[0:00] everyone and welcome to a meeting of
Brent count county council for July the
[0:04] 28th 2026.
I have a bit of a sore throat so I'm
[0:08] going to try to get through this and if
I can't get through it someone is going
[0:12] to come up and finish it off for me.
First thing on our agenda today is our
[0:15] attendance. It's been taken by the clerk
and we're all here. Councelor Pierce is
[0:20] online. I think he's in Mexico. The rest
of us are all in here. Um, the land
[0:25] acknowledgement is the second thing on
the agenda and councelor Kyle's going to
[0:29] do that for us.
>> As we gather, we acknowledge that we
[0:34] meet on the lands and territory of the
Missosagas of the Credit First Nation,
[0:38] six nations of the Grand River and the
traditional territory of the Adawander.
[0:42] We remind ourselves that the county of
Brandt is situated on lands that are
[0:46] full of rich indigenous history and home
to many First Nations, Inuit, and Matei
[0:51] people. Today, we recognize the
significance of their contributions to
[0:55] the past, present, and future of this
land. As a county, we have a shared
[1:00] responsibility for the stewardship of
the land on which we live and work, and
[1:04] a commitment to the truth and
reconciliation calls to action. We
[1:08] commit to continue learning, reflecting
on our past, and working in allyship.
[1:12] » Thanks, Councelor Kyle. Uh, the third
thing on our agenda is the agenda itself
[1:17] with an addendum. Is there anything else
the council wants to put on the agenda?
[1:25] No.
>> Councelor Kyle.
[1:28] » Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Uh, not an addition
to the agenda, but wondering if we could
[1:32] bring uh the communications uh related
to the CPPS ahead of the uh discussion
[1:38] on the CPPS. So, that would be I think
it's 10.5.
[1:42] » Yeah. Thank you. Hey, Councelor Miller.
>> Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Um, if you look at uh
[1:49] item number, and just bear with me for a
second here,
[1:54] 103,
and that's a new central library project
[1:58] plan. I'm just wondering, um, should
that item not come after the in camera
[2:04] item of 151?
To me, it makes sense it should.
[2:11] Okay, everybody's okay with that?
Doesn't really matter to me. It does
[2:17] make more sense.
>> Yeah, because there's I have questions
[2:21] about that, but I I think I'd I'd like
to ask. Anyways, what I would suggest
[2:24] and uh it's up to you obviously, but uh
is maybe move 103 to the after camera.
[2:30] Um
>> Okay.
[2:32] » And
>> anybody else?
[2:35] Okay. We're going to vote on the agenda
as it's amended with its addendum. All
[2:40] those in favor?
Opposed? Carried.
[2:46] The next [clears throat] thing on the
agenda is the declaration of pecinary
[2:49] interest. Does anyone see any that are
obvious? Councelor Miller,
[2:54] » I got uh one item on I'll pull it when
we get to it, but that's from the admin
[2:58] and OP meeting.
>> Okay.
[3:02] Anyone else have any pecunary interest?
Seeing none. Okay. We'll go on to number
[3:06] five, which is our delegations. And we
have a couple of them. The first one is
[3:10] from the Paris Legion. It's going to be
Barry and Cheryl are going to come up
[3:14] and speak
[3:22] and you have 10 minutes.
And uh if you can just give us your full
[3:28] names, please and and uh we we
understand that you're representing the
[3:32] Paris Legion.
>> You bet. I'm my name is Barry Humphrey.
[3:34] I'm the president of Legion 21 in Paris.
And uh this is my wife. She's on the
[3:41] committee for uh with the anniversary of
raising funds for our anniversary uh
[3:47] which is coming up. October 7th, 1926
was when we uh signed the charter and
[3:54] we've been doing fundraisings for our
100th anniversary. Uh music events,
[3:58] barbecues, high tees, Mother's Day
brunches, and uh we're going to have a
[4:05] September 28th October 2 open house, the
invitation to schools and public. The
[4:11] theme is women on the home front.
stitches, steel, and strength, holding
[4:17] the line at home, women's and World War
II. Uh the contributors were Paris
[4:23] Museum, Canadian Military,
uh Museums, uh the Paris Library, the
[4:29] Paris Legion Archives, and the general
public. I'm going to turn this over to
[4:35] Cheryl, and I'll let her talk about some
more issues that we're doing at the
[4:38] Legion.
[4:45] I'm shorter. I got to adjust.
With the 100th anniversary, we've plined
[4:51] many of fundraising events. We've done
barbecues, Mother's Day, um, uh, brunch.
[4:56] We've done high tea, and, uh, we've
worked very hard to raise funds. Uh,
[5:02] some of these funds will be used to, uh,
improve some of the facilities at the
[5:06] Legion as well as help us with some
celebrations. Our October uh open house
[5:13] is going to be an invite to schools and
the open public. We'll have all kinds of
[5:18] displays out there indicating what the
women in Paris as well as in Ontario,
[5:24] what they did during the World War II.
Many, many things of interest that
[5:29] everybody should come out and see. Part
of our celebration also has been the
[5:34] Poppy Project. But I'm going to first
show the picture. I think that you're
[5:40] going to have to. So, this is a fiber
art picture. It means it's all made of
[5:46] fabric and we have a very talented lady
who has donated two pictures to our
[5:52] Legion. The first one will find its
permanent home there, but this one is a
[5:57] fundraising effect or event. Um, it's
fiber, meaning that it's all fabric
[6:03] stitched down. Uh Donna Visure Campbell,
who is a local um um resident, has been
[6:11] very um strong in producing pictures
like this, and she does sell them, but
[6:16] she has donated two of these to us us
for one for fundraising and one for a
[6:21] commemoration for our 100th anniversary.
It's a fragile event, so we say I'm
[6:27] fragile. Please don't pet me. But that's
your first inclination is to go up and
[6:32] touch it because you can't believe that
it's not paint.
[6:36] The project that I'm really uh involved
in is the Poppy project.
[6:42] So I'm you may have seen this project up
in different areas. Cambridge did a big
[6:48] display. The Tower of London did a
really big one. So we're up there with
[6:52] the big wigs. But this uh we went to the
community and this has become a very
[6:59] social and inclusive event. So Mary
Maxum Cheler Place Queens View
[7:06] Brandt Seniors Women's Institute Probus
Adelide Hunter Hoodless Paris
[7:12] Agricultural Society and the general
public have come together to crochet or
[7:17] knit these poppies. Most of the people
donated their time, effort, and money to
[7:22] do that. And now we have collected
11,000 poppies.
[7:28] What do we do with them? We're going to
put them on netting. So, we'll need to
[7:33] purchase netting to do that. Um, the
goal is to get as many done as we can,
[7:38] but if we don't, we still have next year
to work on that project. But where will
[7:42] we put them? We're concerned about the
fact that we would like to put them in
[7:47] places that really show the respect,
remembrance, uh, and reverence that we
[7:52] would like to to send out to our
veterans. So, we're going to try to get
[7:57] them at the Senate. We will, um, also
put them on our smokehouse, which is the
[8:03] name for our Legion building. And, uh,
if there are other areas in the
[8:07] community, we will definitely do that.
We will share some of these with Telford
[8:11] Place and with Queens View because they
were so in in uh helpful in in getting
[8:16] this project going.
So, our fundraising for the poppies has
[8:21] been minimal because most people have
donated so much, but now it's time to
[8:25] buy netting and to buy equipment to help
uh
[8:31] attach the poppies to buildings and
that. So, we are looking for a little
[8:35] bit of help in that area that perhaps we
could um get some kind of a
[8:40] » money
>> money. We like money, but if we could
[8:43] get some type of uh funding for uh for
this event, that would be lovely. Uh the
[8:49] uh poppies can go up the last Friday of
October and they're up until the end of
[8:56] Remembrance Day. When they come down, we
have a a bit of a logistics. We have to
[9:02] find a place to dry them because they
could be very wet. So, we have to do
[9:07] that. And then we're also looking for
places to store them. But we've put out
[9:12] an appeal to the community and we have
lots of totes that are coming in and
[9:17] people are donating totes to help us
with that event, that part. So, tomorrow
[9:22] night we are having a
um Poppy B at the Legion. So, I believe
[9:29] Lucas has thrown out a challenge to
everyone here to come out and help him
[9:35] because he was there last week. Is that
true, Lucas?
[9:40] » Through the mayor. Yes. [laughter]
[9:43] » Anyways, if you can come out and help us
in any way, that would be lovely. It's a
[9:48] very social event. There's lots of
chatter. There's lots of fun. So, uh if
[9:52] you could come out, that would be great.
So, that's what our um Have I got my 10
[9:57] minutes still? Am I good?
>> Okay. Three seconds. Three minutes.
[10:02] Okay. Um uh so if you can come out and
help us in any way, that would be great.
[10:06] This is a these poppies will be used
year after year. It's not a one-time
[10:12] deal just for our 100th anniversary. So,
we will put them out on display in the
[10:16] community. And I think that the people
who have been very much a part of this
[10:21] will be very
they'll be very grateful to see them up
[10:25] there. And I think that they will be
very um I think they'll be emotionally
[10:30] uh charged with this as well too. So we
have a huge uh amount of veterans in our
[10:35] area and this is just one way for us to
help celebrate that and to remember them
[10:39] by. So thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Can I get a motion to so we
[10:43] can talk about this? Councelor House,
Councelor Coleman. Uh does council have
[10:48] any questions to the delegation?
Councelor Haley.
[10:53] » Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I
don't know if you're going to be
[10:56] including the farmers. They
>> Yes,
[10:59] » they have a film and they were here
speaking uh two times I think in Brank
[11:02] County in Onadega and then at Langford
Schoolhouse. So,
[11:05] » they will be here. Um the Farmerettes
were a group of uh young women who if
[11:11] they had great marks at Christmas time
would not have to write exams in the
[11:16] spring and they could go out and work on
the farms. And so uh the farmers are
[11:21] also having a display at the Paris
Museum on September the 27th. So they
[11:25] will have uh information about that and
I have met women around here who are
[11:31] farmerrettes. So it's really interesting
to see that.
[11:34] » Any other questions?
Okay. Thank you for your delegation.
[11:39] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[11:44] Which is going to take us to Oh, I'm
sorry. I need a motion to
[11:47] [clears throat] motion to receive the
delegation's information. All those in
[11:51] favor?
Opposed? It's carried. Something went
[11:56] wrong there, but we'll catch up. Randy
Mason, you're next.
[12:01] Come on up.
[12:06] [snorts]
[12:16] And if you could just give us your name,
please, and your address for the clerk.
[12:22] » Uh, my name is Randy Mason. I live on 16
Mount Elgen Street in Paris.
[12:29] » Thank you.
[12:35] » Um, never done one of these before.
I was told uh I didn't need anything on
[12:42] paper or anything, but
um one thing that's been uh bothering me
[12:48] a little bit is the uh um dog licensing
regulations
[12:55] [snorts] of uh Paris or Brandt
um in so much that
[13:03] um we charge more for a license for an
unfixed
[13:08] animal.
[13:11] And
this uh
[13:17] increase in the charge is about 35% over
a fixed animal.
[13:24] I'm wondering whether or not this
um
[13:31] is still uh necessary to do.
Um maybe 50 years ago when I was living
[13:40] over on the flats and everybody let
their dog run free.
[13:45] Um it might have been a relatively good
idea to have people pay a little bit
[13:52] more to if they didn't have their animal
fixed in order to um
[13:59] uh I guess control the pet population a
little bit easier.
[14:04] Um,
[14:08] I
have a dog myself. I was going to bring
[14:14] her, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed
or not. Um, she has just turned five
[14:20] years old.
I waited until she was 4 and a half
[14:25] years old
and I finally had her spayed.
[14:31] Um,
I have not been really sold on whether
[14:36] or not spaying an animal or neutering an
animal [clears throat]
[14:41] actually
um
[14:45] does good or more harm.
Several cancers have been linked to
[14:51] female dogs that are not fixed and
several cancers have been linked to dogs
[14:56] that are fixed.
Um, I had another dog that I did not get
[15:03] fixed
and uh, she died two years ago and I'm
[15:10] sure it was some form of cancer. So, I
made a mistake there. But I believe that
[15:17] it should be a choice of the dog owners
now as to whether or not they actually
[15:23] spay or neuter their animals.
Um, we are a lot more respectable
[15:30] citizens these days, at least most of
us, except for those of us who
[15:37] stop and stoop and pick up their
animals stuff
[15:44] and a plastic bag and get a half a half
a block down the street and they're sort
[15:50] of looking around like this and then it
gets tossed.
[15:54] That's probably worse than not picking
it up at all. At least the rain would
[15:58] dissolve it. Plastic bags are going to
be there until somebody picks them up.
[16:04] But anyway, I would like to propose that
we um amend the dog licensing. Am I on a
[16:13] timer?
>> Sorry.
[16:15] » You're okay. [laughter]
[16:18] Um, I would like to propose uh uh that
we an amendment that we make an
[16:24] amendment to the dog licensing
um fees and charge each dog as an
[16:33] individual and an equal to the next dog.
Um I think if we most people who are
[16:42] going to have a
litter of dogs today
[16:47] plan it
and therefore if it is planned
[16:53] maybe it is easier or better to
attach a small fee to
[17:00] someone who is allowing their animal to
have a litter of pups instead of
[17:07] charging
um the people who just choose not to
[17:13] spay their animal because
in their minds
[17:18] it's better not to spay them.
And that's why it took me four and a
[17:23] half years to decide to do it. and I
finally decided that
[17:29] um I was going to take uh my vets's uh
uh information and uh I had Tilly
[17:38] spayed.
Now, the other thing I wanted to mention
[17:42] was the fact that um
in order to have her spade cost me $625.
[17:54] Now, if my only choice or my only
concern was that I had to pay a higher
[18:01] fee for an unfixed dog over about 12
years, the additional cost in licensing
[18:09] comes to about a little over $200. So, I
would be a lot better off if I did not
[18:16] have my dog spayed at all and just paid
the extra fee.
[18:21] Um
[18:32] and I think that's all I have to say.
just uh to uh have the uh council
[18:38] consider changing their uh fee schedules
and
[18:46] maybe charge people who have a litter of
puppies. Uh have them pay a
[18:53] a modest fee for having a litter of
puppies.
[18:58] um rather than charge the person who
just chooses not to spay their animal.
[19:06] I thank you for your time.
>> Oh, thank you. Thank you. Can I get a
[19:09] mover, please, to get on the floor?
Councelor House. Second, please.
[19:13] Councelor McCalpine.
Any comments or questions for the
[19:17] delegation?
[19:21] So, so you tonight isn't the night that
we would deal with that, but we can take
[19:25] it back and have it looked at and uh get
a report. And if you can just sign the
[19:30] paper that's on the podium at the back,
we'll keep you in the loop as to what
[19:34] what discussion goes on after after
tonight.
[19:37] » I have one more question.
>> Absolutely.
[19:40] » Um not to offend anyone.
>> Can you can you speak to the microphone
[19:44] so that councelor
>> Sorry. Not to offend anyone.
[19:48] Um, but I've uh been a residence of
Paris my whole life. I was born at the
[19:54] Willlet Hospital, lived over in the
flats most of my life. My mom still
[19:58] lives out in the far end of Willow
Street.
[20:02] Um,
[20:05] I thought I was the only one that was
dumb enough to uh crawl across that
[20:11] train bridge
from underneath.
[20:18] Um
but uh several months ago I run into a
[20:24] young lady who said, "Oh yeah, we did
that last summer."
[20:29] And
when I did it I was 15. Well, now I'm 70
[20:34] and it's probably one of the more
dangerous things I ever did in my life.
[20:40] Um because when you start crawling
underneath that bridge and you look down
[20:45] and there's nothing between you and 200
ft of water except for air,
[20:53] um we may want to uh double check to
make sure that that bridge is somewhat
[21:01] more sealed off than it was years ago.
One of the abupments actually has an
[21:07] iron
um ladder that goes from the top of the
[21:12] abupman up to the railway tracks
and I pushed the flap door open and
[21:19] stuck my head out and there's a darn
train coming. So I had to get down in a
[21:24] big hurry. But it is uh something of
concern. My next my other question if I
[21:29] have another second. it is. Um,
this is where I hope not to offend
[21:35] anyone, but um,
if
[21:40] I was to contact
[21:45] certain officials or councilman
about a question that I may have,
[21:53] approximately how much time should I
wait for a response?
[21:58] that that depends on what ward you're
you're in and who your counselor is.
[22:03] [clears throat] So, we'll just leave it
like that. And uh because I mean you you
[22:09] some questions are answered quickly,
some take time to be researched. So, I
[22:14] don't want to start using council
members and and and [clears throat]
[22:19] calling them out by name.
>> No, I don't mean to call anyone out
[22:24] either. Uh, I'm very sorry, but four and
a half years ago,
[22:30] I found myself within weeks of being
homeless
[22:35] in Paris here
due to un
[22:42] unforeseen
things that happen in life.
[22:47] And
I think I've waited four and a half
[22:51] years too long for an answer.
Um, same as with this dog issue, I also
[23:01] asked my counselors
what direction I should take
[23:09] and uh, three months has gone by and I
end up here because I haven't got an
[23:15] answer.
>> Well,
[23:16] » um, is that [clears throat] is that
normal procedure or
[23:20] » No, it's not. We have our bylaw man
here. He's listening to your he's going
[23:25] to get back to you much sooner uh than
three months.
[23:30] » Oh,
>> but I we really do need your information
[23:33] at the back so that we have your email
address and things like that.
[23:37] » Okay. I do allow you I do thank you very
very much for allowing me to speak and
[23:43] uh listening. Thank you very much.
>> Thanks, Randy.
[23:48] [clears throat]
Okay, so we have it on the floor.
[23:50] There's no other questions. I I want uh
we're going to vote to receive as
[23:55] information, please. All those in favor?
Opposed? Carried. Teresa and Denise,
[24:01] you're up next.
[24:08] Two very dangerous sisters.
[24:14] [laughter]
[24:17] » You can just give us your full name,
please. Uh Teresa Manning for me of
[24:21] Paris many years ago.
>> Thank you. Denise
[24:27] [snorts]
>> Denise Hagert 61 Bradberry Crescent.
[24:32] » Thank you.
>> We're good now.
[24:34] » You're good.
>> Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members
[24:37] of council, and guests. Is that loud
enough for you?
[24:41] » Yeah.
>> My name is Teresa Manning. I was born
[24:43] and raised in the town of Paris, a place
that will always hold a special place in
[24:47] my heart. My younger sister Alisa and I
were both both born at Willlet Hospital
[24:53] and Paris will always be home to our
family. As the town continues to grow,
[24:58] I've noticed many new streets being
named after families who helped build
[25:01] and shape our community. Having grown up
on Bfield Street, I recognized many of
[25:06] those names, and it inspired me to make
this heartfelt request. I respectfully
[25:11] asked council to consider naming a
street Zel in honor of my parents
[25:17] Michael and Mary Zel. My parents moved
to Paris in 1950.
[25:23] My father always believed that if you
wanted to be part of a community, you
[25:27] should get involved. And he lived by
those words. My father was also a proud
[25:32] war World War II veteran who answered
the call to serve his country. His
[25:37] military service is permanently
recognized on the Paris Veterans
[25:41] Memorial Map, honoring his service and
sacrifice during World War II, along
[25:47] with his decades of service to the
community, his dedication to both his
[25:51] country and his hometown as a legacy
that continues to inspire our family.
[25:56] For 40 years, our father managed Matart
Building Supplies. There's a name you
[26:02] might not remember. Maybe some of you
do. um now known as a home building
[26:07] center. In [clears throat] the days
before Sunday shopping, if customers
[26:11] needed supplies, Dad would gladly open
the store, help them, and simply tell
[26:17] them to pay him on Monday. That kind of
trust, generosity, and community spirit
[26:23] to find who he was. Beyond his career,
he was deeply involved in this
[26:27] community. He was an active member of
the United Church, the Paris Lions Club,
[26:33] the Board of Trade, and the Masonic
Lodge, where he served as pastmaster. He
[26:38] taught public speaking and volunteered
as a judge for student competitions at
[26:42] the old Central School, if anybody
remembers that great place. And after
[26:47] retiring, coordinated the Christmas
hampers for the Salvation Army. our
[26:52] mother, Mary Zelle, who was equally
dedicated to our community. Along with
[26:57] several other women, she helped
establish the Lady Lions in 1954.
[27:02] She was an enthusiastic curler, an avid
bowler, and always brought warmth,
[27:07] kindness, and laughter to everyone she
met. My parents were caring, loving, and
[27:12] supportive. They were respected members
of this community who devoted countless
[27:16] hours to making Paris a better place.
Their generosity, compassion, and
[27:22] willingness to help others.
Oh boy.
[27:27] You can do it. Left a lasting impression
on everyone who knew them. My sister
[27:32] Denise Hagar still resides in Paris and
her family's connection to this
[27:37] wonderful community remains as strong as
ever.
[27:41] It would mean a great deal to our family
if council would recognize their legacy
[27:45] by naming a street zel. I don't care if
you name a crescent, a boulevard,
[27:50] » a [laughter] parkway,
>> a parkway, but we really appreciate you
[27:54] would consider. It's an easy name to
spell.
[27:57] Thank you for considering my request. I
sincerely appreciate your time and look
[28:02] forward to your response. Thank you.
>> You if I can get a motion, please, to
[28:06] get this on the floor to Councelor House
and Councelor Bell. Um, there is a
[28:11] process for this. Uh, and and uh there
there's there's two ways this could
[28:17] happen. We could do it with a poppy for
your father or if you wanted to do it
[28:21] for your for your mother, too, we could
just do the the last name and and
[28:25] hopefully we could still get it onto the
veterans piece of it. So, we'll be in
[28:30] touch with you to the pro on the pro
>> Can I tell you that? We we'll get back
[28:35] to you on the process and uh I I thank
you for for bringing this to our
[28:40] attention because it's important and uh
I I think it's a wonderful thing. Does
[28:44] council have anything to add to to these
two sisters before we we release them
[28:50] back into the public? [laughter]
>> No.
