing on our agenda is the agenda itself
with an addendum. Is there anything else the council wants to put on the agenda?
No. >> Councelor Kyle.
» Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Uh, not an addition to the agenda, but wondering if we could
bring uh the communications uh related to the CPPS ahead of the uh discussion
on the CPPS. So, that would be I think it's 10.5.
» Yeah. Thank you. Hey, Councelor Miller. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Um, if you look at uh
item number, and just bear with me for a second here,
103, and that's a new central library project
plan. I'm just wondering, um, should that item not come after the in camera
item of 151? To me, it makes sense it should.
Okay, everybody's okay with that? Doesn't really matter to me. It does
make more sense. >> Yeah, because there's I have questions
about that, but I I think I'd I'd like to ask. Anyways, what I would suggest
and uh it's up to you obviously, but uh is maybe move 103 to the after camera.
Um >> Okay.
» And >> anybody else?
Okay. We're going to vote on the agenda as it's amended with its addendum. All
those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
The next [clears throat] thing on the agenda is the declaration of pecinary
interest. Does anyone see any that are obvious? Councelor Miller,
» I got uh one item on I'll pull it when we get to it, but that's from the admin
and OP meeting. >> Okay.
Anyone else have any pecunary interest? Seeing none. Okay. We'll go on to number
five, which is our delegations. And we have a couple of them. The first one is
from the Paris Legion. It's going to be Barry and Cheryl are going to come up
and speak
and you have 10 minutes. And uh if you can just give us your full
names, please and and uh we we understand that you're representing the
Paris Legion. >> You bet. I'm my name is Barry Humphrey.
I'm the president of Legion 21 in Paris. And uh this is my wife. She's on the
committee for uh with the anniversary of raising funds for our anniversary uh
which is coming up. October 7th, 1926 was when we uh signed the charter and
we've been doing fundraisings for our 100th anniversary. Uh music events,
barbecues, high tees, Mother's Day brunches, and uh we're going to have a
September 28th October 2 open house, the invitation to schools and public. The
theme is women on the home front. stitches, steel, and strength, holding
the line at home, women's and World War II. Uh the contributors were Paris
Museum, Canadian Military, uh Museums, uh the Paris Library, the
Paris Legion Archives, and the general public. I'm going to turn this over to
Cheryl, and I'll let her talk about some more issues that we're doing at the
Legion.
I'm shorter. I got to adjust. With the 100th anniversary, we've plined
many of fundraising events. We've done barbecues, Mother's Day, um, uh, brunch.
We've done high tea, and, uh, we've worked very hard to raise funds. Uh,
some of these funds will be used to, uh, improve some of the facilities at the
Legion as well as help us with some celebrations. Our October uh open house
is going to be an invite to schools and the open public. We'll have all kinds of
displays out there indicating what the women in Paris as well as in Ontario,
what they did during the World War II. Many, many things of interest that
everybody should come out and see. Part of our celebration also has been the
Poppy Project. But I'm going to first show the picture. I think that you're
going to have to. So, this is a fiber art picture. It means it's all made of
fabric and we have a very talented lady who has donated two pictures to our
Legion. The first one will find its permanent home there, but this one is a
fundraising effect or event. Um, it's fiber, meaning that it's all fabric
stitched down. Uh Donna Visure Campbell, who is a local um um resident, has been
very um strong in producing pictures like this, and she does sell them, but
she has donated two of these to us us for one for fundraising and one for a
commemoration for our 100th anniversary. It's a fragile event, so we say I'm
fragile. Please don't pet me. But that's your first inclination is to go up and
touch it because you can't believe that it's not paint.
The project that I'm really uh involved in is the Poppy project.
So I'm you may have seen this project up in different areas. Cambridge did a big
display. The Tower of London did a really big one. So we're up there with
the big wigs. But this uh we went to the community and this has become a very
social and inclusive event. So Mary Maxum Cheler Place Queens View
Brandt Seniors Women's Institute Probus Adelide Hunter Hoodless Paris
Agricultural Society and the general public have come together to crochet or
knit these poppies. Most of the people donated their time, effort, and money to
do that. And now we have collected 11,000 poppies.
What do we do with them? We're going to put them on netting. So, we'll need to
purchase netting to do that. Um, the goal is to get as many done as we can,
but if we don't, we still have next year to work on that project. But where will
we put them? We're concerned about the fact that we would like to put them in
places that really show the respect, remembrance, uh, and reverence that we
would like to to send out to our veterans. So, we're going to try to get
them at the Senate. We will, um, also put them on our smokehouse, which is the
name for our Legion building. And, uh, if there are other areas in the
community, we will definitely do that. We will share some of these with Telford
Place and with Queens View because they were so in in uh helpful in in getting
this project going. So, our fundraising for the poppies has
been minimal because most people have donated so much, but now it's time to
buy netting and to buy equipment to help uh
attach the poppies to buildings and that. So, we are looking for a little
bit of help in that area that perhaps we could um get some kind of a
» money >> money. We like money, but if we could
get some type of uh funding for uh for this event, that would be lovely. Uh the
uh poppies can go up the last Friday of October and they're up until the end of
Remembrance Day. When they come down, we have a a bit of a logistics. We have to
find a place to dry them because they could be very wet. So, we have to do
that. And then we're also looking for places to store them. But we've put out
an appeal to the community and we have lots of totes that are coming in and
people are donating totes to help us with that event, that part. So, tomorrow
night we are having a um Poppy B at the Legion. So, I believe
Lucas has thrown out a challenge to everyone here to come out and help him
because he was there last week. Is that true, Lucas?
» Through the mayor. Yes. [laughter]
» Anyways, if you can come out and help us in any way, that would be lovely. It's a
very social event. There's lots of chatter. There's lots of fun. So, uh if
you could come out, that would be great. So, that's what our um Have I got my 10
minutes still? Am I good? >> Okay. Three seconds. Three minutes.
Okay. Um uh so if you can come out and help us in any way, that would be great.
This is a these poppies will be used year after year. It's not a one-time
deal just for our 100th anniversary. So, we will put them out on display in the
community. And I think that the people who have been very much a part of this
will be very they'll be very grateful to see them up
there. And I think that they will be very um I think they'll be emotionally
uh charged with this as well too. So we have a huge uh amount of veterans in our
area and this is just one way for us to help celebrate that and to remember them
by. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. Can I get a motion to so we
can talk about this? Councelor House, Councelor Coleman. Uh does council have
any questions to the delegation? Councelor Haley.
» Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I don't know if you're going to be
including the farmers. They >> Yes,
» they have a film and they were here speaking uh two times I think in Brank
County in Onadega and then at Langford Schoolhouse. So,
» they will be here. Um the Farmerettes were a group of uh young women who if
they had great marks at Christmas time would not have to write exams in the
spring and they could go out and work on the farms. And so uh the farmers are
also having a display at the Paris Museum on September the 27th. So they
will have uh information about that and I have met women around here who are
farmerrettes. So it's really interesting to see that.
» Any other questions? Okay. Thank you for your delegation.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
Which is going to take us to Oh, I'm sorry. I need a motion to
[clears throat] motion to receive the delegation's information. All those in
favor? Opposed? It's carried. Something went
wrong there, but we'll catch up. Randy Mason, you're next.
Come on up.
[snorts]
And if you could just give us your name, please, and your address for the clerk.
» Uh, my name is Randy Mason. I live on 16 Mount Elgen Street in Paris.
» Thank you.
» Um, never done one of these before. I was told uh I didn't need anything on
paper or anything, but um one thing that's been uh bothering me
a little bit is the uh um dog licensing regulations
[snorts] of uh Paris or Brandt um in so much that
um we charge more for a license for an unfixed
animal.
And this uh
increase in the charge is about 35% over a fixed animal.
I'm wondering whether or not this um
is still uh necessary to do. Um maybe 50 years ago when I was living
over on the flats and everybody let their dog run free.
Um it might have been a relatively good idea to have people pay a little bit
more to if they didn't have their animal fixed in order to um
uh I guess control the pet population a little bit easier.
Um,
I have a dog myself. I was going to bring
her, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed or not. Um, she has just turned five
years old. I waited until she was 4 and a half
years old and I finally had her spayed.
Um, I have not been really sold on whether
or not spaying an animal or neutering an animal [clears throat]
actually um
does good or more harm. Several cancers have been linked to
female dogs that are not fixed and several cancers have been linked to dogs
that are fixed. Um, I had another dog that I did not get
fixed and uh, she died two years ago and I'm
sure it was some form of cancer. So, I made a mistake there. But I believe that
it should be a choice of the dog owners now as to whether or not they actually
spay or neuter their animals. Um, we are a lot more respectable
citizens these days, at least most of us, except for those of us who
stop and stoop and pick up their animals stuff
and a plastic bag and get a half a half a block down the street and they're sort
of looking around like this and then it gets tossed.
That's probably worse than not picking it up at all. At least the rain would
dissolve it. Plastic bags are going to be there until somebody picks them up.
But anyway, I would like to propose that we um amend the dog licensing. Am I on a
timer? >> Sorry.
» You're okay. [laughter]
Um, I would like to propose uh uh that we an amendment that we make an
amendment to the dog licensing um fees and charge each dog as an
individual and an equal to the next dog. Um I think if we most people who are
going to have a litter of dogs today
plan it and therefore if it is planned
maybe it is easier or better to attach a small fee to
someone who is allowing their animal to have a litter of pups instead of
charging um the people who just choose not to
spay their animal because in their minds
it's better not to spay them. And that's why it took me four and a
half years to decide to do it. and I finally decided that
um I was going to take uh my vets's uh uh information and uh I had Tilly
spayed. Now, the other thing I wanted to mention
was the fact that um in order to have her spade cost me $625.
Now, if my only choice or my only concern was that I had to pay a higher
fee for an unfixed dog over about 12 years, the additional cost in licensing
comes to about a little over $200. So, I would be a lot better off if I did not
have my dog spayed at all and just paid the extra fee.
Um
and I think that's all I have to say. just uh to uh have the uh council
consider changing their uh fee schedules and
maybe charge people who have a litter of puppies. Uh have them pay a
a modest fee for having a litter of puppies.
um rather than charge the person who just chooses not to spay their animal.
I thank you for your time. >> Oh, thank you. Thank you. Can I get a
mover, please, to get on the floor? Councelor House. Second, please.
Councelor McCalpine. Any comments or questions for the
delegation?
So, so you tonight isn't the night that we would deal with that, but we can take
it back and have it looked at and uh get a report. And if you can just sign the
paper that's on the podium at the back, we'll keep you in the loop as to what
what discussion goes on after after tonight.
» I have one more question. >> Absolutely.
» Um not to offend anyone. >> Can you can you speak to the microphone
so that councelor >> Sorry. Not to offend anyone.
Um, but I've uh been a residence of Paris my whole life. I was born at the
Willlet Hospital, lived over in the flats most of my life. My mom still
lives out in the far end of Willow Street.
Um,
I thought I was the only one that was dumb enough to uh crawl across that
train bridge from underneath.
Um but uh several months ago I run into a
young lady who said, "Oh yeah, we did that last summer."
And when I did it I was 15. Well, now I'm 70
and it's probably one of the more dangerous things I ever did in my life.
Um because when you start crawling underneath that bridge and you look down
and there's nothing between you and 200 ft of water except for air,
um we may want to uh double check to make sure that that bridge is somewhat
more sealed off than it was years ago. One of the abupments actually has an
iron um ladder that goes from the top of the
abupman up to the railway tracks and I pushed the flap door open and
stuck my head out and there's a darn train coming. So I had to get down in a
big hurry. But it is uh something of concern. My next my other question if I
have another second. it is. Um, this is where I hope not to offend
anyone, but um, if
I was to contact
certain officials or councilman about a question that I may have,
approximately how much time should I wait for a response?
that that depends on what ward you're you're in and who your counselor is.
[clears throat] So, we'll just leave it like that. And uh because I mean you you
some questions are answered quickly, some take time to be researched. So, I
don't want to start using council members and and and [clears throat]
calling them out by name. >> No, I don't mean to call anyone out
either. Uh, I'm very sorry, but four and a half years ago,
I found myself within weeks of being homeless
in Paris here due to un
unforeseen things that happen in life.
And I think I've waited four and a half
years too long for an answer. Um, same as with this dog issue, I also
asked my counselors what direction I should take
and uh, three months has gone by and I end up here because I haven't got an
answer. >> Well,
» um, is that [clears throat] is that normal procedure or
» No, it's not. We have our bylaw man here. He's listening to your he's going
to get back to you much sooner uh than three months.
» Oh, >> but I we really do need your information
at the back so that we have your email address and things like that.
» Okay. I do allow you I do thank you very very much for allowing me to speak and
uh listening. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Randy.
[clears throat] Okay, so we have it on the floor.
There's no other questions. I I want uh we're going to vote to receive as
information, please. All those in favor? Opposed? Carried. Teresa and Denise,
you're up next.
Two very dangerous sisters.
[laughter]
» You can just give us your full name, please. Uh Teresa Manning for me of
Paris many years ago. >> Thank you. Denise
[snorts] >> Denise Hagert 61 Bradberry Crescent.
» Thank you. >> We're good now.
» You're good. >> Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members
of council, and guests. Is that loud enough for you?
» Yeah. >> My name is Teresa Manning. I was born
and raised in the town of Paris, a place that will always hold a special place in
my heart. My younger sister Alisa and I were both both born at Willlet Hospital
and Paris will always be home to our family. As the town continues to grow,
I've noticed many new streets being named after families who helped build
and shape our community. Having grown up on Bfield Street, I recognized many of
those names, and it inspired me to make this heartfelt request. I respectfully
asked council to consider naming a street Zel in honor of my parents
Michael and Mary Zel. My parents moved to Paris in 1950.
My father always believed that if you wanted to be part of a community, you
should get involved. And he lived by those words. My father was also a proud
war World War II veteran who answered the call to serve his country. His
military service is permanently recognized on the Paris Veterans
Memorial Map, honoring his service and sacrifice during World War II, along
with his decades of service to the community, his dedication to both his
country and his hometown as a legacy that continues to inspire our family.
For 40 years, our father managed Matart Building Supplies. There's a name you
might not remember. Maybe some of you do. um now known as a home building
center. In [clears throat] the days before Sunday shopping, if customers
needed supplies, Dad would gladly open the store, help them, and simply tell
them to pay him on Monday. That kind of trust, generosity, and community spirit
to find who he was. Beyond his career, he was deeply involved in this
community. He was an active member of the United Church, the Paris Lions Club,
the Board of Trade, and the Masonic Lodge, where he served as pastmaster. He
taught public speaking and volunteered as a judge for student competitions at
the old Central School, if anybody remembers that great place. And after
retiring, coordinated the Christmas hampers for the Salvation Army. our
mother, Mary Zelle, who was equally dedicated to our community. Along with
several other women, she helped establish the Lady Lions in 1954.
She was an enthusiastic curler, an avid bowler, and always brought warmth,
kindness, and laughter to everyone she met. My parents were caring, loving, and
supportive. They were respected members of this community who devoted countless
hours to making Paris a better place. Their generosity, compassion, and
willingness to help others. Oh boy.
You can do it. Left a lasting impression on everyone who knew them. My sister
Denise Hagar still resides in Paris and her family's connection to this
wonderful community remains as strong as ever.
It would mean a great deal to our family if council would recognize their legacy
by naming a street zel. I don't care if you name a crescent, a boulevard,
» a [laughter] parkway, >> a parkway, but we really appreciate you
would consider. It's an easy name to spell.
Thank you for considering my request. I sincerely appreciate your time and look
forward to your response. Thank you. >> You if I can get a motion, please, to
get this on the floor to Councelor House and Councelor Bell. Um, there is a
process for this. Uh, and and uh there there's there's two ways this could
happen. We could do it with a poppy for your father or if you wanted to do it
for your for your mother, too, we could just do the the last name and and
hopefully we could still get it onto the veterans piece of it. So, we'll be in
touch with you to the pro on the pro >> Can I tell you that? We we'll get back
to you on the process and uh I I thank you for for bringing this to our
attention because it's important and uh I I think it's a wonderful thing. Does
council have anything to add to to these two sisters before we we release them
back into the public? [laughter] >> No.
