[0:54] Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Members of council and members of the public, thank you for joining us here. This is our special council meeting. It's a planning public meeting and today's date, of course, is August 26, 2026, where has the summer gone? It is now 530ish 530 pm. And so council is going to commence with our special council meeting. And we do have two very important items on here tonight, and we will get to those shortly.

[1:24] We have some members in the audience as well tonight, so we welcome that as always.

[1:29] So, if members of Council, I do want to acknowledge that Councillor Beillan does send

[1:34] his regrets tonight.

[1:35] He's unable to attend, but I'm sure he will watch this meeting at another time to

[1:38] catch himself up on the content.

[1:41] Councillor, at this time, I'm going to look at our approval of the agenda.

[1:43] Be it resolved.

[1:44] The Council of the Tunch will clear it be here by approval of the agenda.

[1:47] They did August 26th, 2026, as presented mover, Mr. MacArthur, Mr. Baraderek.

[1:53] Thank you very much. Any questions on the agenda? Seeing none, I'll call the motion

[1:58] all of favor. That carries unanimous. Thank you. At this time, I'll ask for council.

[2:03] Is there any declarations of computer interest in regards to the items on today's agenda?

[2:07] Seeing none, if anything comes up here in the meeting, please bring it forward at that time.

[2:11] So council, we're going to move to our public meeting, which is on number three.

[2:14] We do have the first item that will be presented and preceded by our Deputy Mayor Paul Vance

[2:22] Stavron, who will of course carry the meeting for the public meeting portion.

[2:26] So at this time, I'll turn the meeting over to Paul Vance Stavron.

[2:29] Thank you.

[2:30] Thank you.

[2:30] And we will now initiate the public meeting portion of tonight's agenda.

[2:36] We invite you to comment on the applications being presented tonight into and engage

[2:40] the process with us.

[2:41] If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Corporation of the Township of Clearview on an application being discussed this evening, please complete a public delegation form and submit the form to the deputy clerk and our forms are sitting.

[2:55] There we go.

[2:57] There we go.

[3:00] The views expressed in the public comments are solely those of the individuals providing them and do not reflect the opinions of the township, its agents or its employees.

[3:09] It is not possible for the township to verify the accuracy of all information provided by members of the public.

[3:15] The township, therefore, assumes no responsibility for any inaccurate information that may be contained within the public comments.

[3:22] If you have information that might correct clarify or refute any statements contained within the public comments,

[3:28] please forward it to the township planning department.

[3:31] Please be advised at your comment or request to be notified of the public record.

[3:35] Your communication in any personal information therein will be made available to the public unless you expressly request its removal.

[3:44] If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal to the decision of the township of Clearview to the Ontario Land Tribunal,

[3:52] but the person public body does not make an oral submission at a public meeting or make a written submission before the proposed official plan,

[4:01] The person or public body is not entitled to appeal to the decision.

[4:10] If a person or public body does not make oral submission at a public meeting or make

[4:15] written submission to the council for clear view before the proposed official plan or

[4:19] zoning by law amendment is adopted or passed, the person or public body may not be

[4:25] added as a part of the hearing of an appeal for the Ontario Land Tribunal.

[4:29] Unless it's in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add

[4:33] the person or public body as a party.

[4:36] The following public meeting will involve a brief presentation by our planning staff, an opportunity

[4:41] for the applicant or their agent to present their application, a period for public comments

[4:45] or questions and an opportunity for questions by the planning committee.

[4:50] So we will now begin the public meeting with respect to item 3.1 zone in the by-law amendment

[4:55] on for file 2026-033.

[4:59] The applicant is the venue and they'll very send you

[5:02] and is regarding property located at 793-273 county road 124

[5:07] and clear view.

[5:09] And our planning staff will now start with a brief presentation

[5:11] concerning the application.

[5:13] I believe it's Nick here the man tonight.

[5:15] All yours.

[5:17] Go ahead.

[5:17] Thank you, Chair.

[5:19] As indicated, my name is Nick Emily.

[5:20] I'm a community planner here at the Township Clearview.

[5:22] and I'm here to facilitate or assist in facilitating public meeting for a zoning by-law amendment

[5:27] application, 2,026 and ZB-09, just as a bit of a housekeeping, I'm going to provide a bit more

[5:33] of a high level overview of, as my presentation will provide, the application with the

[5:39] applicant that they're going to solve providing at brief presentation following, following

[5:42] both presentations, I'll be available to answer any questions from Councillor members of the

[5:52] the Western portion of the township, the located just north of Cairo 9 and south of

[5:58] 6, 7 side road. They maintained front of John to Cairo 124 and just to note that they

[6:04] are directly west of the subject lands is the boundary with Miss Valdeer Gray Highlands

[6:09] with county one kind of road 124 being that boundary.

[6:14] Next slide. The purpose of the zoning

[6:16] about that while I'm in the application that's currently before Council tonight seeks to amend

[6:21] zoning on a portion of the subject lens,

[6:23] presently zoned as air cultural,

[6:25] to a air cultural related industrial exception zone

[6:28] to an AGI exception zone.

[6:30] The request to exceptions of that exception zone

[6:32] seek to alter the following provisions of the zoning bylaw,

[6:36] so they seek to limit or restrict the uses

[6:37] on that portion of the landscape's zone,

[6:40] strictly to a flower mill facility use,

[6:43] as well as add the following additional altar provision,

[6:47] which be the combined total minimum parking space requirement

[6:49] for the air-culture-related use, i.e. the flower mill is 19 spaces, which includes one barrier

[6:54] free parking space. The effect of the application is to emit a flower mill facility as an air

[7:00] culture-related use on the subject lands with sites for civic provisions. Next slide. As a part

[7:07] of the complete application package that was submitted, I believe in late June, the applicant did

[7:11] submit a number of additional materials. This included a cover letter, a conceptual site plan,

[7:17] of the reposal justification, a plain justification report, a draft zoning bylaw, a traffic opinion

[7:22] letter, a hydrogeological confirmation letter, permit drawings of the building itself, as

[7:29] pause.