[28:54] » That's dangerous, right?
>> Well, that was easy.
[28:58] [clears throat]
>> Yeah. So, we're we're going to give
[29:00] direction to staff to bring a report
back. And again, if we can if we can
[29:04] have you sign the back with your email
so we can keep you in the loop, that's
[29:09] great. Did I call the vote already? No.
Call the vote to receive.
[29:15] Thank you.
[29:20] Takes us to 5.4 on the agenda, which is
Grand Paris Grand Estates.
[29:26] Who do Who do we have coming up here?
Can we get on the floor, please,
[29:31] council? Thank you, Councelor Oakley.
Councelor McCalpine, and again, you have
[29:35] 10 minutes, please, if you could just
give us your full name and who you
[29:38] represent for the clerk.
[30:21] Uh, good evening, Mayor Bailey and
members of council. My name is Alex
[30:24] Lusty. I'm a lawyer at Davies How LLP
and I'm here tonight appearing for Paris
[30:30] Grand Estates Incorporated. And they
have a a piece of property out on the
[30:35] northeast side of Paris. And I'll just
try to pull it up on screen here so
[30:40] everyone can see where that is. just a
quick reference for you.
[30:47] And um they're the developer of the
Paris Grand subdivision depicted on
[30:52] screen there. And I have one request
tonight and that's to please remove this
[30:57] subdivision from the CPP framework.
Doing that will simplify the buildout of
[31:03] the subdivision and will not delay
implementation of the new framework. So
[31:08] I'm going to explain why we're making
that request.
[31:12] Fundamentally, the CPP framework is
unclear when it comes to transition.
[31:17] What do I mean by that? Well, there's
two contradictory ideas in the
[31:20] framework. The first concept is a
discretionary transition for a limited
[31:26] period of time. And the second is a
permissible transition until project
[31:31] completion. And I I can't figure out
which one applies. So the first concept
[31:36] is based on the wording of section
1.18.5
[31:39] which makes it clear that the
application of zoning bylaw 6116
[31:45] may be relied on. That is no guarantee
that past provisions will apply. It's
[31:51] just a possibility that they might. So
if zoning bylaw 6116 applies and you're
[31:58] lucky enough, it can apply until
buildout.
[32:02] But that's only if buildout takes less
than 5 years because after that time the
[32:08] transition provisions are somehow
automatically removed from the bylaw and
[32:12] you can't rely on them anymore. Um
there's no guidance in the transition
[32:16] provisions about what to do if the CPP
bylaw has new standards that frustrate a
[32:22] proposal.
[32:25] That can come down.
Um, so when you take that framework
[32:31] along with the comments from staff that
they don't support excluding the
[32:34] subdivision, the concern is that the
transition might not be available when
[32:39] it's needed. So that's one framework.
The second is a concept based on section
[32:44] 119.3
of the bylaw and the response later in
[32:49] the response we received on July 9th.
And the July 9th response sums it up
[32:54] pretty well. It says draft approved
subdivisions may continue to rely on
[33:00] sight specific zoning and applicable
provisions of former zoning bylaw 6116
[33:06] until full bu buildout. The use of may
rather than shall provides flexibility
[33:11] to use either existing standards or the
new CPP standards where they may provide
[33:17] additional flexibility to a property
owner. So under this framework, the pass
[33:23] zoning applies to the subdivision's
complete, but at best that just creates
[33:27] a contradiction. So like I said, it's
it's impossible to know which one
[33:32] applies, and that's not a rational
solution. And so a solution is needed to
[33:37] that, which is why I've prepared this
alternative motion for you for number
[33:43] 10.1 on the agenda that will exclude the
Paris Grand subdivision lands. That's
[33:48] what all the underlining does and that's
about it.
[33:53] So why this motion? Well, I'll tell you
is because it conforms with the official
[33:59] plan and the one in the agenda doesn't.
So it might be said that these lands
[34:05] need to come into the CPP framework
because the 2023 official plan, the new
[34:10] one, provides for that method of
implementation.
[34:14] Let's look at that a little deeper.
You've got to remember that this
[34:19] subdivision was made and approved under
the 2012 official plan.
[34:25] And that's important because of what
section 1.5 and part one of your
[34:30] official plan says. And it says
development applications submitted and
[34:35] deemed complete through a planning act
application
[34:38] prior to provincial approval of this
plan and uh subsequent development
[34:43] applications implementing such
development applications like this
[34:46] subdivision shall be reviewed and this
is the key part under the policies of
[34:52] the 2012 county of Brandt official plan.
So the current official plan is clear
[34:58] that it doesn't apply to these lands,
right? And that means that passing the
[35:04] bylaw as is creates a a compliance
problem with section 24 of the planning
[35:11] act because that section of the planning
act requires your bylaws to conform with
[35:16] the official plan and your official plan
says don't apply the new official plan
[35:21] to this property. So that's one problem.
The other is a CPP regulation basically
[35:28] requires the same thing. Requires you to
have an official plan that places these
[35:32] lands in a CPP area and that's not
happening. So if the CPP framework
[35:42] proceeds as proposed to sum it up, it's
contrary to the new official plan. It's
[35:47] contrary to the planning act and it's
contrary to the CPP regulation.
[35:54] So, let's just say that one of the
concerns with what we're asking for is
[35:57] that it leads to a dual compliance
scenario. And that's a resource issue. I
[36:01] get it. And basically what it requires
is review under the old zoning bylaw and
[36:07] a review under the new CPP framework.
And you got to go through all the
[36:12] numbers and it takes a lot of time and
no one wants to do double the amount of
[36:15] work. And I get that. But let's assume
we're in a scenario where it's the
[36:21] properties transitioned
and we've got that scenario where the
[36:26] lesser standard applies.
In order to figure out which is the
[36:30] lesser standard, you have to go through
both and run a comparison anyway. So
[36:35] you're going through a dual review
process if transition applies the way
[36:39] it's intended to. And that means more
work and not less. And to be very clear,
[36:46] what we're proposing by removing the
subdivision is to clean that up. You
[36:51] just apply the existing zoning under
6116 like it's meant to be applied in
[36:57] conformity with your official plan.
So,
[37:02] this subdivision process has been going
on for about a decade.
[37:06] And these processes don't change on a
dime.
[37:12] We're working through a phased buildout
of about 750 homes. Um, roads have been
[37:18] built. Municipal services have been
constructed
[37:24] and all of that is in reliance on the
existing framework. That's what has been
[37:29] used so far. And though it may not be
intended, what the CPP framework risks
[37:37] is destabilizing that prior approval
framework.
[37:42] So to avoid complications,
we're proposing a simple solution of
[37:48] removing the subdivision from the CPP
framework. Doing so will ensure that at
[37:54] least for this property, it conforms
with the new official plan, doesn't
[37:58] contravene the planning act, and it
doesn't contravene the CPP regulation
[38:02] under the planning act.
So I'd suggest to you that under the
[38:07] current circumstances the correct action
is to remove these properties from the
[38:12] CPP framework and that's why we prepared
this alternative motion um number 10.1
[38:21] and there's a bunch of underlining
that's all the additional stuff and what
[38:25] that does is take the Paris grand lands
out nothing more that's all it's
[38:30] supposed to do um so that's all I had
intended to say this evening. Thank you.
[38:37] » Thank you. Questions to the presenter.
Councelor Miller, you're first.
[38:42] » Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Three to the
presenter. Just to be clear, um yeah,
[38:45] you read staff's response obviously. Um
and there was I guess staying in it
[38:51] gives you flexibility, but you're saying
you don't want that cut carve you out
[38:56] and you'll be happy. Is that fair?
>> That's a great summary. Yes.
[39:00] » Okay. Um
then uh Mr. Mayor um when when we uh
[39:05] move to receive maybe we can refer it to
101 as well.
[39:10] » Any other questions?
>> Okay. So we will make a motion to
[39:15] receive and send to staff or send
[clears throat] it to staff. Councelor,
[39:20] » we don't have to send it to staff, Mr.
R. We just have to refer it to 101 when
[39:24] that comes up for discussion.
>> All right.
[39:27] » Any other questions?
All those in favor,
[39:32] we're just sending it on. Thank you.
[39:38] [clears throat] 5.5 has been withdrawn.
5.6 has been withdrawn.
[39:48] 5.7 is Robert Hamilton, Mark Eddie,
and who else?
[39:56] Just you.
Okay,
[40:01] we get a motion to get it on the floor,
please. A mover. Councelor Coleman and
[40:06] Councelor Kyle.
>> Thank you.
[40:10] And again, you have 10 minutes. Please,
if you can just give us your full name
[40:13] and your address, please, for the clerk,
[40:17] » Mark Eddie, 47 Kitchen School Road.
>> Thank you.
[40:25] Bob Hamilton, 193 Brandt County Road 18.
>> Thank you.
[40:31] » Um, good evening, uh, Mr. Mayor and the
Brandt County Counselors. Uh, we
[40:38] represent the Brand County Federation of
Agriculture, and we would like to state
[40:43] our position on the topic of the new
CPPS
[40:47] uh, process that's being uh, looked at
today. A letter was circulated to all
[40:53] the counselors and the mayor two weeks
ago uh on July the 17th which by the way
[41:00] is not listed in the CPP correspondence
in section 11 today but everybody I
[41:07] believe received it. Uh at the same time
we received a response from Brandon on
[41:14] the questions and the comments uh from
the planning department and their
[41:19] position and we thank you for that.
[41:23] But we still have some talking points
that we want to make sure that the
[41:27] council is aware of and concerns that uh
we would like you to think about as you
[41:34] get ready to vote.
applying for the CPP countywide.
[41:40] We feel that the CPPs can work well in
the settlement areas to help speed up
[41:47] the processes of the minor variances in
the towns and villages where growth has
[41:53] been determined.
Agricultural and rural designations
[41:59] are large are not a large growth area
but more a land preservation option to
[42:06] ensure society has enough um land to
grow the food for itself and for farms
[42:12] to be profitable as they grow and
prosper throughout Brat County.
[42:19] This brings us up with one of our our
problems on for agricultural land is the
[42:25] lack of agricultural knowledge and
experience of the junior planners
[42:30] uh that have just graduated in the last
couple years and are still learning
[42:37] what their jobs are.
These planners have authority though
[42:42] under the new CPPS
uh to choose whether they wish to handle
[42:47] an application under class one or class
two and that's looked after by the
[42:54] planning department or
if they wish to um
[43:01] involve a class three and which council
would then have input on that that
[43:09] situation or or uh application.
So these are just some things there from
[43:15] an experienced perspective that uh we
don't feel comfortable with.
[43:20] Uh, another question we have is why is
Brandt County the only municipality in
[43:26] Ontario
to convert completely to the CPS CPPS
[43:32] system when large cities and other
counties have taken a more structured
[43:39] introduction to implementing the CPPs
in a limited area to see how it works
[43:46] from time to time before going complete
with the whole thing.
[43:53] We also would like to uh make sure that
uh the planning department uses the
[44:00] agricultural advisory committee
uh as they can help these young planners
[44:06] uh if they are asked the options and com
and comments on applications that
[44:12] concern agriculture.
There has been limited number of
[44:16] meetings of the agricultural advisory
committee this past year. And how does
[44:22] planning work with the advisory
committee
[44:27] uh to give for them to get egg input
and still give the applicants a response
[44:35] within the 25day framework
that they're proposing.
[44:40] So meeting once every once every four
months or three months, pardon me. But
[44:46] uh having getting back to individuals
within less than a month means that that
[44:52] input and that all that experience from
the a advisory may not be utilized to
[44:59] its fullest.
[45:02] We also uh have a concern about the
notification of the CPPs
[45:08] applicants to neighbors.
Notification of new developments will
[45:14] only be posted on the website
during pre-conlation
[45:21] with the planning department.
My question is, how many Brandt County
[45:27] citizens look at that website weekly
to determine
[45:33] if any building is going on near their
homes or businesses.
[45:38] At least with the old uh system, anybody
within 60 mters uh currently under the
[45:46] bylaws 6116
are aware of new developments
[45:51] in an area prior to the approval.
[46:00] My other question for that on the uh
notification is what are the options to
[46:06] be heard
if you miss the notification of the
[46:11] website
and do neighbors have any recourse to be
[46:16] heard after the fact of a decision being
made? With that,
[46:22] is the same said for council when a
class one and two application has been
[46:27] approved? Do they have any recourse to
check with planning if there are
[46:33] concerns?
We at the Brandt County Federation of
[46:37] Agriculture would like to see a phased
in CPPs system for agriculture and rural
[46:44] areas in the county
after a couple of years of usage in the
[46:49] settlement areas.
It could be applied to egg and rural uh
[46:54] rural designated lands if successful.
Thank you from the Federation of Brian
[47:02] County Agriculture.
[47:07] Mark, [clears throat] do you want to
speak too?
[47:09] » Yeah.
>> There's three minutes left, so I'm going
[47:12] to ask council to give you an extended
time.
[47:14] » I don't need much time.
>> All right.
[47:16] » Um, so I just want to echo my concern
from the Grand County Federation of
[47:23] Agriculture. Um,
we understand that planners and
[47:27] technical staff are often not farmers.
They're not agricultural experts, which
[47:32] may be a weak point.
uh municipal staff uh turnover has been
[47:38] very high. Um the careful consideration
of an egg advisory committee input will
[47:45] be critical if you move forward with
this. I just wanted to add that to what
[47:50] Bob said.
>> Thank you. Council questions for the
[47:55] delegation.
Councelor Miller.
[47:59] » Thank you, Miss Mr. Mayor.
[clears throat] Um Bob, I trust you're
[48:02] going to put in your your resume to the
planning department. Help help them out.
[48:07] Um that was a really good presentation.
You had a lot of good information, but
[48:11] it sounds like what you're looking for
is a carve out, not unlike what Paris
[48:15] Estates was looking for earlier for um
anything that's not a settlement area.
[48:21] Is that correct?
>> Uh
[48:23] » for two years, give or take.
>> Yes. Yes. And and I think it has been uh
[48:27] put forward by the planning department.
they're going to evaluate and try to
[48:32] make sure everybody's aware of how the
system is working. Uh we're just saying
[48:37] we'd like not to be in that part of it
while it's being utilized throughout the
[48:43] uh town of Paris, uh Berford, St.
George, or even some of the smaller
[48:48] villages where there's uh settlement
areas that have already been designated
[48:52] and approved under the official plan.
>> Okay. Just want to be clear on that.
[48:57] Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Haley.
[49:01] » Thank you for your presentation. Very
well done. Um, I spoke with the uh
[49:06] senior planner today about this and I
just need to understand um appeals
[49:12] because I understand um if there's an
application on agricultural land right
[49:17] now and if we say no uh I you can go to
the OOLT but I believe with the CPPS
[49:24] uh you don't. So I think my question is
more directed to the senior planner
[49:28] related to your question
>> Brandon
[49:34] » uh through the mayor. So that that is
correct. Under this new system, the way
[49:37] that it will be structured is that
amendments to the bylaw cannot be made
[49:41] within the first 5 years and that cannot
be appealed to the OOLT. So if someone
[49:45] comes in with a request, as you've given
an example, on agricultural land for a
[49:50] non-aggricultural use, it would require
an amendment to the bylaw and no
[49:53] amendment can be made. That is not the
process that is in place today. That can
[49:58] be appealed to the OOLT under the
current zoning bylaw.
[50:01] » Councelor Haley,
>> just as a followup, I I didn't know that
[50:05] information, but um
um I find that a useful tool that you
[50:11] that it cannot be appealed if if we say
no or if if staff say no to development
[50:16] on agricultural land, at least somebody
doesn't run to the OOLT. That's
[50:20] something that I just learned today.
Councelor
[50:24] Bell.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. May. Probably a
[50:27] question for Brandon related to this
this commentary. H how many applications
[50:33] as a percentage of the total do we get
from the agricultural area
[50:40] » through the mayor? What I could do, I
don't have that off hand. We do have
[50:43] that information. Um, I can look that up
for and follow up during the the CPF's
[50:48] conversation if if that's all right. um
as a high level percentage I would I
[50:53] would say um at least with with consents
consideration in it with CFA and minor
[51:00] variances is probably 50/50
and so that is um I guess one thing
[51:07] maybe I would add here and we can talk
about this a bit more during the CPS
[51:10] conversation but when we first actually
started this project we did contemplate
[51:14] a pilot project and the pilot project we
were contemplating was the rural area um
[51:19] it's a bit of a lowerhanging fruit. It's
a bit simpler to to apply some of those
[51:24] standards. Um and as councelor Haley has
pointed out, there's some opportunity
[51:27] for more protective measures with the
CPPs that we saw would be a very um
[51:32] crucial benefit to the rural area.
>> Just a related question, Mr. Mayor, if I
[51:36] may, again for Brandon, um what is the
relative complexity of the agricultural
[51:41] applications compared to those from the
urban area?
[51:45] » Uh through the mayor, the complexity of
those we would say
[51:48] given that they generally end up with
CFA, they're minor in nature. Um, and
[51:53] with that in mind that those would be
considered the kind of class two
[51:56] applications under the CPPs, which would
be um delegated to staff. But just a
[52:02] note on that, it's not an isolated staff
member making a decision. It's the
[52:06] entire department division looking at
things um and it goes through kind of a
[52:10] chain of command that way. We would also
have the opportunity to have that
[52:13] agricultural input through the
agricultural advisory committee. Um and
[52:17] if need be down in the future um we
could always budget for for additional
[52:22] review um for an agricultural
specialist. Um so just to consider that
[52:27] those minor kind of applications would
still have that wholesome review um and
[52:31] they wouldn't be decided upon in
isolation. Just to make that point.
[52:34] » So just one very final comment if I may.
Uh my understanding having read um the
[52:40] CPPS and having conversations with
yourself is that the system that we're
[52:45] proposing actually simplifies the
approach that needs to be taken
[52:50] » through the mayor. That is correct. It's
new so it seems confusing but it is a
[52:55] simpler approach.
>> Councelor Haley
[53:00] » through you. Um so I just wonder if
we're able to answer um the deleg de
[53:05] delegation's questions about uh
agricultural impact assessment and
[53:10] notification and time frame consultation
with agriculture advisory committee.
[53:15] When when could we answer those
questions for them being as we are
[53:18] voting on it tonight?
Is that a question for the senior
[53:22] planner or
[53:28] » there's a there's a letter in your
communications that answers that.
[53:31] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[53:32] » And and uh so then as a followup, do you
feel that the letter has addressed your
[53:37] concerns?
[53:42] There were uh several comments made that
were very nebulous uh loose and not
[53:51] speci specific
and uh it could have been and I'm not
[53:56] sure that and I could be wrong on this
that all the uh potential new bylaws
[54:02] under the CPP has been created for all
the situations or are they still working
[54:09] on those. I It's unclear because nothing
was ever uh been provided that way.
[54:15] » Okay. And just as a followup because we
we need some of these answers because we
[54:19] vote tonight. So I don't know if there's
any more response that we could get from
[54:24] the senior planner on this uh to help us
uh with anything that's the gaps that
[54:29] that uh the delegation has.
>> There's good there's going to be an
[54:32] opportunity. later. Councelor Chambers,
m
[54:36] » Mr. Mayor, I'm getting a little bit
confused on the process here. We have a
[54:40] delegation that presents information and
we it's important that we understand
[54:44] what the delegation is saying, but to
start asking questions of staff and
[54:49] discussing the issue of the CCPS is a
little bit beyond what we're supposed to
[54:55] be doing with regard to the delegation.
you have a delegation standing there
[54:59] while counselors are asking staff
questions which I think is unfair to the
[55:03] delegation. So I would encourage my
colleagues to not debate the issue of
[55:09] CCPS but understand and ask questions of
the presentation and then when they're
[55:16] finished the presentation then we can
debate and discuss ask questions on the
[55:21] C PPS. So just procedurally I think it's
confusing to uh start going beyond what
[55:30] the delegations are are trying to
>> especially since it is on the agenda
[55:34] coming up shortly for so anyway we're
done. We're going to go information
[55:41] councelor Miller
>> make a motion to receive and to uh I
[55:45] would like to refer this one as well to
10.1.
[55:48] » Thank you all those in favor.
>> Thank you.
[55:51] » Thank you. Thank you.
>> Takes us to number six on the agenda,
[55:56] which is the adoption of the minutes
from previous meetings. Uh we're going
[56:00] to do them all at the same time.
Councelor Mccalpine.
[56:02] » Okay. Moved by myself and seconded by
Councelor Bell that the following
[56:06] minutes be approved. County of Brandt
Council Minutes of June 23rd, 2026.
[56:11] County of Brand Special Council Minutes
of July 6, 2026. County of Brand Special
[56:17] Council Minutes of July 7th, 2026.
County of Branch special counsel minutes
[56:22] of July 10th, 2026.
[56:27] » All those in favor?
[56:32] Is there any business arising?
>> Is there any business arising from any
[56:35] of those minutes?
[56:41] Seeing none, we'll go to consent items.
We have uh 8.1, please. I need a mover
[56:48] to get on the table. Councelor Coleman
and Councelor Oakley.
[57:00] Everyone's clear on what it is. The
bridge.
[57:07] There's two of them. There's 8.11 and
there's 8.12. Councelor Miller.
[57:11] » Question on 812. Uh Mr. Mayor.
>> Yeah.