» That's dangerous, right? >> Well, that was easy.
[clears throat] >> Yeah. So, we're we're going to give
direction to staff to bring a report back. And again, if we can if we can
have you sign the back with your email so we can keep you in the loop, that's
great. Did I call the vote already? No. Call the vote to receive.
Thank you.
Takes us to 5.4 on the agenda, which is Grand Paris Grand Estates.
Who do Who do we have coming up here? Can we get on the floor, please,
council? Thank you, Councelor Oakley. Councelor McCalpine, and again, you have
10 minutes, please, if you could just give us your full name and who you
represent for the clerk.
Uh, good evening, Mayor Bailey and members of council. My name is Alex
Lusty. I'm a lawyer at Davies How LLP and I'm here tonight appearing for Paris
Grand Estates Incorporated. And they have a a piece of property out on the
northeast side of Paris. And I'll just try to pull it up on screen here so
everyone can see where that is. just a quick reference for you.
And um they're the developer of the Paris Grand subdivision depicted on
screen there. And I have one request tonight and that's to please remove this
subdivision from the CPP framework. Doing that will simplify the buildout of
the subdivision and will not delay implementation of the new framework. So
I'm going to explain why we're making that request.
Fundamentally, the CPP framework is unclear when it comes to transition.
What do I mean by that? Well, there's two contradictory ideas in the
framework. The first concept is a discretionary transition for a limited
period of time. And the second is a permissible transition until project
completion. And I I can't figure out which one applies. So the first concept
is based on the wording of section 1.18.5
which makes it clear that the application of zoning bylaw 6116
may be relied on. That is no guarantee that past provisions will apply. It's
just a possibility that they might. So if zoning bylaw 6116 applies and you're
lucky enough, it can apply until buildout.
But that's only if buildout takes less than 5 years because after that time the
transition provisions are somehow automatically removed from the bylaw and
you can't rely on them anymore. Um there's no guidance in the transition
provisions about what to do if the CPP bylaw has new standards that frustrate a
proposal.
That can come down. Um, so when you take that framework
along with the comments from staff that they don't support excluding the
subdivision, the concern is that the transition might not be available when
it's needed. So that's one framework. The second is a concept based on section
119.3 of the bylaw and the response later in
the response we received on July 9th. And the July 9th response sums it up
pretty well. It says draft approved subdivisions may continue to rely on
sight specific zoning and applicable provisions of former zoning bylaw 6116
until full bu buildout. The use of may rather than shall provides flexibility
to use either existing standards or the new CPP standards where they may provide
additional flexibility to a property owner. So under this framework, the pass
zoning applies to the subdivision's complete, but at best that just creates
a contradiction. So like I said, it's it's impossible to know which one
applies, and that's not a rational solution. And so a solution is needed to
that, which is why I've prepared this alternative motion for you for number
10.1 on the agenda that will exclude the Paris Grand subdivision lands. That's
what all the underlining does and that's about it.
So why this motion? Well, I'll tell you is because it conforms with the official
plan and the one in the agenda doesn't. So it might be said that these lands
need to come into the CPP framework because the 2023 official plan, the new
one, provides for that method of implementation.
Let's look at that a little deeper. You've got to remember that this
subdivision was made and approved under the 2012 official plan.
And that's important because of what section 1.5 and part one of your
official plan says. And it says development applications submitted and
deemed complete through a planning act application
prior to provincial approval of this plan and uh subsequent development
applications implementing such development applications like this
subdivision shall be reviewed and this is the key part under the policies of
the 2012 county of Brandt official plan. So the current official plan is clear
that it doesn't apply to these lands, right? And that means that passing the
bylaw as is creates a a compliance problem with section 24 of the planning
act because that section of the planning act requires your bylaws to conform with
the official plan and your official plan says don't apply the new official plan
to this property. So that's one problem. The other is a CPP regulation basically
requires the same thing. Requires you to have an official plan that places these
lands in a CPP area and that's not happening. So if the CPP framework
proceeds as proposed to sum it up, it's contrary to the new official plan. It's
contrary to the planning act and it's contrary to the CPP regulation.
So, let's just say that one of the concerns with what we're asking for is
that it leads to a dual compliance scenario. And that's a resource issue. I
get it. And basically what it requires is review under the old zoning bylaw and
a review under the new CPP framework. And you got to go through all the
numbers and it takes a lot of time and no one wants to do double the amount of
work. And I get that. But let's assume we're in a scenario where it's the
properties transitioned and we've got that scenario where the
lesser standard applies. In order to figure out which is the
lesser standard, you have to go through both and run a comparison anyway. So
you're going through a dual review process if transition applies the way
it's intended to. And that means more work and not less. And to be very clear,
what we're proposing by removing the subdivision is to clean that up. You
just apply the existing zoning under 6116 like it's meant to be applied in
conformity with your official plan. So,
this subdivision process has been going on for about a decade.
And these processes don't change on a dime.
We're working through a phased buildout of about 750 homes. Um, roads have been
built. Municipal services have been constructed
and all of that is in reliance on the existing framework. That's what has been
used so far. And though it may not be intended, what the CPP framework risks
is destabilizing that prior approval framework.
So to avoid complications, we're proposing a simple solution of
removing the subdivision from the CPP framework. Doing so will ensure that at
least for this property, it conforms with the new official plan, doesn't
contravene the planning act, and it doesn't contravene the CPP regulation
under the planning act. So I'd suggest to you that under the
current circumstances the correct action is to remove these properties from the
CPP framework and that's why we prepared this alternative motion um number 10.1
and there's a bunch of underlining that's all the additional stuff and what
that does is take the Paris grand lands out nothing more that's all it's
supposed to do um so that's all I had intended to say this evening. Thank you.
» Thank you. Questions to the presenter. Councelor Miller, you're first.
» Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Three to the presenter. Just to be clear, um yeah,
you read staff's response obviously. Um and there was I guess staying in it
gives you flexibility, but you're saying you don't want that cut carve you out
and you'll be happy. Is that fair? >> That's a great summary. Yes.
» Okay. Um then uh Mr. Mayor um when when we uh
move to receive maybe we can refer it to 101 as well.
» Any other questions? >> Okay. So we will make a motion to
receive and send to staff or send [clears throat] it to staff. Councelor,
» we don't have to send it to staff, Mr. R. We just have to refer it to 101 when
that comes up for discussion. >> All right.
» Any other questions? All those in favor,
we're just sending it on. Thank you.
[clears throat] 5.5 has been withdrawn. 5.6 has been withdrawn.
5.7 is Robert Hamilton, Mark Eddie, and who else?
Just you. Okay,
we get a motion to get it on the floor, please. A mover. Councelor Coleman and
Councelor Kyle. >> Thank you.
And again, you have 10 minutes. Please, if you can just give us your full name
and your address, please, for the clerk,
» Mark Eddie, 47 Kitchen School Road. >> Thank you.
Bob Hamilton, 193 Brandt County Road 18. >> Thank you.
» Um, good evening, uh, Mr. Mayor and the Brandt County Counselors. Uh, we
represent the Brand County Federation of Agriculture, and we would like to state
our position on the topic of the new CPPS
uh, process that's being uh, looked at today. A letter was circulated to all
the counselors and the mayor two weeks ago uh on July the 17th which by the way
is not listed in the CPP correspondence in section 11 today but everybody I
believe received it. Uh at the same time we received a response from Brandon on
the questions and the comments uh from the planning department and their
position and we thank you for that.
But we still have some talking points that we want to make sure that the
council is aware of and concerns that uh we would like you to think about as you
get ready to vote. applying for the CPP countywide.
We feel that the CPPs can work well in the settlement areas to help speed up
the processes of the minor variances in the towns and villages where growth has
been determined. Agricultural and rural designations
are large are not a large growth area but more a land preservation option to
ensure society has enough um land to grow the food for itself and for farms
to be profitable as they grow and prosper throughout Brat County.
This brings us up with one of our our problems on for agricultural land is the
lack of agricultural knowledge and experience of the junior planners
uh that have just graduated in the last couple years and are still learning
what their jobs are. These planners have authority though
under the new CPPS uh to choose whether they wish to handle
an application under class one or class two and that's looked after by the
planning department or if they wish to um
involve a class three and which council would then have input on that that
situation or or uh application. So these are just some things there from
an experienced perspective that uh we don't feel comfortable with.
Uh, another question we have is why is Brandt County the only municipality in
Ontario to convert completely to the CPS CPPS
system when large cities and other counties have taken a more structured
introduction to implementing the CPPs in a limited area to see how it works
from time to time before going complete with the whole thing.
We also would like to uh make sure that uh the planning department uses the
agricultural advisory committee uh as they can help these young planners
uh if they are asked the options and com and comments on applications that
concern agriculture. There has been limited number of
meetings of the agricultural advisory committee this past year. And how does
planning work with the advisory committee
uh to give for them to get egg input and still give the applicants a response
within the 25day framework that they're proposing.
So meeting once every once every four months or three months, pardon me. But
uh having getting back to individuals within less than a month means that that
input and that all that experience from the a advisory may not be utilized to
its fullest.
We also uh have a concern about the notification of the CPPs
applicants to neighbors. Notification of new developments will
only be posted on the website during pre-conlation
with the planning department. My question is, how many Brandt County
citizens look at that website weekly to determine
if any building is going on near their homes or businesses.
At least with the old uh system, anybody within 60 mters uh currently under the
bylaws 6116 are aware of new developments
in an area prior to the approval.
My other question for that on the uh notification is what are the options to
be heard if you miss the notification of the
website and do neighbors have any recourse to be
heard after the fact of a decision being made? With that,
is the same said for council when a class one and two application has been
approved? Do they have any recourse to check with planning if there are
concerns? We at the Brandt County Federation of
Agriculture would like to see a phased in CPPs system for agriculture and rural
areas in the county after a couple of years of usage in the
settlement areas. It could be applied to egg and rural uh
rural designated lands if successful. Thank you from the Federation of Brian
County Agriculture.
Mark, [clears throat] do you want to speak too?
» Yeah. >> There's three minutes left, so I'm going
to ask council to give you an extended time.
» I don't need much time. >> All right.
» Um, so I just want to echo my concern from the Grand County Federation of
Agriculture. Um, we understand that planners and
technical staff are often not farmers. They're not agricultural experts, which
may be a weak point. uh municipal staff uh turnover has been
very high. Um the careful consideration of an egg advisory committee input will
be critical if you move forward with this. I just wanted to add that to what
Bob said. >> Thank you. Council questions for the
delegation. Councelor Miller.
» Thank you, Miss Mr. Mayor. [clears throat] Um Bob, I trust you're
going to put in your your resume to the planning department. Help help them out.
Um that was a really good presentation. You had a lot of good information, but
it sounds like what you're looking for is a carve out, not unlike what Paris
Estates was looking for earlier for um anything that's not a settlement area.
Is that correct? >> Uh
» for two years, give or take. >> Yes. Yes. And and I think it has been uh
put forward by the planning department. they're going to evaluate and try to
make sure everybody's aware of how the system is working. Uh we're just saying
we'd like not to be in that part of it while it's being utilized throughout the
uh town of Paris, uh Berford, St. George, or even some of the smaller
villages where there's uh settlement areas that have already been designated
and approved under the official plan. >> Okay. Just want to be clear on that.
Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Haley.
» Thank you for your presentation. Very well done. Um, I spoke with the uh
senior planner today about this and I just need to understand um appeals
because I understand um if there's an application on agricultural land right
now and if we say no uh I you can go to the OOLT but I believe with the CPPS
uh you don't. So I think my question is more directed to the senior planner
related to your question >> Brandon
» uh through the mayor. So that that is correct. Under this new system, the way
that it will be structured is that amendments to the bylaw cannot be made
within the first 5 years and that cannot be appealed to the OOLT. So if someone
comes in with a request, as you've given an example, on agricultural land for a
non-aggricultural use, it would require an amendment to the bylaw and no
amendment can be made. That is not the process that is in place today. That can
be appealed to the OOLT under the current zoning bylaw.
» Councelor Haley, >> just as a followup, I I didn't know that
information, but um um I find that a useful tool that you
that it cannot be appealed if if we say no or if if staff say no to development
on agricultural land, at least somebody doesn't run to the OOLT. That's
something that I just learned today. Councelor
Bell. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. May. Probably a
question for Brandon related to this this commentary. H how many applications
as a percentage of the total do we get from the agricultural area
» through the mayor? What I could do, I don't have that off hand. We do have
that information. Um, I can look that up for and follow up during the the CPF's
conversation if if that's all right. um as a high level percentage I would I
would say um at least with with consents consideration in it with CFA and minor
variances is probably 50/50 and so that is um I guess one thing
maybe I would add here and we can talk about this a bit more during the CPS
conversation but when we first actually started this project we did contemplate
a pilot project and the pilot project we were contemplating was the rural area um
it's a bit of a lowerhanging fruit. It's a bit simpler to to apply some of those
standards. Um and as councelor Haley has pointed out, there's some opportunity
for more protective measures with the CPPs that we saw would be a very um
crucial benefit to the rural area. >> Just a related question, Mr. Mayor, if I
may, again for Brandon, um what is the relative complexity of the agricultural
applications compared to those from the urban area?
» Uh through the mayor, the complexity of those we would say
given that they generally end up with CFA, they're minor in nature. Um, and
with that in mind that those would be considered the kind of class two
applications under the CPPs, which would be um delegated to staff. But just a
note on that, it's not an isolated staff member making a decision. It's the
entire department division looking at things um and it goes through kind of a
chain of command that way. We would also have the opportunity to have that
agricultural input through the agricultural advisory committee. Um and
if need be down in the future um we could always budget for for additional
review um for an agricultural specialist. Um so just to consider that
those minor kind of applications would still have that wholesome review um and
they wouldn't be decided upon in isolation. Just to make that point.
» So just one very final comment if I may. Uh my understanding having read um the
CPPS and having conversations with yourself is that the system that we're
proposing actually simplifies the approach that needs to be taken
» through the mayor. That is correct. It's new so it seems confusing but it is a
simpler approach. >> Councelor Haley
» through you. Um so I just wonder if we're able to answer um the deleg de
delegation's questions about uh agricultural impact assessment and
notification and time frame consultation with agriculture advisory committee.
When when could we answer those questions for them being as we are
voting on it tonight? Is that a question for the senior
planner or
» there's a there's a letter in your communications that answers that.
» Okay. >> Yeah.
» And and uh so then as a followup, do you feel that the letter has addressed your
concerns?
There were uh several comments made that were very nebulous uh loose and not
speci specific and uh it could have been and I'm not
sure that and I could be wrong on this that all the uh potential new bylaws
under the CPP has been created for all the situations or are they still working
on those. I It's unclear because nothing was ever uh been provided that way.
» Okay. And just as a followup because we we need some of these answers because we
vote tonight. So I don't know if there's any more response that we could get from
the senior planner on this uh to help us uh with anything that's the gaps that
that uh the delegation has. >> There's good there's going to be an
opportunity. later. Councelor Chambers, m
» Mr. Mayor, I'm getting a little bit confused on the process here. We have a
delegation that presents information and we it's important that we understand
what the delegation is saying, but to start asking questions of staff and
discussing the issue of the CCPS is a little bit beyond what we're supposed to
be doing with regard to the delegation. you have a delegation standing there
while counselors are asking staff questions which I think is unfair to the
delegation. So I would encourage my colleagues to not debate the issue of
CCPS but understand and ask questions of the presentation and then when they're
finished the presentation then we can debate and discuss ask questions on the
C PPS. So just procedurally I think it's confusing to uh start going beyond what
the delegations are are trying to >> especially since it is on the agenda
coming up shortly for so anyway we're done. We're going to go information
councelor Miller >> make a motion to receive and to uh I
would like to refer this one as well to 10.1.
» Thank you all those in favor. >> Thank you.
» Thank you. Thank you. >> Takes us to number six on the agenda,
which is the adoption of the minutes from previous meetings. Uh we're going
to do them all at the same time. Councelor Mccalpine.