[7:31] Next slide. This is an aerial imagery of the subject lands. In terms of surrounding land uses, it's primarily air cultural, so air cultural residential uses and mainly air cultural, as indicated directly to the west is the Miss Valley Gray Highlands and again mainly air cultural uses on those portions of the lands.

[7:50] The subject lands are primarily used for air cultural use in cells. Primarily cash crop. There is one existing single touch dwelling as well as an air cultural building.

[7:58] And within the southwestern corner of the property, there is also a kind of a forced treat area.

[8:05] Next slide.

[8:07] In terms of the official plan to policy, as well as zoning by-law policy,

[8:11] the subject lands are designated to hold these air cultural, if in the township,

[8:14] of clear-views official plan document.

[8:16] They are zone air cultural, as well as environmental protection.

[8:20] The EP zone is limited more to the forest area in the southwestern corner of the site.

[8:24] And there is a small portion of the front edge of the property that is regulated by the conservation authority as well.

[8:32] Next slide.

[8:34] In terms of notice and circulation, this was given to the Planning Act.

[8:37] This was completed in August 5th.

[8:39] It was done via mailing of notification to all properties within 120 meters of the subject lens,

[8:45] as well as posting of notification signage on the front edge of the property.

[8:50] Details of the application is where materials have been made available to the public,

[8:52] So they are available online to view, under our current project

[8:55] website, and have also been circulated relevant

[8:58] comment agencies and internal departments.

[9:01] Next slide.

[9:03] In terms of public comments, so all comments have received prior

[9:06] to the current agenda deadline for tonight's meeting.

[9:09] We're appended to the sort of public media agenda,

[9:13] believe under Appendix E. And any comments that are

[9:16] seen this evening or following that will form part of my

[9:20] pending recommendation report on the application.

[9:22] Next slide.

[9:24] In terms of overall review process,

[9:26] the application was received on June 28th,

[9:28] oh, in 2026, I should say that's some typo.

[9:32] It was deemed complete on July 15th.

[9:34] Notice was given on August 5th,

[9:36] and tonight is the public meeting.

[9:38] Following tonight's public meeting,

[9:39] we will bring a recommendation report

[9:40] and Bala back to a subsequent council meeting for approval.

[9:47] And then here's my contact information

[9:48] for anyone in the audience or viewing online.

[9:50] If they want it, if any questions, let's contact me.

[9:52] Please feel free to. Thank you.

[9:54] Thank you very much.

[9:56] So I believe Amy Pellie will be presenting on behalf of the applicants tonight.

[10:06] General, she's all yours.

[10:16] So you'll be still telling them to advance your screen as you request.

[10:19] Awesome. Thank you.

[10:22] Good evening, Mr. Mayor.

[10:23] Members of Council. My name is Carly Murphy.

[10:26] And I'm a planner with Powell Planning and Associates

[10:27] to see it's retained by the land owner of 793273 County Road 124 to evaluate the merits of

[10:34] the zoning by law amendment application. Next slide please.

[10:40] So this evening, this presentation

[10:42] will introduce the zoning by law amendment application as well as the subject applications

[10:47] consistency and conformity with both provincial and municipal policies. Next slide please.

[10:55] The purpose of this presentation is really to provide an overview of a subject application,

[11:00] which seeks planning approval to permit a flower and milk facility as an agricultural

[11:05] related use on the subject lands, and then I'll provide an overview of the comprehensive,

[11:10] provincial, county, and municipal policy analysis that was undertaken.

[11:14] Next slide please.

[11:17] So the subject lands are designated agricultural and zoned agricultural and environmental

[11:22] protection zone. There's an existing dwelling in a farm building on the property and the

[11:27] lands are used primarily for agricultural uses. The surrounding areas also predominantly

[11:33] used for agricultural uses with a wooded area located to the west. Next slide, please.

[11:41] The proposed Flower Mill Facility is considered an agricultural related use and that's permitted

[11:47] in the agricultural designation, subject to the passing of the zoning Bible amendment. The

[11:52] A direct application, therefore, proposes to rezone

[11:55] a portion of the property from agricultural

[11:58] to agriculturally-related industrial exception zone,

[12:02] specifically to permit the Flower Mill Facility

[12:04] as a site-specific permit at use.

[12:07] Next slide, please.

[12:10] So a comprehensive policy analysis

[12:12] was undertaken of applicable planning legislation

[12:15] and provincial municipal and county policies,

[12:19] which was also further detailed

[12:20] in the planning justification report

[12:22] of a submitted with the application.

[12:25] Next slide, please.

[12:29] The subject application is a guard for provincial interest

[12:31] under the Planning Act, which include protecting

[12:34] prime agricultural resources.

[12:36] The proposed fire mill facility is supported

[12:38] by provincial policy as the proposed use

[12:41] helps to protect prime agricultural areas.

[12:44] We'll also support economic opportunities

[12:47] to the agricultural sector as a compatible agricultural

[12:50] related use.

[12:52] Next slide, please.

[12:54] Agriculture-related uses are also permitted within prime agricultural areas under the

[13:01] provincial planning statement. The proposed fire mill facility supports the diversification

[13:06] of agricultural uses while protecting the agricultural land base and environmental features

[13:12] on the subject lands. Overall the application supports a healthy and viable rural area in

[13:18] the township and the county and the continued preservation and enhancement of the agricultural

[13:23] system, which is consistent with the policies of the PPS.