[57:15] » Um that study for paraces. Um, we're
looking at awarding it uh to Dylan
[57:21] Consulting. What's What's the time
frame? Do we have something for that? It
[57:26] might be in the report, but I read it
like 4 days ago. So,
[57:30] » who has that, Brandon?
>> Uh, through the mayor. Yes, thank you
[57:33] for that question. Um, right now we're
anticipating a year and a half um as the
[57:37] time frame for for some final reporting.
>> Okay. Um, yeah, hopefully that keeps us
[57:43] out of trouble on other fronts. So,
thank you. Thank you, Brad. Yeah,
[57:46] councelor Pierce.
[57:50] » Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I guess
my my question here in that with that
[57:54] year and a half being stated, um does
that suggest that any um anything that
[58:00] might come in within that time span
would be deemed premature for that area?
[58:08] » Through the mayor, that will depend
which system we are under. Under the
[58:12] community planning permit system, we do
have stronger tools for that. Um, under
[58:16] the current system, prematurity is only
applicable to plans of subdivision under
[58:20] the planning act.
[58:26] » Okay.
>> Unfortunate.
[58:30] » Any other questions,
concerns?
[58:35] We're voting on both 8.1 and 8.1.2.
Same mover, same seconder. All those in
[58:42] favor?
opposed. Carried. 8.2 consent items to
[58:49] be received. There's 20 of them
and I'm sure we're not going to be
[58:53] voting on them all at the same time.
Does anyone want any of the 20 pulled?
[58:58] Councelor Miller.
>> Um, I'll I'll pull uh the last one. Uh,
[59:02] GRCA transition committee.
>> 8.2.20.
[59:07] Councelor Haley.
>> Uh, 8.2.5.
[59:11] » 8.2.5.
Anyone? Councelor Bell?
[59:15] » 8.2.1, please.
>> 0.1.
[59:18] » Yes, please.
>> Anyone else?
[59:23] We're going to vote on everything. Oh,
I'm sorry, Councelor Pierce.
[59:27] » Um, thank you. Uh, the library minutes
from May 27th. I'm just trying I've just
[59:32] got one screen here. My apologies. I'm
just trying to see what number it is.
[59:35] » It's 8.2.3.
>> Thank you.
[59:38] » So, we're going to vote on everything
but 8.2.1,
[59:41] 8.2.3, 8.2.5. 2.5 and 8.2.20.
All those in favor to receive
[59:50] opposed and carried. And we're going to
go back to 8.2.1
[59:54] first, please.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. M. It's the asset
[59:57] management plan update. Um, it caused me
to look back at some of the other
[1:00:01] documentation we had a year ago. I
looked at the report from July 2025 on
[1:00:07] asset management financial strategy. And
in that strategy, it assumes a growth of
[1:00:13] 1 assessment growth of 1.7%. And I think
just a couple of weeks ago, we had a
[1:00:18] report from finance which indicated that
the average assessment growth was 4%
[1:00:24] which is actually good news. Uh and my
question then is will we get an update
[1:00:28] of this asset management financial
strategy ahead of the next budget?
[1:00:34] » Heather,
>> through the mayor. Uh the next uh update
[1:00:39] to the asset management plan will be um
worked through as part of the update to
[1:00:44] the long-term financial plan. Um as
we'll have like a smaller update to the
[1:00:50] AM financial plan as part of that
>> 8.2.3 [clears throat]
[1:00:58] that's the light councelor Pierce that's
the library board minutes that you're
[1:01:02] asking.
>> Yep. Thank you Mr. Mayor. So I'm curious
[1:01:04] here uh bear with me two seconds here.
Uh so within the business arising from
[1:01:12] that meeting uh it says uh when it
talked about uh uh the new website
[1:01:17] development the successful RFP
application was Muga a British Columbia
[1:01:22] based firm. Um is there nothing in
Ontario that uh that does the same
[1:01:27] thing? I'm curious about that. And then
uh when it talked about uh uh the next
[1:01:33] paragraph when it talks about the
extended hours for the um municipal
[1:01:38] election night, it said the library will
absorb the one-time increase to expand
[1:01:42] services on the election day. I'm
curious as to what the cost is on that.
[1:01:47] And then also on the next page, Mr.
Mayor, if I could when it talks about
[1:01:51] the the issues at the Berford branch uh
for the the issues on the septic
[1:01:57] failure, is that the same septic that
the county office uses there? I'd like a
[1:02:02] little more information on that if I
could as to uh was that split from the
[1:02:06] county and the library or was that
solely the library? If I could get more
[1:02:09] info, please.
>> Thank you. Who's going to speak to the
[1:02:12] minutes of the first library board?
[1:02:19] Kelly, do you want to come up? You have
the answer. The answers for councelor
[1:02:23] Pierce.
>> Yep. Come on up.
[1:02:37] » There was I guess there was three
questions. You remember?
[1:02:40] » Yes, I think so.
>> Yeah, I can repeat them if you wish, Mr.
[1:02:42] Mayor.
>> Pardon me.
[1:02:44] » I can repeat the questions if you wish.
I think Kelly's got them down.
[1:02:48] » Perfect.
>> Okay. Through the mayor to councelor
[1:02:52] Pierce. Your first question was about
the award of our website development
[1:02:56] contract to Mugo. Uh we uh yes, we
undertook a competitive purchasing
[1:03:02] process for that that included an RFP
and received applications from across
[1:03:06] the country. uh Mugo was selected as the
winner based on scoring and which is a
[1:03:13] combination of experience, pricing and
and presented plan. So we did consider
[1:03:19] firms that were closer to us than them
but Mugo score was uh so far ahead of
[1:03:26] the others that they were the
appropriate winner.
[1:03:29] » Okay. So if I could, Mr. Mayor, so just
to be clear that this company was so far
[1:03:33] out in front of the other ones, they
were the clear winner right off the hop.
[1:03:39] Kelly.
>> Uh, yes, that's correct.
[1:03:43] » Okay, thank you for that. And the next
one was the cost of the uh being in the
[1:03:47] extended hours on election day.
>> Yeah, the approximate cost for that is
[1:03:50] about $3,000 and the library board voted
to absorb the cost of that for this
[1:03:56] election season.
>> Okay, thank you for that. And do you
[1:03:59] remember the last one?
>> It was about the septic.
[1:04:02] » Yes. Yes, the uh septic in question at
Berford does share components with the
[1:04:08] county office located on Park Avenue in
Berford. The backup was the backup
[1:04:14] originated on the county's end of a
branch where the system runs from the
[1:04:21] main line to the library.
[1:04:26] » Okay. And now and if I could through you
Mr. Mayor to Kelly. So, was the library
[1:04:31] did the library foot the full bill on
this
[1:04:34] » uh through the mayor? The li the bills
have been paid on the library accounts.
[1:04:38] We are in discussion with county staff
about um any potential um funding
[1:04:44] sources for that.
>> Okay. If I could, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to
[1:04:48] understand how those conversations work
out because if it's uh uh yeah, I would
[1:04:53] I would just like a little bit more
information as to, you know, if in fact
[1:04:56] this is on the library or if it's split
or if it's on the county. I'd like more
[1:04:59] info if I could please.
>> U through through the mayor. Um I've
[1:05:04] been in conversations with Heather Boyd,
unfortunately, who is not here tonight.
[1:05:09] Uh so um our understanding from the
plumbers is that the the blockage
[1:05:15] originated on the county's end and
caused a backup into the libraries
[1:05:20] section.
[1:05:24] » Okay. I I guess uh I I can I can follow
up with Heather on that through you, Mr.
[1:05:29] Mayor, because I would like to
understand if in fact that is the case,
[1:05:32] then I think we should revisit the the
payment.
[1:05:36] » Yeah, we'll we'll talk to Heather Boyd
and it'll be in the Friday file for you.
[1:05:41] » Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
>> Yeah, thank you.
[1:05:42] » Thank you, Kelly.
>> Thanks, Kelly.
[1:05:45] » 8.2.5,
uh City of Brford. Uh that was councelor
[1:05:49] Haley.
>> Yes, thank you. I thought it was a very
[1:05:52] good report on a very important topic. I
had two questions. Um, uh, how will the
[1:05:58] CPPS affect affordable housing supply?
That's page 218,
[1:06:03] page 219. They sort of refer to that.
Um, that was one question. Should I give
[1:06:08] you the second question as well?
>> Uh, sure.
[1:06:11] » Okay. um the CIP in Brford uh they use
the CIP for affordable housing and I
[1:06:19] wonder um how Brand County might use the
CIP to help with affordable housing.
[1:06:25] Those are my two questions.
>> Who's going to speak to that?
[1:06:35] » Um through your worship. So, uh, not
having read the entirety of of the
[1:06:40] Brford resolutions, just speaking
generally at the high level, um, the
[1:06:45] facility and services matters would
encourage, um, developers to move
[1:06:49] towards the affordability model. Um,
Brandon can perhaps provide more
[1:06:53] details. However, there is encouragement
um, in that capacity. Uh, with respect
[1:06:59] to the CIP question,
uh, Allison will answer that.
[1:07:09] Thank you. Through your worship to
council. Um so in regards to a CIP
[1:07:14] it's got um very specific restrictions
on how it could be used. Um I don't know
[1:07:19] how the applicability would be. It's
meant to incent uh things that may not
[1:07:25] otherwise happen in a specific area. Um
but it it does contain a portion of
[1:07:31] public investment. So, um I haven't seen
this uh used for affordable housing, but
[1:07:38] I could definitely look into it and see,
um how other municipalities may be
[1:07:42] utilizing CIP. Um again, I'm I'm not
entirely sure how how it may be
[1:07:47] applicable given the the split um with
public private investment, but I can
[1:07:52] certainly look into it and get back to
council.
[1:07:55] » You uh I just thought that would be a
great tool if they're using it. If
[1:07:58] Franc's Branford's using it, I thought
that's a great tool for us. So just a
[1:08:02] suggestion.
>> Okay, councelor Pierce.
[1:08:05] » Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. On that same
topic, if I could in the report it talks
[1:08:09] of I believe it's 5 and it says uh the
plan builds on progress made over the
[1:08:14] last decade which includes 559 new
affordable housing units completed or
[1:08:18] underway. Can somebody remind me again
how many of those are within the county
[1:08:26] approximately?
[1:08:31] uh through your worship to council. I
don't have that number in front of me,
[1:08:34] but I can certainly get it to you.
>> 49.
[1:08:38] » Councelor Councelor Bell has that
information.
[1:08:41] » What is it?
>> 49.
[1:08:42] » 49. Councelor Pierce.
>> 49. Okay. Yeah, I didn't think it was.
[1:08:46] Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
[1:08:50] Okay, we're back down to [clears throat]
8.2.20.
[1:08:53] Councelor Miller.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I could
[1:08:57] have taken any one of the GRCA ones.
Just a a couple uh things I want to
[1:09:00] point out uh to council. Um
one is that the the lead the transition
[1:09:06] lead uh for the transition committee is
is Samantha Lawson from GRCA. Um I've
[1:09:13] gotten to know S uh Sam pretty good over
the last four years. I think she's an
[1:09:16] excellent choice. She's very fair, very
balanced, and extremely knowledgeable
[1:09:20] about uh conservation authorities. um
she the the province was actually taking
[1:09:25] her advice when they were looking for
advice on how to uh implement it. So I
[1:09:30] thought that was pretty good. Um as well
um we heard at our last GRCA meeting
[1:09:38] that uh there's an implementation date
of February 1st, 2027 and it will most
[1:09:43] likely not happen then. So sometime in
2027 but most likely not February 1st.
[1:09:50] And then the last thing I want to say is
um and we seen it here uh in tonight's
[1:09:55] package. Um there's a GRCA draft budget.
It's quite early and uh there was a
[1:10:01] direction from the ministry that come
out June 26th to have the budget
[1:10:06] timeline accelerated. So kudos to uh
GRCA for getting that out, the draft
[1:10:11] budget. I will say it's it's very drafty
uh based on the questions I had the
[1:10:15] other day, but uh that's why we're
seeing it. So there's an accelerated
[1:10:18] timeline for the 2027 budget because of
the transition, because of the election.
[1:10:25] » Thank you. Any other questions? What
we'll [clears throat] do is we'll call
[1:10:28] the vote on 8.2.1, 8.2.3,
8.2.5, and 8.2.20.
[1:10:36] Although Oh, councelor Haley.
>> Oh, sorry. I was voting.
[1:10:38] » Are you voting? Okay. All those in
favor?
[1:10:42] You can vote again. There you go. Thank
you.
[1:10:45] Um, takes us to 9.1 on the agenda, which
is the first committee report. That's
[1:10:50] the paramedic services committee report,
and that's going to be councelor Miller.
[1:10:56] » Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by
myself, second by councelor Pierce, that
[1:10:59] the paramedic services committee meeting
minutes and report of July 15, 2026 be
[1:11:06] approved, noting that there is one
recommendation.
[1:11:09] » Thank you. Are there any questions for
councelor Miller on his report?
[1:11:13] Councelor Haley.
>> Yes. Uh on page 326, uh the 12-hour
[1:11:18] ambulance, what happens now if it's
delayed until October?
[1:11:22] » Councelor Miller.
Um it is delayed till it is coming out
[1:11:28] October.
>> Okay,
[1:11:29] » that's the schedule. Um what what we
heard from the paramedic chief Longway
[1:11:35] is that the system is running. It's
running fine. Um but there are stressors
[1:11:40] in the evening shift and uh as we see
the population aging, as we see the
[1:11:45] population growing, we know that uh it
is much needed. So um keep in mind this
[1:11:50] was a half ambulance that uh we're
actually supposed to put on in 2025, got
[1:11:56] delayed till 2026, and now it's been
delayed till October 1st, 2026.
[1:12:01] » Thank you. Any other questions for
councelor Miller on his report?
[1:12:06] So then call the vote to receive the
report. All those in favor?
[1:12:11] Thank you. 9.2 which is the
administration and operations committee
[1:12:16] report of July the 21st. And that's
going to be councelor Pierce.
[1:12:22] » Yep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by
myself, seconded by councelor HS that
[1:12:25] the July 21st administration and
operation committee report be received,
[1:12:28] noting there's 17 recommendations.
>> Any questions to councelor Pierce on his
[1:12:33] report? Councelor Miller.
>> Mr. Mayor. Um, could we take out item 13
[1:12:37] and vote on that separately?
>> Right.
[1:12:42] » Take out 13.
>> Item 13. Yes.
[1:12:46] » Okay.
>> Yeah. Councelor Miller did uh did call
[1:12:49] that at the meeting as well.
>> Any other questions or concerns? We're
[1:12:54] going to vote on everything but 13. All
those in favor?
[1:12:58] Opposed? Carried. And then councelor
Pierce or councelor Miller.
[1:13:04] What? He's just as a conflict, Mr.
Mayor.
[1:13:05] » Just a conflict.
>> Okay. Well, then we have to go back and
[1:13:10] do 13, too. We have to vote on 13 also.
All those in favor?
[1:13:16] » Sorry about that. Council, I forgot that
you had a conflict.
[1:13:25] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
>> Yeah. 10.2 is um Oxbow Road Branch
[1:13:30] School. Sorry.
10.1
[1:13:36] » 10.1 Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, 10.1.
>> Okay, so this is where do we want to
[1:13:43] break before we go into all of this or
are we all right?
[1:13:47] I'm the one with laryngitis.
Everybody's okay to keep going.
[1:13:53] Okay. So, we're at 10.1.
[1:13:59] » 11 point. I'm sorry.
>> 11.5.
[1:14:02] » 11.5. That's the one we moved up.
[1:14:08] 11.5. Everyone's okay with 11.5. Do you
want to talk about it or just vote on
[1:14:13] it? Any conversation about 11.5?
Councelor Oakley.
[1:14:19] » Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll just
pull out of that. um the the
[1:14:24] correspondence that we got from Six
Nations of the Grand River elected
[1:14:26] council. Um I've we've already had this
debate plenty around the table and I've
[1:14:30] lost that debate, but just to highlight
um that the concerns over uh uh making
[1:14:36] our parking requirements too stringent
and thus uh causing urban sprawl. Thank
[1:14:41] you.
>> Okay. Any other comments on 11.5?
[1:14:47] Seeing [clears throat] none, call the
vote to receive. All those in favor?
[1:14:51] Sorry.
>> Oh, we need on the floor. Sorry.
[1:14:55] Councelor Oakley, need a seconder.
Councelor House. Thank you. And we voted
[1:14:59] and it's unanimous.
Okay, we're going to go back now to
[1:15:04] 1110.1.
Councelor Kyle.
[1:15:08] » Sorry, Mr. Mayor. It was the
correspondence about the CPPS. I think
[1:15:12] it was 11.4. There's one, two, three,
and four. The letters that were related
[1:15:17] to CPPS.
>> Okay. 11.4.1
[1:15:22] 2 3 and four.
>> It's 11.5.
[1:15:30] » It's 11.5.
>> It is here.
[1:15:34] » Sorry, your worship. It's 11.5, but it's
um listed as subheadings as 11.5.1
[1:15:41] through to 11.5.
[1:15:44] » Okay, it's 11.4 for in my package, but
that's as long as we've got that before
[1:15:48] the CPPS was all I was going for because
they're all the letters that are with
[1:15:52] respect to the CPPS discussion.
>> Yeah,
[1:15:56] » I think I think there's everyone's
package might be a little different
[1:16:00] tonight.
>> No, [laughter]
[1:16:01] » mine got very councelor Miller,
>> there there's an amended package and I
[1:16:05] think you're not looking at the amended
package.
[1:16:08] » Yeah,
>> that's right. Okay.
[1:16:11] So, are we going to go back to 10.1?
10.1 Brandon, you're up.
[1:16:19] Can I get a mover to get on the floor,
please? Councelor Bell and Councelor
[1:16:22] House.
[1:16:26] [clears throat]
[1:16:29] Okay.
Do you have a presentation, Brandon? Are
[1:16:33] you here for questions?
>> Uh, through the mayor. I have no
[1:16:36] presentation. Um, I'm happy to address
some of the commentary and questions
[1:16:40] that have come up so far, but otherwise,
if I can start with that. Um,
[1:16:45] » okay.
>> If council would like to ask specific
[1:16:48] » the floor has a secondary, why don't you
start with the questions that have been
[1:16:51] brought up tonight and then we'll go
back to council for our
[1:16:54] » questions. Thank you.
>> Um, and through the mayor, if I I do
[1:16:57] miss anything that has come up tonight,
we can circle back to that. But please
[1:17:00] just remind me of that and we can have
that conversation. So um what I I'll
[1:17:04] start with is just the the discussion
about kind of keeping two separate
[1:17:08] systems. Um so what I'd like to note
about that is um one of the main reasons
[1:17:13] that we are moving towards this
community planning permit system as a
[1:17:16] unified system is to help simplify
planning in the county of Brandt. Um
[1:17:21] that was one of the biggest points of
feedback we've heard through this
[1:17:23] project. We've heard that through the
official plan project. Um and based on
[1:17:27] the feedback we have heard from other
municipalities that have undertaken a
[1:17:30] CPPS operating two separate planning
systems creates confusion. Um it
[1:17:35] increases administrative complexity and
it makes future updating difficult
[1:17:39] because you're amending twice the amount
of stuff um you're amending to begin
[1:17:43] with. Um so we have had those
conversations and staff are are of the
[1:17:47] opinion that moving forward with one
framework is the best choice for the
[1:17:51] municipality.
That doesn't mean that every every area
[1:17:56] will be treated the same. Um just as our
zoning bylaw contains different
[1:18:00] standards for different communities,
different land uses, the CPS does
[1:18:04] exactly that as well. Um it's just all
contained within a single single
[1:18:08] planning framework.
Um so what I would maybe ask councils to
[1:18:12] consider is is what planning problems
are being solved by excluding areas from
[1:18:16] our CPPs. If specific policies or
standards need refinement, we can do
[1:18:22] that. Um we've we've shown the ability
to do that over the last several weeks.
[1:18:26] Um making refinements based on the
commentary we're receiving. Um we've had
[1:18:31] some good discussions about monitoring.
Um we can come back monthly if we need
[1:18:34] to to to update. Um and so we've been
doing doing exactly that those
[1:18:39] refinements throughout throughout the
process. Um this is very different than
[1:18:43] than maintaining two systems. Um, so it
uh it goes to show that moving forward
[1:18:49] with one and being able to be um
consistent with that will be of a
[1:18:55] benefit to the municipality and will be
helpful to to staff and to everyone
[1:18:58] trying to understand how we're moving
forward. Um, with respect to to existing
[1:19:03] developments and transition, uh, I would
say that staff are satisfied. The
[1:19:07] transition provisions protect the
existing approvals. Um, approved
[1:19:11] development can proceed. permissions
that exist today are being copied and
[1:19:15] pasted essentially into the the new
bylaw. Um we've not identified any
[1:19:20] approved development rights that are
being lost as a result of the CPPS.
[1:19:23] We've had those conversations with
developers and have asked um developers
[1:19:27] and applicants to to point that out. If
there are ones that we've noticed, we
[1:19:31] we've made those changes.
Um we've also reviewed concerns related
[1:19:36] to conformity with our own official plan
compliance with the planning act. Um
[1:19:40] we've chatted in in depth with our
consulting team and with legal counsel
[1:19:43] who um who's on the line tonight as
well. Um and we're satisfied that our
[1:19:47] CPPS will conform with the OP. Um it
will be the main implementation tool of
[1:19:51] this official plan that you approved
back in 2023. Um and it's been prepared
[1:19:55] in accordance with the planning act. So
uh to that degree we wouldn't recommend
[1:20:00] creating a sight specific exemption or
continuing um or moving forward with two
[1:20:05] separate frameworks. We continue to
support a municipalitywide frame CPPS
[1:20:09] framework. Um, and we're happy to have
some more discussion on that context
[1:20:12] tonight.