» Okay. Moved by myself and seconded by Councelor Bell that the following
minutes be approved. County of Brandt Council Minutes of June 23rd, 2026.
County of Brand Special Council Minutes of July 6, 2026. County of Brand Special
Council Minutes of July 7th, 2026. County of Branch special counsel minutes
of July 10th, 2026.
» All those in favor?
Is there any business arising? >> Is there any business arising from any
of those minutes?
Seeing none, we'll go to consent items. We have uh 8.1, please. I need a mover
to get on the table. Councelor Coleman and Councelor Oakley.
Everyone's clear on what it is. The bridge.
There's two of them. There's 8.11 and there's 8.12. Councelor Miller.
» Question on 812. Uh Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah.
» Um that study for paraces. Um, we're looking at awarding it uh to Dylan
Consulting. What's What's the time frame? Do we have something for that? It
might be in the report, but I read it like 4 days ago. So,
» who has that, Brandon? >> Uh, through the mayor. Yes, thank you
for that question. Um, right now we're anticipating a year and a half um as the
time frame for for some final reporting. >> Okay. Um, yeah, hopefully that keeps us
out of trouble on other fronts. So, thank you. Thank you, Brad. Yeah,
councelor Pierce.
» Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I guess my my question here in that with that
year and a half being stated, um does that suggest that any um anything that
might come in within that time span would be deemed premature for that area?
» Through the mayor, that will depend which system we are under. Under the
community planning permit system, we do have stronger tools for that. Um, under
the current system, prematurity is only applicable to plans of subdivision under
the planning act.
» Okay. >> Unfortunate.
» Any other questions, concerns?
We're voting on both 8.1 and 8.1.2. Same mover, same seconder. All those in
favor? opposed. Carried. 8.2 consent items to
be received. There's 20 of them and I'm sure we're not going to be
voting on them all at the same time. Does anyone want any of the 20 pulled?
Councelor Miller. >> Um, I'll I'll pull uh the last one. Uh,
GRCA transition committee. >> 8.2.20.
Councelor Haley. >> Uh, 8.2.5.
» 8.2.5. Anyone? Councelor Bell?
» 8.2.1, please. >> 0.1.
» Yes, please. >> Anyone else?
We're going to vote on everything. Oh, I'm sorry, Councelor Pierce.
» Um, thank you. Uh, the library minutes from May 27th. I'm just trying I've just
got one screen here. My apologies. I'm just trying to see what number it is.
» It's 8.2.3. >> Thank you.
» So, we're going to vote on everything but 8.2.1,
8.2.3, 8.2.5. 2.5 and 8.2.20. All those in favor to receive
opposed and carried. And we're going to go back to 8.2.1
first, please. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. M. It's the asset
management plan update. Um, it caused me to look back at some of the other
documentation we had a year ago. I looked at the report from July 2025 on
asset management financial strategy. And in that strategy, it assumes a growth of
1 assessment growth of 1.7%. And I think just a couple of weeks ago, we had a
report from finance which indicated that the average assessment growth was 4%
which is actually good news. Uh and my question then is will we get an update
of this asset management financial strategy ahead of the next budget?
» Heather, >> through the mayor. Uh the next uh update
to the asset management plan will be um worked through as part of the update to
the long-term financial plan. Um as we'll have like a smaller update to the
AM financial plan as part of that >> 8.2.3 [clears throat]
that's the light councelor Pierce that's the library board minutes that you're
asking. >> Yep. Thank you Mr. Mayor. So I'm curious
here uh bear with me two seconds here. Uh so within the business arising from
that meeting uh it says uh when it talked about uh uh the new website
development the successful RFP application was Muga a British Columbia
based firm. Um is there nothing in Ontario that uh that does the same
thing? I'm curious about that. And then uh when it talked about uh uh the next
paragraph when it talks about the extended hours for the um municipal
election night, it said the library will absorb the one-time increase to expand
services on the election day. I'm curious as to what the cost is on that.
And then also on the next page, Mr. Mayor, if I could when it talks about
the the issues at the Berford branch uh for the the issues on the septic
failure, is that the same septic that the county office uses there? I'd like a
little more information on that if I could as to uh was that split from the
county and the library or was that solely the library? If I could get more
info, please. >> Thank you. Who's going to speak to the
minutes of the first library board?
Kelly, do you want to come up? You have the answer. The answers for councelor
Pierce. >> Yep. Come on up.
» There was I guess there was three questions. You remember?
» Yes, I think so. >> Yeah, I can repeat them if you wish, Mr.
Mayor. >> Pardon me.
» I can repeat the questions if you wish. I think Kelly's got them down.
» Perfect. >> Okay. Through the mayor to councelor
Pierce. Your first question was about the award of our website development
contract to Mugo. Uh we uh yes, we undertook a competitive purchasing
process for that that included an RFP and received applications from across
the country. uh Mugo was selected as the winner based on scoring and which is a
combination of experience, pricing and and presented plan. So we did consider
firms that were closer to us than them but Mugo score was uh so far ahead of
the others that they were the appropriate winner.
» Okay. So if I could, Mr. Mayor, so just to be clear that this company was so far
out in front of the other ones, they were the clear winner right off the hop.
Kelly. >> Uh, yes, that's correct.
» Okay, thank you for that. And the next one was the cost of the uh being in the
extended hours on election day. >> Yeah, the approximate cost for that is
about $3,000 and the library board voted to absorb the cost of that for this
election season. >> Okay, thank you for that. And do you
remember the last one? >> It was about the septic.
» Yes. Yes, the uh septic in question at Berford does share components with the
county office located on Park Avenue in Berford. The backup was the backup
originated on the county's end of a branch where the system runs from the
main line to the library.
» Okay. And now and if I could through you Mr. Mayor to Kelly. So, was the library
did the library foot the full bill on this
» uh through the mayor? The li the bills have been paid on the library accounts.
We are in discussion with county staff about um any potential um funding
sources for that. >> Okay. If I could, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to
understand how those conversations work out because if it's uh uh yeah, I would
I would just like a little bit more information as to, you know, if in fact
this is on the library or if it's split or if it's on the county. I'd like more
info if I could please. >> U through through the mayor. Um I've
been in conversations with Heather Boyd, unfortunately, who is not here tonight.
Uh so um our understanding from the plumbers is that the the blockage
originated on the county's end and caused a backup into the libraries
section.
» Okay. I I guess uh I I can I can follow up with Heather on that through you, Mr.
Mayor, because I would like to understand if in fact that is the case,
then I think we should revisit the the payment.
» Yeah, we'll we'll talk to Heather Boyd and it'll be in the Friday file for you.
» Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, thank you.
» Thank you, Kelly. >> Thanks, Kelly.
» 8.2.5, uh City of Brford. Uh that was councelor
Haley. >> Yes, thank you. I thought it was a very
good report on a very important topic. I had two questions. Um, uh, how will the
CPPS affect affordable housing supply? That's page 218,
page 219. They sort of refer to that. Um, that was one question. Should I give
you the second question as well? >> Uh, sure.
» Okay. um the CIP in Brford uh they use the CIP for affordable housing and I
wonder um how Brand County might use the CIP to help with affordable housing.
Those are my two questions. >> Who's going to speak to that?
» Um through your worship. So, uh, not having read the entirety of of the
Brford resolutions, just speaking generally at the high level, um, the
facility and services matters would encourage, um, developers to move
towards the affordability model. Um, Brandon can perhaps provide more
details. However, there is encouragement um, in that capacity. Uh, with respect
to the CIP question, uh, Allison will answer that.
Thank you. Through your worship to council. Um so in regards to a CIP
it's got um very specific restrictions on how it could be used. Um I don't know
how the applicability would be. It's meant to incent uh things that may not
otherwise happen in a specific area. Um but it it does contain a portion of
public investment. So, um I haven't seen this uh used for affordable housing, but
I could definitely look into it and see, um how other municipalities may be
utilizing CIP. Um again, I'm I'm not entirely sure how how it may be
applicable given the the split um with public private investment, but I can
certainly look into it and get back to council.
» You uh I just thought that would be a great tool if they're using it. If
Franc's Branford's using it, I thought that's a great tool for us. So just a
suggestion. >> Okay, councelor Pierce.
» Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. On that same topic, if I could in the report it talks
of I believe it's 5 and it says uh the plan builds on progress made over the
last decade which includes 559 new affordable housing units completed or
underway. Can somebody remind me again how many of those are within the county
approximately?
uh through your worship to council. I don't have that number in front of me,
but I can certainly get it to you. >> 49.
» Councelor Councelor Bell has that information.
» What is it? >> 49.
» 49. Councelor Pierce. >> 49. Okay. Yeah, I didn't think it was.
Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions?
Okay, we're back down to [clears throat] 8.2.20.
Councelor Miller. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I could
have taken any one of the GRCA ones. Just a a couple uh things I want to
point out uh to council. Um one is that the the lead the transition
lead uh for the transition committee is is Samantha Lawson from GRCA. Um I've
gotten to know S uh Sam pretty good over the last four years. I think she's an
excellent choice. She's very fair, very balanced, and extremely knowledgeable
about uh conservation authorities. um she the the province was actually taking
her advice when they were looking for advice on how to uh implement it. So I
thought that was pretty good. Um as well um we heard at our last GRCA meeting
that uh there's an implementation date of February 1st, 2027 and it will most
likely not happen then. So sometime in 2027 but most likely not February 1st.
And then the last thing I want to say is um and we seen it here uh in tonight's
package. Um there's a GRCA draft budget. It's quite early and uh there was a
direction from the ministry that come out June 26th to have the budget
timeline accelerated. So kudos to uh GRCA for getting that out, the draft
budget. I will say it's it's very drafty uh based on the questions I had the
other day, but uh that's why we're seeing it. So there's an accelerated
timeline for the 2027 budget because of the transition, because of the election.
» Thank you. Any other questions? What we'll [clears throat] do is we'll call
the vote on 8.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.5, and 8.2.20.
Although Oh, councelor Haley. >> Oh, sorry. I was voting.
» Are you voting? Okay. All those in favor?
You can vote again. There you go. Thank you.
Um, takes us to 9.1 on the agenda, which is the first committee report. That's
the paramedic services committee report, and that's going to be councelor Miller.
» Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by myself, second by councelor Pierce, that
the paramedic services committee meeting minutes and report of July 15, 2026 be
approved, noting that there is one recommendation.
» Thank you. Are there any questions for councelor Miller on his report?
Councelor Haley. >> Yes. Uh on page 326, uh the 12-hour
ambulance, what happens now if it's delayed until October?
» Councelor Miller. Um it is delayed till it is coming out
October. >> Okay,
» that's the schedule. Um what what we heard from the paramedic chief Longway
is that the system is running. It's running fine. Um but there are stressors
in the evening shift and uh as we see the population aging, as we see the
population growing, we know that uh it is much needed. So um keep in mind this
was a half ambulance that uh we're actually supposed to put on in 2025, got
delayed till 2026, and now it's been delayed till October 1st, 2026.
» Thank you. Any other questions for councelor Miller on his report?
So then call the vote to receive the report. All those in favor?
Thank you. 9.2 which is the administration and operations committee
report of July the 21st. And that's going to be councelor Pierce.
» Yep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by myself, seconded by councelor HS that
the July 21st administration and operation committee report be received,
noting there's 17 recommendations. >> Any questions to councelor Pierce on his
report? Councelor Miller. >> Mr. Mayor. Um, could we take out item 13
and vote on that separately? >> Right.
» Take out 13. >> Item 13. Yes.
» Okay. >> Yeah. Councelor Miller did uh did call
that at the meeting as well. >> Any other questions or concerns? We're
going to vote on everything but 13. All those in favor?
Opposed? Carried. And then councelor Pierce or councelor Miller.
What? He's just as a conflict, Mr. Mayor.
» Just a conflict. >> Okay. Well, then we have to go back and
do 13, too. We have to vote on 13 also. All those in favor?
» Sorry about that. Council, I forgot that you had a conflict.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. 10.2 is um Oxbow Road Branch
School. Sorry. 10.1
» 10.1 Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, 10.1. >> Okay, so this is where do we want to
break before we go into all of this or are we all right?
I'm the one with laryngitis. Everybody's okay to keep going.
Okay. So, we're at 10.1.
» 11 point. I'm sorry. >> 11.5.
» 11.5. That's the one we moved up.
11.5. Everyone's okay with 11.5. Do you want to talk about it or just vote on
it? Any conversation about 11.5? Councelor Oakley.
» Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll just pull out of that. um the the
correspondence that we got from Six Nations of the Grand River elected
council. Um I've we've already had this debate plenty around the table and I've
lost that debate, but just to highlight um that the concerns over uh uh making
our parking requirements too stringent and thus uh causing urban sprawl. Thank
you. >> Okay. Any other comments on 11.5?
Seeing [clears throat] none, call the vote to receive. All those in favor?
Sorry. >> Oh, we need on the floor. Sorry.
Councelor Oakley, need a seconder. Councelor House. Thank you. And we voted
and it's unanimous. Okay, we're going to go back now to
1110.1. Councelor Kyle.
» Sorry, Mr. Mayor. It was the correspondence about the CPPS. I think
it was 11.4. There's one, two, three, and four. The letters that were related
to CPPS. >> Okay. 11.4.1
2 3 and four. >> It's 11.5.
» It's 11.5. >> It is here.
» Sorry, your worship. It's 11.5, but it's um listed as subheadings as 11.5.1
through to 11.5.
» Okay, it's 11.4 for in my package, but that's as long as we've got that before
the CPPS was all I was going for because they're all the letters that are with
respect to the CPPS discussion. >> Yeah,
» I think I think there's everyone's package might be a little different
tonight. >> No, [laughter]
» mine got very councelor Miller, >> there there's an amended package and I
think you're not looking at the amended package.
» Yeah, >> that's right. Okay.
So, are we going to go back to 10.1? 10.1 Brandon, you're up.
Can I get a mover to get on the floor, please? Councelor Bell and Councelor
House.
[clears throat]
Okay. Do you have a presentation, Brandon? Are
you here for questions? >> Uh, through the mayor. I have no
presentation. Um, I'm happy to address some of the commentary and questions
that have come up so far, but otherwise, if I can start with that. Um,
» okay. >> If council would like to ask specific
» the floor has a secondary, why don't you start with the questions that have been
brought up tonight and then we'll go back to council for our
» questions. Thank you. >> Um, and through the mayor, if I I do
miss anything that has come up tonight, we can circle back to that. But please
just remind me of that and we can have that conversation. So um what I I'll
start with is just the the discussion about kind of keeping two separate
systems. Um so what I'd like to note about that is um one of the main reasons
that we are moving towards this community planning permit system as a
unified system is to help simplify planning in the county of Brandt. Um
that was one of the biggest points of feedback we've heard through this
project. We've heard that through the official plan project. Um and based on
the feedback we have heard from other municipalities that have undertaken a
CPPS operating two separate planning systems creates confusion. Um it
increases administrative complexity and it makes future updating difficult
because you're amending twice the amount of stuff um you're amending to begin
with. Um so we have had those conversations and staff are are of the
opinion that moving forward with one framework is the best choice for the
municipality. That doesn't mean that every every area
will be treated the same. Um just as our zoning bylaw contains different
standards for different communities, different land uses, the CPS does
exactly that as well. Um it's just all contained within a single single
planning framework. Um so what I would maybe ask councils to
consider is is what planning problems are being solved by excluding areas from
our CPPs. If specific policies or standards need refinement, we can do
that. Um we've we've shown the ability to do that over the last several weeks.
Um making refinements based on the commentary we're receiving. Um we've had
some good discussions about monitoring. Um we can come back monthly if we need
to to to update. Um and so we've been doing doing exactly that those
refinements throughout throughout the process. Um this is very different than
than maintaining two systems. Um, so it uh it goes to show that moving forward
with one and being able to be um consistent with that will be of a
benefit to the municipality and will be helpful to to staff and to everyone
trying to understand how we're moving forward. Um, with respect to to existing
developments and transition, uh, I would say that staff are satisfied. The
transition provisions protect the existing approvals. Um, approved
development can proceed. permissions that exist today are being copied and
pasted essentially into the the new bylaw. Um we've not identified any
approved development rights that are being lost as a result of the CPPS.