[13:27] Next slide, please.

[13:31] The subject application also conforms with the

[13:34] Synco County Official Plan policies.

[13:36] The lands remain protected for long-term agricultural use by keeping them within

[13:41] the agricultural designation.

[13:43] Well, the proposed agricultural-related use supports the

[13:48] agricultural sector and helps diversify the county's

[13:51] agricultural economy.

[13:53] Next slide, please.

[13:56] The Township's official plan policies permit agriculture-related uses, which are consistent with provincial and county policies as well.

[14:06] The proposed Flower Mill Facility will directly provide form-related products in the area as its primary activity,

[14:14] while being compatible with the surrounding agricultural operations to the subject lands.

[14:18] The establishment of agricultural related uses is encouraged to support the continued

[14:24] viability and long-term sustainability of the agricultural sector.

[14:28] The proposed firemilth facility can be permitted through a site-specific zoning

[14:32] bylaw amendment and conformity with the policies of the official plan.

[14:37] Next slide, please.

[14:41] The zoning bylaw amendment application is therefore being brought forward to ensure that

[14:45] zoning compliance in accordance with the existing direction of the official plan for agriculture

[14:51] related uses. The subject application proposes to re-zone the portion of the list.

[15:00] Major cultural to agriculture-leaved-related industrial exception zone to permit the Fire Emile facility as a site specific use, as well as establish the parking requirements.

[15:11] All other applicable zoning provisions are complied with.

[15:15] Next slide, please.

[15:19] A careful analysis concludes that the application is supported by provincial, county, and municipal policy direction.

[15:26] It maintains the agricultural designation and protects the agricultural resources of the province, the county and the township,

[15:34] while also supporting the viability and long-term sustainability of the agricultural sector.

[15:39] The subject application is consistent with the PPS, it conforms to the county and the township's official plan policies,

[15:46] and it respects the standards of the zoning bylaw.

[15:50] The subject application ultimately represents good planning that's in the best interest of the public.

[15:56] And thank you and I'm happy to address any questions that Mayor and members of Council may have.

[16:03] Thank you, Carly. First I want to apologize. And my notes said that Amy was going to be doing presentation and had her name on it.

[16:10] So, but anyway, some of my apologies.

[16:11] That's okay.

[16:12] Anyways, if you don't mind just staying there because we can ask questions.

[16:18] It's your anybody in the audience who would like to make a comment ask a question or address

[16:24] committee with respect to this application.

[16:26] Questions maybe directed to or responded to by the applicant their agent or staff, but should

[16:31] be addressed through the chair.

[16:32] That's me.

[16:33] Please remember to complete a submit your delegation form.

[16:36] Is there anybody who wishes to ask questions?

[16:39] Go on once.

[16:40] Anybody want to ask questions?

[16:41] Place.

[16:42] Three times.

[16:43] No public questions.

[16:44] I'll go to our council next to the members of our committee.

[16:48] Councillor Walker, I'll start at your, you're in this thing.

[16:50] Thank you.

[16:51] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[16:52] I was just a couple.

[16:53] First of all, I'm looking at the concept plan, and I see the driveway is highlighted

[16:59] inside the view zone.

[17:02] Is there upgrades to that driveway to be made, and if so, who monitors that change

[17:08] with that environment protections zone?

[17:12] Through you, Mr. Chair.

[17:13] We actually, there is a driveway extension proposed, but we actually did locate it outside of the environmental protection zone to ensure that it would comply with the zoning by law.

[17:28] My next question is, I don't see anything on the concept plan again with regards to any talk about water and septic system.

[17:38] using the existing that's there or because a flower mill will not take a lot of water and I just don't know, so I'm just asking about water exactly.

[17:48] Through you, Mr. Chair, we did submit a hydrological or a hydrological report with the subject application.

[17:57] That confirms that the existing well capacity is sufficient for the proposed use, and that there would be no adverse impacts on local groundwater resources,

[18:07] or any neighboring models.

[18:09] Thank you.

[18:09] That's it.

[18:11] Thank you.

[18:12] Councillor Walker.

[18:13] Councillor Duning.

[18:15] Thank you.

[18:16] I'll be due to the end.

[18:17] You're going to get one of the last ones.

[18:20] Councillor Walker.

[18:21] That's right.

[18:22] Councillor McArthur.

[18:23] I did that.

[18:23] I'm looking over there.

[18:24] I think in a way here.

[18:25] Councillor McArthur.

[18:26] Thank you chair.

[18:28] First of all, I don't see any silos or

[18:30] green bins in the concept plan.

[18:32] It's also just kind of wondering what the scale

[18:34] of the operation might be?

[18:38] Three, Mr. Chair, be.

[18:41] The intent is to submit a site plan application,

[18:45] following the zoning by-law amendment,

[18:47] if the zoning by-law amendment is approved,

[18:49] which would basically detail the specific site designs

[18:53] in terms of scale.

[18:57] It's very, it's smaller scale.

[19:00] It's going to be an operation that's between

[19:03] the hours of nine to five typically on an eight-hour schedule there will be a minimum of two

[19:09] employees on site at a time max on the four employees and there will be a limited traffic to the

[19:16] site so it's a very small-scale operation in terms of what could be on the lands.

[19:23] Okay and yeah you answered my second question then you're saying two to four employees is what

[19:28] we're thinking right now. Yes. So 19 park in spot should be way more than enough.