From the rural perspective, um, what I
[1:20:16] would say is the CPS is good for for
rural brand because it will provide more
[1:20:20] flexibility, um, some clearer rules,
fewer planning applications for people,
[1:20:25] uh, more certainty for farmers, for
rural land owners. Um it will modernize
[1:20:28] how we administer planning not just in
urban areas but also in rural areas
[1:20:32] which I think um is well deserved to be
applied across the municipality. And as
[1:20:36] I mentioned when when this project first
began we had talked about a pilot
[1:20:40] approach to staff. Um and we had thought
about starting with the rural areas. Um
[1:20:45] rural areas often have fewer sight
specific zoning provisions. They have
[1:20:49] fewer legacy developments. Um that makes
them kind of well suited for this
[1:20:53] streamlined approval approach. And when
we did just look at our um our
[1:20:57] applications that are currently in the
the system, we're sitting at a split of
[1:21:01] about 60% of the applications being
rural, 40% of them being urban. Just so
[1:21:06] understand that.
Um
[1:21:10] we've mentioned this a few times as
well, but there's more predictability
[1:21:13] and local control, which I think is a
very important thing across the county,
[1:21:17] but especially in the protection of
agriculture. Um third parties cannot
[1:21:22] seek amendments to change the rules to
the bylaw. council does not wish to have
[1:21:25] that happen. Uh that also creates
consistency for land owners. They'll
[1:21:30] understand the rules that are applied
today and it puts us in charge of
[1:21:32] changing our own rules.
[1:21:36] Uh so why why do this now? Um what we're
trying to do is bring multiple planning
[1:21:43] processes into one framework. Um what it
will do is give property owners, farmers
[1:21:48] alike, more flexibility. It modernizes
some outdated regulations.
[1:21:52] » [clears throat]
>> Um, parking has come up a couple times.
[1:21:54] It'll streamline our approval system. It
provides up to five years of planning
[1:21:58] certainty without the amendments. So,
these aren't theoretical benefits. These
[1:22:03] are practical improvements that we've
heard from other municipalities
[1:22:05] implementing the CPPs. And they're
practical improvements that residents,
[1:22:08] farmers, business owners alike will
experience when they they interact with
[1:22:12] the system, when they come in and they
apply for their their planning
[1:22:14] applications.
Um so what I would just say I guess is
[1:22:19] that uh council adopted the official
plan in 2023. We set the foundation for
[1:22:23] this work. Um we've invested time and
money into this. Um the research, the
[1:22:28] consultation, the technical analysis and
that investment doesn't mean that
[1:22:31] council has to approve this project per
se. Um but what it does mean is that the
[1:22:35] recommendation before you is informed by
that extensive amount of work. It's not
[1:22:38] being brought forward to you lightly. Um
what we're proposing through the CPS is
[1:22:43] to modernize our planning framework.
something we we hear probably daily, I
[1:22:48] would argue, um, in the county. Um, and
we've already established that policy
[1:22:53] direction through the official plan. The
CPS really is a tool that can help put
[1:22:57] that vision into action. Um, and so with
that, I would leave it or I'll turn it
[1:23:01] back over to the mayor. Um, happy to
address any specific comments or
[1:23:04] questions about it. But, um, that's kind
of my my final pitch for the discussion.
[1:23:09] » Thanks, Brandon. Councelor Chambers.
[1:23:14] just just uh uh I wonder if you can
clarify uh something with regarding the
[1:23:21] transition
uh on one hand we're saying that through
[1:23:25] the transition process there will be
flexibility and and this kind of stuff
[1:23:31] uh and uh being able to work with the
applicants and that kind of stuff. And
[1:23:36] then we say that uh uh you you can't
amend anything for five years. It seems
[1:23:43] contradictory and
uh taking both sides. I wonder if you
[1:23:49] can just elaborate on that in terms of
the
[1:23:56] prohibition for amendments, that kind of
stuff because we're seem to be saying,
[1:23:59] "Yeah, we'll work with you, but we you
can't do anything." Explain that to me.
[1:24:05] » Yes. through the mayor. Um what I would
point out there is that when we look at
[1:24:09] flexibility, we're talking about
administrative flexibility and
[1:24:13] legislative flexibility. So um the CPS
is flexible in how it administers and
[1:24:19] approves development, how it kind of
goes people go through the system.
[1:24:23] There's flexibility in that. That
doesn't mean that there's less certainty
[1:24:26] for them. Um existing approvals are
protected. Um if a decision has been
[1:24:31] made on a development, it's only fair to
carry that over. We recognize that
[1:24:35] that's principle clergy principle that's
built into planning. Um so those rules
[1:24:40] will continue to apply. They're being
kind of copied and pasted as I said into
[1:24:44] this new system. But the flexibility is
really coming from the framework through
[1:24:48] which people are working, the process
through which people are going. Um it's
[1:24:51] reducing the need for someone to come in
for multiple applications, pay multiple
[1:24:55] fees to the to the municipality. Um it's
not removing the established
[1:25:00] permissions. is just making it easier
for us to apply those and easier for
[1:25:04] residents um to move forward with their
projects through a system that that
[1:25:08] already exists.
>> If if the parameters for approval are
[1:25:15] modified,
which they are through the the process,
[1:25:19] what you're telling me is the process
going through that there'll be
[1:25:22] flexibility, but the modifications that
are made are not going to be flexible.
[1:25:27] Is that what you're saying?
the modifications
[1:25:31] » to the point where
>> you won't be able to appeal them.
[1:25:35] » So through the mayor to that degree it
will depend on the instance and the
[1:25:41] situation. The way that we've built the
community planning permit system is that
[1:25:45] the um the topics that we've heard the
most about that we want the most um
[1:25:52] finite decisions being made on with no
kind of opportunity to adjust them.
[1:25:58] We've built that into the system with
respect to the amendments for someone to
[1:26:02] come in um within the framework as it is
and work within that. The flexibility is
[1:26:08] there. So there's two kind of like
highle bumpers that we've put up to say
[1:26:12] okay the official plan sets the standard
here. You have to kind of fall within
[1:26:15] that but everyone that falls within that
has the flexibility.
[1:26:20] If I might just continue the discussion,
you know, and I know that there have
[1:26:25] been times when people have come forward
and say, "Well, when did that change?
[1:26:31] This guy did that and how come I those
are the modifications that uh the
[1:26:38] parameters I I call them that you're
telling me that aren't going to be that
[1:26:42] flexible."
And I'm just cautioning that there's
[1:26:49] going to be people coming forward that
did not know
[1:26:54] the changes are being made and I don't
know them all either. uh and they will
[1:26:59] be confronted with new parameters which
they're not used to and that may cause
[1:27:06] problems and there may be situations
where
[1:27:11] flexibility may be
uh amendable to to be gotten through the
[1:27:18] political process rather than the
technical planning process. Can you
[1:27:24] comment on that?
>> Um yes. So through the mayor, what we've
[1:27:27] done is we've built in many
opportunities in the bylaw for people um
[1:27:32] to have further discussions with respect
to their applications. So someone can
[1:27:35] always bump up an application council
for a decision. Um that is an
[1:27:39] opportunity. Um,
I would say that I guess distinguishing
[1:27:45] between the flexibility and kind of the
uncertainty. Um, what we're trying to do
[1:27:50] with this bylaw, um, there's development
standards within the bylaw and all of
[1:27:56] the development standards we're
proposing through the CPS. We did a a
[1:27:59] large analysis of those comparative to
the current zoning bylaw. And all of
[1:28:03] those development standards, none of
them are becoming more restrictive in
[1:28:07] the sense that we get applications. So
if if we have a common application that
[1:28:11] comes in of people asking for relief,
we've done that analysis and we've
[1:28:16] looked at at the bylaw and those
standards are now being changed to match
[1:28:19] the relief that's being asked. So in
that sense, we're improving the
[1:28:23] standards that were in the zoning bylaw
knowing that people are already asking
[1:28:26] for those changes. Um it's certain
things around like uses where they can
[1:28:31] and can't be put. um some of the
specific um kind of land use
[1:28:36] compatibility pieces that we've heard
from people, those are where um some
[1:28:40] changes are being made to make them a
bit more finite. So the development
[1:28:44] standards themselves, I think when we're
thinking about how a zoning bylaw
[1:28:47] functions and the standards that people
come in and ask for, well, if I can't
[1:28:50] meet 1.5 m, but I can meet 1.2, we're
not going to be requiring someone to
[1:28:55] amend the bylaw for instances like that.
We've looked at situations that those
[1:28:59] would apply. um and we've we've
incorporated that that opportunity to
[1:29:04] change into the bylaw. So again in terms
of flexibility the a lot of bylaw amend
[1:29:11] or applications are for amendments to
the bylaw which in and of themselves are
[1:29:16] asking for relief from the parameters I
call them and if there's inflexibility
[1:29:23] on from the staff perspective on the
parameters then uh the applications will
[1:29:30] obviously be refused if there's there's
no flexibility. That's the purpose of a
[1:29:36] application to modify the zoning or the
the parameters in order to uh do what
[1:29:44] maybe people want to do. So there has to
be some flexibility involved with that
[1:29:49] or there's no sense applying just it's
black and white. So I'm concerned that
[1:29:57] it's going to be black and white and not
gray in some areas. That makes sense.
[1:30:02] And that's a concern I have. The other
thing that you didn't uh comment on is
[1:30:07] this this uh prohibition for amendments.
Can you just explain to me how that is
[1:30:15] uh can be carried out and what is
prohibited and what isn't
[1:30:22] » uh through the mayor too. If if I could
just return to the um your first comment
[1:30:25] about amendments as well. I just want to
make one thing clear. So, um, when we
[1:30:29] think about zoning, flexibility is often
achieved through amending the zoning
[1:30:32] bylaw. That that is a fundamentally
different approach than what a CPS does.
[1:30:38] The CPPS framework, the skeleton of it,
is what would need to be amended. It's
[1:30:42] the stuff inside of it, the zoning
provisions that are built in and
[1:30:46] intended to be flexible enough that you
do not need amendments for. So, I just
[1:30:50] want to make that clear that amending
the bylaw is is a different game than
[1:30:56] amending a zoning bylaw. Um, and then
with respect to the um the amendments
[1:31:02] themselves and that prohibition, um,
again, that points to the the the idea
[1:31:06] that what we're doing here is setting up
a framework. We're setting up this
[1:31:10] foundation, the skeleton for us to use
and the the planning act puts that
[1:31:15] opportunity in place for prohibitions
for 5 years. We you can council can wave
[1:31:20] that for individual applications. They
can wave it um for the whole whole time.
[1:31:25] Um that is up to council. That will
always be in council's um opportunity
[1:31:29] for council. Um but what what the
province or what what I believe the
[1:31:33] intent of that is is to provide that
certainty and that stability in your
[1:31:37] framework to be able to get it up and
running, start it, see what works,
[1:31:41] change it yourself um without having the
individual applications kind of chip
[1:31:45] away at it.
And why would that be bad for
[1:31:53] being chipped away at if it's not right
in the first place? H how are we to know
[1:32:01] and and gauge what
people want I I guess is
[1:32:07] » yep and through through the mayor. So
what we would do is we would set up a
[1:32:10] process specifically for that. It may
look similar to the zoning bylaw
[1:32:13] amendment process, but um we would have
that pre-conultation that if someone's
[1:32:17] interested in amending the bylaw, they
would have to come have a conversation
[1:32:20] with staff. Um that conversation, we
would gauge what needs to be changed. If
[1:32:25] it's an amendment that staff can
support, that may be something that's
[1:32:27] automatically included in our monitoring
reports that come forward every month or
[1:32:31] every two months. Um it may be something
we're already thinking about. If it's
[1:32:34] fundamentally something that staff are
not willing to support, um that's a
[1:32:38] different conversation. Um the idea
there would be that um if it doesn't
[1:32:44] meet the objectives or conform with our
official plan, those are the types of
[1:32:48] things that we are not allowing
amendments for. The other stuff more
[1:32:52] than willing to do that. It's just that
the municipality retains the control of
[1:32:57] how we do that and when we do that.
[1:33:03] » I I'll I'll stop writing the puck here
and let somebody else talk.
[1:33:07] » Councelor Oakley, you're next.
uh through you, Mr. Mayor, uh to
[1:33:12] Brandon. Um sorry, I don't have to pull
it back up. My apologies. Um so I was
[1:33:17] just curious about two things here. Um
one would be um in
[1:33:23] section 3.1.9
um natural heritage system boundary can
[1:33:29] be modified up to 450
square meters as part of a class 2
[1:33:33] variation. Um is there any
um tracking tool that say it's an
[1:33:39] individual property quite large multiple
applications come through over time
[1:33:43] chipping away at that 450 meters at a
time um and avoiding the class 3 as a
[1:33:48] result that would be my first question.
>> Yes, through the mayor. So there is a
[1:33:51] tracking system through our GIS we have
um extensively mapped our natural
[1:33:55] heritage system um and the intention is
to track any potential changes
[1:34:00] modifications to that system through
there. We are already doing that as part
[1:34:03] of the kind of OPA process. Um, but the
idea would be that we can pull that
[1:34:07] information up and see where
modifications have been made to the
[1:34:10] system. If we are still tracking like
when we first adopted our official plan,
[1:34:15] do we have the same amount of natural
heritage? Has it gone down? Have we been
[1:34:18] compensated for that amount? So, there
is a tracking um a way that we will be
[1:34:22] tracking that and ensuring that people
aren't kind of chipping away at the at
[1:34:26] the system.
>> Thank you. So, there is a a sort of um
[1:34:30] guardrails around that. Um and then the
other question um that I have that I got
[1:34:34] from constituent here um just so we've
talked about coming back in terms of uh
[1:34:40] revisiting the bylaw after
implementation after set frames of time.
[1:34:45] What's sort of baked into the resolution
this evening if anything in terms of
[1:34:49] when staff are
um required to come back with updates
[1:34:54] for this
>> um through the mayor. So what we have
[1:34:58] done it was we put a general clause in
the the final clause in the
[1:35:01] recommendation um about monitoring and
implementation. Um we had originally
[1:35:06] proposed to come back within six months
but we've heard differently from council
[1:35:09] and from the public. Um so what we will
are proposing to do with considering the
[1:35:13] election um is to provide updates
monthly whether that be at a council
[1:35:17] meeting whether that be through Friday
file and project updates online. um
[1:35:21] we'll find a way to communicate that at
least monthly. Um and then we'll come
[1:35:25] back um with whatever changes are needed
to the bylaw when we when we um
[1:35:29] recognize they're needed. So September
is our next council meeting. You very
[1:35:33] well could see changes on on the bylaw
if things are adopted tonight.
[1:35:37] » Thank you,
>> Councelor Bell. Mr. May,
[1:35:40] » I I have three questions. Uh first one
is a follow-up from the earlier
[1:35:44] conversation about the um split between
rural and urban applications which
[1:35:50] you've now confirmed to be 60% rural,
40% urban. If you weighted them by
[1:35:56] complexity, how much of your staff time
is taken up by
[1:36:01] rural versus urban? I'm saying that
because my guess is the urban
[1:36:07] » applications are complex larger
uh typically the ones we see in council
[1:36:12] rather than things that you would see on
your desk
[1:36:15] » and through the mayor. I don't know if
Jeremy maybe has some comments on that,
[1:36:18] but I would I would tend to agree with
that. The urban ones take up um a bit
[1:36:22] more time, but I'll ask Jeremy to jump
in with some comments on on the
[1:36:25] applications
>> for the mayor to counselor. Yeah, I I
[1:36:30] would say our urban applications do take
more of our staff time, especially if
[1:36:35] you're looking at a subdivision mix with
a zone change, etc., and reviewing draft
[1:36:40] plans and draft plan conditions and
drawings,
[1:36:43] uh, site plans, etc. do take a lot more
in an urban scale. Um,
[1:36:50] I would say day-to-day dealing with the
rural stuff goes a little quicker, but
[1:36:54] it is through staff that we deal with
them. It's they're just handled quicker
[1:36:58] because they are simpler processes to
deal with and I can easily give staff
[1:37:02] direction on the rural ones and they can
move forward. We do try to keep it
[1:37:04] simple in the rural area to make
agriculture move forward in a simpler
[1:37:09] process because it doesn't need to be as
complex sometimes.
[1:37:12] » Okay. Thank you. My second question
relates to FSM. Um, it's been a
[1:37:18] continuous frustration of mine while
I've been a council member that
[1:37:21] developers come to this table and they
as for multiple variances to our what
[1:37:28] would today are our uh zoning bylaws
and that demand seems to just ratchet up
[1:37:37] every every year and it is given for the
most part and if we don't give we seem
[1:37:44] to be taken to Ontario Land Tribunal to
make sure we do give it, but it comes
[1:37:49] with no benefit, no direct benefit to
the county. It it clearly aids the
[1:37:56] economic case for the developer. I think
the CP and correct me if I'm wrong, uh
[1:38:02] helps by putting a framework around
that. So variances we know what the
[1:38:07] starting point is the development
standards there the class one in the
[1:38:11] CPPs set the frame set the base and you
set uh limits for what becomes class two
[1:38:17] what becomes class three and we have
indicated that for increased density inc
[1:38:23] and increased height that comes with a a
price. So um you and I have had this
[1:38:29] conversation before. Uh I think the
starting point for FSM should be if we
[1:38:35] permit uh a change from class one to
class two and it benefits the uh
[1:38:43] developer economically that benefit
should be shared between them and us.
[1:38:49] Can you tell me if we charge $3,000 per
unit for an extra extra height, what's
[1:38:56] the share that we get of the increased
profitability of that venture?
[1:39:04] » Uh through the mayor, I'd have to pull
up my notes specifically, but I believe
[1:39:06] if it was 3,000, it was around 20%.
Um, but I can confirm that if you just
[1:39:14] give me a moment. Um,
but I guess what I would note here is
[1:39:18] that um, we're not trying to take the
full
[1:39:24] what we call as uplift. Um, and I
recognize we've had this conversation
[1:39:28] about kind of that 50/50 split idea. Um,
there's lots of other factors right now
[1:39:34] we've taken into account. One of them
being um, a not so great housing market
[1:39:39] um, and the need for some kind of
affordable housing. And that's why part
[1:39:43] of our study with FSM was offer the
opportunity for incomeind contributions
[1:39:48] of of housing. So even if they provided
3,000 for a unit, there's also the
[1:39:53] opportunity to provide x number and I
believe we came up with a number of 10%
[1:39:56] based on the um the evaluation, but 10%
of their housing units could be
[1:40:00] affordable housing. So I think that
conversation kind of came up with
[1:40:03] respect to the Brford CIP and and the
affordable housing and what maybe the
[1:40:07] CPS can offer. Um, so that inind um I
think that that inind opportunity will
[1:40:16] be very crucial because one dwelling
unit, one affordable dwelling unit will
[1:40:20] be more worth well more than $3,000,
right? Um so I think there's an
[1:40:24] opportunity there to work um with the
development community and you'll see in
[1:40:27] the letter from them too there's
concerns about FSM. So something we're
[1:40:30] trying to do is just balance that
conversation, get that framework in
[1:40:33] place, take we're taking zero dollars
right now. Um so to start somewhere and
[1:40:39] and kind of keep that conversation
going. We we've um committed to coming
[1:40:43] back with an FSM strategy and working on
that next year. And I think there'll be
[1:40:47] some more conversation about okay, what
what is an appropriate level um of that
[1:40:51] fee um that we can maybe increase or
decrease over time. But, um, yeah, I
[1:40:56] believe that the the $3,000 per unit fee
sits at about 20%. Um, it depends on the
[1:41:00] the the situation, but that's roughly
where it is.
[1:41:03] » So, to to just to to be clear, the FSM
strategy that you've talked about, the
[1:41:10] if we approve the CPPs tonight, it's
saying yes, we approve FSM. There are
[1:41:15] numbers in there. There are $3,000 in in
that particular example. Are we saying
[1:41:20] then that part of what we approve is
also that we direct you to keep on
[1:41:24] looking at what is the best strategy for
FSM?
[1:41:28] » That is correct. So the second last um
the second last piece of the
[1:41:32] recommendation is that staff direct um
or that we're directed to implement FSM.
[1:41:37] So as it stands in the bylaw today the
framework um and what we would do is
[1:41:40] consider further consider a long-term
strategy for SFM FSM to inform future
[1:41:45] budget and capital planning. And how if
we wanted to change it, how would we
[1:41:48] change it?
>> To change FSM itself, you mean? Um so we
[1:41:52] could make amendments to our own bylaw.
Um that would be the the process through
[1:41:56] which we would do that.
>> Thank you. Final question, a very brief
[1:41:59] one. Um if if I understood your response
to the six nations regarding parking
[1:42:03] that councelor Oakley mentioned, um do I
understand correctly that the CPS does
[1:42:09] not consider visitor parking anymore?
uh through the merit does it does
[1:42:15] require visitor parking still. Um just
what we have done is instead of
[1:42:19] requiring it above and beyond um the way
that the zoning bylaw uh approaches it
[1:42:24] now it's considered within the um
overall parking framework. So when we
[1:42:29] say two exterior spaces per unit, one of
those hypothetically could be um a
[1:42:35] visitor parking space. Um if it's in a
driveway, it's it's kind of visitor
[1:42:39] parking. Um but we would look at the
total calculation for that that
[1:42:42] development um and we would apply um the
two spaces per unit on their site and
[1:42:48] then the additional parking for um for
the visitors.
[1:42:52] » Will that result in fewer parking
spaces? Let me take any development
[1:42:56] around take my peninsula as an example.