We've had those conversations with developers and have asked um developers
and applicants to to point that out. If there are ones that we've noticed, we
we've made those changes. Um we've also reviewed concerns related
to conformity with our own official plan compliance with the planning act. Um
we've chatted in in depth with our consulting team and with legal counsel
who um who's on the line tonight as well. Um and we're satisfied that our
CPPS will conform with the OP. Um it will be the main implementation tool of
this official plan that you approved back in 2023. Um and it's been prepared
in accordance with the planning act. So uh to that degree we wouldn't recommend
creating a sight specific exemption or continuing um or moving forward with two
separate frameworks. We continue to support a municipalitywide frame CPPS
framework. Um, and we're happy to have some more discussion on that context
tonight. From the rural perspective, um, what I
would say is the CPS is good for for rural brand because it will provide more
flexibility, um, some clearer rules, fewer planning applications for people,
uh, more certainty for farmers, for rural land owners. Um it will modernize
how we administer planning not just in urban areas but also in rural areas
which I think um is well deserved to be applied across the municipality. And as
I mentioned when when this project first began we had talked about a pilot
approach to staff. Um and we had thought about starting with the rural areas. Um
rural areas often have fewer sight specific zoning provisions. They have
fewer legacy developments. Um that makes them kind of well suited for this
streamlined approval approach. And when we did just look at our um our
applications that are currently in the the system, we're sitting at a split of
about 60% of the applications being rural, 40% of them being urban. Just so
understand that. Um
we've mentioned this a few times as well, but there's more predictability
and local control, which I think is a very important thing across the county,
but especially in the protection of agriculture. Um third parties cannot
seek amendments to change the rules to the bylaw. council does not wish to have
that happen. Uh that also creates consistency for land owners. They'll
understand the rules that are applied today and it puts us in charge of
changing our own rules.
Uh so why why do this now? Um what we're trying to do is bring multiple planning
processes into one framework. Um what it will do is give property owners, farmers
alike, more flexibility. It modernizes some outdated regulations.
» [clears throat] >> Um, parking has come up a couple times.
It'll streamline our approval system. It provides up to five years of planning
certainty without the amendments. So, these aren't theoretical benefits. These
are practical improvements that we've heard from other municipalities
implementing the CPPs. And they're practical improvements that residents,
farmers, business owners alike will experience when they they interact with
the system, when they come in and they apply for their their planning
applications. Um so what I would just say I guess is
that uh council adopted the official plan in 2023. We set the foundation for
this work. Um we've invested time and money into this. Um the research, the
consultation, the technical analysis and that investment doesn't mean that
council has to approve this project per se. Um but what it does mean is that the
recommendation before you is informed by that extensive amount of work. It's not
being brought forward to you lightly. Um what we're proposing through the CPS is
to modernize our planning framework. something we we hear probably daily, I
would argue, um, in the county. Um, and we've already established that policy
direction through the official plan. The CPS really is a tool that can help put
that vision into action. Um, and so with that, I would leave it or I'll turn it
back over to the mayor. Um, happy to address any specific comments or
questions about it. But, um, that's kind of my my final pitch for the discussion.
» Thanks, Brandon. Councelor Chambers.
just just uh uh I wonder if you can clarify uh something with regarding the
transition uh on one hand we're saying that through
the transition process there will be flexibility and and this kind of stuff
uh and uh being able to work with the applicants and that kind of stuff. And
then we say that uh uh you you can't amend anything for five years. It seems
contradictory and uh taking both sides. I wonder if you
can just elaborate on that in terms of the
prohibition for amendments, that kind of stuff because we're seem to be saying,
"Yeah, we'll work with you, but we you can't do anything." Explain that to me.
» Yes. through the mayor. Um what I would point out there is that when we look at
flexibility, we're talking about administrative flexibility and
legislative flexibility. So um the CPS is flexible in how it administers and
approves development, how it kind of goes people go through the system.
There's flexibility in that. That doesn't mean that there's less certainty
for them. Um existing approvals are protected. Um if a decision has been
made on a development, it's only fair to carry that over. We recognize that
that's principle clergy principle that's built into planning. Um so those rules
will continue to apply. They're being kind of copied and pasted as I said into
this new system. But the flexibility is really coming from the framework through
which people are working, the process through which people are going. Um it's
reducing the need for someone to come in for multiple applications, pay multiple
fees to the to the municipality. Um it's not removing the established
permissions. is just making it easier for us to apply those and easier for
residents um to move forward with their projects through a system that that
already exists. >> If if the parameters for approval are
modified, which they are through the the process,
what you're telling me is the process going through that there'll be
flexibility, but the modifications that are made are not going to be flexible.
Is that what you're saying? the modifications
» to the point where >> you won't be able to appeal them.
» So through the mayor to that degree it will depend on the instance and the
situation. The way that we've built the community planning permit system is that
the um the topics that we've heard the most about that we want the most um
finite decisions being made on with no kind of opportunity to adjust them.
We've built that into the system with respect to the amendments for someone to
come in um within the framework as it is and work within that. The flexibility is
there. So there's two kind of like highle bumpers that we've put up to say
okay the official plan sets the standard here. You have to kind of fall within
that but everyone that falls within that has the flexibility.
If I might just continue the discussion, you know, and I know that there have
been times when people have come forward and say, "Well, when did that change?
This guy did that and how come I those are the modifications that uh the
parameters I I call them that you're telling me that aren't going to be that
flexible." And I'm just cautioning that there's
going to be people coming forward that did not know
the changes are being made and I don't know them all either. uh and they will
be confronted with new parameters which they're not used to and that may cause
problems and there may be situations where
flexibility may be uh amendable to to be gotten through the
political process rather than the technical planning process. Can you
comment on that? >> Um yes. So through the mayor, what we've
done is we've built in many opportunities in the bylaw for people um
to have further discussions with respect to their applications. So someone can
always bump up an application council for a decision. Um that is an
opportunity. Um, I would say that I guess distinguishing
between the flexibility and kind of the uncertainty. Um, what we're trying to do
with this bylaw, um, there's development standards within the bylaw and all of
the development standards we're proposing through the CPS. We did a a
large analysis of those comparative to the current zoning bylaw. And all of
those development standards, none of them are becoming more restrictive in
the sense that we get applications. So if if we have a common application that
comes in of people asking for relief, we've done that analysis and we've
looked at at the bylaw and those standards are now being changed to match
the relief that's being asked. So in that sense, we're improving the
standards that were in the zoning bylaw knowing that people are already asking
for those changes. Um it's certain things around like uses where they can
and can't be put. um some of the specific um kind of land use
compatibility pieces that we've heard from people, those are where um some
changes are being made to make them a bit more finite. So the development
standards themselves, I think when we're thinking about how a zoning bylaw
functions and the standards that people come in and ask for, well, if I can't
meet 1.5 m, but I can meet 1.2, we're not going to be requiring someone to
amend the bylaw for instances like that. We've looked at situations that those
would apply. um and we've we've incorporated that that opportunity to
change into the bylaw. So again in terms of flexibility the a lot of bylaw amend
or applications are for amendments to the bylaw which in and of themselves are
asking for relief from the parameters I call them and if there's inflexibility
on from the staff perspective on the parameters then uh the applications will
obviously be refused if there's there's no flexibility. That's the purpose of a
application to modify the zoning or the the parameters in order to uh do what
maybe people want to do. So there has to be some flexibility involved with that
or there's no sense applying just it's black and white. So I'm concerned that
it's going to be black and white and not gray in some areas. That makes sense.
And that's a concern I have. The other thing that you didn't uh comment on is
this this uh prohibition for amendments. Can you just explain to me how that is
uh can be carried out and what is prohibited and what isn't
» uh through the mayor too. If if I could just return to the um your first comment
about amendments as well. I just want to make one thing clear. So, um, when we
think about zoning, flexibility is often achieved through amending the zoning
bylaw. That that is a fundamentally different approach than what a CPS does.
The CPPS framework, the skeleton of it, is what would need to be amended. It's
the stuff inside of it, the zoning provisions that are built in and
intended to be flexible enough that you do not need amendments for. So, I just
want to make that clear that amending the bylaw is is a different game than
amending a zoning bylaw. Um, and then with respect to the um the amendments
themselves and that prohibition, um, again, that points to the the the idea
that what we're doing here is setting up a framework. We're setting up this
foundation, the skeleton for us to use and the the planning act puts that
opportunity in place for prohibitions for 5 years. We you can council can wave
that for individual applications. They can wave it um for the whole whole time.
Um that is up to council. That will always be in council's um opportunity
for council. Um but what what the province or what what I believe the
intent of that is is to provide that certainty and that stability in your
framework to be able to get it up and running, start it, see what works,
change it yourself um without having the individual applications kind of chip
away at it. And why would that be bad for
being chipped away at if it's not right in the first place? H how are we to know
and and gauge what people want I I guess is
» yep and through through the mayor. So what we would do is we would set up a
process specifically for that. It may look similar to the zoning bylaw
amendment process, but um we would have that pre-conultation that if someone's
interested in amending the bylaw, they would have to come have a conversation
with staff. Um that conversation, we would gauge what needs to be changed. If
it's an amendment that staff can support, that may be something that's
automatically included in our monitoring reports that come forward every month or
every two months. Um it may be something we're already thinking about. If it's
fundamentally something that staff are not willing to support, um that's a
different conversation. Um the idea there would be that um if it doesn't
meet the objectives or conform with our official plan, those are the types of
things that we are not allowing amendments for. The other stuff more
than willing to do that. It's just that the municipality retains the control of
how we do that and when we do that.
» I I'll I'll stop writing the puck here and let somebody else talk.
» Councelor Oakley, you're next. uh through you, Mr. Mayor, uh to
Brandon. Um sorry, I don't have to pull it back up. My apologies. Um so I was
just curious about two things here. Um one would be um in
section 3.1.9 um natural heritage system boundary can
be modified up to 450 square meters as part of a class 2
variation. Um is there any um tracking tool that say it's an
individual property quite large multiple applications come through over time
chipping away at that 450 meters at a time um and avoiding the class 3 as a
result that would be my first question. >> Yes, through the mayor. So there is a
tracking system through our GIS we have um extensively mapped our natural
heritage system um and the intention is to track any potential changes
modifications to that system through there. We are already doing that as part
of the kind of OPA process. Um, but the idea would be that we can pull that
information up and see where modifications have been made to the
system. If we are still tracking like when we first adopted our official plan,
do we have the same amount of natural heritage? Has it gone down? Have we been
compensated for that amount? So, there is a tracking um a way that we will be
tracking that and ensuring that people aren't kind of chipping away at the at
the system. >> Thank you. So, there is a a sort of um
guardrails around that. Um and then the other question um that I have that I got
from constituent here um just so we've talked about coming back in terms of uh
revisiting the bylaw after implementation after set frames of time.
What's sort of baked into the resolution this evening if anything in terms of
when staff are um required to come back with updates
for this >> um through the mayor. So what we have
done it was we put a general clause in the the final clause in the
recommendation um about monitoring and implementation. Um we had originally
proposed to come back within six months but we've heard differently from council
and from the public. Um so what we will are proposing to do with considering the
election um is to provide updates monthly whether that be at a council
meeting whether that be through Friday file and project updates online. um
we'll find a way to communicate that at least monthly. Um and then we'll come
back um with whatever changes are needed to the bylaw when we when we um
recognize they're needed. So September is our next council meeting. You very
well could see changes on on the bylaw if things are adopted tonight.
» Thank you, >> Councelor Bell. Mr. May,
» I I have three questions. Uh first one is a follow-up from the earlier
conversation about the um split between rural and urban applications which
you've now confirmed to be 60% rural, 40% urban. If you weighted them by
complexity, how much of your staff time is taken up by
rural versus urban? I'm saying that because my guess is the urban
» applications are complex larger uh typically the ones we see in council
rather than things that you would see on your desk
» and through the mayor. I don't know if Jeremy maybe has some comments on that,
but I would I would tend to agree with that. The urban ones take up um a bit
more time, but I'll ask Jeremy to jump in with some comments on on the
applications >> for the mayor to counselor. Yeah, I I
would say our urban applications do take more of our staff time, especially if
you're looking at a subdivision mix with a zone change, etc., and reviewing draft
plans and draft plan conditions and drawings,
uh, site plans, etc. do take a lot more in an urban scale. Um,
I would say day-to-day dealing with the rural stuff goes a little quicker, but
it is through staff that we deal with them. It's they're just handled quicker
because they are simpler processes to deal with and I can easily give staff
direction on the rural ones and they can move forward. We do try to keep it
simple in the rural area to make agriculture move forward in a simpler
process because it doesn't need to be as complex sometimes.
» Okay. Thank you. My second question relates to FSM. Um, it's been a
continuous frustration of mine while I've been a council member that
developers come to this table and they as for multiple variances to our what
would today are our uh zoning bylaws and that demand seems to just ratchet up
every every year and it is given for the most part and if we don't give we seem
to be taken to Ontario Land Tribunal to make sure we do give it, but it comes
with no benefit, no direct benefit to the county. It it clearly aids the
economic case for the developer. I think the CP and correct me if I'm wrong, uh
helps by putting a framework around that. So variances we know what the
starting point is the development standards there the class one in the
CPPs set the frame set the base and you set uh limits for what becomes class two
what becomes class three and we have indicated that for increased density inc
and increased height that comes with a a price. So um you and I have had this
conversation before. Uh I think the starting point for FSM should be if we
permit uh a change from class one to class two and it benefits the uh
developer economically that benefit should be shared between them and us.
Can you tell me if we charge $3,000 per unit for an extra extra height, what's
the share that we get of the increased profitability of that venture?
» Uh through the mayor, I'd have to pull up my notes specifically, but I believe
if it was 3,000, it was around 20%. Um, but I can confirm that if you just
give me a moment. Um, but I guess what I would note here is
that um, we're not trying to take the full
what we call as uplift. Um, and I recognize we've had this conversation
about kind of that 50/50 split idea. Um, there's lots of other factors right now
we've taken into account. One of them being um, a not so great housing market
um, and the need for some kind of affordable housing. And that's why part
of our study with FSM was offer the opportunity for incomeind contributions
of of housing. So even if they provided 3,000 for a unit, there's also the
opportunity to provide x number and I believe we came up with a number of 10%
based on the um the evaluation, but 10% of their housing units could be
affordable housing. So I think that conversation kind of came up with
respect to the Brford CIP and and the affordable housing and what maybe the
CPS can offer. Um, so that inind um I think that that inind opportunity will
be very crucial because one dwelling unit, one affordable dwelling unit will
be more worth well more than $3,000, right? Um so I think there's an
opportunity there to work um with the development community and you'll see in
the letter from them too there's concerns about FSM. So something we're
trying to do is just balance that conversation, get that framework in
place, take we're taking zero dollars right now. Um so to start somewhere and
and kind of keep that conversation going. We we've um committed to coming
back with an FSM strategy and working on that next year. And I think there'll be
some more conversation about okay, what what is an appropriate level um of that
fee um that we can maybe increase or decrease over time. But, um, yeah, I
believe that the the $3,000 per unit fee sits at about 20%. Um, it depends on the
the the situation, but that's roughly where it is.
» So, to to just to to be clear, the FSM strategy that you've talked about, the
if we approve the CPPs tonight, it's saying yes, we approve FSM. There are
numbers in there. There are $3,000 in in that particular example. Are we saying
then that part of what we approve is also that we direct you to keep on
looking at what is the best strategy for FSM?
» That is correct. So the second last um the second last piece of the
recommendation is that staff direct um or that we're directed to implement FSM.