[19:33] Yes, so their zoning buy law required quite a large amount of parking when you look at it

[19:41] I think it was something like 75 spaces with speaking with the landowner

[19:46] They just determined that they didn't need that many spaces

[19:50] So we've accommodated two parking spaces for trucks

[19:55] There should only be one track used on a normal basis, but two spaces just in case they're required as well as a barrier

[20:03] free parking space, which would be required, and then the 19 spaces should be able to accommodate

[20:08] both employees and visitors in the instance that they're there. But it's not expected

[20:14] that this use would have very many visitors associated with it.

[20:20] Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Broderick. Any questions?

[20:24] Okay. You're worth it. You get the second last question.

[20:26] Sure. I'm going to, if I may, I'd like to go to the staff, and I'm going to steal a question

[20:32] for you, only because I've been thinking about this too that Paul brought up a good point

[20:37] just before the meeting, from theking about. Our work to develop on-farned reverse-fied

[20:44] use, is this something that could be considered as part of an on-farned reverse-fied use

[20:50] if we were able to get the zoning bylaw and acted and included that? Is this what our text right

[20:58] I would show that, I'm asking either of this stuff, go ahead.

[21:03] Through the church, the mayor.

[21:04] So actually, it is not an on-of-armony for use,

[21:07] so it is a identifying artificial plan

[21:08] as an air cultural related use.

[21:10] So there is a little bit of a difference to it.

[21:13] And on-of-armony, besides, it doesn't necessarily

[21:14] need to be absolutely related, it's associated with,

[21:20] whereas an air cultural use such as this

[21:22] does have to relate specifically to the air cultural use

[21:24] kind of on the property and to the surrounding area.

[21:27] So it would fall under that provision, and that's why the AG industrial zone is being proposed for the property.

[21:36] So, and in terms of the official plan policies, it does permit a file on mail specifically through a minor by law, which is currently being considered seen in.

[21:45] Right? The reason I'm thinking that it would only because given the property that's available,

[21:53] the amount of product that would be produced to run the mill, you're going to have to bring materials in to be processed.

[21:59] So this is going to be a processing or processed, driven agricultural use for sure.

[22:05] But it would be outside of what would normally be approved.

[22:09] So this proposal and has good merits.

[22:14] I'm just concerned that if we move forward with our existing ideals

[22:19] to bring forward on-farned versus use,

[22:22] that this would already be approved.

[22:26] So if you're suggesting this is just a little bit of a problem,

[22:30] And on farm diversified use, this is an actual agricultural use and needs to be identified as such. Is that really the just of it?

[22:39] Through the chair. That's correct. So in terms of the direction policy through the official plan document, it does identify it as being an air culture related use, which is permitted through a site specific amendment, which is the process or kind of going for currently.

[22:53] In terms of the new zoning by-law process moving forward, it is possible that it had to

[22:59] review it if this type of use we permitted as an as a right use under the air cultural

[23:02] zone, specifically not as in on Farmers 5, but as its own air cultural related use in

[23:08] that. But at this point time without the implementation of the new Zoning by-law document,

[23:14] the Zoning by-law is required.

[23:16] Okay. If I may one further ask, and that's just to come back, circle back to Councillor

[23:22] walker suggestion. The driveway obviously will have to be upgraded just to be clear to carry

[23:27] the amount of traffic of inputs coming in and finish product going out. So certainly the

[23:36] driveway will have to be improved. It does appear in the EP on our mapping so we would want

[23:41] to make sure that that's associated with good conversation between our staff and your procedure

[23:48] to make sure that it is clearly outside of E.P.

[23:52] Is that comfortable?

[23:54] Everybody's good.

[23:54] Thank you.

[23:55] There you go.

[23:56] Thank you.

[23:56] Stand by your thunder, but that's OK.

[23:57] No, you're doing a great job.

[23:59] I'll use.

[24:00] Carly, quick question.

[24:02] And I think we'll be dealing with an official application.

[24:06] But do we have any concerns?

[24:07] And I know it's not a planning issue.

[24:09] But to talk about fire and explosion protection for a business like this.

[24:13] Are they concerned about that at all or for the dust and stuff like that?

[24:20] There are more specific studies that are required again through the site plan application.

[24:27] At this time, we haven't submitted like a noise odor-dust type of study.

[24:33] I can pass it over to staff if that's okay, Nick.

[24:37] Was that identified as a requirement for the site plan application?

[24:40] I just can't remember.

[24:41] I'll flip my head.

[24:43] Yeah, so as in a case with the site plan approval process, we will review in greater detail

[24:47] of the specifics of the proposal, and also I know through the building permit process in terms

[24:52] of the type of building use that's going in there that will be assessed in terms of fire,

[24:56] safety, and a sort of sprinkler systems that are required. So there's kind of two methods

[25:01] that we be reviewing it under. Thank you. Having worked on a feedman once upon a day,

[25:05] I know what dust can do, so I want to protect them. My next question is to the sand do's.

[25:11] I'd like to ask them. I said, make sure, once you get this all done, that you get in touch

[25:16] with us so we can have our economic development

[25:18] labor, our Kelly and ourselves come and visit your place

[25:21] because we love to come and visit.

[25:23] OK, so keep that in mind.

[25:25] We love coming to see what you're doing.

[25:37] So why?

[25:38] I'm going to warn you.

[25:40] There's going to a lot of people because 124 gets close to a lot

[25:42] of times in the winter.

[25:44] So you,

[25:48] anyways, thank you very much for that.

[25:50] That's great.

[25:50] And good job.

[25:52] This concludes this file.

[25:55] In this amendment to file 2026-033 regarding property located 793273 county road 124, we

[26:04] think all who attended and provided comments for their interest in this matter.

[26:07] All input received with regards to this proposal will be fully considered by the staff and

[26:11] the recommendation by Council and their decision with respect to this application.

[26:16] The report regarding this proposal would be prepared for Council who will make a decision

[26:20] concern this matter at a future meeting.