Will it result in fewer parking spaces
[1:43:01] » through the mayor? No. It will what
we're trying to do is find a balance
[1:43:07] here to increase the parking in
situations like that with town homes
[1:43:11] specifically um condominium developments
where we recognize that maybe a single
[1:43:16] wide driveway doesn't work with a single
wide garage. Um so there would still be
[1:43:20] that requirement for a visitor parking
above and beyond that. Um, but in
[1:43:25] situations where say the garage is
double wide or the the driveway is
[1:43:29] double wide, it just adds that
opportunity for flexibility because as
[1:43:33] as expressed in the letter with Six
Nations um parking takes up space and uh
[1:43:38] we need to be considerate of that as
well. But we recognize public transit
[1:43:42] not um widely available here. Um so the
the offset for transport demand
[1:43:46] management, transportation demand
management um with respect to cars, more
[1:43:50] people have cars. Um so we're trying to
find a balance with the realistic
[1:43:52] approach there. Thank you,
>> Councelor Haley.
[1:43:59] » Through you. Um, I just wanted to follow
up. I I know that there was a response
[1:44:04] from staff to the Brand Federation of
Agriculture, but that was um before they
[1:44:09] came tonight. So, they received a set of
answers and they still came and they
[1:44:13] still asked um uh about they still had
concerns about the agricultural impact
[1:44:19] assessment. Uh they had concerns about
notification uh about it um often only
[1:44:26] being on the website um and uh is that
adequate notification? are people in the
[1:44:32] country that are farming, rural people,
anybody are they watching the website
[1:44:36] for the notification and then the
frequency of the agriculture advisory
[1:44:41] meetings and whether that's adequate for
the review of the uh so I wonder I I I
[1:44:47] know that staff answered their questions
earlier but they came tonight again and
[1:44:52] asked the same question so it leads me
to believe that they still aren't
[1:44:56] convinced and um I don't know who has an
answer for that. That's why I was asking
[1:45:00] the delegation. I know that staff has
replied, but um I don't know if you can
[1:45:05] speak to their further questions
tonight.
[1:45:09] » Yeah, through the mayor. I'm happy to
speak um I can speak to those three
[1:45:12] points specifically, the AIAS, the and
the egg advisory. Um so with respect to
[1:45:16] agricultural impact assessments or AIAS,
um they are they will be required and
[1:45:22] they're required under official plan um
as a required study in many areas,
[1:45:26] notably outside of our settlement areas.
Um we have a a working terms of
[1:45:31] reference from the province of Ontario
that they've provided um to
[1:45:34] municipalities to use. We intend to use
that um and we'd also get um some of
[1:45:39] that information peer reviewed by
experts. Um we have that opportunity. We
[1:45:42] do the same thing with natural heritage
reviews. Um, so if if there is um if
[1:45:47] there are questions about kind of the
quality of of the reporting that's been
[1:45:50] put together, um we can have those
discussions with with the the
[1:45:54] professionals that um would uh would
assist us in the review. Um with that
[1:45:59] said, that's the type of thing that
would go to the egg advisory committee.
[1:46:02] That's why we we have that committee and
we've heard that tonight about um uh
[1:46:06] that expertise. We would we would take
advantage of that that expertise um to
[1:46:10] have them review and provide comments on
applications of that nature as well. So
[1:46:14] um there will be opportunities outside
of the meetings um for for us to
[1:46:18] circulate applications um to those
committees. We do a similar thing with
[1:46:22] our our heritage committee right now
with heritage impact assessments um
[1:46:25] circulating those and then a discussion
happens kind of following that
[1:46:28] circulation on the agenda of the
meeting. we would take a similar
[1:46:31] approach. Um, and then with respect to
notifications, what I would say is the
[1:46:35] class one, so where we're proposing that
there only be an online notification,
[1:46:40] there is no notification today of those.
Um, the class one applications are stuff
[1:46:46] that goes almost directly to building
permit nowadays. Um, so what we're
[1:46:50] proposing is more of a transparency
piece. Um, all of that information would
[1:46:54] be available online to residents. um it
admittedly is something they will need
[1:46:58] to seek out, but we've also talked
internally about um opportunities for
[1:47:02] mailing lists, email lists, those types
of things, recognizing that not everyone
[1:47:06] has internet access or reliable internet
access. So um what we're doing is kind
[1:47:11] of two pieces there. We're improving the
access to the information um that is
[1:47:14] already coming in. And then we're going
to provide other opportunities for input
[1:47:18] um through that system. the class two
permits themselves, you'll see that
[1:47:22] there's an on-site signage that's
proposed and there's always the
[1:47:25] opportunity to bump the requirements up
um for notification. Um and that can be
[1:47:30] a discussion we have with the applicant
depending on on the um the application,
[1:47:34] but what we need is a starting point. Um
and that starting point is the kind of
[1:47:39] for class two is the dual the dual
notification. So one online and the site
[1:47:43] um the sign on site as well.
>> Okay, thank you. Uh so I have a few more
[1:47:47] questions. Um, this is from one of our
constituents here. Sorry. Um, just uh
[1:47:53] it's about the major facilities. Just a
moment. I have to find it for you. Um,
[1:48:00] sorry, just a moment here.
[1:48:04] Sorry.
Okay. Um, so you have the CN National CN
[1:48:11] area northwest of downtown Paris was
formerly unzoned. Now it's zoned major
[1:48:16] facility. Okay. Um and then you have uh
major facility includes
[1:48:23] so major facility includes um pipelines,
oil and gas pipelines, energy gener uh
[1:48:30] general facilities, data centers, uh
airports, rail facilities. So if Brandt
[1:48:37] retains the airport lands, if we don't
annex it, does that mean that these
[1:48:42] lands are vulnerable to a data center
being developed? That's a question
[1:48:45] coming from a constituent.
[1:48:49] through the mayor. Um
[1:48:54] uh there will be many other
considerations um for permissions with
[1:48:58] respect to data centers um and battery
storage and those types of um major
[1:49:04] facilities that use use or store a lot
of resources. Um what we have put into
[1:49:09] the bylaw specifically is wording around
those types of uses. Even though they're
[1:49:13] included in major facilities, that's
what they're considered. um is that
[1:49:18] we're limiting the size and scale of
them to very minor so that we can have
[1:49:21] the conversation about these major ones
we're seeing in the news come forward.
[1:49:25] Um they would essentially be prohibited
and require an amendment to the bylaw.
[1:49:30] So we don't know enough information
about those things. I don't want to um
[1:49:33] comment per se specifically on that
property, but I commenting on that use.
[1:49:38] We don't know enough about about them
yet. Um and so our safe bet right now is
[1:49:42] by planning opinion is is a prohibition
um so that we can have the trigger for
[1:49:47] an assessment for a review um and then
that information can come forward to
[1:49:51] council to make a decision.
>> Thank you. So battery storage has come
[1:49:54] forward to us and it is a major facility
and so how would the CPS deal with
[1:49:59] battery storage uh battery storage
proposal? Um so through the mayor
[1:50:04] depending on the zone that it is
proposed in and the permitted uses um
[1:50:08] the major facility where it is permitted
in we would assess that um but if it is
[1:50:13] not a permitted use in that zone it
would require an amendment to the bylaw.
[1:50:18] » Okay. Um and then I had another question
from a constituent. Can staff assure
[1:50:23] council that the county has the
governance, staffing, monitoring,
[1:50:28] enforcement, reporting, and corporate
risk management systems necessary to
[1:50:33] implement and administer the CPPs
effectively over the long term
[1:50:38] » through the mayor. Yes, that is one of
the key objectives that we have of this
[1:50:42] this system. As with any new system,
there will be consistent monitoring over
[1:50:46] time. We'll be presenting that
information to council. We'll look at
[1:50:49] what the issues end up being. um we'll
iron those out, have those discussions
[1:50:52] with people. Um but yes, I would that
that's one of the key foundational
[1:50:58] pieces of of of making a large change
like this.
[1:51:02] » And finally, just to clarify, um this
reduces the risk of an application going
[1:51:08] to the OOLT. Is that correct?
>> Uh through the mayor in the context of
[1:51:12] not being able to make amendments to the
bylaw for 5 years, yes, it does.
[1:51:16] » Thank you,
>> Councelor Kyle.
[1:51:20] Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Through you to staff
Brandon, a couple of questions. So, we
[1:51:24] had a delegation earlier tonight um that
had concerns about a essentially a
[1:51:29] pre-approved application. So, can you
just reiterate what the process is for
[1:51:36] any sort of these subdivision
applications that are already in
[1:51:40] progress, they've been approved, there
may be an oil tea um decision that's
[1:51:44] tied to them. Uh can you just clarify
very clearly what what happens with
[1:51:51] those ones
>> through the mayor? Yes. Um so those
[1:51:54] applications that have already there a
decision has already been rendered on
[1:51:58] them to some form um would simply just
go through the the old process but
[1:52:04] carried over into the new framework. So
we're deleting our zoning bylaw. We're
[1:52:09] deleting our site plan bylaw. That's the
intent of this. Um, we're creating a new
[1:52:13] development processing framework for the
county, but what we have done as part of
[1:52:17] our transition is copied the stuff that
has gone through already and pasted it
[1:52:22] into the the new system so that we don't
have to sit there and read two separate
[1:52:27] frameworks with two separate kind of
interpretations. Um, it will essentially
[1:52:32] be those two frameworks but in one spot.
>> Okay. And and then a followup to that um
[1:52:40] through the mayor. Um so something that
kind of seems to be the theme from lots
[1:52:46] of the questions from around the table
here, but even from the delegations just
[1:52:50] they kind of center around uncertainty.
It's it's a new system. It's new to us.
[1:52:56] Um, so could you very specifically
specifically um outline how how staff
[1:53:04] will know that it's working as intended
and therefore how will council know that
[1:53:10] it's working? And kind of as a a
followup to that, how quickly if there
[1:53:14] is something that comes up, what's that
threshold for um
[1:53:21] bringing it back right away? what's
what's the timeline for how quickly we
[1:53:25] could change something if we needed to.
So, just trying to kind of gauge, you
[1:53:30] know, it's a new process to all of us
and if we were to go ahead with it, how
[1:53:35] quickly can we make those changes and
tweak them and how will we know if there
[1:53:40] is a problem?
>> Um, so through the mayor, what we are
[1:53:44] doing here um with the new system is we
will have um a monitoring system. We're
[1:53:49] going to be creating a dashboard that
will be available like internally during
[1:53:54] August. But the idea is come September
provided everything goes well with um
[1:53:58] the bylaw that we will make that
available to to anyone to look at. Um so
[1:54:02] what that would do is have our kind of
key performance indicators. I'll throw
[1:54:05] throw that out there. But um we'll be
looking at how many transition files are
[1:54:09] left, how much natural heritage system
is being refined, um how long is an
[1:54:14] application taking from inquiry all the
way to buildout. Um so those will be our
[1:54:18] high level indicators and everyone will
be able to kind of follow along and and
[1:54:21] see that. We'll also post like um the
information about where that threshold
[1:54:26] is to know that it's not working. Um I
think admittedly we need to s dive into
[1:54:30] the implementation of the bylaw to
understand that a bit more. Um but
[1:54:34] that's our intention for the next month.
Um so what I would say to to that is is
[1:54:40] kind of stay tuned for for some of that
extra information there. There's been
[1:54:43] provided some information in the
reporting just about implementation um
[1:54:46] and monitoring. But if there are other
ideas um about that, we we can take
[1:54:52] those back. Um we can come forward at
any point. Um council hold regular
[1:54:57] meetings. Council holds special
meetings. Um there's plenty of
[1:55:00] opportunities. Not that I want to be
coming to every single council meeting
[1:55:03] in the future or any of the planning
department, but um there's plenty of
[1:55:07] decision-making points um to be had
about about making adjustments. and we
[1:55:11] as staff recognize that this is this is
a new framework. It's new. Um there will
[1:55:15] need to be very clear communication
about that in regular reporting. Um so
[1:55:19] again, I wouldn't be surprised if you
see a report in September um just on an
[1:55:22] implementation provided everything goes
tonight um what that looks like and the
[1:55:26] next steps.
>> Okay. And uh last question through the
[1:55:30] mayor to you Brandon to kind of put
[clears throat] you a little bit on the
[1:55:32] spot maybe, but um is there anything
that staff still have concerns about as
[1:55:39] far as the implementation
[1:55:43] uh through the mayor? Um what I would
say is my concern right now is that we
[1:55:49] haven't had the chance to test like we
aren't getting the chance to test this
[1:55:53] out further than it just being in a
testing phase. we're at the point where
[1:55:57] we've we're confident in the framework
that's been established, the the best
[1:56:02] way to move this forward and be further
confident in it is to apply it. Um, and
[1:56:08] so that would be my kind of backhanded
hesitation, I suppose, with this, but
[1:56:13] um, we can go through as many mock
applications as as possible. Um, but we
[1:56:19] won't know the full depth and breadth of
the of the framework and our
[1:56:24] opportunities to change that. um until
we are implementing it.
[1:56:30] » Councelor Miller,
>> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Three to Brandon.
[1:56:33] Brandon, um so you said there's
transition provisions for two years,
[1:56:39] correct?
>> Through the mayor, there are.
[1:56:41] » Yes.
>> So, you also said uh in your response
[1:56:45] that um
they u use the word may. draft approved
[1:56:51] subdivisions may continue to rely on
sight specific zoning. Are you saying
[1:56:57] they can?
>> Correct.
[1:56:59] » I
>> So they they they would continue to rely
[1:57:02] on their zoning.
>> Okay.
[1:57:03] » Unless they want to switch to the new
system,
[1:57:05] » unless they want, but they may. So um
even if those buildouts take 5 years, 10
[1:57:11] years, 25 years, or in your response to
councelor K used the word carry it over
[1:57:17] to the new system. I don't like that
response because I don't know what it
[1:57:20] means. Um, but are they allowed to go
under 6116 until the full buildout?
[1:57:26] » Correct. Yes, they are.
>> Even if it takes 5 years, 10 years, 20
[1:57:28] years.
>> Okay. When does the f when do we start
[1:57:32] collecting FSM?
>> Uh, provided the bylaw is passed, it
[1:57:35] would be the date of enactment.
>> Okay. Do we collect FSM under bylaw
[1:57:39] 6116?
>> We do not. So, if I already had an
[1:57:43] application in for a subdivision, why
would I switch over to the new system
[1:57:47] and have to pay the FSM? Does that make
sense? If you're the developer,
[1:57:51] » yeah, through the mayor, that's it's a
great question.
[1:57:54] » I'm I if it were me as a hypothetically,
if I was a developer, um I would keep my
[1:58:01] my application under the former system
and not um okay, not make amendments.
[1:58:06] But to that degree um we what we are
doing is trying to offer flexibility so
[1:58:11] that if someone does come in
>> Yep.
[1:58:12] » there's opportunity for that. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Flexibility to pay extra. So
[1:58:17] that's what it sounds like. Um and then
I wanted to ask the last question. Um it
[1:58:23] was brought up by when uh we had uh
Robert Hamilton and uh Mark Eddie. Um
[1:58:29] they talked about agriculture expertise
on the part of our planners. I I thought
[1:58:33] that was a kind of a
I don't know how do you respond to that
[1:58:40] » um through through the mayor as a
professional planner. Um I often joke
[1:58:45] that we are the jack of all trades but
the master of none.
[1:58:48] » Um but with that said we have plenty of
staff that have specialties um in
[1:58:53] various subject matters. Um several have
gone to the University of G which is
[1:58:58] more agriculture on nature some have
done college some have done university.
[1:59:01] there's plenty of expertise and where
that expertise is not readily available
[1:59:05] among staff. We're not guessing um we
would seek that expertise out in other
[1:59:10] ways.
>> Yeah. Uh it doesn't mean you're
[1:59:13] guessing, but sometimes you don't know
that you have a sometimes you don't know
[1:59:17] what you don't know and and I know
sitting around at planning sometimes I
[1:59:21] seen some that come from the agriculture
sector and I I question what what I'm
[1:59:25] reading in the report. So that that I
kind of I kind of thought uh that they
[1:59:29] had made a good point, but I wanted to
get your your comments on. So Okay. Uh
[1:59:33] thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um I will make
an amendment at the appropriate time.
[1:59:39] » Any other comments?
Councelor Haley.
[1:59:43] I just wonder for myself and I think the
general public I'm trying to understand
[1:59:48] the difference between the agricultural
countryside and rural zones and the
[1:59:52] criteria that you would use for that
>> uh through the mayor. So those have
[1:59:56] already been designated in the official
plan and the zoning will match that. Um
[2:00:00] agriculture and countryside zones are
intended to be our prime agricultural
[2:00:04] areas for the county of Brand um which
the objective is permanently protected
[2:00:08] land. uh rural lands were done through
an an um were analyzed um in uh
[2:00:15] collaboration with the province um with
OMAFA based on um a methodology that
[2:00:20] they provide. Um and those lands based
on the provincial direction now um have
[2:00:25] some contemplation or potential for
development. Um but our um approach here
[2:00:31] is still to restrict that and include
them as part of the agricultural system
[2:00:35] » and countryside
>> and country. So countryside and
[2:00:38] agriculture essentially mimic each
other. It's that countryside is
[2:00:41] recognizing where there are areas of
existing non-aggricultural development.
[2:00:46] Um I guess I would point to our former
rural residential um designation and the
[2:00:53] rural residential zone. Um that is kind
of a a common um commonly um a common
[2:01:00] area where the countryside zoning or
designation has been.
[2:01:04] » Thank you. And then some um some uh
areas have no class two or three.
[2:01:11] Aggregate I think only has class one and
some have no class two or three. Um do
[2:01:18] you see that as a problem through the
mayor? Not at this point. And what we
[2:01:22] intend to do with that is like I say add
some st or provide some stability in the
[2:01:27] bylaw so there isn't the opportunity for
amendments um outside of the framework.
[2:01:33] Um and if changes are needed then staff
and council would have control over the
[2:01:37] changes that are are made to the bylaw
to to consider that.
[2:01:40] » So to try out aggregate if it's class
one what notification would there be to
[2:01:45] the public?
>> So specifically for aggregates there's a
[2:01:47] 500 meter radius notification that's
soon for the public. Um and I will note
[2:01:51] that aggregate um decisions and and
processing is mostly done at the
[2:01:56] provincial level. Um but what we're
intending to do there is provide that
[2:02:00] information well in advance um and
provide an opportunity for the um the
[2:02:06] folks within that radius and and beyond
if they wish um to speak to the
[2:02:10] aggregate operator um and have those
conversations before an application is
[2:02:13] approved.
>> Thank you. And then you mentioned in
[2:02:16] your um briefing July 17th you mentioned
boundary expansions would require a CPP
[2:02:22] amendment. Uh, and uh, I think you and I
spoke. I think there's three boundary
[2:02:26] expansion applications right now. Is
that correct?
[2:02:30] » Yeah, through the mayor. That Yeah, two
or three, I believe. Um, in process.
[2:02:34] » Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Oakley. You're next.
[2:02:38] » Through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, did I hear
you correct? Are we on to comments now
[2:02:42] or just questions?
>> Comments. Fine.
[2:02:44] » Okay. Uh, so through you, Mr. Mayor,
some some comments on it. Um, so in
[2:02:50] regards to some of the conversation
around class one and and notifications
[2:02:53] and I got some emails and questions
about that as well. Um, what I would say
[2:02:57] in regards to class one is I think it's
important for people to recognize with
[2:03:00] class one. It's it it means
fundamentally it's a project that checks
[2:03:04] every single box. Um, so it's what we
say we want in our official plan. It's
[2:03:09] what's allowed uh with no modifications
whatsoever. Um, and I would propose that
[2:03:17] while yes, there's not an initial um,
notice that goes out before um, I and
[2:03:23] we're just including it basically as a
transparency measure. If my neighbors
[2:03:27] want to build a triplex
next door and it's allowed within our
[2:03:32] official plan, they're requiring no
parking amendments, no boundary
[2:03:35] adjustments, no um, you know, uh,
they're requiring no changes. quite
[2:03:42] frankly, it's none of my business. It's
their property to do what they they wish
[2:03:45] within the guidelines that we've set up.
And if there's a problem with how that's
[2:03:49] going, the problem document is the
official plan, not this this process.
[2:03:52] So, I just wanted to to state that. Um,
yeah, that that's sort of my my my
[2:03:58] initial comments there.
>> Councelor Coleman.
[2:04:02] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, more of a
comment. Um,
[2:04:06] I've had concerns about this plan ever
since day one whenever it was brought
[2:04:12] forth sometime early in the year. Um, I
can't support it the way it is and um at
[2:04:19] the and I think councelor Miller's going
to make an amendment too, but I will
[2:04:23] propose an amendment too because of of
the way things have been going. So,
[2:04:27] thanks.
>> So,
[2:04:31] councelor, did you have your hand up?
Councelor McCalpine,
[2:04:38] » one of my concerns was the onfarmm
diversified uses and I'm wondering if
[2:04:43] you could give examples of things that
would not be allowed under un onfarm
[2:04:48] diversified uses for like a small
business or something like that. How how
[2:04:53] would you separate
um through the mayor? Um admittedly that
[2:04:59] would be a difficult question to answer
because the provincial guidelines um and
[2:05:04] quite frankly meeting meeting with the
province to ask them about the
[2:05:06] guidelines. Um essentially say that
there there's a very broad variety of
[2:05:12] things that can be an onfarmm
diversified use. Um there's certain
[2:05:15] criteria that are listed in um the
permitted use guidelines um that it be
[2:05:22] like limited in area. So it the the size
and scale of it is kind of the more
[2:05:26] important piece in our minds um than the
use itself. Um but what we are have done
[2:05:32] through the recent OPA and what would be
done through this this CPPs um is to
[2:05:37] ensure that there are kind of we go
beyond what the guidelines are saying.