So as it stands in the bylaw today the framework um and what we would do is
consider further consider a long-term strategy for SFM FSM to inform future
budget and capital planning. And how if we wanted to change it, how would we
change it? >> To change FSM itself, you mean? Um so we
could make amendments to our own bylaw. Um that would be the the process through
which we would do that. >> Thank you. Final question, a very brief
one. Um if if I understood your response to the six nations regarding parking
that councelor Oakley mentioned, um do I understand correctly that the CPS does
not consider visitor parking anymore? uh through the merit does it does
require visitor parking still. Um just what we have done is instead of
requiring it above and beyond um the way that the zoning bylaw uh approaches it
now it's considered within the um overall parking framework. So when we
say two exterior spaces per unit, one of those hypothetically could be um a
visitor parking space. Um if it's in a driveway, it's it's kind of visitor
parking. Um but we would look at the total calculation for that that
development um and we would apply um the two spaces per unit on their site and
then the additional parking for um for the visitors.
» Will that result in fewer parking spaces? Let me take any development
around take my peninsula as an example. Will it result in fewer parking spaces
» through the mayor? No. It will what we're trying to do is find a balance
here to increase the parking in situations like that with town homes
specifically um condominium developments where we recognize that maybe a single
wide driveway doesn't work with a single wide garage. Um so there would still be
that requirement for a visitor parking above and beyond that. Um, but in
situations where say the garage is double wide or the the driveway is
double wide, it just adds that opportunity for flexibility because as
as expressed in the letter with Six Nations um parking takes up space and uh
we need to be considerate of that as well. But we recognize public transit
not um widely available here. Um so the the offset for transport demand
management, transportation demand management um with respect to cars, more
people have cars. Um so we're trying to find a balance with the realistic
approach there. Thank you, >> Councelor Haley.
» Through you. Um, I just wanted to follow up. I I know that there was a response
from staff to the Brand Federation of Agriculture, but that was um before they
came tonight. So, they received a set of answers and they still came and they
still asked um uh about they still had concerns about the agricultural impact
assessment. Uh they had concerns about notification uh about it um often only
being on the website um and uh is that adequate notification? are people in the
country that are farming, rural people, anybody are they watching the website
for the notification and then the frequency of the agriculture advisory
meetings and whether that's adequate for the review of the uh so I wonder I I I
know that staff answered their questions earlier but they came tonight again and
asked the same question so it leads me to believe that they still aren't
convinced and um I don't know who has an answer for that. That's why I was asking
the delegation. I know that staff has replied, but um I don't know if you can
speak to their further questions tonight.
» Yeah, through the mayor. I'm happy to speak um I can speak to those three
points specifically, the AIAS, the and the egg advisory. Um so with respect to
agricultural impact assessments or AIAS, um they are they will be required and
they're required under official plan um as a required study in many areas,
notably outside of our settlement areas. Um we have a a working terms of
reference from the province of Ontario that they've provided um to
municipalities to use. We intend to use that um and we'd also get um some of
that information peer reviewed by experts. Um we have that opportunity. We
do the same thing with natural heritage reviews. Um, so if if there is um if
there are questions about kind of the quality of of the reporting that's been
put together, um we can have those discussions with with the the
professionals that um would uh would assist us in the review. Um with that
said, that's the type of thing that would go to the egg advisory committee.
That's why we we have that committee and we've heard that tonight about um uh
that expertise. We would we would take advantage of that that expertise um to
have them review and provide comments on applications of that nature as well. So
um there will be opportunities outside of the meetings um for for us to
circulate applications um to those committees. We do a similar thing with
our our heritage committee right now with heritage impact assessments um
circulating those and then a discussion happens kind of following that
circulation on the agenda of the meeting. we would take a similar
approach. Um, and then with respect to notifications, what I would say is the
class one, so where we're proposing that there only be an online notification,
there is no notification today of those. Um, the class one applications are stuff
that goes almost directly to building permit nowadays. Um, so what we're
proposing is more of a transparency piece. Um, all of that information would
be available online to residents. um it admittedly is something they will need
to seek out, but we've also talked internally about um opportunities for
mailing lists, email lists, those types of things, recognizing that not everyone
has internet access or reliable internet access. So um what we're doing is kind
of two pieces there. We're improving the access to the information um that is
already coming in. And then we're going to provide other opportunities for input
um through that system. the class two permits themselves, you'll see that
there's an on-site signage that's proposed and there's always the
opportunity to bump the requirements up um for notification. Um and that can be
a discussion we have with the applicant depending on on the um the application,
but what we need is a starting point. Um and that starting point is the kind of
for class two is the dual the dual notification. So one online and the site
um the sign on site as well. >> Okay, thank you. Uh so I have a few more
questions. Um, this is from one of our constituents here. Sorry. Um, just uh
it's about the major facilities. Just a moment. I have to find it for you. Um,
sorry, just a moment here.
Sorry. Okay. Um, so you have the CN National CN
area northwest of downtown Paris was formerly unzoned. Now it's zoned major
facility. Okay. Um and then you have uh major facility includes
so major facility includes um pipelines, oil and gas pipelines, energy gener uh
general facilities, data centers, uh airports, rail facilities. So if Brandt
retains the airport lands, if we don't annex it, does that mean that these
lands are vulnerable to a data center being developed? That's a question
coming from a constituent.
through the mayor. Um
uh there will be many other considerations um for permissions with
respect to data centers um and battery storage and those types of um major
facilities that use use or store a lot of resources. Um what we have put into
the bylaw specifically is wording around those types of uses. Even though they're
included in major facilities, that's what they're considered. um is that
we're limiting the size and scale of them to very minor so that we can have
the conversation about these major ones we're seeing in the news come forward.
Um they would essentially be prohibited and require an amendment to the bylaw.
So we don't know enough information about those things. I don't want to um
comment per se specifically on that property, but I commenting on that use.
We don't know enough about about them yet. Um and so our safe bet right now is
by planning opinion is is a prohibition um so that we can have the trigger for
an assessment for a review um and then that information can come forward to
council to make a decision. >> Thank you. So battery storage has come
forward to us and it is a major facility and so how would the CPS deal with
battery storage uh battery storage proposal? Um so through the mayor
depending on the zone that it is proposed in and the permitted uses um
the major facility where it is permitted in we would assess that um but if it is
not a permitted use in that zone it would require an amendment to the bylaw.
» Okay. Um and then I had another question from a constituent. Can staff assure
council that the county has the governance, staffing, monitoring,
enforcement, reporting, and corporate risk management systems necessary to
implement and administer the CPPs effectively over the long term
» through the mayor. Yes, that is one of the key objectives that we have of this
this system. As with any new system, there will be consistent monitoring over
time. We'll be presenting that information to council. We'll look at
what the issues end up being. um we'll iron those out, have those discussions
with people. Um but yes, I would that that's one of the key foundational
pieces of of of making a large change like this.
» And finally, just to clarify, um this reduces the risk of an application going
to the OOLT. Is that correct? >> Uh through the mayor in the context of
not being able to make amendments to the bylaw for 5 years, yes, it does.
» Thank you, >> Councelor Kyle.
Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Through you to staff Brandon, a couple of questions. So, we
had a delegation earlier tonight um that had concerns about a essentially a
pre-approved application. So, can you just reiterate what the process is for
any sort of these subdivision applications that are already in
progress, they've been approved, there may be an oil tea um decision that's
tied to them. Uh can you just clarify very clearly what what happens with
those ones >> through the mayor? Yes. Um so those
applications that have already there a decision has already been rendered on
them to some form um would simply just go through the the old process but
carried over into the new framework. So we're deleting our zoning bylaw. We're
deleting our site plan bylaw. That's the intent of this. Um, we're creating a new
development processing framework for the county, but what we have done as part of
our transition is copied the stuff that has gone through already and pasted it
into the the new system so that we don't have to sit there and read two separate
frameworks with two separate kind of interpretations. Um, it will essentially
be those two frameworks but in one spot. >> Okay. And and then a followup to that um
through the mayor. Um so something that kind of seems to be the theme from lots
of the questions from around the table here, but even from the delegations just
they kind of center around uncertainty. It's it's a new system. It's new to us.
Um, so could you very specifically specifically um outline how how staff
will know that it's working as intended and therefore how will council know that
it's working? And kind of as a a followup to that, how quickly if there
is something that comes up, what's that threshold for um
bringing it back right away? what's what's the timeline for how quickly we
could change something if we needed to. So, just trying to kind of gauge, you
know, it's a new process to all of us and if we were to go ahead with it, how
quickly can we make those changes and tweak them and how will we know if there
is a problem? >> Um, so through the mayor, what we are
doing here um with the new system is we will have um a monitoring system. We're
going to be creating a dashboard that will be available like internally during
August. But the idea is come September provided everything goes well with um
the bylaw that we will make that available to to anyone to look at. Um so
what that would do is have our kind of key performance indicators. I'll throw
throw that out there. But um we'll be looking at how many transition files are
left, how much natural heritage system is being refined, um how long is an
application taking from inquiry all the way to buildout. Um so those will be our
high level indicators and everyone will be able to kind of follow along and and
see that. We'll also post like um the information about where that threshold
is to know that it's not working. Um I think admittedly we need to s dive into
the implementation of the bylaw to understand that a bit more. Um but
that's our intention for the next month. Um so what I would say to to that is is
kind of stay tuned for for some of that extra information there. There's been
provided some information in the reporting just about implementation um
and monitoring. But if there are other ideas um about that, we we can take
those back. Um we can come forward at any point. Um council hold regular
meetings. Council holds special meetings. Um there's plenty of
opportunities. Not that I want to be coming to every single council meeting
in the future or any of the planning department, but um there's plenty of
decision-making points um to be had about about making adjustments. and we
as staff recognize that this is this is a new framework. It's new. Um there will
need to be very clear communication about that in regular reporting. Um so
again, I wouldn't be surprised if you see a report in September um just on an
implementation provided everything goes tonight um what that looks like and the
next steps. >> Okay. And uh last question through the
mayor to you Brandon to kind of put [clears throat] you a little bit on the
spot maybe, but um is there anything that staff still have concerns about as
far as the implementation
uh through the mayor? Um what I would say is my concern right now is that we
haven't had the chance to test like we aren't getting the chance to test this
out further than it just being in a testing phase. we're at the point where
we've we're confident in the framework that's been established, the the best
way to move this forward and be further confident in it is to apply it. Um, and
so that would be my kind of backhanded hesitation, I suppose, with this, but
um, we can go through as many mock applications as as possible. Um, but we
won't know the full depth and breadth of the of the framework and our
opportunities to change that. um until we are implementing it.
» Councelor Miller, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Three to Brandon.
Brandon, um so you said there's transition provisions for two years,
correct? >> Through the mayor, there are.
» Yes. >> So, you also said uh in your response
that um they u use the word may. draft approved
subdivisions may continue to rely on sight specific zoning. Are you saying
they can? >> Correct.
» I >> So they they they would continue to rely
on their zoning. >> Okay.
» Unless they want to switch to the new system,
» unless they want, but they may. So um even if those buildouts take 5 years, 10
years, 25 years, or in your response to councelor K used the word carry it over
to the new system. I don't like that response because I don't know what it
means. Um, but are they allowed to go under 6116 until the full buildout?
» Correct. Yes, they are. >> Even if it takes 5 years, 10 years, 20
years. >> Okay. When does the f when do we start
collecting FSM? >> Uh, provided the bylaw is passed, it
would be the date of enactment. >> Okay. Do we collect FSM under bylaw
6116? >> We do not. So, if I already had an
application in for a subdivision, why would I switch over to the new system
and have to pay the FSM? Does that make sense? If you're the developer,
» yeah, through the mayor, that's it's a great question.
» I'm I if it were me as a hypothetically, if I was a developer, um I would keep my
my application under the former system and not um okay, not make amendments.
But to that degree um we what we are doing is trying to offer flexibility so
that if someone does come in >> Yep.
» there's opportunity for that. [laughter] >> Yeah. Flexibility to pay extra. So
that's what it sounds like. Um and then I wanted to ask the last question. Um it
was brought up by when uh we had uh Robert Hamilton and uh Mark Eddie. Um
they talked about agriculture expertise on the part of our planners. I I thought
that was a kind of a I don't know how do you respond to that
» um through through the mayor as a professional planner. Um I often joke
that we are the jack of all trades but the master of none.
» Um but with that said we have plenty of staff that have specialties um in
various subject matters. Um several have gone to the University of G which is
more agriculture on nature some have done college some have done university.
there's plenty of expertise and where that expertise is not readily available
among staff. We're not guessing um we would seek that expertise out in other
ways. >> Yeah. Uh it doesn't mean you're
guessing, but sometimes you don't know that you have a sometimes you don't know
what you don't know and and I know sitting around at planning sometimes I
seen some that come from the agriculture sector and I I question what what I'm
reading in the report. So that that I kind of I kind of thought uh that they
had made a good point, but I wanted to get your your comments on. So Okay. Uh
thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um I will make an amendment at the appropriate time.
» Any other comments? Councelor Haley.
I just wonder for myself and I think the general public I'm trying to understand
the difference between the agricultural countryside and rural zones and the
criteria that you would use for that >> uh through the mayor. So those have
already been designated in the official plan and the zoning will match that. Um
agriculture and countryside zones are intended to be our prime agricultural
areas for the county of Brand um which the objective is permanently protected
land. uh rural lands were done through an an um were analyzed um in uh
collaboration with the province um with OMAFA based on um a methodology that
they provide. Um and those lands based on the provincial direction now um have
some contemplation or potential for development. Um but our um approach here
is still to restrict that and include them as part of the agricultural system
» and countryside >> and country. So countryside and
agriculture essentially mimic each other. It's that countryside is
recognizing where there are areas of existing non-aggricultural development.
Um I guess I would point to our former rural residential um designation and the
rural residential zone. Um that is kind of a a common um commonly um a common
area where the countryside zoning or designation has been.
» Thank you. And then some um some uh areas have no class two or three.
Aggregate I think only has class one and some have no class two or three. Um do
you see that as a problem through the mayor? Not at this point. And what we
intend to do with that is like I say add some st or provide some stability in the
bylaw so there isn't the opportunity for amendments um outside of the framework.
Um and if changes are needed then staff and council would have control over the
changes that are are made to the bylaw to to consider that.
» So to try out aggregate if it's class one what notification would there be to
the public? >> So specifically for aggregates there's a
500 meter radius notification that's soon for the public. Um and I will note
that aggregate um decisions and and processing is mostly done at the
provincial level. Um but what we're intending to do there is provide that
information well in advance um and provide an opportunity for the um the
folks within that radius and and beyond if they wish um to speak to the
aggregate operator um and have those conversations before an application is
approved. >> Thank you. And then you mentioned in
your um briefing July 17th you mentioned boundary expansions would require a CPP
amendment. Uh, and uh, I think you and I spoke. I think there's three boundary
expansion applications right now. Is that correct?
» Yeah, through the mayor. That Yeah, two or three, I believe. Um, in process.
» Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Oakley. You're next.
» Through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, did I hear you correct? Are we on to comments now
or just questions? >> Comments. Fine.
» Okay. Uh, so through you, Mr. Mayor, some some comments on it. Um, so in
regards to some of the conversation around class one and and notifications
and I got some emails and questions about that as well. Um, what I would say
in regards to class one is I think it's important for people to recognize with
class one. It's it it means fundamentally it's a project that checks
every single box. Um, so it's what we say we want in our official plan. It's
what's allowed uh with no modifications whatsoever. Um, and I would propose that
while yes, there's not an initial um, notice that goes out before um, I and
we're just including it basically as a transparency measure. If my neighbors
want to build a triplex next door and it's allowed within our
official plan, they're requiring no parking amendments, no boundary
adjustments, no um, you know, uh, they're requiring no changes. quite
frankly, it's none of my business. It's their property to do what they they wish
within the guidelines that we've set up. And if there's a problem with how that's
going, the problem document is the official plan, not this this process.
So, I just wanted to to state that. Um, yeah, that that's sort of my my my
initial comments there. >> Councelor Coleman.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, more of a comment. Um,
I've had concerns about this plan ever since day one whenever it was brought
forth sometime early in the year. Um, I can't support it the way it is and um at
the and I think councelor Miller's going to make an amendment too, but I will
propose an amendment too because of of the way things have been going. So,
thanks. >> So,
councelor, did you have your hand up? Councelor McCalpine,
» one of my concerns was the onfarmm diversified uses and I'm wondering if
you could give examples of things that would not be allowed under un onfarm
diversified uses for like a small business or something like that. How how
would you separate um through the mayor? Um admittedly that
would be a difficult question to answer because the provincial guidelines um and
quite frankly meeting meeting with the province to ask them about the
guidelines. Um essentially say that there there's a very broad variety of
things that can be an onfarmm diversified use. Um there's certain
criteria that are listed in um the permitted use guidelines um that it be
like limited in area. So it the the size and scale of it is kind of the more
important piece in our minds um than the use itself. Um but what we are have done
through the recent OPA and what would be done through this this CPPs um is to
ensure that there are kind of we go beyond what the guidelines are saying.