[26:23] At this time, we do have another item to deal with, but I will be turning the chair back over to the mayor because he will be handling this portion of the meeting.

[26:32] All right, thank you very much, Deputy Mayor.

[26:34] Excellent work, as always.

[26:36] Thank you very much for returning the chair.

[26:38] Council, we do have the next item on our agenda item number four, which is a report called PB034-2026.

[26:46] It's in regards to the ask from this council for the Stainer Settlement area boundary expansion phase one status update.

[26:54] We have our staff available to help us answer some questions.

[26:58] I believe we have a consultant online.

[27:00] There is.

[27:01] Hi there.

[27:02] Good to see.

[27:02] I'm glad you there.

[27:03] I knew you were there.

[27:04] Is that two people online?

[27:05] Oh, there is.

[27:06] There's two.

[27:07] All right.

[27:07] Nice to have you, gentlemen.

[27:09] So, Derek.

[27:10] Derek Abbott, our chief of this department, Derek and I'm going to put it right over to you

[27:15] to bring forward your presentation.

[27:19] Great.

[27:20] Thank you, Your Worship.

[27:21] So this report is as a result of mayoral decision 26-08, so Council at its meeting on May 25,

[27:30] 2026 earlier this year endorsed the mayoral decision, which has Council to consider a

[27:36] to phase approach to the Stainer Settlement Area boundary expansion and a preferred boundary expansion

[27:42] area. And as a result of that, Council approved technical studies to commence immediately

[27:48] for the preferred boundary and that these technical studies be completed in a later than

[27:53] 90 days from Council's approval. We have since reached our 90 days and are providing council

[27:59] with an update on the work completed two dates and outlining where we are in the process

[28:04] as we move forwards towards our statutory public meeting, which is scheduled to be held

[28:10] on September 14th. One thing I will emphasize that we are not asking Council to make any

[28:17] decisions on the proposed amendment this evening. So the draft official plan amendment that was

[28:22] attached to my staff report remains in draft form and will continue to be informed by the

[28:27] technical work that's underway, as well as any input we receive from the public agencies,

[28:33] these Indigenous communities and Council throughout the consultation process.

[28:38] As you will note, on the screen, we do have members of our consulting team with us and one

[28:42] that's here in attendance that is available to walk Council through a brief presentation

[28:49] on the work that's been completed to date and outlined in the next steps.

[28:53] So I would like to introduce, we have Steve Weaver and Patrick Casey, both from GSP group

[29:00] And off-camera, but in attendance is Jeff Langelaw from Burnside Engineering, who provide council with that pre-presentation that's on your screen now and give a progress status update and be available for any questions that council may have.

[29:18] So further ado, Steve and Patrick, floor is yours.

[29:22] Thank you very much, Derek.

[29:24] Steve Patrick and Jeff. Thank you for joining us. Who wants to lead this? Is this you, Steve?

[29:31] Yes, I'll take the lead here. If you can hear me.

[29:33] Yes, go right ahead sir. We got you.

[29:35] Perfect. Before you go, I apologize the error on the title slide is mine.

[29:39] There's a reason I had council meeting Monday on my mind. Should say Wednesday.

[29:43] Of course. So I apologize for that.

[29:45] Good to correct the date there. Thanks Patrick.

[29:49] Yes, I'll kick things off and then I'll turn it over to Jeff to present some of the

[29:55] results of the servicing fees.

[30:00] I'll describe next steps. Thank you. The reason for the update tonight is outlined by your director is provided an update on the status of the studies that were directed by council resolution in May and share with you the preliminary findings of those studies.

[30:21] And then, as I mentioned, talk about the next steps for the Official Plan Amendment, OPA4, as well as some related county official plan amendment considerations.

[30:32] Next slide.

[30:33] As mentioned, there were some studies discussed at the meeting on May 25th in terms of the phase one of this process for the Stainer Settlement Area Boundary Expansion, with three key initiatives identified to support that.

[30:50] The first is a servicing feasibility study which Jeff and his team are focused on and we'll be the subject of the next few slides.

[31:01] The other is the agricultural impact assessment, which is a requirement of the provincial planning statement for a sedimentary boundary expansion to demonstrate that any potential impacts to agricultural land, farm operations and any minimum distance separation requirements

[31:19] or MDS requirements for livestock operations have been assessed and addressed and then the

[31:26] last is a strategy for engaging with First Nations and Indigenous communities.

[31:33] So I'll pause there and I will turn it over to Jeff, who's there with you in person to give

[31:38] you an update on the servicing feasibility study.

[31:41] Thank you very much.

[31:43] Jeff, welcome.

[31:47] You got a green light there?

[31:48] I do now.

[31:49] Okay.

[31:49] Thank you.

[31:50] Your worship, members of Council and staff, my pleasure to be here in supporting this

[31:55] port program, participating.

[31:57] So I will touch on the work that we've done today related to the servicing

[32:00] feasibility associated with the expansion of this

[32:03] container settlement boundary, primarily focused on water capacity and waste water capacity.

[32:11] So currently there's approximately 5,300 people, service and stainer, and looking forward

[32:17] the projected needs based on the available land area and assumed land uses that were developed

[32:22] in partnership with staff had full build out. We would say an additional 21,000 people within

[32:29] the existing settlement boundary and room for another 14,000 in the areas proposed to be added

[32:34] through the settlement expansion for a total additional population of just over 35,000 people.

[32:41] Combined, that brings the total to 4686 people.

[32:46] I need to interrupt you right there.

[32:49] Just so everyone understands that is not happening overnight.

[32:53] Chris could be upwards of 30 to 40 years before that actually happens.

[32:57] So, but the objective here is to look at this study and find the right number that matches the ability of our infrastructure.