[2:05:42] We recognize that there are some
questions about um onfarmm diversified
[2:05:47] uses of certain sizes and scales and
certain uses um and we've tried to limit
[2:05:52] those specifically um in more detail um
and the CPS would do that. So um one
[2:05:59] that is talked about quite often is kind
of the wedding venue or wedding barn um
[2:06:03] thing. There's a certain size and scale
of that that may be appropriate. Um but
[2:06:07] large event venues on agricultural land
are not something that are is supported
[2:06:13] by the arfund of diversified use like
the permitted use guideline and that's
[2:06:17] something that we included in our recent
OPA and that's something that would be
[2:06:21] moved forward with with the CBPs.
[2:06:26] » So I'm also thinking like you're we're
going to allow businesses to be like not
[2:06:32] related but they're supposed to support
the farm. So it might be a small
[2:06:36] business in um
[2:06:42] a cabinet shop or something like that.
Um so that'll be allowed underneath on
[2:06:47] this program or an automotive shop or
something like that. But is there a
[2:06:51] limit to that type of business that
could be allowed
[2:06:54] » uh through the mayor? Yes, there is. So
there's size and scale limits to that.
[2:06:57] Those are already in place through our
zoning. Um at a high level, I believe
[2:07:01] it's 2% of the property to a maximum of
one hectare. And then within that one
[2:07:05] hectare, there's a 20% limit on building
area. So,
[2:07:09] » um we'd have to do the math specifically
on a property maybe to give people
[2:07:13] context, but there's specific numbers in
place to restrict um what can happen in
[2:07:18] those instances.
>> Okay. And does that have to be within
[2:07:21] the sort of farm cluster of buildings?
>> It's yes through the mayor. So what we
[2:07:26] have done with the CPP bylaw is we've
structured it in a way that um what
[2:07:31] we're using for the the OFDUs is the
requirement that [snorts] things be
[2:07:34] clustered because we don't want things
to be taking up land unnecessarily. So
[2:07:39] if there are existing farm buildings
like someone built a farm and they want
[2:07:43] to renovate that and convert that into
some sort of other use to um to
[2:07:48] diversify their farming operation and
and bring in some more income, that
[2:07:51] existing farm building would be able to
be renovated. But if they're building
[2:07:54] something new and it's specifically for
the purpose of a non-farmm diversified
[2:07:57] use, there's more limitations in place
to that. And one of those is clustering.
[2:08:01] » Okay.
>> Um my understanding it doesn't
[2:08:04] necessarily have to be a um the home
doesn't you don't have to have a house
[2:08:09] on that property. It could be on a
property is that excludes a home
[2:08:14] » through the mayor. Yes. The the
qualification is that it is a farming
[2:08:17] operation.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Bill.
[2:08:23] I have comments, but if maybe I should
wait until the amendment's on the table
[2:08:27] because I might say something different.
>> Councelor Chambers,
[2:08:32] » I could say the same thing. I I I don't
have any questions. I was just going to
[2:08:35] make some comments, but if you want to
proceed with the amendments, that's
[2:08:39] fine.
>> Is it a friendly amendment or we have to
[2:08:41] go back?
>> It's not friendly.
[2:08:43] » It's not friendly at all. Right.
>> Okay. So, Council Chambers,
[2:08:49] » maybe I'll make my comments first.
[laughter]
[2:08:52] I u I don't want to get unfriendly here.
Uh I I just wanted to make some
[2:08:57] generalized comments. Uh I I
if if someone asked me to explain the
[2:09:04] present system, I could do a pretty good
job on it. I I think I've been around
[2:09:08] enough that I understand how we do
things. Now,
[2:09:14] if someone asked me to explain the new
system,
[2:09:18] I would
have to say, "You'll have to get staff
[2:09:22] to explain it to you."
And what that's telling me is that
[2:09:28] we're tending to move
planning from around the horseshoe in
[2:09:35] the community
to the staff. It's it's becoming more
[2:09:39] and more
the complexities are
[2:09:45] staff orientated
and some people will agree with that,
[2:09:51] some people won't. Uh but the fact is
that planning is
[2:09:58] becoming complicated through this system
that
[2:10:03] we're going to be relying on staff to
ensure that it works.
[2:10:10] And
I'm hoping
[2:10:14] that staff is up to the task.
I I know we've had staff turnovers in
[2:10:20] the past. Sometimes we have a lot of
turnover. Heaven, help us. If at the
[2:10:24] crux of this we have staff turnover and
the new staff doesn't understand this,
[2:10:31] it it could be very very difficult
moving forward.
[2:10:37] I I'm
[2:10:41] in favor of more staff
uh input and decision making because
[2:10:50] essentially it's been moving that way
for years.
[2:10:55] But this is a huge huge leap into the
trusting staff to do what needs to be
[2:11:02] done rather than counselors that
hopefully can understand the process
[2:11:07] enough that they can make decisions on
applications and uh of the such
[2:11:14] that they feel confident in doing that.
[2:11:19] Again, I could not pass a test on this
new system and I'll admit that right
[2:11:25] from the outset, which is I think
not unlike anybody around here. If we
[2:11:31] had an exam tomorrow on this, I don't
know whether anybody could pass it to
[2:11:35] tell you the truth. Uh the old system, I
think we could all pass it.
[2:11:40] and let's leap forward to the new
council where people will be elected and
[2:11:46] they'll have to they won't know the old
system and the new system. They'll have
[2:11:50] to learn the system. So maybe that will
rescue the system. If nobody knows
[2:11:56] what's going on, they'll all learn it
together. So those are my comments and
[2:12:00] I'm
I'm dying to hear the amendments and uh
[2:12:05] hopefully they uh will make it a little
bit more clearer to understand. But
[2:12:10] before we go to the really unfriendly
amendments, I think we should speak to
[2:12:13] councelor Bell.
>> Yeah. Um, well, having heard what
[2:12:17] councelor Chambers has said, it reminds
me of the first meeting I think I ever
[2:12:22] went to as a counselor when we were
given a bit of education and I remember
[2:12:29] the statement, it's not our job to row
the boat, it's our job to set the
[2:12:34] direction.
So I have the the uneasy feeling that
[2:12:41] what councelor James Chambers was
talking about would take us too much
[2:12:44] would put the os in our hands or keep
the os in our hands and I I don't think
[2:12:48] that's what we should be doing. So that
I'm I'm sort of philosophically
[2:12:54] different from from Robert in that
respect. But I'll make I'll make my
[2:12:57] comments then if if I may because I was
skeptical. I really was skeptical,
[2:13:02] probably more skeptical and vocally
skeptical than anybody else about a
[2:13:07] complete revision to what is a familiar
if somewhat inflexible and to my mind
[2:13:13] abused planning system. To quote the uh
the head of the US Senate, I wasn't sure
[2:13:20] the uh the juice was worth the squeeze
on this one. There's so much effort is
[2:13:26] required. It's a huge change management
effort starting perhaps with people
[2:13:30] around this table
and it puts a challenge on our staff uh
[2:13:36] in many respects. I think somebody asked
can we meet the 45day turnaround
[2:13:41] deadline that was a a comment from from
the public but I think staff have done a
[2:13:46] terrific job of preparing the CPPs.
Think about the number of steps we've
[2:13:51] gone through as council. I think this
must be the seventh or eighth time
[2:13:56] Brandon has stood up there and taken us
through it. Yes, it's a complete
[2:14:00] different system. And yes, we have to
learn it, but we don't have to run it.
[2:14:04] We're not rowing this boat. We're
steering the ship.
[2:14:09] And they've done a good job on on
thinking about the implementation as
[2:14:12] well. So, I think the introduction of a
CPPs
[2:14:16] will be an improvement too. uh I think
it will turn out to be a simplification
[2:14:20] of our existing system and I think it
will strengthen our control as council
[2:14:26] and I think it will make the develop the
process we follow much more transparent
[2:14:32] yes there's some effort required there's
a willingness to accept change by us by
[2:14:37] the community
but I think there's a willingness and I
[2:14:41] think I've heard it from staff to adapt
as we get experience so we won't get it
[2:14:45] right 100% first
I was worried that we should why would
[2:14:51] we move to a new system in one go? Let's
pilot somewhere else. But I'm
[2:14:57] convinced now uh from what staff have
done and that the analysis they've taken
[2:15:02] upon themselves to find out that if they
considered other municipalities that
[2:15:08] have taken that pilot step, their
recommendation is don't just go straight
[2:15:12] to the full system. So are we taking a
risk? I don't think so. I mean, Paris is
[2:15:18] essentially built out from a planning
perspective. There's so little left to
[2:15:23] decide about how planet how Paris will
be developed within the current
[2:15:27] settlement area. I think St. George is
getting there. There's an awful lot
[2:15:31] that's already predetermined. Nothing
that we're going to change.
[2:15:35] And the relative simplicity of rural
applications, albeit that there may be
[2:15:39] more of them, leads me to believe that
if staff are prepared to tune this new
[2:15:44] system based on experience and make good
use of of groups like the agricultural
[2:15:50] advisory committee, then I can be very
supportive of what they recommend,
[2:15:55] including FSM um given that you are
going to keep on looking at what's the
[2:16:00] best outcome for that. So I will be
supportive of what is the staff
[2:16:05] recommendation assuming that the uh
amendment that's coming is not too
[2:16:10] unfriendly.
>> Councelor Oakley and then we're going to
[2:16:14] go to [clears throat] the not too
unfriendly amendment.
[2:16:18] » Thank you, M. May. Uh I'm I'm largely
going to agree with councelor Bell here
[2:16:21] and and just add a couple of comments.
Um, I think in terms of if if you
[2:16:27] dropped us blind into um an option A or
option B, option A being the current
[2:16:34] system, option B being the one we're
proposing, um, without the additional
[2:16:40] famili familiarity we currently already
have with the current system, I I
[2:16:44] fundamentally don't believe that you're
going to look at option A and go, this
[2:16:48] is the least complex system. I think
fundamentally system B will be the least
[2:16:52] complex system. It's just by its very
nature planning is complex. There's no
[2:16:58] way to simplify it enough that it really
truly speaks to a lay person like
[2:17:03] myself. It's fundamentally a complex
topic. Um and in terms of the types of
[2:17:09] people it would help uh as councelor
Bell highlighted you know in terms of
[2:17:12] the large broadstroke developments uh
lots of it's already spoken for but to
[2:17:18] sort of speak from a sort of personal
antidote um my mother recently moved um
[2:17:23] out of Paris out of being councelor
Bell's neighbor um and moved up north
[2:17:29] moved in with my grandfather and
throughout that process they had to
[2:17:31] renovate the the current home that my
grandfather was in and throughout that
[2:17:35] process they undergo a very similar
process to as we do now in Trent Hills
[2:17:41] and numerous times over the course of
that process. They'd apply, get their
[2:17:45] permits, go great, we can go now. There
was another step that they didn't wasn't
[2:17:51] quite clear because there's another
process to apply for and then another
[2:17:54] process to apply for. You know, it it's
not very concise. This process, I think,
[2:18:00] fundamentally helps folks like that. And
I've heard similar comments from local
[2:18:04] residents who are trying to do something
and then there's another step and
[2:18:07] another step. This I think packages it
so people have an understanding from the
[2:18:11] outset what they're getting into and I
think that will really help sort of
[2:18:15] people trying to do things to their own
property uh rather than necessarily how
[2:18:19] it might benefit a developer. So I think
ultimately this is the right direction
[2:18:23] to go forward. There will be things to
figure out. Every process is like that.
[2:18:27] Nothing should be set in stone.
Everything is intended to be iterative.
[2:18:30] So, um I'm supportive of the staff
recommendation. Again, we'll see about
[2:18:34] the friendly unfriendly amendment.
>> Councelor Pierce.
[2:18:39] » Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, there's
great discussion here and I I think if I
[2:18:44] look back to when this all first when
Brandon first brought this to us, the
[2:18:48] question I asked, I said, is this going
to make the process easier or is it
[2:18:54] going to expedite the process? And what
I meant by that was the fact of we don't
[2:19:00] want things just flowing through, coming
and going, coming and going, coming and
[2:19:03] going. But the process itself has to be
made easier. And and it's been said a
[2:19:08] couple times tonight, planning is is one
of the most complex, if not the most
[2:19:12] complex thing as far as anybody around
this horseshoe, I I think would agree as
[2:19:19] what we have to know as council. there
are there are so many policies and so
[2:19:22] many uh stipulations put through by the
province and stuff like that and we know
[2:19:27] it more than um general public and I
think if we can do a process that makes
[2:19:32] it easier for the general public not
expedites things there's still a process
[2:19:37] there's still parameters and I think the
key here and and Brandon has said it at
[2:19:41] every single meetings we are able to
make amendments and and it was alluded
[2:19:45] to a couple times tonight we're not
going to get this perfect right off the
[2:19:48] hop we are going to make amendments
ments to it and we will go and you know
[2:19:53] as things come forward staff will look
at them Brandon will look at them we
[2:19:57] will we will discuss them as council and
if we need to amend things we can we've
[2:20:01] talked so many times around this
horseshoe about putting some more
[2:20:05] delegation back into staff hands this I
think this allows that to happen but as
[2:20:11] has been stated also staff at any time
can bump this to council and council at
[2:20:16] any time can ask to have it bumped to us
as well so I don't think it's going to
[2:20:20] exclude council from from input or
making some of the decisions if we feel
[2:20:25] we need to have input on it. Again, um
what councelor Chambers had said,
[2:20:30] absolutely. You know, the the current
process we have, uh we know it. Why do
[2:20:34] we know it? Because it's the only one
we've had for as long as any of us have
[2:20:37] been on council. Yes, this is new. It's
going to be some growing pains to it,
[2:20:41] but I too feel that this is definitely
heading in a right direction. Um is it
[2:20:46] going to be perfect right off the hop?
No. And we've even had Brandon say that
[2:20:50] numerous times. It's not going to be
perfect, but we will get there. And in
[2:20:53] my mind, if we can have parameters out
there that have some flexibility within
[2:20:58] them, but they are parameters that we
can set and stay within, I think that's
[2:21:03] a plus because as councelor Bell alluded
to, and as I've said many times before,
[2:21:07] he's absolutely right. We get these
things that come in and they want they
[2:21:11] want an amendment to this, an amendment
to that, and and shorter distance here
[2:21:14] and and setbacks and reduce this and
reduce that. I think that's going to
[2:21:18] alleviate a lot of that. So, I'm I'm I'm
willing to to to hear what these uh
[2:21:23] friendly non-friendly amendments are. Uh
but I I I must admit even in the short
[2:21:28] it's not been a short time. It's been
well over a year that he's brought this
[2:21:30] to us. And I think we've all learned a
lot a lot more than what it was off the
[2:21:35] hop. And I think as we go with this and
if it goes through, we will continue to
[2:21:39] learn from it. And we'll find that it is
a it's a good move to make. And I am in
[2:21:43] support of it.
Councilman Calpine.
[2:21:49] » So, I'd like to speak in support of it
as well. Um I went through the process
[2:21:53] about 10 years ago personally building a
house and I can see where um sitting
[2:21:59] down at the very beginning with staff
and having uh understanding of what are
[2:22:04] the needs of the the reports that we
have to bring forward for it and bring
[2:22:09] it into a more concise process so that
could be done in a more um expedient
[2:22:15] manner I think will be a real advantage
especially for the lay person coming
[2:22:20] into this process.
not understanding the system and not
[2:22:23] understanding necessarily everything. Um
having that opportunity to have a staff
[2:22:28] lead you through it and also eliminating
the things that you don't necessarily
[2:22:33] have to um go through. So I think this
will be definitely a step forward for
[2:22:37] the average person applying for this
pro.
[2:22:43] » Anything else before [clears throat] we
go to councelor Miller?
[2:22:47] Councelor Miller.
Yeah. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. And uh
[2:22:52] this evening we had a request from Paris
Grand Estates. Uh they are looking for a
[2:22:58] carveout from the CPPS. So um that would
be uh I'd like to make that uh an
[2:23:04] amendment to the CPBS motion. Um and the
actual wording is it's pretty much as
[2:23:11] written that they provided us. Um but
basically that uh Paris Grand Estates be
[2:23:18] allowed to continue under what they uh
originally got approval for and that's
[2:23:22] zoning bylaw 6116 until the full build
out. So that's that's that's the
[2:23:27] amendment.
>> That's secondary.
[2:23:32] » Secretary Keler Coleman
that that's [clears throat] your
[2:23:36] unfriendly amendment.
>> Well, I didn't say it was unfriendly or
[2:23:41] friendly. It just depends on your
>> your viewpoint, I guess.
[2:23:45] » I thought you were going to slap
somebody.
[2:23:49] » Okay. So, it's on the floor. It has a
seconder. Um, councelor Oaklay.
[2:23:53] » To you, I'm sir, I I won't be supportive
of this amendment. Um, I think from uh
[2:23:57] what I heard from the delegation and
what I heard from from staff as well, I
[2:24:01] think it's it's it at least to me it's
quite crystal clear um that as the bylaw
[2:24:06] is written now, the developer can choose
to continue using what is already been
[2:24:11] approved or if they felt it necessary,
they could jump in with the new process.
[2:24:16] Uh I don't see the purpose of the
carveout. Um and I think it's wholly
[2:24:20] unnecessary. Thank you,
>> Councelor Chambers.
[2:24:24] » Yeah, I I do support the amendment. I I
believe that uh the group would have the
[2:24:29] legal right to u be uh uh follow the
system which they made the application
[2:24:36] under. I think that's their right
legally.
[2:24:40] » Anything else before we call the vote?
Everyone's clear what we're voting on.
[2:24:46] [clears throat]
Can the clerk read it back?
[2:25:02] Mr. Mayor, I think it's a very long
amendment.
[2:25:09] » Well, I'm just going to pull it up.
[2:25:18] » [snorts]
>> We've talked about it for an hour, so I
[2:25:21] I think it need it deserves the time to
be read so that we know exactly what
[2:25:24] we're voting on.
[2:25:36] Everyone confident about voting without
it being read back?
[2:25:41] » Okay. Okay. All those in favor of
[clears throat] the amendment
[2:25:48] opposed.
[2:25:52] So the amendment fails.
[2:25:56] Now we'll go back. We'll go
[clears throat] back and vote on the
[2:26:00] original resolution. Councelor Cohen.
>> Hey, Mr. Mayor. And uh at this time I'm
[2:26:05] going to propose another amendment is
that uh we had a delegation here earlier
[2:26:10] Federation of Agriculture of Brand
County and they were looking that we
[2:26:14] could maybe propose this to ask us for a
two-year delay for the rural areas and
[2:26:20] and and put this in the system for the
settlement areas right now for the
[2:26:24] county and see how this works in two
years. Seeking a seconder.
[2:26:30] » Councelor Miller is your seconder. Is
[clears throat] there any conversation
[2:26:33] on the amendment? Councelor Kyle.
>> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Through you to to
[2:26:38] staff. Um,
so if we were to support this amendment,
[2:26:44] what would be the additional
administrative burden for running
[2:26:51] essentially operating two separate
systems? Are we looking at um increase
[2:26:56] in cost to do so, delays anywhere? Um,
is there any benefit to pilot versus
[2:27:06] going all in?
>> Um, through the mayor, I may ask Jeremy
[2:27:11] to jump in on this one, but just from
this project um perspective, um, just so
[2:27:18] that you're aware of of the budget
that's been spent on the project to
[2:27:20] date, considering the entire
municipality, $200,000 have gone into
[2:27:24] this as well as the staff time for that.
um and that has been to consider this
[2:27:29] municipalwide. But um with respect to to
adopting it specifically for the
[2:27:34] settlement areas and and that
administrative burden, I'll ask maybe
[2:27:36] Jeremy to comment on that.
>> Uh so through the mayor to the councelor
[2:27:41] definitely the administrative burden
you're going to be running two parallel
[2:27:43] systems as Brandon mentioned which is
going to be complex for staff to define
[2:27:48] define to people and explain to people
as well as the public to understand. So
[2:27:52] there there's going to be confusion for
everyone and a lot of complexity. What
[2:27:55] will also have to happen is you'll need
to continue with the committee of
[2:27:59] adjustment for the rural areas. So
you're now going to have an
[2:28:01] administrative cost which we were not
intending to carry forward. So you're
[2:28:05] adding extra costs, staff time and
resources and impacts that will be
[2:28:10] taking place here. Mult different
reports structures
[2:28:13] etc. So yes, there'll be a lot more
duplication of elements that are
[2:28:18] unnecessary.
And then the question will lie still
[2:28:23] part of the reason we're doing the CPPS
is when we completed the official plan
[2:28:27] under the planning act, we are required
to update our zoning to bring be brought
[2:28:30] into conformity. So you've only then
addressed a portion of the problem. we
[2:28:35] will have to address that rural portion
at some point and bring it into
[2:28:38] conformity in accordance with the
planning act or we're going to be
[2:28:41] outside of the planning act and in
trouble potentially that way. So there's
[2:28:45] at some point we have to resolve this.
Um, and as Brandon mentioned, it is,
[2:28:50] we've been told by other municipalities,
don't run do both systems. Who've done
[2:28:53] it? They said, don't go right to it.
It's less complicated, less complex. I
[2:28:59] would reiterate repeatedly, it's not
going to like
[2:29:03] when you change the systems, the same
issues are still going to be there to
[2:29:07] some extent that was raised by the
agricultural community is who's
[2:29:11] reviewing, how often they're reviewing,
and are they going to the agricultural
[2:29:13] advisory committee? Those are all be can
be addressed in the CPPS just as well.