We recognize that there are some questions about um onfarmm diversified
uses of certain sizes and scales and certain uses um and we've tried to limit
those specifically um in more detail um and the CPS would do that. So um one
that is talked about quite often is kind of the wedding venue or wedding barn um
thing. There's a certain size and scale of that that may be appropriate. Um but
large event venues on agricultural land are not something that are is supported
by the arfund of diversified use like the permitted use guideline and that's
something that we included in our recent OPA and that's something that would be
moved forward with with the CBPs.
» So I'm also thinking like you're we're going to allow businesses to be like not
related but they're supposed to support the farm. So it might be a small
business in um
a cabinet shop or something like that. Um so that'll be allowed underneath on
this program or an automotive shop or something like that. But is there a
limit to that type of business that could be allowed
» uh through the mayor? Yes, there is. So there's size and scale limits to that.
Those are already in place through our zoning. Um at a high level, I believe
it's 2% of the property to a maximum of one hectare. And then within that one
hectare, there's a 20% limit on building area. So,
» um we'd have to do the math specifically on a property maybe to give people
context, but there's specific numbers in place to restrict um what can happen in
those instances. >> Okay. And does that have to be within
the sort of farm cluster of buildings? >> It's yes through the mayor. So what we
have done with the CPP bylaw is we've structured it in a way that um what
we're using for the the OFDUs is the requirement that [snorts] things be
clustered because we don't want things to be taking up land unnecessarily. So
if there are existing farm buildings like someone built a farm and they want
to renovate that and convert that into some sort of other use to um to
diversify their farming operation and and bring in some more income, that
existing farm building would be able to be renovated. But if they're building
something new and it's specifically for the purpose of a non-farmm diversified
use, there's more limitations in place to that. And one of those is clustering.
» Okay. >> Um my understanding it doesn't
necessarily have to be a um the home doesn't you don't have to have a house
on that property. It could be on a property is that excludes a home
» through the mayor. Yes. The the qualification is that it is a farming
operation. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Bill.
I have comments, but if maybe I should wait until the amendment's on the table
because I might say something different. >> Councelor Chambers,
» I could say the same thing. I I I don't have any questions. I was just going to
make some comments, but if you want to proceed with the amendments, that's
fine. >> Is it a friendly amendment or we have to
go back? >> It's not friendly.
» It's not friendly at all. Right. >> Okay. So, Council Chambers,
» maybe I'll make my comments first. [laughter]
I u I don't want to get unfriendly here. Uh I I just wanted to make some
generalized comments. Uh I I if if someone asked me to explain the
present system, I could do a pretty good job on it. I I think I've been around
enough that I understand how we do things. Now,
if someone asked me to explain the new system,
I would have to say, "You'll have to get staff
to explain it to you." And what that's telling me is that
we're tending to move planning from around the horseshoe in
the community to the staff. It's it's becoming more
and more the complexities are
staff orientated and some people will agree with that,
some people won't. Uh but the fact is that planning is
becoming complicated through this system that
we're going to be relying on staff to ensure that it works.
And I'm hoping
that staff is up to the task. I I know we've had staff turnovers in
the past. Sometimes we have a lot of turnover. Heaven, help us. If at the
crux of this we have staff turnover and the new staff doesn't understand this,
it it could be very very difficult moving forward.
I I'm
in favor of more staff uh input and decision making because
essentially it's been moving that way for years.
But this is a huge huge leap into the trusting staff to do what needs to be
done rather than counselors that hopefully can understand the process
enough that they can make decisions on applications and uh of the such
that they feel confident in doing that.
Again, I could not pass a test on this new system and I'll admit that right
from the outset, which is I think not unlike anybody around here. If we
had an exam tomorrow on this, I don't know whether anybody could pass it to
tell you the truth. Uh the old system, I think we could all pass it.
and let's leap forward to the new council where people will be elected and
they'll have to they won't know the old system and the new system. They'll have
to learn the system. So maybe that will rescue the system. If nobody knows
what's going on, they'll all learn it together. So those are my comments and
I'm I'm dying to hear the amendments and uh
hopefully they uh will make it a little bit more clearer to understand. But
before we go to the really unfriendly amendments, I think we should speak to
councelor Bell. >> Yeah. Um, well, having heard what
councelor Chambers has said, it reminds me of the first meeting I think I ever
went to as a counselor when we were given a bit of education and I remember
the statement, it's not our job to row the boat, it's our job to set the
direction. So I have the the uneasy feeling that
what councelor James Chambers was talking about would take us too much
would put the os in our hands or keep the os in our hands and I I don't think
that's what we should be doing. So that I'm I'm sort of philosophically
different from from Robert in that respect. But I'll make I'll make my
comments then if if I may because I was skeptical. I really was skeptical,
probably more skeptical and vocally skeptical than anybody else about a
complete revision to what is a familiar if somewhat inflexible and to my mind
abused planning system. To quote the uh the head of the US Senate, I wasn't sure
the uh the juice was worth the squeeze on this one. There's so much effort is
required. It's a huge change management effort starting perhaps with people
around this table and it puts a challenge on our staff uh
in many respects. I think somebody asked can we meet the 45day turnaround
deadline that was a a comment from from the public but I think staff have done a
terrific job of preparing the CPPs. Think about the number of steps we've
gone through as council. I think this must be the seventh or eighth time
Brandon has stood up there and taken us through it. Yes, it's a complete
different system. And yes, we have to learn it, but we don't have to run it.
We're not rowing this boat. We're steering the ship.
And they've done a good job on on thinking about the implementation as
well. So, I think the introduction of a CPPs
will be an improvement too. uh I think it will turn out to be a simplification
of our existing system and I think it will strengthen our control as council
and I think it will make the develop the process we follow much more transparent
yes there's some effort required there's a willingness to accept change by us by
the community but I think there's a willingness and I
think I've heard it from staff to adapt as we get experience so we won't get it
right 100% first I was worried that we should why would
we move to a new system in one go? Let's pilot somewhere else. But I'm
convinced now uh from what staff have done and that the analysis they've taken
upon themselves to find out that if they considered other municipalities that
have taken that pilot step, their recommendation is don't just go straight
to the full system. So are we taking a risk? I don't think so. I mean, Paris is
essentially built out from a planning perspective. There's so little left to
decide about how planet how Paris will be developed within the current
settlement area. I think St. George is getting there. There's an awful lot
that's already predetermined. Nothing that we're going to change.
And the relative simplicity of rural applications, albeit that there may be
more of them, leads me to believe that if staff are prepared to tune this new
system based on experience and make good use of of groups like the agricultural
advisory committee, then I can be very supportive of what they recommend,
including FSM um given that you are going to keep on looking at what's the
best outcome for that. So I will be supportive of what is the staff
recommendation assuming that the uh amendment that's coming is not too
unfriendly. >> Councelor Oakley and then we're going to
go to [clears throat] the not too unfriendly amendment.
» Thank you, M. May. Uh I'm I'm largely going to agree with councelor Bell here
and and just add a couple of comments. Um, I think in terms of if if you
dropped us blind into um an option A or option B, option A being the current
system, option B being the one we're proposing, um, without the additional
famili familiarity we currently already have with the current system, I I
fundamentally don't believe that you're going to look at option A and go, this
is the least complex system. I think fundamentally system B will be the least
complex system. It's just by its very nature planning is complex. There's no
way to simplify it enough that it really truly speaks to a lay person like
myself. It's fundamentally a complex topic. Um and in terms of the types of
people it would help uh as councelor Bell highlighted you know in terms of
the large broadstroke developments uh lots of it's already spoken for but to
sort of speak from a sort of personal antidote um my mother recently moved um
out of Paris out of being councelor Bell's neighbor um and moved up north
moved in with my grandfather and throughout that process they had to
renovate the the current home that my grandfather was in and throughout that
process they undergo a very similar process to as we do now in Trent Hills
and numerous times over the course of that process. They'd apply, get their
permits, go great, we can go now. There was another step that they didn't wasn't
quite clear because there's another process to apply for and then another
process to apply for. You know, it it's not very concise. This process, I think,
fundamentally helps folks like that. And I've heard similar comments from local
residents who are trying to do something and then there's another step and
another step. This I think packages it so people have an understanding from the
outset what they're getting into and I think that will really help sort of
people trying to do things to their own property uh rather than necessarily how
it might benefit a developer. So I think ultimately this is the right direction
to go forward. There will be things to figure out. Every process is like that.
Nothing should be set in stone. Everything is intended to be iterative.
So, um I'm supportive of the staff recommendation. Again, we'll see about
the friendly unfriendly amendment. >> Councelor Pierce.
» Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, there's great discussion here and I I think if I
look back to when this all first when Brandon first brought this to us, the
question I asked, I said, is this going to make the process easier or is it
going to expedite the process? And what I meant by that was the fact of we don't
want things just flowing through, coming and going, coming and going, coming and
going. But the process itself has to be made easier. And and it's been said a
couple times tonight, planning is is one of the most complex, if not the most
complex thing as far as anybody around this horseshoe, I I think would agree as
what we have to know as council. there are there are so many policies and so
many uh stipulations put through by the province and stuff like that and we know
it more than um general public and I think if we can do a process that makes
it easier for the general public not expedites things there's still a process
there's still parameters and I think the key here and and Brandon has said it at
every single meetings we are able to make amendments and and it was alluded
to a couple times tonight we're not going to get this perfect right off the
hop we are going to make amendments ments to it and we will go and you know
as things come forward staff will look at them Brandon will look at them we
will we will discuss them as council and if we need to amend things we can we've
talked so many times around this horseshoe about putting some more
delegation back into staff hands this I think this allows that to happen but as
has been stated also staff at any time can bump this to council and council at
any time can ask to have it bumped to us as well so I don't think it's going to
exclude council from from input or making some of the decisions if we feel
we need to have input on it. Again, um what councelor Chambers had said,
absolutely. You know, the the current process we have, uh we know it. Why do
we know it? Because it's the only one we've had for as long as any of us have
been on council. Yes, this is new. It's going to be some growing pains to it,
but I too feel that this is definitely heading in a right direction. Um is it
going to be perfect right off the hop? No. And we've even had Brandon say that
numerous times. It's not going to be perfect, but we will get there. And in
my mind, if we can have parameters out there that have some flexibility within
them, but they are parameters that we can set and stay within, I think that's
a plus because as councelor Bell alluded to, and as I've said many times before,
he's absolutely right. We get these things that come in and they want they
want an amendment to this, an amendment to that, and and shorter distance here
and and setbacks and reduce this and reduce that. I think that's going to
alleviate a lot of that. So, I'm I'm I'm willing to to to hear what these uh
friendly non-friendly amendments are. Uh but I I I must admit even in the short
it's not been a short time. It's been well over a year that he's brought this
to us. And I think we've all learned a lot a lot more than what it was off the
hop. And I think as we go with this and if it goes through, we will continue to
learn from it. And we'll find that it is a it's a good move to make. And I am in
support of it. Councilman Calpine.
» So, I'd like to speak in support of it as well. Um I went through the process
about 10 years ago personally building a house and I can see where um sitting
down at the very beginning with staff and having uh understanding of what are
the needs of the the reports that we have to bring forward for it and bring
it into a more concise process so that could be done in a more um expedient
manner I think will be a real advantage especially for the lay person coming
into this process. not understanding the system and not
understanding necessarily everything. Um having that opportunity to have a staff
lead you through it and also eliminating the things that you don't necessarily
have to um go through. So I think this will be definitely a step forward for
the average person applying for this pro.
» Anything else before [clears throat] we go to councelor Miller?
Councelor Miller. Yeah. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. And uh
this evening we had a request from Paris Grand Estates. Uh they are looking for a
carveout from the CPPS. So um that would be uh I'd like to make that uh an
amendment to the CPBS motion. Um and the actual wording is it's pretty much as
written that they provided us. Um but basically that uh Paris Grand Estates be
allowed to continue under what they uh originally got approval for and that's
zoning bylaw 6116 until the full build out. So that's that's that's the
amendment. >> That's secondary.
» Secretary Keler Coleman that that's [clears throat] your
unfriendly amendment. >> Well, I didn't say it was unfriendly or
friendly. It just depends on your >> your viewpoint, I guess.
» I thought you were going to slap somebody.
» Okay. So, it's on the floor. It has a seconder. Um, councelor Oaklay.
» To you, I'm sir, I I won't be supportive of this amendment. Um, I think from uh
what I heard from the delegation and what I heard from from staff as well, I
think it's it's it at least to me it's quite crystal clear um that as the bylaw
is written now, the developer can choose to continue using what is already been
approved or if they felt it necessary, they could jump in with the new process.
Uh I don't see the purpose of the carveout. Um and I think it's wholly
unnecessary. Thank you, >> Councelor Chambers.
» Yeah, I I do support the amendment. I I believe that uh the group would have the
legal right to u be uh uh follow the system which they made the application
under. I think that's their right legally.
» Anything else before we call the vote? Everyone's clear what we're voting on.
[clears throat] Can the clerk read it back?
Mr. Mayor, I think it's a very long amendment.
» Well, I'm just going to pull it up.
» [snorts] >> We've talked about it for an hour, so I
I think it need it deserves the time to be read so that we know exactly what
we're voting on.
Everyone confident about voting without it being read back?
» Okay. Okay. All those in favor of [clears throat] the amendment
opposed.
So the amendment fails.
Now we'll go back. We'll go [clears throat] back and vote on the
original resolution. Councelor Cohen. >> Hey, Mr. Mayor. And uh at this time I'm
going to propose another amendment is that uh we had a delegation here earlier
Federation of Agriculture of Brand County and they were looking that we
could maybe propose this to ask us for a two-year delay for the rural areas and
and and put this in the system for the settlement areas right now for the
county and see how this works in two years. Seeking a seconder.
» Councelor Miller is your seconder. Is [clears throat] there any conversation
on the amendment? Councelor Kyle. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Through you to to
staff. Um, so if we were to support this amendment,
what would be the additional administrative burden for running
essentially operating two separate systems? Are we looking at um increase
in cost to do so, delays anywhere? Um, is there any benefit to pilot versus
going all in? >> Um, through the mayor, I may ask Jeremy
to jump in on this one, but just from this project um perspective, um, just so
that you're aware of of the budget that's been spent on the project to
date, considering the entire municipality, $200,000 have gone into
this as well as the staff time for that. um and that has been to consider this
municipalwide. But um with respect to to adopting it specifically for the
settlement areas and and that administrative burden, I'll ask maybe
Jeremy to comment on that. >> Uh so through the mayor to the councelor
definitely the administrative burden you're going to be running two parallel
systems as Brandon mentioned which is going to be complex for staff to define
define to people and explain to people as well as the public to understand. So
there there's going to be confusion for everyone and a lot of complexity. What
will also have to happen is you'll need to continue with the committee of
adjustment for the rural areas. So you're now going to have an
administrative cost which we were not intending to carry forward. So you're
adding extra costs, staff time and resources and impacts that will be
taking place here. Mult different reports structures
etc. So yes, there'll be a lot more duplication of elements that are
unnecessary. And then the question will lie still
part of the reason we're doing the CPPS is when we completed the official plan
under the planning act, we are required to update our zoning to bring be brought
into conformity. So you've only then addressed a portion of the problem. we
will have to address that rural portion at some point and bring it into
conformity in accordance with the planning act or we're going to be
outside of the planning act and in trouble potentially that way. So there's
at some point we have to resolve this. Um, and as Brandon mentioned, it is,
we've been told by other municipalities, don't run do both systems. Who've done
it? They said, don't go right to it. It's less complicated, less complex. I
would reiterate repeatedly, it's not going to like
when you change the systems, the same issues are still going to be there to
some extent that was raised by the agricultural community is who's
reviewing, how often they're reviewing, and are they going to the agricultural
advisory committee? Those are all be can be addressed in the CPPS just as well.