[33:05] So, that, Jeff, thank you for that clarification and you are on track with that.

[33:10] In terms of our study focuses on what we call app build out.

[33:14] So, when all the land is developed to the new boundaries that are proposed, what infrastructure

[33:19] would be required,

[33:22] because, you know, significant pieces of infrastructure need to be built,

[33:25] and you don't want them to be too small further down the road when you need them, because the infrastructure

[33:29] does last 15, 75 years, right?

[33:32] So, as the growth catches up, you don't want to have to pull out a sewer that's too small

[33:36] to put a bigger one in, when you should look a little further down ahead.

[33:40] So, our numbers are focused on that, and line, and then later, I expect it'll be discussion

[33:45] about the rate of growth and exactly where the various developments will happen in water

[33:49] order.

[33:50] But, today, it's about the end story.

[33:53] So, on the water supply and storage side, there's currently four wells in the standard.

[33:56] It can provide approximately 3,240 meters

[34:00] cube per day of water and storage facilities

[34:02] on airport road that provides 7,100 cubic meters

[34:05] of water storage.

[34:07] Curl andurc construction is a significant new capacity

[34:10] increase to the water supply.

[34:12] So there's four new wells going in and 4,000 cubic meters

[34:15] of storage at the Conduct Park project located

[34:19] on the east side of the township,

[34:22] approximately eight kilometers from Stainer.

[34:24] But it will convey water to Stainer.

[34:26] And, when we look at the needs in the future, we need an additional supply of 10,825 cubic meters.

[34:35] We don't quite know where that's coming from yet, but that's how much we think we would need.

[34:39] And also additional water storage for approximately 8,000 cubic meters.

[34:44] So, next slide.

[34:50] So, with all that anticipated growth and development, it is anticipated that we would need additional,

[34:55] and or of size water managed to service those new lands and new people associated with that

[35:02] for the purpose of a paranalysis. We have assumed that the additional water would come from the

[35:07] vicinity of the Klondike Park road facility but today there hasn't many work to investigate exactly

[35:13] how much more can come from Klondike or areas near Klondike but that's our assumption for the analysis

[35:19] and as far as additional water storage we're anticipating it's likely to be near the existing water storage

[35:24] on airport road, and so our modeling of the future water mains is based on those assumptions

[35:29] to see if that is sort of a plausible servicing solution.

[35:34] That's anticipated that would remain with these new lands that can also be a single water

[35:38] pressure zone.

[35:41] On the wastewater side, one of the challenges that the existing system in Stainer was not

[35:48] really designed to handle the lands that are being added to the settlement boundary, so that

[35:53] is very obviously difficult to convey the waste water that would be generated.

[35:58] We also expect the SPS-2, which is, I think it's the bottom-ended moat, while it has

[36:05] currently as in capacity and plan for expansion, the forecasted needs would exceed its capacity.

[36:11] To service the new lands, which are generally clustered in the south and west of the existing

[36:19] the south and the east of the south of Boundary and north and east of the south of Boundary.

[36:24] We anticipate when they're all in all developed that we need three pump stations to

[36:29] service those areas essentially conveying wastewater to the north east corner of the

[36:34] expanded south of Boundary.

[36:38] We anticipate that we'll essentially be trunk sewers running across the side road.

[36:44] It's side road 21 to the east and then essentially north, along centerline road in Cairo

[36:49] Road 7, you'll get through the development as that permits, but that's the general flow

[36:54] of it, and three pump stations along that corridor.

[36:58] It's illustrated a little bit of a graphic, where we're coming on the fancy graphics for

[37:02] the reports, but this is the basic diagram of how it would flow, I think, south-west and

[37:07] south west goes to 6, it goes to 5, blanch the south east, come in, run north on that

[37:15] to centerline row Cairo 7, to SPS4, which would be conveyor the wastewater to treatment facility,

[37:24] a location of that facility as you had to be determined.

[37:32] On the wastewater treatment side, currently one wastewater treatment plan located in Stainer with capacity of 2,500 meters cube per day, and the township has made agreements with the SEGA Beach to direct an additional 50,000, sorry, 5,000 meters cube to wastewater to the SEGA Beach, essentially in two steps. The works are already constructed, essentially they can be up to 2,500 up that 5,000, and there would need to be an upgrade to the pumping station to go to the next level.

[38:01] of 5,000, but the force made some pump stations are already there to do that.

[38:07] The flow to the current standard planter approximately 70% of its actual capacity in terms

[38:11] of actual flow over rating.

[38:16] And I noted that it works for a place for SPS2 with the additional lands that are being

[38:22] added.

[38:23] And the existing lands, the additional treatment needs are 11,545 cubic meters per day.

[38:30] So that's above the capacity of stator in the existing

[38:32] recycled agreement.

[38:34] Obviously, it's a specific amount of waste water.

[38:37] And we would identify the, you would need to do a schedule

[38:39] CEA to figure out to create an expansion like that

[38:43] or a new waste water facility.

[38:46] All right.

[38:52] So essentially, the summary.

[38:54] So we do anticipate that had build-out when every piece of land

[38:59] is developed to the expanded boundary on within on the current

[39:01] boundaries. It's approximately 41,000 people. To service that, we would need to identify

[39:07] additional supply of 10,800 meters cubed of water supply, as I noted, the source is not

[39:13] yet. No one for that. And EA's would likely be required, at least under the current regulation,

[39:20] to construct, to get permission to design those facilities. The water storage is a little

[39:25] more straightforward. Could I even be pre-approved by my PSCHP under the current EA requirements?

[39:31] The wastewater collection components, the force main sewers and pumping stations can likely be pre-approved from a classier perspective if they're located on development lines or existing municipal corridors.