[2:29:18] Uh we have the staff, we have the
resources and we still can rely on the
[2:29:21] agricultural uh advisory committee for
questions or applications and uh we're
[2:29:27] working with them on terms of reference
to adjust to give them that greater
[2:29:30] flexibility to see some applications as
necessary because their current terms of
[2:29:34] reference are actually more limited than
they think of what they can see. So
[2:29:38] we're providing some greater
flexibility.
[2:29:43] Councelor Chambers.
Yeah, I I was just going to say I think
[2:29:47] the
vast majority of the applications in the
[2:29:51] rural areas
uh would benefit from this system
[2:29:55] because they are simpler and it it could
be expedited and uh
[2:30:04] made it easier to understand
provided that the staff has an
[2:30:11] understanding of the rural areas. this
uh if you're born in metro Toronto,
[2:30:20] you have a difficult time in
understanding how rural Ontario works uh
[2:30:25] just the way it is. And it's not that
they don't can't be made aware, but
[2:30:32] there is a a difference. And I think
staff through training and and and I
[2:30:39] think Brandon has has mentioned this,
there is that uh expertise and and
[2:30:43] that's readily available. So I think it
actually is a benefit to the rural areas
[2:30:49] to have this in place provided that our
staff develops that understanding for
[2:30:56] the rural areas and I think that is one
thing that I can say that I do feel
[2:31:02] confident in uh that that awareness
uh will be there.
[2:31:09] » Councelor House.
Um [clears throat]
[2:31:12] thank you Mr. mayor through you. Uh,
normally I I try to be respectful and uh
[2:31:19] uh responsive to the voices from our
rural counterparts and on this one I'm
[2:31:24] I'm not going to be able to. I I
believe we need a policy framework
[2:31:29] that's municipalwide
and and I have confidence in the the
[2:31:36] staff and the incredible work they've
done. I I really enjoyed counselor Bell
[2:31:41] reminding us of that training session
rowing the boat. Um and and and that's
[2:31:47] always stuck with me too. So, but I on
this particular issue I I
[2:31:53] I'm listening to senior staff and their
discussion of some of the challenges
[2:31:58] that would be attached to running
parallel systems. I just can't support
[2:32:01] it. So,
>> councelor Haley.
[2:32:06] » Uh yes. Um, I was quite troubled by the
CPPS and I came in tonight with mixed
[2:32:11] feelings and probably leaning the way
that councelor Miller has um, uh,
[2:32:16] proposed. Uh, but um, I I spoke with
staff and and I've been listening. I
[2:32:21] guess I really appreciate that we could
reduce uh, cases that go to the OOLT.
[2:32:27] That's really important to me. Um, my
priority would be to protect farmland
[2:32:31] and to make sure that onfarmm
diversified and onfarm industrial is not
[2:32:36] misused, that we protect farmland and
the farming community. Um, I'm a bit
[2:32:42] puzzled by councelor Bell's comment um
because he mentioned that Paris is
[2:32:47] pretty well built out and St. George is
pretty well planned to be built out, but
[2:32:51] we in W five we have Kainesville, Mount
Pleasant, Airport, Oakland, Anadega,
[2:32:56] Middleport. So um uh when councelor Bell
implies that um Paris is pretty well
[2:33:02] built out then this will really apply to
our communities uh in W 5 especially um
[2:33:09] I really feel that the public needs to
understand this. It's been really hard
[2:33:12] for us for myself to understand it. It's
it's pretty complex. Um and I I just
[2:33:18] feel that we really need to help the
public to understand it. Um so those are
[2:33:23] some of my thoughts on it. I I do
appreciate that we could reduce the
[2:33:26] cases going to oil to the Ontario Land
Tribunal.
[2:33:32] » Anyone else have a comment before we
call the vote on the amendment?
[2:33:35] Councelor Coleman.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I'm in favor of
[2:33:40] the amendment. I guess I put it forward,
but [sighs and gasps]
[2:33:44] councelor Chambers brought it up here a
little earlier about a half an hour ago
[2:33:48] or maybe 45 minutes ago about planning.
planning is black and white, but most of
[2:33:55] it falls in a gray area. And this is
what I'm concerned about this new
[2:33:59] system.
It's gray area. How do you make it work?
[2:34:05] And we've [clears throat] talked about
maybe not always having the most
[2:34:08] expertise and in our staff sometimes on
agriculture uh
[2:34:13] adisement and whatnot to make those
things work. But I think we need to take
[2:34:18] it slower on the rural area for two
years. That's all I'm asking for. And we
[2:34:26] keep referring to that boat.
Well, some boats sink. And I don't want
[2:34:31] to see this happen.
>> Oh my god. Councelor Miller.
[2:34:36] » No, I I I support the two-year slowdown.
Um, even Brandon admitted, you know,
[2:34:42] that's the biggest concerns. We're not
quite sure. We we're hoping when we go
[2:34:46] live it works, and I don't doubt it
will. There will be adjustments along
[2:34:50] the way. Um, nobody's asking it not to
be applied to the rural areas. What
[2:34:54] we're asking for is just a two-year
pause. That's it. And I find, especially
[2:34:59] government, municipalities, uh, the
quicker you go, the more likely you make
[2:35:03] a mistake. So usually uh cautious and
plotting is is the best way forward.
[2:35:11] » Okay. Anyone else have anything else to
say before we call the vote?
[2:35:17] So the vote is on the amendment to delay
the rural [clears throat] for two years.
[2:35:25] All those in favor?
Opposed?
[2:35:32] fails.
Anything else anyone has to put on the
[2:35:36] table? Councelor Kyle,
>> nothing else to put on the table, but I
[2:35:39] have comments whenever there's
>> Yeah,
[2:35:41] » this is a good time for your comments.
>> Yeah. So, um I just wanted to talk a
[2:35:47] little bit about why I I support the CPS
P CPPS recommendation as staff had laid
[2:35:53] it out. Um, if I think about ourselves,
we just recently went through a barn, a
[2:36:01] new barn building. And, um, having gone
through the the process, I can agree
[2:36:07] with lots of residents who have come to
me with with questions and complaints
[2:36:12] over the years about how, you know, how
complicated it is. They don't know where
[2:36:16] to start. So, I do really think that
especially for some of these more simple
[2:36:21] um less complex things that this is a
good a good system. Um I know by nature
[2:36:27] that because I'm raised by farmers, I'm
married to a farmer, surrounded by
[2:36:32] farmers, work for farmers. Farmers are
some of the most change averse people
[2:36:37] that I've ever met. Um and I am one of
those. So, uh I definitely can say that.
[2:36:42] Um, but one thing that I hear all the
time over and over again and and um I've
[2:36:48] even heard my father-in-law utter it um
in with respect to people asking us, you
[2:36:52] know, how is the new barn? How's the new
barn working out? And my father-in-law
[2:36:56] said, it's working out great. Why didn't
we do it sooner? So, I think that's
[2:37:01] that's a common comment for a lot of our
our rural a lot of our rural neighbors
[2:37:07] and friends that we all wish we would
have done something sooner than we
[2:37:11] actually did it. Um, but it takes us a
long time to get there. Um, so I do
[2:37:17] think that staff has put a lot of time
and and effort. There's been a lot of uh
[2:37:21] resources put into this planning
exercise and making sure that we've got
[2:37:26] as much of it figured out as we possibly
can before we put it into play. Um, and
[2:37:31] so now it's just time to fire up the
robot and see if it milks the cows, so
[2:37:35] to speak. So, um, I don't see today's
decision as the end of the work either.
[2:37:41] I think that's been made very clear by
the staff that it's the beginning of the
[2:37:45] implementation and that there'll be lots
of checks and balances and ability to
[2:37:49] bring it back. So, if there are things
that aren't quite firing the way we need
[2:37:53] them to fire, um they can they can come
back. We can listen to residents, we can
[2:37:57] listen to staff, we can we can bring
those concerns forward and we can make
[2:38:01] adjustments and improve as we as we see
fit. So, with that in mind, um I'm going
[2:38:06] to support the staff recommendation,
noting that I will certainly be
[2:38:12] following it closely to make sure that
there are those things that are being
[2:38:15] tweaked that need to be tweaked as we
go.
[2:38:18] » Yeah. Any other comments, councelor
Chambers?
[2:38:24] Um yes, I I just wanted to u make a
comment and and then uh perhaps
[2:38:30] another amendment and
just to show you the complexity the
[2:38:36] recommendation that's before us. Uh one
of the uh operative clauses that council
[2:38:41] approve the necessary amendments to
related operational bylaws including
[2:38:46] fees and charges, committee of
adjustment, sign bylaw, fence bylaw,
[2:38:50] property standards bylaw, delegation
authority bylaw. So this does have
[2:38:54] farreaching uh uh feelers into the whole
operation of of of the uh the county in
[2:39:02] many ways. But that's not what I wanted
to uh amend. Uh I I'm concerned about
[2:39:09] the operative clause that council
directs staff to implement the facility
[2:39:14] services and matters framework and
further consider a long-term FSM
[2:39:19] strategy to inform future budget. Why
are we implementing it before we have a
[2:39:26] consideration of the uh long-term
strategy? Why don't we understand it
[2:39:33] first and know what it's going to be
before we implement it?
[2:39:38] » Brandon,
>> uh through the mayor. So, what I would
[2:39:40] say to that is that we do understand
that we need it and that we have the
[2:39:44] opportunity to um to leverage this tool.
We would have done the same thing with
[2:39:49] community benefits charges. that's kind
of the outside of the the CPPS. What
[2:39:55] this strategy will do is give us the
opportunity to have the conversation
[2:39:58] specifically with the public about where
they want the funds to go. So, we have
[2:40:02] ideas of that. We know where those gaps
are. Um, but we've heard from from
[2:40:08] council and from the public that there's
certain things that maybe aren't well
[2:40:11] understood or maybe haven't had that
conversation with the public. And the
[2:40:15] intention behind this direction is
simply to to point out that this
[2:40:19] specific piece where that money is spent
is going to go back for public
[2:40:23] consideration. And if I might just ask
you to further expand on on there was a
[2:40:28] comment in comment in one of the u u
addendum uh submissions with regard to
[2:40:36] double dipping. Why are we charging this
on top of development charges? And is
[2:40:42] that not just uh milking the cow to use
the uh analogies that are being uh used
[2:40:51] » uh through the mayor. This is a tool
enabled by uh the planning act and by
[2:40:55] the provincial government. We are not
allowed to double dip. We will not be
[2:40:59] double dipping. And that is part of why
this strategy will be necessary for that
[2:41:02] transparency to show people where that
money is going to be going um and how it
[2:41:07] will be spent.
[2:41:10] » Does that come with a recommendation or
a anything? No,
[2:41:15] » I just wanted the explanation to to
clarify what that actually is meaning to
[2:41:19] the to the people.
>> Okay. Any other comments, concerns
[2:41:23] before we call the vote on the original
the original [clears throat] resolution
[2:41:27] that's in front of us?
My only comments are for the
[2:41:32] [clears throat] for the eight years that
I've been the mayor, I've watched senior
[2:41:36] staff um call expert witnesses, farmers.
I sit on the agricultural committee. We
[2:41:44] we know where the information lies. We
know we're not afraid to call them in
[2:41:49] and ask them things. It's it's why the
county of Brandt has been successful.
[2:41:54] The 11 people around the horseshoe have
never said they know everything, but we
[2:41:59] know the right people to ask. And I see
the people in the room and and half of
[2:42:03] them are the people that would be on the
list of people to ask if we had
[2:42:08] concerns. And this is only um farming,
but we do it for everything. We do it
[2:42:13] for everything we're not sure of. We ask
people and I think that's the magic of
[2:42:18] counselors and the mayor is we get
elected because we know people and we
[2:42:22] know people and we don't forget who
elected us and we make sure that we make
[2:42:29] good decisions. And I think with staff
being as as professional and and putting
[2:42:34] in the time for this report, this is a a
crazy involved uh system for us to be
[2:42:40] going on. if they say it's easier and
it's c we know the people to ask when we
[2:42:45] need to know answers before we make
decisions. So I have confidence in staff
[2:42:50] and I have confidence in the people in
this room that know um and we would ask
[2:42:54] them. We would consult them. So I have
no trouble supporting uh this in front
[2:42:59] of us because I know that we won't do it
alone. Why would we when we have all
[2:43:03] this uh talent or expertise at our
fingertips?
[2:43:08] If there's nobody else that has anything
to say, I'm going to call the vote on
[2:43:12] the original recommendation in front of
us. Could I have it read just for the u
[2:43:17] the clerk read the for the people that
are watching it which I Okay
[2:43:29] worship um it reads as follows that
report 0257-26
[2:43:34] community planning permit system final
final recommendation of um adoption be
[2:43:39] received as information that report
0298-26
[2:43:44] updated ating report 027 or 57-26B
received as information. The council
[2:43:50] adopt the official plan amendment for
the community planning permit system
[2:43:53] policies within the county of Brand
official plan. The council passed the
[2:43:56] final version of the CPP bylaw with an
effective date of August 22nd, 2026. The
[2:44:02] council repeal zoning bylaw 61-16 as
amended in the site plan control bylaw
[2:44:08] on August 22nd, 2026 to be replaced by
the CPP bylaw. The council authorizes
[2:44:14] staff to implement the CPPs, including
the transition provisions,
[2:44:18] administrative procedures, public
education materials, staff training,
[2:44:22] application form updates, city view
integration, and related implementation
[2:44:26] activities described in this report for
the purposes of creating a one window
[2:44:30] development application process. The
council approves a delegation of
[2:44:34] decision-making authority for a CPP uh
in accordance with the community
[2:44:39] planning permit bylaw. The council
approved the necessary amendments to
[2:44:43] related operational bylaws including the
fees and charges bylaw, committee of
[2:44:47] adjustment bylaw, sign bylaw, offense
bylaw, property standards bylaw, and
[2:44:51] delegation of authority bylaw generally
as described in this report and attached
[2:44:55] that council direct staff to implement
the facilities services and matters
[2:44:59] framework and further consider a
long-term FSM strategy to inform future
[2:45:03] budget and capital planning discussions
and that council direct staff to monitor
[2:45:07] the implementation of the CPPs with
regular reporting to council and
[2:45:11] continued opportunities for count for
public input into the new framework.
[2:45:16] » Everyone's clear.
All those [clears throat] in favor?
[2:45:22] Opposed?
Noted. Thank you.
[2:45:28] Okay. Are we going to keep going or you
want a break?
[2:45:32] » Break. Take take a 10 five minute break.
[2:55:55] Thank you. Okay, so we are now at 10.2
and I need a mover to get on the floor.
[2:56:04] Councelor Coleman, Councelor House,
[2:56:10] does anyone have any questions to what's
in front of us? Councelor Miller,
[2:56:16] » just a quick question. Mr. Mayor, and I
I don't want to say that no good deed
[2:56:20] goes unpunished, but and I know where
this come from, councelor Coleman
[2:56:23] brought forward, and in the report, it
states how how bad a shape Oxbow Road
[2:56:28] is. And my question is, if it's in that
bad a shape, and don't we do a um a
[2:56:34] roads assessment um condition every year
when why wasn't this identified earlier?
[2:56:40] And are we saying that there's just so
many bad roads in the county that this
[2:56:44] just didn't make the list? I'm just
trying to understand why it got missed.
[2:56:50] » So through the mayor uh to councelor
Miller. Um yeah, it wasn't so much as it
[2:56:55] it was missed. We we did know that the
condition was in poor shape. Just that
[2:57:00] road in itself is very very low volume.
So when we're planning our capital
[2:57:06] program, it's it's the later of your
your statement is it's hard to
[2:57:10] prioritize. But then when councelor
Coleman brought it forward, we went and
[2:57:14] looked at it and and at the end of the
day, we need to fix the roads. So we
[2:57:17] went back, some projects were ending and
we we basically found the money to be
[2:57:21] able to proceed with it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[2:57:26] » Any other questions before we call the
vote? And all [clears throat] those in
[2:57:30] favor?
Opposed? Carried. Thank you. Uh we've
[2:57:36] moved 10.3 to after the in camera
session. uh to talk about the library
[2:57:43] and then [clears throat] we have already
talked about 10.4,
[2:57:49] » haven't we?
Oh, okay. I need I need someone to get
[2:57:54] on the floor then. Councelor Bell and
Councelor Coleman.
[2:57:59] [clears throat] Who's going to speak to
this then?
[2:58:01] » Cheryl is here to answer questions.
>> Cheryl is here to answer questions.
[2:58:06] questions on this report that's in front
of you.
[2:58:12] No.
Call the vote. All those in favor?
[2:58:18] Opposed? Carried.
[2:58:22] Communications
is next. 11.1. Can I get it on the
[2:58:27] floor?
Councelor House and Councelor Kyle.
[2:58:33] Thank you. Uh, it's a min a minister a
ministry
[2:58:39] letter for uh housing for strong mayor's
powers. Any questions to that?
[2:58:47] Are those in favor just to receive it?
Uh 12 or 11.1 I need on the floor
[2:58:54] please. Councelor somebody
councelor councelor Pierce seconded by
[2:59:01] councelor Oakley
just to receive any questions all those
[2:59:08] in favor
opposed carried uh [clears throat] 11.3
[2:59:14] which is grand river conservation
authority letter get on the floor please
[2:59:19] councelor Miller and councelor house
questions
[2:59:24] about the letter. Seeing now, we'll call
the vote. All those in favor
[2:59:29] opposed carried.
Um 11.4, which is the Grand River
[2:59:35] Conservation Authority letter. Uh just
the draft budget. Can I get a mover to
[2:59:39] get on the floor, please? Councelor
Coleman and Councelor Haley. Any
[2:59:45] questions to the letter for the opposed
draft budget? All those in favor?
[2:59:50] Opposed? carried community planning
permit system correspondence to staff.
[2:59:56] Oh, we did that already. Resolutions. We
have 12.1 which is a proclamation
[3:00:02] request for the suicide prevention. Uh
Brandt, can I get it on the floor,
[3:00:07] please? Councelor Haley, councelor Kyle,
any questions or concerns about doing
[3:00:11] that proclamation? Seeing none, all
those in favor?
[3:00:16] Opposed? Carried.
Uh 12.2, 2 which is a proclamation again
[3:00:22] the international society of research
and advoc advocacy development
[3:00:26] coordinator disorder it's a long one
different uh get it on the floor
[3:00:32] councelor Pierce wants to put it on the
floor I need a seconder councelor house
[3:00:36] thank you any [clears throat]
conversation or concerns about that
[3:00:41] proclamation
call the vote all those in favor
[3:00:46] carried
and the [clears throat] Last one is the
[3:00:50] Grand River Grand River Eerie Public
Health. I'm sure that councelor Bell
[3:00:56] wants to put that on the floor. Yeah,
you have a second. Councelor House. Any
[3:01:01] concerns about this request?
Seeing none, we'll call the vote. All
[3:01:06] those in favor?
Opposed and carried. Other business.
[3:01:11] Does anyone have any other business? I
didn't ask earlier because I couldn't
[3:01:14] talk very well earlier. I'm talking
better now. Do you have anything that
[3:01:18] you want to add further business?
Seeing nothing. Councelor updates. Is
[3:01:24] there anything in anyone's ward that you
want the public to know about? It's time
[3:01:29] to talk about it. No, nothing going on.
Councelor Oakley, what's going on?
[3:01:34] » Yes. Through through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh
we did have a delegation earlier on it
[3:01:37] about the uh the the the Poppy workshop
tomorrow. I attended last week. I uh
[3:01:43] they've had them all throughout the
month of July throughout the day. and I
[3:01:46] uh commented on Facebook just
half-hazardly wish I could make it. I
[3:01:50] work during the day. So, they've opened
up two evening sessions which was very
[3:01:54] wonderful. I attended last week. I'll be
attending tomorrow and I encourage
[3:01:57] everyone to come out and uh help attach
some poppies to nets and uh it'll be a
[3:02:02] good time.
>> Okay, Councelor Chambers.
[3:02:06] and and that jogs my memory. The U u
crosswalk uh for celebrating the
[3:02:12] Legion's 100th anniversary in in Berford
very very well received and and I thank
[3:02:19] Councelor Miller for for sticking with
that and uh I know I was at the Legion
[3:02:23] the other night and and that was uh one
of the topics of conversation and it was
[3:02:28] it's wellreceived in the community.
>> Yeah, it's great that it all I'm glad
[3:02:31] that we got them done on time too.
Councelor Miller um maybe through
[3:02:36] [clears throat] through to the clerk
possibly. Um there was a request from uh
[3:02:41] ambulance committee. Uh maybe we get a
delegation going at AMO, but has has
[3:02:46] those requests has that date come and
gone? Does anybody know?
[3:02:50] » I I I think they have come and gone
>> through your worship to councelor
[3:02:55] Miller. Um yes, they they do require
those uh quite early unfortunately. So
[3:03:00] um that date has definitely passed for
for AMO. Um, but if there's something
[3:03:04] you want us to put forward moving
forward, we can
[3:03:08] » have we received uh notification if if
we've got if we've received any um
[3:03:13] delegations like I know we put in a
couple requests.
[3:03:17] » Through your worship to council, I
believe we only have MTO that's been
[3:03:20] granted at this time. I' I'd look to
Adam to confirm that.
[3:03:24] » Excuse [clears throat] me. Uh through
your worship. Uh yes. So we have
[3:03:27] received word we received word late last
week. There'll be a briefing note coming
[3:03:31] to you. Okay. uh for the Bishop's Gate
Road interchange with the MTO. The other
[3:03:35] delegation request was um with energy
and mines for the rural natural gas and
[3:03:39] we have yet to hear back from that.
>> Okay. Yeah. Cuz um we won't get a chance
[3:03:44] to ask before uh AMO. So um and the
bishop's gate I mean that's should be
[3:03:48] straightforward presentation just the
same one we presented the last five
[3:03:51] times. So okay. Thank you. 15. Yeah.