Uh we have the staff, we have the resources and we still can rely on the
agricultural uh advisory committee for questions or applications and uh we're
working with them on terms of reference to adjust to give them that greater
flexibility to see some applications as necessary because their current terms of
reference are actually more limited than they think of what they can see. So
we're providing some greater flexibility.
Councelor Chambers. Yeah, I I was just going to say I think
the vast majority of the applications in the
rural areas uh would benefit from this system
because they are simpler and it it could be expedited and uh
made it easier to understand provided that the staff has an
understanding of the rural areas. this uh if you're born in metro Toronto,
you have a difficult time in understanding how rural Ontario works uh
just the way it is. And it's not that they don't can't be made aware, but
there is a a difference. And I think staff through training and and and I
think Brandon has has mentioned this, there is that uh expertise and and
that's readily available. So I think it actually is a benefit to the rural areas
to have this in place provided that our staff develops that understanding for
the rural areas and I think that is one thing that I can say that I do feel
confident in uh that that awareness uh will be there.
» Councelor House. Um [clears throat]
thank you Mr. mayor through you. Uh, normally I I try to be respectful and uh
uh responsive to the voices from our rural counterparts and on this one I'm
I'm not going to be able to. I I believe we need a policy framework
that's municipalwide and and I have confidence in the the
staff and the incredible work they've done. I I really enjoyed counselor Bell
reminding us of that training session rowing the boat. Um and and and that's
always stuck with me too. So, but I on this particular issue I I
I'm listening to senior staff and their discussion of some of the challenges
that would be attached to running parallel systems. I just can't support
it. So, >> councelor Haley.
» Uh yes. Um, I was quite troubled by the CPPS and I came in tonight with mixed
feelings and probably leaning the way that councelor Miller has um, uh,
proposed. Uh, but um, I I spoke with staff and and I've been listening. I
guess I really appreciate that we could reduce uh, cases that go to the OOLT.
That's really important to me. Um, my priority would be to protect farmland
and to make sure that onfarmm diversified and onfarm industrial is not
misused, that we protect farmland and the farming community. Um, I'm a bit
puzzled by councelor Bell's comment um because he mentioned that Paris is
pretty well built out and St. George is pretty well planned to be built out, but
we in W five we have Kainesville, Mount Pleasant, Airport, Oakland, Anadega,
Middleport. So um uh when councelor Bell implies that um Paris is pretty well
built out then this will really apply to our communities uh in W 5 especially um
I really feel that the public needs to understand this. It's been really hard
for us for myself to understand it. It's it's pretty complex. Um and I I just
feel that we really need to help the public to understand it. Um so those are
some of my thoughts on it. I I do appreciate that we could reduce the
cases going to oil to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
» Anyone else have a comment before we call the vote on the amendment?
Councelor Coleman. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I'm in favor of
the amendment. I guess I put it forward, but [sighs and gasps]
councelor Chambers brought it up here a little earlier about a half an hour ago
or maybe 45 minutes ago about planning. planning is black and white, but most of
it falls in a gray area. And this is what I'm concerned about this new
system. It's gray area. How do you make it work?
And we've [clears throat] talked about maybe not always having the most
expertise and in our staff sometimes on agriculture uh
adisement and whatnot to make those things work. But I think we need to take
it slower on the rural area for two years. That's all I'm asking for. And we
keep referring to that boat. Well, some boats sink. And I don't want
to see this happen. >> Oh my god. Councelor Miller.
» No, I I I support the two-year slowdown. Um, even Brandon admitted, you know,
that's the biggest concerns. We're not quite sure. We we're hoping when we go
live it works, and I don't doubt it will. There will be adjustments along
the way. Um, nobody's asking it not to be applied to the rural areas. What
we're asking for is just a two-year pause. That's it. And I find, especially
government, municipalities, uh, the quicker you go, the more likely you make
a mistake. So usually uh cautious and plotting is is the best way forward.
» Okay. Anyone else have anything else to say before we call the vote?
So the vote is on the amendment to delay the rural [clears throat] for two years.
All those in favor? Opposed?
fails. Anything else anyone has to put on the
table? Councelor Kyle, >> nothing else to put on the table, but I
have comments whenever there's >> Yeah,
» this is a good time for your comments. >> Yeah. So, um I just wanted to talk a
little bit about why I I support the CPS P CPPS recommendation as staff had laid
it out. Um, if I think about ourselves, we just recently went through a barn, a
new barn building. And, um, having gone through the the process, I can agree
with lots of residents who have come to me with with questions and complaints
over the years about how, you know, how complicated it is. They don't know where
to start. So, I do really think that especially for some of these more simple
um less complex things that this is a good a good system. Um I know by nature
that because I'm raised by farmers, I'm married to a farmer, surrounded by
farmers, work for farmers. Farmers are some of the most change averse people
that I've ever met. Um and I am one of those. So, uh I definitely can say that.
Um, but one thing that I hear all the time over and over again and and um I've
even heard my father-in-law utter it um in with respect to people asking us, you
know, how is the new barn? How's the new barn working out? And my father-in-law
said, it's working out great. Why didn't we do it sooner? So, I think that's
that's a common comment for a lot of our our rural a lot of our rural neighbors
and friends that we all wish we would have done something sooner than we
actually did it. Um, but it takes us a long time to get there. Um, so I do
think that staff has put a lot of time and and effort. There's been a lot of uh
resources put into this planning exercise and making sure that we've got
as much of it figured out as we possibly can before we put it into play. Um, and
so now it's just time to fire up the robot and see if it milks the cows, so
to speak. So, um, I don't see today's decision as the end of the work either.
I think that's been made very clear by the staff that it's the beginning of the
implementation and that there'll be lots of checks and balances and ability to
bring it back. So, if there are things that aren't quite firing the way we need
them to fire, um they can they can come back. We can listen to residents, we can
listen to staff, we can we can bring those concerns forward and we can make
adjustments and improve as we as we see fit. So, with that in mind, um I'm going
to support the staff recommendation, noting that I will certainly be
following it closely to make sure that there are those things that are being
tweaked that need to be tweaked as we go.
» Yeah. Any other comments, councelor Chambers?
Um yes, I I just wanted to u make a comment and and then uh perhaps
another amendment and just to show you the complexity the
recommendation that's before us. Uh one of the uh operative clauses that council
approve the necessary amendments to related operational bylaws including
fees and charges, committee of adjustment, sign bylaw, fence bylaw,
property standards bylaw, delegation authority bylaw. So this does have
farreaching uh uh feelers into the whole operation of of of the uh the county in
many ways. But that's not what I wanted to uh amend. Uh I I'm concerned about
the operative clause that council directs staff to implement the facility
services and matters framework and further consider a long-term FSM
strategy to inform future budget. Why are we implementing it before we have a
consideration of the uh long-term strategy? Why don't we understand it
first and know what it's going to be before we implement it?
» Brandon, >> uh through the mayor. So, what I would
say to that is that we do understand that we need it and that we have the
opportunity to um to leverage this tool. We would have done the same thing with
community benefits charges. that's kind of the outside of the the CPPS. What
this strategy will do is give us the opportunity to have the conversation
specifically with the public about where they want the funds to go. So, we have
ideas of that. We know where those gaps are. Um, but we've heard from from
council and from the public that there's certain things that maybe aren't well
understood or maybe haven't had that conversation with the public. And the
intention behind this direction is simply to to point out that this
specific piece where that money is spent is going to go back for public
consideration. And if I might just ask you to further expand on on there was a
comment in comment in one of the u u addendum uh submissions with regard to
double dipping. Why are we charging this on top of development charges? And is
that not just uh milking the cow to use the uh analogies that are being uh used
» uh through the mayor. This is a tool enabled by uh the planning act and by
the provincial government. We are not allowed to double dip. We will not be
double dipping. And that is part of why this strategy will be necessary for that
transparency to show people where that money is going to be going um and how it
will be spent.
» Does that come with a recommendation or a anything? No,
» I just wanted the explanation to to clarify what that actually is meaning to
the to the people. >> Okay. Any other comments, concerns
before we call the vote on the original the original [clears throat] resolution
that's in front of us? My only comments are for the
[clears throat] for the eight years that I've been the mayor, I've watched senior
staff um call expert witnesses, farmers. I sit on the agricultural committee. We
we know where the information lies. We know we're not afraid to call them in
and ask them things. It's it's why the county of Brandt has been successful.
The 11 people around the horseshoe have never said they know everything, but we
know the right people to ask. And I see the people in the room and and half of
them are the people that would be on the list of people to ask if we had
concerns. And this is only um farming, but we do it for everything. We do it
for everything we're not sure of. We ask people and I think that's the magic of
counselors and the mayor is we get elected because we know people and we
know people and we don't forget who elected us and we make sure that we make
good decisions. And I think with staff being as as professional and and putting
in the time for this report, this is a a crazy involved uh system for us to be
going on. if they say it's easier and it's c we know the people to ask when we
need to know answers before we make decisions. So I have confidence in staff
and I have confidence in the people in this room that know um and we would ask
them. We would consult them. So I have no trouble supporting uh this in front
of us because I know that we won't do it alone. Why would we when we have all
this uh talent or expertise at our fingertips?
If there's nobody else that has anything to say, I'm going to call the vote on
the original recommendation in front of us. Could I have it read just for the u
the clerk read the for the people that are watching it which I Okay
worship um it reads as follows that report 0257-26
community planning permit system final final recommendation of um adoption be
received as information that report 0298-26
updated ating report 027 or 57-26B received as information. The council
adopt the official plan amendment for the community planning permit system
policies within the county of Brand official plan. The council passed the
final version of the CPP bylaw with an effective date of August 22nd, 2026. The
council repeal zoning bylaw 61-16 as amended in the site plan control bylaw
on August 22nd, 2026 to be replaced by the CPP bylaw. The council authorizes
staff to implement the CPPs, including the transition provisions,
administrative procedures, public education materials, staff training,
application form updates, city view integration, and related implementation
activities described in this report for the purposes of creating a one window
development application process. The council approves a delegation of
decision-making authority for a CPP uh in accordance with the community
planning permit bylaw. The council approved the necessary amendments to
related operational bylaws including the fees and charges bylaw, committee of
adjustment bylaw, sign bylaw, offense bylaw, property standards bylaw, and
delegation of authority bylaw generally as described in this report and attached
that council direct staff to implement the facilities services and matters
framework and further consider a long-term FSM strategy to inform future
budget and capital planning discussions and that council direct staff to monitor
the implementation of the CPPs with regular reporting to council and
continued opportunities for count for public input into the new framework.
» Everyone's clear. All those [clears throat] in favor?
Opposed? Noted. Thank you.
Okay. Are we going to keep going or you want a break?
» Break. Take take a 10 five minute break.
Thank you. Okay, so we are now at 10.2 and I need a mover to get on the floor.
Councelor Coleman, Councelor House,
does anyone have any questions to what's in front of us? Councelor Miller,
» just a quick question. Mr. Mayor, and I I don't want to say that no good deed
goes unpunished, but and I know where this come from, councelor Coleman
brought forward, and in the report, it states how how bad a shape Oxbow Road
is. And my question is, if it's in that bad a shape, and don't we do a um a
roads assessment um condition every year when why wasn't this identified earlier?
And are we saying that there's just so many bad roads in the county that this
just didn't make the list? I'm just trying to understand why it got missed.
» So through the mayor uh to councelor Miller. Um yeah, it wasn't so much as it
it was missed. We we did know that the condition was in poor shape. Just that
road in itself is very very low volume. So when we're planning our capital
program, it's it's the later of your your statement is it's hard to
prioritize. But then when councelor Coleman brought it forward, we went and
looked at it and and at the end of the day, we need to fix the roads. So we
went back, some projects were ending and we we basically found the money to be
able to proceed with it. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Any other questions before we call the vote? And all [clears throat] those in
favor? Opposed? Carried. Thank you. Uh we've
moved 10.3 to after the in camera session. uh to talk about the library
and then [clears throat] we have already talked about 10.4,
» haven't we? Oh, okay. I need I need someone to get
on the floor then. Councelor Bell and Councelor Coleman.
[clears throat] Who's going to speak to this then?
» Cheryl is here to answer questions. >> Cheryl is here to answer questions.
questions on this report that's in front of you.
No. Call the vote. All those in favor?
Opposed? Carried.
Communications is next. 11.1. Can I get it on the
floor? Councelor House and Councelor Kyle.
Thank you. Uh, it's a min a minister a ministry
letter for uh housing for strong mayor's powers. Any questions to that?
Are those in favor just to receive it? Uh 12 or 11.1 I need on the floor
please. Councelor somebody councelor councelor Pierce seconded by
councelor Oakley just to receive any questions all those
in favor opposed carried uh [clears throat] 11.3
which is grand river conservation authority letter get on the floor please
councelor Miller and councelor house questions
about the letter. Seeing now, we'll call the vote. All those in favor
opposed carried. Um 11.4, which is the Grand River
Conservation Authority letter. Uh just the draft budget. Can I get a mover to
get on the floor, please? Councelor Coleman and Councelor Haley. Any
questions to the letter for the opposed draft budget? All those in favor?
Opposed? carried community planning permit system correspondence to staff.
Oh, we did that already. Resolutions. We have 12.1 which is a proclamation
request for the suicide prevention. Uh Brandt, can I get it on the floor,
please? Councelor Haley, councelor Kyle, any questions or concerns about doing
that proclamation? Seeing none, all those in favor?
Opposed? Carried. Uh 12.2, 2 which is a proclamation again
the international society of research and advoc advocacy development
coordinator disorder it's a long one different uh get it on the floor
councelor Pierce wants to put it on the floor I need a seconder councelor house
thank you any [clears throat] conversation or concerns about that
proclamation call the vote all those in favor
carried and the [clears throat] Last one is the
Grand River Grand River Eerie Public Health. I'm sure that councelor Bell
wants to put that on the floor. Yeah, you have a second. Councelor House. Any
concerns about this request? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. All
those in favor? Opposed and carried. Other business.
Does anyone have any other business? I didn't ask earlier because I couldn't
talk very well earlier. I'm talking better now. Do you have anything that
you want to add further business? Seeing nothing. Councelor updates. Is
there anything in anyone's ward that you want the public to know about? It's time
to talk about it. No, nothing going on. Councelor Oakley, what's going on?
» Yes. Through through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh we did have a delegation earlier on it
about the uh the the the Poppy workshop tomorrow. I attended last week. I uh
they've had them all throughout the month of July throughout the day. and I
uh commented on Facebook just half-hazardly wish I could make it. I
work during the day. So, they've opened up two evening sessions which was very
wonderful. I attended last week. I'll be attending tomorrow and I encourage
everyone to come out and uh help attach some poppies to nets and uh it'll be a
good time. >> Okay, Councelor Chambers.
and and that jogs my memory. The U u crosswalk uh for celebrating the
Legion's 100th anniversary in in Berford very very well received and and I thank
Councelor Miller for for sticking with that and uh I know I was at the Legion
the other night and and that was uh one of the topics of conversation and it was
it's wellreceived in the community. >> Yeah, it's great that it all I'm glad
that we got them done on time too. Councelor Miller um maybe through
[clears throat] through to the clerk possibly. Um there was a request from uh
ambulance committee. Uh maybe we get a delegation going at AMO, but has has
those requests has that date come and gone? Does anybody know?
» I I I think they have come and gone >> through your worship to councelor
Miller. Um yes, they they do require those uh quite early unfortunately. So
um that date has definitely passed for for AMO. Um, but if there's something
you want us to put forward moving forward, we can
» have we received uh notification if if we've got if we've received any um
delegations like I know we put in a couple requests.
» Through your worship to council, I believe we only have MTO that's been
granted at this time. I' I'd look to Adam to confirm that.