[39:43] It's a little faster to implement.

[39:45] And then the wastewater treatment, as I noted, we will have to identify the ultimate destination in the matter of treatment, which would require a classier.

[39:53] So that is the highlights of the work done today, and then we're working on the fancy figures

[39:59] and supporting reports to go with the calculations that have been completed.

[40:04] So I think that I turn that back over to Steve now, and he'll finish up the presentation.

[40:08] And I'll be taking questions at the end.

[40:09] All right, we'll take questions at the end then.

[40:11] Thank you.

[40:12] I think that's fine.

[40:13] Okay.

[40:13] We do that in that way.

[40:15] We can keep it rolling.

[40:16] Keep it rolling.

[40:16] All right.

[40:17] Thank you.

[40:18] All right.

[40:18] if that's good with Council and keep your notes handy.

[40:21] Steve will take it back to you, go ahead.

[40:24] Thank you, Mayor measures, and thanks Jeff,

[40:26] for covering the servicing summary.

[40:29] I mentioned earlier in the presentation

[40:31] that one of the three key initiatives supporting this boundary change

[40:36] is the agricultural impact assessment

[40:38] has required in accordance with provincial policies.

[40:42] And in fact, the province has an agricultural impact

[40:44] assessment guideline that has been followed

[40:47] in preparing the study.

[40:49] And the study I'm seeking here on behalf of the study authors

[40:52] is to install the associates.

[40:55] There are planners and agronomists,

[40:57] so specialized in the areas of agricultural impact

[41:01] and soils review and MDS calculations.

[41:06] So I've worked closely with Rob through his process of Rob

[41:10] stole of producing his report.

[41:13] And that draft report is now on the project web page,

[41:16] as well for more information, but just to share the highlights of that, the agricultural

[41:21] impact assessment looked at two primary areas, a primary area, and a secondary area.

[41:27] The primary area is the expansion lands themselves, so those lands are shown in the mapping

[41:33] a complete little port and on the project website, the land to the north east of the existing

[41:40] and the land to the southeast, and then under the provincial guidelines, we're also required to look at potential agricultural impacts within any farmlands within 1.5 kilometer radius of those primary study there area land.

[41:58] So that has been looked at as well to assess what types of farm operations are in the surrounding area and whether they have any livestock and whether there are any sub-access associated with those livestock operations.

[42:09] And in fact, five agricultural operations have been identified within the proposed expansion

[42:16] area.

[42:17] So one of the impacts of the expansion was that those operations would come into the boundary.

[42:24] It doesn't necessarily mean that they can't continue with those operations.

[42:29] They couldn't continue with the existing farm operations that they have until, if and when

[42:35] decide that their land is going to be made available for development with the long-term

[42:41] purpose of the expansion being to position that land for urban land uses such as residential

[42:47] housing and other supporting uses. In addition to that there's a number of livestock operations

[42:55] in the surrounding 1.5 kilometer area, but the information we had at the time of developing the

[43:03] draft report and developing this presentation and indicated that only two of those in fact

[43:08] of MDS setback arcs that potentially affect the proposed expansion lands. We're still detailing

[43:16] with the agricultural consultant exactly how much of an impact that has on the proposed

[43:23] settlement area expansion. Initial information looks like it doesn't have a major impact,

[43:28] but it does have some impact.

[43:30] And then secondly, how we can address those impacts.

[43:34] There are a few different options of how to deal with that.

[43:38] That said, there is one of the methods required

[43:41] under the provincial guidelines to obtain information

[43:45] about these farms is to consult directly with the farmers.

[43:49] And that I would reach occurred early on in the process

[43:53] as we've been working on this since late May.

[43:56] And we've just been receiving, as recently as today, some additional information about existing livestock operations.

[44:04] So there will be some updates to the agricultural impact assessment draft report that's available.

[44:10] And ultimately that report will be finalized once we have all the information from the applicable study area and the farms that could be affected.

[44:20] And next slide.

[44:22] In terms of first nations and indigenous consultation, this is outlined in the staff report.

[44:29] I notice has been sent out to the contacts and we confirm those contacts with the county of Simcoe as well,

[44:36] regarding the proposed official plan amendment.

[44:39] So far we haven't received any responses, but there is some time here for indigenous groups to review the information and respond.

[44:47] and identify whether they have any interest in these matters.

[44:51] And then, once we do have, if we do get some response from any of the indigenous communities.

[45:00] The engagement process with those indigenous communities based on their responses and their areas of interest.

[45:08] And just to note here, this is one part of a multi-part process in terms of land going from agricultural to urban to developed land.

[45:19] And that, as the mayor outlined, is a long-term process.

[45:22] So along the way, there are many other opportunities for not only First Nations and Indigenous communities but the public at large to participate in that process including through further steps in the secondary planning process as well as as individual development applications are proposed and come forward for those lands over the fullness of time and next slide.

[45:47] So, just shifting gears here on our next steps, the draft official plan amendment, as mentioned, has been posted online and circulated to the county and other agencies for review and comment and a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act.

[46:06] Asmen's scheduled for Monday, September 14th, the notice of that meeting has gone out with all the particulars and just to be more specific about that.

[46:15] The public meeting on September 14th is specifically for township official plan number four.

[46:23] And next slide just summarizes that in addition to the township official plan amendment because settlement area boundaries, including those for Stainer are set out in the county official plan as well.

[46:36] There is an amendment required to the county official plan, also to note that the county is the approval authority for the Township's Official Plan Amendment.

[46:45] So adoption of the Official Plan Amendment by the Township would be followed by forwarding that to the county for their review.