>> You sound so cynical about it council
[3:03:57] really. I I've got I've got a couple of
meetings. Uh yeah, with Six Nations and
[3:04:03] and actually one with Mayor Davis. So
it'll be a fun-filled event. Um anything
[3:04:10] else? Our mural in St. George on the
Legion is finished and it looks
[3:04:14] beautiful. So we don't get a crosswalk,
but we get a pretty dandy looking mural.
[3:04:18] So if you're driving by St. George, uh
take a look. It's really beautiful. So,
[3:04:25] okay, we're going to go in camera now
and councelor Oakley is going to take us
[3:04:28] there.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moved by myself
[3:04:30] and seconded by councelor Coleman that
the county branch council convene in
[3:04:34] Cameron to discuss S.2392C,
a proposed or pending acquisition or
[3:04:40] disposition of land by the municipality
or local board, new central branch
[3:04:45] library property acquisition.
uh an S2392K,
[3:04:50] a position, plan, procedure, criteria,
or instruction to be applied to any
[3:04:54] negotiations carried on or to be carried
on by or on behalf of the municipality
[3:05:00] administration and operations committee
in camera report July 21st, 2026. County
[3:05:05] and Brandt Special Counsel in camera
minutes July 6, 2026. And county and
[3:05:11] branch special counsel in camera minutes
July 10th, 2026. All those in favor.
[3:05:17] » Okay, we're going in camera.
[3:39:53] Okay, we're back in open session. We're
now [clears throat] what we've done is
[3:39:57] we we're going to do 10.3. Now, I don't
know who's coming up to speak on behalf
[3:40:03] of the library.
[3:40:27] Well, good evening everyone. I've been
introduc
[3:40:37] with me tonight is Kelly, our CEO. Fred
Glatting had hoped to be able to join
[3:40:42] us, but I think he's um on route
somewhere and that's not working.
[3:40:47] So, thank you very much for your time
this evening. The public has every
[3:40:52] reason to wonder what's been happening
to the library since 2005. As members of
[3:40:57] the library board, we've personally been
asked that many times, and I'm sure your
[3:41:00] constituents have been asking you that
question, too. Our community has
[3:41:05] remained deeply invested and interested
in this project and we sincerely hope
[3:41:10] we'll all be able to share a good news
story soon.
[3:41:13] The library board has remained committed
to its mandate to cultivate inclusiv
[3:41:19] inclusivity and power lifelong learning.
In February 2025, the library board went
[3:41:25] back to square one. We checked our
assumptions, verified the data, and
[3:41:30] re-engaged with the community. Today, on
behalf of the library board, I share a
[3:41:35] plan that demonstrates a number of
things. We have been thorough and have
[3:41:39] balanced the many important aspects of
this project. We have contemplated
[3:41:44] future needs of our rapidly growing
community and remain committed to fiscal
[3:41:48] responsibility.
We have anticipated questions from the
[3:41:52] community and from council and seek to
work collaboratively for the benefit of
[3:41:56] the community.
We remain forward thinking and believe
[3:42:00] deeply that our community deserves a
library that is free and open and
[3:42:05] accessible to everyone.
So for all that I say thank you to the
[3:42:09] seven volunteer citizen library board
members, our three councelor members,
[3:42:14] councelor Bell, counselor Kyle and
counselor house and our CEO for our
[3:42:19] collective persist persistence,
creativity and dedication. We are also
[3:42:24] very grateful to the various county
staff and various departments and
[3:42:28] divisions who have made valuable
contributions to this work at many
[3:42:32] points along the way. So the work is not
over but this is an important line
[3:42:37] milestone. And just so I'm clear, how do
I get to the next slide?
[3:42:42] » Just the arrow button up top. Okay,
thank you.
[3:42:48] Be helpful. Did I get there?
>> Try this one on the end.
[3:42:54] There we go.
So, the why our community needs a
[3:42:58] central library and you've heard this
story um a few times and the information
[3:43:03] hasn't changed. We are a growing
community. We projected out to what our
[3:43:09] community could look like in 2031 and
found that the type of space we need,
[3:43:14] what is it we need? Uh we need 26,250
ft. And that's not changed significantly
[3:43:20] in any of the conversations that we've
had with you about the space
[3:43:23] requirements that we need. It would be
lovely if we had the opportunity to
[3:43:28] project out to 201, but we know that
that's not uh a realistic thing to do
[3:43:33] for for anybody to do that. To speak to
uh councelor Kyle's comment earlier
[3:43:38] about why didn't we do it sooner, you
know, we all would have liked to have
[3:43:43] done everything that we do in life
sooner.
[3:43:50] There we go. So, what we envision for a
a library is it's modern and it's
[3:43:54] accessible for everyone. The libraries
are the one pa place in our community
[3:43:59] where everyone is welcome, no matter who
you are, where you come from, or what
[3:44:03] you look like. No money is needed to
participate in library services.
[3:44:08] In our design phase, we will ensure the
new library remembers our past, reflects
[3:44:13] our present, and is aspirational about
tomorrow. We will honor the indigenous
[3:44:18] history of this land. The library is an
anchor institution and it belongs to all
[3:44:23] of us.
[3:44:29] A library space should be bright and
filled with natural light. There will be
[3:44:33] books of course, but also spaces for
families to come together, for children
[3:44:38] and adults to learn, and neighbors and
community to connect. The library will
[3:44:43] reflect our world today. There will be
elements of high-tech, low tech, and no
[3:44:48] tech. From 3D printers to sewing
machines to butterfly watching kits,
[3:44:56] a library for every individual across
our community will be accessible in
[3:45:01] every sense of the word. Built for all
ages and abilities.
[3:45:07] Oops. Thank you.
[3:45:12] There we go. I'll let Kelly speak to
some of the finer details.
[3:45:31] Okay. So, uh what we are presenting to
you tonight uh is a high level summary
[3:45:37] of the project plan for this project. Um
we are Uh important to remember we are
[3:45:44] not asking council for the entire sum
tonight. Let me explain why this budget
[3:45:49] is included. We are committed to full
transparency on this project and we
[3:45:53] understand the degree of investment that
we're asking the council to make and we
[3:45:59] understand the degree of accountability
council will require of us. So the
[3:46:05] estimated project budget that you have
in front of you demonstrates our
[3:46:10] understandings of what we can expect the
cost for this project to be. And this
[3:46:15] was created uh [clears throat] in
consultation with the consultants that
[3:46:19] the library board engaged with a
specialized
[3:46:25] quantity surveyor uh and industry
professionals who have built libraries
[3:46:30] before. Uh so the budget that you see we
have great confidence in uh but we are
[3:46:36] not asking for your approval for the
full amount tonight because it needs a
[3:46:41] lot of refining. This is a high level
budget because that reflects the stage
[3:46:44] in the process that we're at. So tonight
what you'll hear us present and request
[3:46:50] are related to uh phase one of what
we're calling phase one of this phased
[3:46:55] plan that we propose to take. Uh before
moving on, I'll note that the project,
[3:47:00] the projected budget is $26,838,000.
[3:47:06] Uh that includes construction uh and uh
for construction plus a $ 1.5 million
[3:47:12] budget for furniture and equipment uh to
bring it to an upset total of $28.3
[3:47:18] million. But again, that is not what
we're asking council for tonight. It's
[3:47:22] giving you an idea of what the
commitment for this project would look
[3:47:27] like in the long term.
[3:47:33] Uh so speaking of budget, I'll address
fun projected funding sources uh as
[3:47:37] well. And again, this is projected based
on conversations with finance staff
[3:47:42] based on uh preparations of budgets for
previous library plan iterations. Um but
[3:47:49] the projected sources include
fundraising, uh some previous frequent
[3:47:54] donations that the library has received,
uh possible contributions from the
[3:47:58] library's reserve fund. Uh development
charges will account for 46% of the cost
[3:48:04] of this project and that leaves a tax
levy of up to 13 thou $13 million uh
[3:48:12] that would typically be debentured over
20 to 25 years.
[3:48:16] You may have noticed that grants are not
listed here as a funding source. Uh we
[3:48:22] have researched available grant programs
and the sad sad reality is there are no
[3:48:28] grant programs for libraries right now.
Not for infrastructure, not for anything
[3:48:32] substantial. Uh our staff will pursue
every grant opportunity that comes along
[3:48:38] and even the long shots just to find any
possible money that we can. But we have
[3:48:44] to be realistic and accept that grants
will not be a reliable source of funding
[3:48:48] for this project. We don't want to
pretend otherwise. Our aim is to be
[3:48:52] transparent and as realistic as
possible.
[3:48:58] So let me explain the phased approach
that we are proposing to take.
[3:49:04] Phase one of the project if approved
will be initiation of course property
[3:49:09] acquisition. We'll need a site to build
on. uh the site analysis um due
[3:49:14] diligence studies to better understand
the site and all of the realities of
[3:49:18] building on that site. Uh we will be
looking to hire an architectural firm as
[3:49:23] well as project management firms to uh
to conduct uh concept design for the
[3:49:29] project. So concept designs we are
asking for council's permission to uh
[3:49:35] authorize the library board to review
and approve a concept design. Uh phase
[3:49:40] two again if approved will be planning
and planning and detailed design which
[3:49:45] is the engineering specialty consultants
the blueprints this is this is the meat
[3:49:49] of uh what would actually get built
again if we get there uh that would
[3:49:53] include class budgeting uh site
preparation zoning approval like we'd be
[3:49:57] full into the project by then um
everything that every step that it would
[3:50:02] take to prepare us for the construction
itself which would be phase three uh
[3:50:06] construction site works everything to
complete the building. And phase four
[3:50:10] would be opening, commissioning the
building, moving in the furniture,
[3:50:14] setting up the equipment, and of course
hosting a public grand opening.
[3:50:23] Here's the projected timeline uh that
we're working with. Again, pending
[3:50:27] approval, but uh um it uh would start
the pre-planning, as Marilyn said,
[3:50:33] started last year, right? We're well
into pre-planning. And um tonight we're
[3:50:38] seeking council's approval to move into
phase one of the project. So phase one
[3:50:44] uh would be targeted for completion in
winter 2027.
[3:50:48] So uh so approvals from phase one will
go to the next council for
[3:50:52] consideration. Uh detailed design and
construction will take from summer uh
[3:50:57] 2027 to through to summer 2028
approximately 11 months. And uh on this
[3:51:03] timeline from now until finish, we would
expect to move in uh to our new library
[3:51:08] at the end of 2028 and open to the
public by winter of 2029.
[3:51:17] So again, to clarify and address the
recommendations that are in your report,
[3:51:23] what we're asking for tonight is $2.6 6
million and that is to fund further
[3:51:29] study on the site and pending approval
uh as well as project management and
[3:51:35] architectural services for concept
design. The entire goal of phase one is
[3:51:40] to get us to a refined budget where we
can stand in front of you and say with
[3:51:45] confidence that we're requesting
approval for x number of dollars. And
[3:51:50] this process, this next process is what
will determine whether that eventual
[3:51:54] request would be for $21 million or $26
million. The goal is to reduce the
[3:52:00] contingencies uh to know everything we
possibly can about the project when we
[3:52:05] come back to council for approval.
[3:52:10] Uh so between uh Marilyn explaining the
overall vision for the library uh and
[3:52:15] the process that we propose to take to
get there uh we are both oh sorry
[3:52:21] forgive me. Uh so we're here in this
process currently uh we are at this
[3:52:24] stage pending council approval to move
into phase one. Um but having summarized
[3:52:30] everything for you Marilyn and I are
happy to take questions.
[3:52:34] » Thank you. Are there any questions from
council to the delegation? Councelor
[3:52:39] Haley,
>> thank you for your presentation.
[3:52:43] [clears throat] Uh, I just wanted to ask
you from your report um how you
[3:52:47] calculate the annual economic benefit
um on this page. I didn't quite know how
[3:52:53] you calculate it. I see it's broken up,
but I didn't quite know how the
[3:52:57] consultant or whoever did it.
>> Yeah. So through your worship, councelor
[3:53:02] Haley is referring to the libraries
economic impact study, the valuing
[3:53:06] Ontario libraries study that we
published for the first time at uh the
[3:53:11] end of 2024, beginning of last year. So
what goes into that graphic that you're
[3:53:15] describing, the one that found the value
that the library provides to the
[3:53:20] community is based on a thorough
methodology developed by academic
[3:53:25] institutions and library associations
within the province. So there are
[3:53:29] hundreds of metrics and processes and
analyses calculations that go into
[3:53:34] determining that and they are they fall
under what the process calls domains but
[3:53:40] it seeks to understand what's the
library's cultural value, what's the
[3:53:44] library's entertainment value, what's
the library's education value, what are
[3:53:48] we providing in each of those themes to
the community. Councelor
[3:53:55] Miller,
>> I was wondering if um if Gary
[3:53:58] [clears throat] could get that off there
in case Council Pierce might have a
[3:54:01] question. And I have two questions. He
doesn't have his hand raised. Uh two
[3:54:06] questions. Uh so three, Mr. Mayor to
Kelly, the $1 million that you're um
[3:54:12] projecting in uh donations,
um do you believe that's realistic?
[3:54:18] » Um through your worship, we do. We
believe that's realistic. Uh I couldn't
[3:54:24] stand up here and say $5 million because
that's not realistic. But based on our
[3:54:29] experiences from the pocket center
process, based on speaking with
[3:54:33] community members, uh having community
members express interest in supporting a
[3:54:37] library financially, we believe that is
realistically attainable.
[3:54:41] » Okay. Then the second question,
architectural design, 1.5 million. If
[3:54:45] you had guess if I had to guess at how
much it costs for architectural design,
[3:54:49] I would have thrown out a4 $50,000 price
tag. So obviously I have no clue what
[3:54:54] it's going for these days. Um have you
gone you haven't gone to market yet for
[3:54:58] that, have you? You haven't gotten a
tender for that.
[3:55:00] » No. Through your worship, that is one of
the permissions we're requesting
[3:55:03] tonight. Phase one would authorize the
library board to uh to take undertake a
[3:55:08] competitive purchasing process, an RFP
to hire for architectural services. And
[3:55:14] I should u you know clarify this would
be up to this is our maximum budget. We
[3:55:19] have every hope and we'll make every
plan to come in under budget.
[3:55:24] » Okay. That's that's the only two
questions I have. Thank you. Councelor
[3:55:28] Councelor Pierce.
>> Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So, a question
[3:55:32] in regards to the uh the 450,000 for the
project manager because it states in
[3:55:37] there that um that the library board
will act as project manager for phase
[3:55:42] one. Um and in your chart there phase
four is really the opening. So you don't
[3:55:47] need a project manager for that. So in
essence the project manager would just
[3:55:51] be for phase two and phase three. Is
that correct?
[3:55:54] » So through your worship uh we'd like the
project manager in place in phase one so
[3:55:59] they have a full understanding of the
project from the early days and also so
[3:56:04] that person can provide the capacity to
coordinate and manage the studies the
[3:56:09] site analysis and due diligence studies.
Uh that's work that we don't have the
[3:56:13] capacity for on staff.
[3:56:17] » Okay. So just clarification through you
Mr. Mayor. So the library board will not
[3:56:23] be the project manager. It will be a
project manager project manager if that
[3:56:27] makes sense for the entire project.
>> So through your worship I I apologize
[3:56:32] for any confusion but I can see what you
mean. Uh what we're asking for is for
[3:56:36] the library to act as project manager,
meaning the library board has the
[3:56:41] authority to undertake certain steps,
make certain approvals. Um and uh
[3:56:47] project management for a consulting
service that we would hire is much more
[3:56:52] of the day-to-day everything. Although
they bear the same name, they're two
[3:56:55] very different spheres of influence.
It's um rowing the boat versus steering
[3:57:01] the ship.
We've heard that a few times now.
[3:57:05] » Okay.
>> Councelor Oakley
[3:57:10] [clears throat]
>> through you, Mr. Mayor, to to Kelly.
[3:57:12] Just sort of picking on a thread here
from councelor Miller. So, um, you've
[3:57:16] picked a million dollars for sort of the
donation goal or fundraising goal. Um,
[3:57:23] now I believe, unless I'm unaware of us
changing our policy at some point, I
[3:57:28] believe our policy for countyled
projects when they're over a million
[3:57:31] dollars is a 25% fundraising allotment.
Now, not stating that I am agreement
[3:57:37] with that policy. I I think largely it's
unrealistic um for most projects, but
[3:57:43] just I I I'm curious to hear you address
um where if we were following what is
[3:57:48] the county policy that we should be
looking somewhere in the range of 56
[3:57:52] million.
>> Sure. So through your worship um and as
[3:57:56] council has heard from your own staff in
recent years that 25% goal may not be
[3:58:02] realistic or attainable. So we are not
suggesting that that would be realistic
[3:58:06] or attainable for this project. Um we
are quickly facing a time where the
[3:58:11] community is oversaturated and there are
people who will support libraries
[3:58:16] because they support libraries but the
uh the more general donor pool who are
[3:58:23] looking to fund causes may very well be
tapped out by the time we get to them.
[3:58:27] So um we we would not stop at a million
dollars for fundraising. We would
[3:58:32] absolutely continue to try to find more
and anything we raise above that would
[3:58:38] be put directly into the project to
reduce the other reduce the burden on
[3:58:43] the other funding sources.
>> Thank you,
[3:58:45] » Councelor Coleman.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Motion to go past
[3:58:50] the hour 10:00.
>> Okay, seeking a second.
[3:58:55] All those in favor?
Okay. [clears throat]
[3:59:00] Uh, councelor Bell.
>> Thank you, Mr. May. Just to follow up on
[3:59:06] councelor Pierce's question about
project management, and I know u
[3:59:10] councelor mccalpine will bear me out on
this. Uh, we do not have the experience
[3:59:16] in the library board to actually do the
hands-on project management. Neither did
[3:59:20] we have the ability in John Noble home
to do the project management, but we
[3:59:25] tried to do it and it and it kind of
failed. So ultimately we had to hire a
[3:59:29] project manager and you know the number
that we got in there I think it reflects
[3:59:34] the same kind of cost that we've
experienced in John Noble home and our
[3:59:40] experience is there are invaluable.
So whilst the library board will be
[3:59:45] owners of the project they will not be
hands-on managers that just is not the
[3:59:50] skill set we have.
[3:59:54] » Any councelor Haley
Yes, I I'm trying to understand um
[4:00:01] uh
with this library project, I see
[4:00:04] development charges, but I believe the
county it's it would be a county owned
[4:00:10] building. And so why would there be
development charges for the county?
[4:00:14] That's what I'm trying to understand. So
through your worship, the development
[4:00:18] charge legislation is entirely based on
the purpose of the project and libraries
[4:00:23] are one of the purposes that the
municipality can collect development
[4:00:27] charges for. So it is perfectly
acceptable and quite common for the
[4:00:31] municipality to own a building. As long
as it is being built and operated as a
[4:00:36] library, then it is eligible for
development charges.
[4:00:43] » Any other questions? Councelor Chambers
>> just so sorry I understand the timeline
[4:00:48] the U phase one the initiation
initiation phase uh when that's
[4:00:55] completed then the library board will
have to come back for additional
[4:01:00] approvals to move forward
uh and that will u occurs according to
[4:01:06] the time frame sometime you said next
summer
[4:01:10] » through your worship we're anticipating
winter Um, we'll stick as close to that
[4:01:16] as we can.
>> So, this this winter,
[4:01:19] » yes, winter 2027.
>> So, that that is a
[4:01:22] » Forgive me. [laughter]
>> Makes a little bit more sense because I
[4:01:25] » And then you move on. Okay, I
understand.
[4:01:29] » Any other questions?
[clears throat]
[4:01:33] No.
Okay. Thank you.
[4:01:37] Thank you. Thank you. Uh, we have this
on the floor. We have a seconder. All
[4:01:42] those in favor just to receive this
information.
[4:01:45] I'm sorry.
>> Oh,
[4:01:49] just a just a minute. Councelor
Councelor Pierce.
[4:01:57] » Are you Did you have
>> I'm here.
[4:01:59] » Did you have another question?
>> Nope.
[4:02:04] » No. Okay. We do have it on the floor,
right?
[4:02:10] » For approval. What did I say?
>> Oh,
[4:02:16] I'm delirious. I'm delirious.
>> Is there is there any other comments
[4:02:22] before we call the vote?
All those in favor?
[4:02:27] Opposed and carried. Thank you. Takes us
number 16 on the agenda and it's the
[4:02:33] bylaws. Councelor Bell, you have those.
[4:02:40] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh moved by myself
and seconded by councelor Chambers that
[4:02:45] bylaws 83-26 to 88-26
and 96-26 to 105-26 be read a first
[4:02:53] time.
>> All those in favor of the first reading
[4:02:56] of the bylaws.
Second reading, please. Councelor Bell.
[4:03:01] Moved by myself, seconded by councelor
Chambers, that bylaws 83-26
[4:03:06] to 88-26
and 96-26 to 105-26
[4:03:12] be read a second time and all preamles
and clauses be adopted.
[4:03:16] » Are there any questions to the second
reading of the bylaws?
[4:03:21] Seeing none, all those in favor
and councelor Bill, if you could do it
[4:03:25] one more time, please. Moved by myself,
seconded by councelor Chambers, that
[4:03:30] bylaws 83-26 to 88-26
and 96-26 to 105-26
[4:03:38] be read a third time, passed, signed,
and executed.
[4:03:42] » All those in favor of the third reading
of the bylaws.
[4:03:47] Thank you.
>> [clears throat]
[4:03:49] » Number 17 on the agenda is the next
meeting which is
[4:03:55] August the 12th, 2026,
6 o'clock.
[4:04:08] That's a statutory meeting, not a
council meeting.
[4:04:12] With that being said, is there anything
else for