» Excuse [clears throat] me. Uh through your worship. Uh yes. So we have
received word we received word late last week. There'll be a briefing note coming
to you. Okay. uh for the Bishop's Gate Road interchange with the MTO. The other
delegation request was um with energy and mines for the rural natural gas and
we have yet to hear back from that. >> Okay. Yeah. Cuz um we won't get a chance
to ask before uh AMO. So um and the bishop's gate I mean that's should be
straightforward presentation just the same one we presented the last five
times. So okay. Thank you. 15. Yeah. >> You sound so cynical about it council
really. I I've got I've got a couple of meetings. Uh yeah, with Six Nations and
and actually one with Mayor Davis. So it'll be a fun-filled event. Um anything
else? Our mural in St. George on the Legion is finished and it looks
beautiful. So we don't get a crosswalk, but we get a pretty dandy looking mural.
So if you're driving by St. George, uh take a look. It's really beautiful. So,
okay, we're going to go in camera now and councelor Oakley is going to take us
there. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by myself
and seconded by councelor Coleman that the county branch council convene in
Cameron to discuss S.2392C, a proposed or pending acquisition or
disposition of land by the municipality or local board, new central branch
library property acquisition. uh an S2392K,
a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any
negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality
administration and operations committee in camera report July 21st, 2026. County
and Brandt Special Counsel in camera minutes July 6, 2026. And county and
branch special counsel in camera minutes July 10th, 2026. All those in favor.
» Okay, we're going in camera.
Okay, we're back in open session. We're now [clears throat] what we've done is
we we're going to do 10.3. Now, I don't know who's coming up to speak on behalf
of the library.
Well, good evening everyone. I've been introduc
with me tonight is Kelly, our CEO. Fred Glatting had hoped to be able to join
us, but I think he's um on route somewhere and that's not working.
So, thank you very much for your time this evening. The public has every
reason to wonder what's been happening to the library since 2005. As members of
the library board, we've personally been asked that many times, and I'm sure your
constituents have been asking you that question, too. Our community has
remained deeply invested and interested in this project and we sincerely hope
we'll all be able to share a good news story soon.
The library board has remained committed to its mandate to cultivate inclusiv
inclusivity and power lifelong learning. In February 2025, the library board went
back to square one. We checked our assumptions, verified the data, and
re-engaged with the community. Today, on behalf of the library board, I share a
plan that demonstrates a number of things. We have been thorough and have
balanced the many important aspects of this project. We have contemplated
future needs of our rapidly growing community and remain committed to fiscal
responsibility. We have anticipated questions from the
community and from council and seek to work collaboratively for the benefit of
the community. We remain forward thinking and believe
deeply that our community deserves a library that is free and open and
accessible to everyone. So for all that I say thank you to the
seven volunteer citizen library board members, our three councelor members,
councelor Bell, counselor Kyle and counselor house and our CEO for our
collective persist persistence, creativity and dedication. We are also
very grateful to the various county staff and various departments and
divisions who have made valuable contributions to this work at many
points along the way. So the work is not over but this is an important line
milestone. And just so I'm clear, how do I get to the next slide?
» Just the arrow button up top. Okay, thank you.
Be helpful. Did I get there? >> Try this one on the end.
There we go. So, the why our community needs a
central library and you've heard this story um a few times and the information
hasn't changed. We are a growing community. We projected out to what our
community could look like in 2031 and found that the type of space we need,
what is it we need? Uh we need 26,250 ft. And that's not changed significantly
in any of the conversations that we've had with you about the space
requirements that we need. It would be lovely if we had the opportunity to
project out to 201, but we know that that's not uh a realistic thing to do
for for anybody to do that. To speak to uh councelor Kyle's comment earlier
about why didn't we do it sooner, you know, we all would have liked to have
done everything that we do in life sooner.
There we go. So, what we envision for a a library is it's modern and it's
accessible for everyone. The libraries are the one pa place in our community
where everyone is welcome, no matter who you are, where you come from, or what
you look like. No money is needed to participate in library services.
In our design phase, we will ensure the new library remembers our past, reflects
our present, and is aspirational about tomorrow. We will honor the indigenous
history of this land. The library is an anchor institution and it belongs to all
of us.
A library space should be bright and filled with natural light. There will be
books of course, but also spaces for families to come together, for children
and adults to learn, and neighbors and community to connect. The library will
reflect our world today. There will be elements of high-tech, low tech, and no
tech. From 3D printers to sewing machines to butterfly watching kits,
a library for every individual across our community will be accessible in
every sense of the word. Built for all ages and abilities.
Oops. Thank you.
There we go. I'll let Kelly speak to some of the finer details.
Okay. So, uh what we are presenting to you tonight uh is a high level summary
of the project plan for this project. Um we are Uh important to remember we are
not asking council for the entire sum tonight. Let me explain why this budget
is included. We are committed to full transparency on this project and we
understand the degree of investment that we're asking the council to make and we
understand the degree of accountability council will require of us. So the
estimated project budget that you have in front of you demonstrates our
understandings of what we can expect the cost for this project to be. And this
was created uh [clears throat] in consultation with the consultants that
the library board engaged with a specialized
quantity surveyor uh and industry professionals who have built libraries
before. Uh so the budget that you see we have great confidence in uh but we are
not asking for your approval for the full amount tonight because it needs a
lot of refining. This is a high level budget because that reflects the stage
in the process that we're at. So tonight what you'll hear us present and request
are related to uh phase one of what we're calling phase one of this phased
plan that we propose to take. Uh before moving on, I'll note that the project,
the projected budget is $26,838,000.
Uh that includes construction uh and uh for construction plus a $ 1.5 million
budget for furniture and equipment uh to bring it to an upset total of $28.3
million. But again, that is not what we're asking council for tonight. It's
giving you an idea of what the commitment for this project would look
like in the long term.
Uh so speaking of budget, I'll address fun projected funding sources uh as
well. And again, this is projected based on conversations with finance staff
based on uh preparations of budgets for previous library plan iterations. Um but
the projected sources include fundraising, uh some previous frequent
donations that the library has received, uh possible contributions from the
library's reserve fund. Uh development charges will account for 46% of the cost
of this project and that leaves a tax levy of up to 13 thou $13 million uh
that would typically be debentured over 20 to 25 years.
You may have noticed that grants are not listed here as a funding source. Uh we
have researched available grant programs and the sad sad reality is there are no
grant programs for libraries right now. Not for infrastructure, not for anything
substantial. Uh our staff will pursue every grant opportunity that comes along
and even the long shots just to find any possible money that we can. But we have
to be realistic and accept that grants will not be a reliable source of funding
for this project. We don't want to pretend otherwise. Our aim is to be
transparent and as realistic as possible.
So let me explain the phased approach that we are proposing to take.
Phase one of the project if approved will be initiation of course property
acquisition. We'll need a site to build on. uh the site analysis um due
diligence studies to better understand the site and all of the realities of
building on that site. Uh we will be looking to hire an architectural firm as
well as project management firms to uh to conduct uh concept design for the
project. So concept designs we are asking for council's permission to uh
authorize the library board to review and approve a concept design. Uh phase
two again if approved will be planning and planning and detailed design which
is the engineering specialty consultants the blueprints this is this is the meat
of uh what would actually get built again if we get there uh that would
include class budgeting uh site preparation zoning approval like we'd be
full into the project by then um everything that every step that it would
take to prepare us for the construction itself which would be phase three uh
construction site works everything to complete the building. And phase four
would be opening, commissioning the building, moving in the furniture,
setting up the equipment, and of course hosting a public grand opening.
Here's the projected timeline uh that we're working with. Again, pending
approval, but uh um it uh would start the pre-planning, as Marilyn said,
started last year, right? We're well into pre-planning. And um tonight we're
seeking council's approval to move into phase one of the project. So phase one
uh would be targeted for completion in winter 2027.
So uh so approvals from phase one will go to the next council for
consideration. Uh detailed design and construction will take from summer uh
2027 to through to summer 2028 approximately 11 months. And uh on this
timeline from now until finish, we would expect to move in uh to our new library
at the end of 2028 and open to the public by winter of 2029.
So again, to clarify and address the recommendations that are in your report,
what we're asking for tonight is $2.6 6 million and that is to fund further
study on the site and pending approval uh as well as project management and
architectural services for concept design. The entire goal of phase one is
to get us to a refined budget where we can stand in front of you and say with
confidence that we're requesting approval for x number of dollars. And
this process, this next process is what will determine whether that eventual
request would be for $21 million or $26 million. The goal is to reduce the
contingencies uh to know everything we possibly can about the project when we
come back to council for approval.
Uh so between uh Marilyn explaining the overall vision for the library uh and
the process that we propose to take to get there uh we are both oh sorry
forgive me. Uh so we're here in this process currently uh we are at this
stage pending council approval to move into phase one. Um but having summarized
everything for you Marilyn and I are happy to take questions.
» Thank you. Are there any questions from council to the delegation? Councelor
Haley, >> thank you for your presentation.
[clears throat] Uh, I just wanted to ask you from your report um how you
calculate the annual economic benefit um on this page. I didn't quite know how
you calculate it. I see it's broken up, but I didn't quite know how the
consultant or whoever did it. >> Yeah. So through your worship, councelor
Haley is referring to the libraries economic impact study, the valuing
Ontario libraries study that we published for the first time at uh the
end of 2024, beginning of last year. So what goes into that graphic that you're
describing, the one that found the value that the library provides to the
community is based on a thorough methodology developed by academic
institutions and library associations within the province. So there are
hundreds of metrics and processes and analyses calculations that go into
determining that and they are they fall under what the process calls domains but
it seeks to understand what's the library's cultural value, what's the
library's entertainment value, what's the library's education value, what are
we providing in each of those themes to the community. Councelor
Miller, >> I was wondering if um if Gary
[clears throat] could get that off there in case Council Pierce might have a
question. And I have two questions. He doesn't have his hand raised. Uh two
questions. Uh so three, Mr. Mayor to Kelly, the $1 million that you're um
projecting in uh donations, um do you believe that's realistic?
» Um through your worship, we do. We believe that's realistic. Uh I couldn't
stand up here and say $5 million because that's not realistic. But based on our
experiences from the pocket center process, based on speaking with
community members, uh having community members express interest in supporting a
library financially, we believe that is realistically attainable.
» Okay. Then the second question, architectural design, 1.5 million. If
you had guess if I had to guess at how much it costs for architectural design,
I would have thrown out a4 $50,000 price tag. So obviously I have no clue what
it's going for these days. Um have you gone you haven't gone to market yet for
that, have you? You haven't gotten a tender for that.
» No. Through your worship, that is one of the permissions we're requesting
tonight. Phase one would authorize the library board to uh to take undertake a
competitive purchasing process, an RFP to hire for architectural services. And
I should u you know clarify this would be up to this is our maximum budget. We
have every hope and we'll make every plan to come in under budget.
» Okay. That's that's the only two questions I have. Thank you. Councelor
Councelor Pierce. >> Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So, a question
in regards to the uh the 450,000 for the project manager because it states in
there that um that the library board will act as project manager for phase
one. Um and in your chart there phase four is really the opening. So you don't
need a project manager for that. So in essence the project manager would just
be for phase two and phase three. Is that correct?
» So through your worship uh we'd like the project manager in place in phase one so
they have a full understanding of the project from the early days and also so
that person can provide the capacity to coordinate and manage the studies the
site analysis and due diligence studies. Uh that's work that we don't have the
capacity for on staff.
» Okay. So just clarification through you Mr. Mayor. So the library board will not
be the project manager. It will be a project manager project manager if that
makes sense for the entire project. >> So through your worship I I apologize
for any confusion but I can see what you mean. Uh what we're asking for is for
the library to act as project manager, meaning the library board has the
authority to undertake certain steps, make certain approvals. Um and uh
project management for a consulting service that we would hire is much more
of the day-to-day everything. Although they bear the same name, they're two
very different spheres of influence. It's um rowing the boat versus steering
the ship. We've heard that a few times now.
» Okay. >> Councelor Oakley
[clears throat] >> through you, Mr. Mayor, to to Kelly.
Just sort of picking on a thread here from councelor Miller. So, um, you've
picked a million dollars for sort of the donation goal or fundraising goal. Um,
now I believe, unless I'm unaware of us changing our policy at some point, I
believe our policy for countyled projects when they're over a million
dollars is a 25% fundraising allotment. Now, not stating that I am agreement
with that policy. I I think largely it's unrealistic um for most projects, but
just I I I'm curious to hear you address um where if we were following what is
the county policy that we should be looking somewhere in the range of 56
million. >> Sure. So through your worship um and as
council has heard from your own staff in recent years that 25% goal may not be
realistic or attainable. So we are not suggesting that that would be realistic
or attainable for this project. Um we are quickly facing a time where the
community is oversaturated and there are people who will support libraries
because they support libraries but the uh the more general donor pool who are
looking to fund causes may very well be tapped out by the time we get to them.
So um we we would not stop at a million dollars for fundraising. We would
absolutely continue to try to find more and anything we raise above that would
be put directly into the project to reduce the other reduce the burden on
the other funding sources. >> Thank you,
» Councelor Coleman. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Motion to go past
the hour 10:00. >> Okay, seeking a second.
All those in favor? Okay. [clears throat]
Uh, councelor Bell. >> Thank you, Mr. May. Just to follow up on
councelor Pierce's question about project management, and I know u
councelor mccalpine will bear me out on this. Uh, we do not have the experience
in the library board to actually do the hands-on project management. Neither did
we have the ability in John Noble home to do the project management, but we
tried to do it and it and it kind of failed. So ultimately we had to hire a
project manager and you know the number that we got in there I think it reflects
the same kind of cost that we've experienced in John Noble home and our
experience is there are invaluable. So whilst the library board will be
owners of the project they will not be hands-on managers that just is not the
skill set we have.
» Any councelor Haley Yes, I I'm trying to understand um
uh with this library project, I see
development charges, but I believe the county it's it would be a county owned
building. And so why would there be development charges for the county?
That's what I'm trying to understand. So through your worship, the development
charge legislation is entirely based on the purpose of the project and libraries
are one of the purposes that the municipality can collect development
charges for. So it is perfectly acceptable and quite common for the
municipality to own a building. As long as it is being built and operated as a
library, then it is eligible for development charges.
» Any other questions? Councelor Chambers >> just so sorry I understand the timeline
the U phase one the initiation initiation phase uh when that's
completed then the library board will have to come back for additional
approvals to move forward uh and that will u occurs according to
the time frame sometime you said next summer
» through your worship we're anticipating winter Um, we'll stick as close to that
as we can. >> So, this this winter,
» yes, winter 2027. >> So, that that is a
» Forgive me. [laughter] >> Makes a little bit more sense because I
» And then you move on. Okay, I understand.
» Any other questions? [clears throat]
No. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Uh, we have this on the floor. We have a seconder. All
those in favor just to receive this information.
I'm sorry. >> Oh,
just a just a minute. Councelor Councelor Pierce.
» Are you Did you have >> I'm here.
» Did you have another question? >> Nope.
» No. Okay. We do have it on the floor, right?
» For approval. What did I say? >> Oh,
I'm delirious. I'm delirious. >> Is there is there any other comments
before we call the vote? All those in favor?
Opposed and carried. Thank you. Takes us number 16 on the agenda and it's the
bylaws. Councelor Bell, you have those.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh moved by myself and seconded by councelor Chambers that
bylaws 83-26 to 88-26 and 96-26 to 105-26 be read a first
time. >> All those in favor of the first reading
of the bylaws. Second reading, please. Councelor Bell.
Moved by myself, seconded by councelor Chambers, that bylaws 83-26
to 88-26 and 96-26 to 105-26
be read a second time and all preamles and clauses be adopted.
» Are there any questions to the second reading of the bylaws?
Seeing none, all those in favor and councelor Bill, if you could do it
one more time, please. Moved by myself, seconded by councelor Chambers, that
bylaws 83-26 to 88-26 and 96-26 to 105-26
be read a third time, passed, signed, and executed.
» All those in favor of the third reading of the bylaws.
Thank you. >> [clears throat]
» Number 17 on the agenda is the next meeting which is
August the 12th, 2026, 6 o'clock.
That's a statutory meeting, not a council meeting.
With that being said, is there anything else for