[46:55] I got a bit ahead of myself there, but with the county official plan amendment, they are required under the Planning Act to have their own public meeting for the Official Plan Amendment.

[47:06] And if you go to the next slide,

[47:11] there's some process considerations with that.

[47:14] The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at the provincial level is the approval authority

[47:18] for an amendment to the county official plan.

[47:23] And under the Planning Act, the county must give the ministry at least 90 days of review time

[47:30] with the official plan amendment before giving notice of its public meeting.

[47:35] So that 90 day period has started, it was the county submitted their draft official

[47:42] plan amendment to the province on July 17th, which means they cannot give notice of their

[47:47] public meeting until October 15th.

[47:50] So the public meeting that the county will hold will be sometime after October 15th.

[47:57] and next slide. The Planning Act does require that the County Public Meeting be held no

[48:06] earlier than Wednesday, November 4th, based on that timing and the Provincial Review of

[48:12] Requirements. After the County Hold, its Public Meeting, they can then adopt a related county

[48:18] official PIMM amendment at any time thereafter and forward that to the province for their

[48:24] consideration of approval and next slide.

[48:29] The approval of the county official plan is then in turn subject to the Ministry of

[48:34] approval process and the Ministry may approve reviews or approve with modifications, the county

[48:43] official plan amendment and they post their review period and decision on the environmental

[48:50] bill rights on the Ontario Registry.

[48:53] and will ultimately issue a written decision.

[48:57] Following that, there is an appeal period for the county of OPA, which it runs for 20 days,

[49:03] but the appeals are very limited because it's a provincial decision.

[49:10] The 20-day appeal periods physically applies to the county's decision with respect to the township of OPA,

[49:17] and if there are no appeals, the township of OPA comes into effect on

[49:24] the last, after the last day of profiling of the appeals.

[49:27] If there are appeals, then there was a refer to the Ontario Land Tribunal to be dealt with there.

[49:35] So that covers the summary of the work completed to date, as well as the next steps.

[49:42] And Patrick, Jeff and I are available for questions at this time.

[49:46] Thank you.

[49:47] All right, thank you very much.

[49:49] And I would suggest the staff perhaps are also available for questions too.

[49:52] So thank you.

[49:53] All right, members of Council.

[49:55] Jim, any questions to the staff on the work so far?

[49:58] Paul, you'd like to start?

[49:59] OK, go right ahead.

[50:00] Sure, thank you.

[50:01] Quick question, gentlemen.

[50:03] I'm about to.

[50:03] It says two operations in this second area

[50:06] were affecting the proposed expansion

[50:09] and both of those were livestock operations.

[50:12] Is that the only type of operation

[50:13] we're concerned with?

[50:15] Or do we concern with intensive cash crop operations?

[50:22] I'm visualizing all the livestock operations in the area, but cash crop is definitely a

[50:28] bigger bite right now.

[50:32] Steve or Patrick, do you want to respond to that question, Mr. Good question?

[50:43] The livestock operations have definitely more of a direct impact because there's specific

[50:49] provincial formulae for calculating required setback distances if you're

[50:55] re-designating land from agriculture to other uses and that setback distances

[51:00] based on the type of land use. So it's a larger setback for urban land uses.

[51:07] So in this case, the proposed change of some land from agricultural to urban

[51:13] triggers the need to do these minimum distance separation calculations.

[51:17] And there are a couple of operations that have set back distances that overlap with the area that's proposed to be designated as urban.

[51:27] So, when we say impact, we mean that either the urban boundary would have to be drawn to avoid those areas or there will need to be some special justification or policy treatment in the official planet amendment to specifically ensure that

[51:44] setbacks are maintained from those livestock operations or other measures they're taken so that

[51:49] we don't have incompatible land uses with the odors and other aspects of livestock

[51:56] housing specifically.

[51:58] But you're right on point that there are other types of agricultural impacts as well associated with urban expansion.

[52:06] The obvious one is that land will eventually be taken out of farm production.

[52:09] Again, that is more up to the landowner once the official plan amendment is in place and there are other steps that need to be completed, including the infrastructure being developed planning applications that need to be filed and the details of the development need to come forward, much of which is

[52:30] In terms of timing for development. So in the interim in the short term, they're able to continue operating as they do today. There's no direct immediate impact to an existing farm operation.

[52:42] And then the other types of impacts that are looked at in the agricultural impact assessment report are things like, well, if some of the lands starts to develop what would be the impacts to say farm equipment that moves around the area on the existing roads.

[52:55] or noise and dust and other normal farm operations that you see out on the landscape.

[53:02] That's where there are more detailed studies that need to be done as the land developed.

[53:08] So, just like when you see applications like the one you heard earlier tonight,

[53:13] there are certain technical studies that come forward in support of those applications

[53:16] and are required as part of a complete application.

[53:19] and there's traffic studies, there's noise and dust,

[53:22] and I need to add ability studies,

[53:23] and then the experts in those types of fields

[53:26] recommend measures that need to be taken to ensure

[53:30] that we don't set up a situation where development

[53:33] is happening in an area where it's going to generate

[53:35] a lot of complaints about normal farm operations

[53:38] in the vicinity.

[53:41] There are certain mechanisms that are then used,

[53:44] like phasing of the development or warning clauses

[53:47] in purchase and sale agreements to advise purchasers of the farm operations in the area

[53:52] and the impacts from that that they should expect.

[53:55] But the details of those measures aren't being established at this stage, so that those

[53:59] happen later when the land is actually being proposed for development.

[54:03] So lots of consider there, but hopefully that gets into some of the specifics as to the

[54:09] types of impacts that the agricultural impact assessment report is looking at.

[54:15] Thank you.

[54:16] You all good? Thank you. Other members of Council.

[54:18] Do you have any questions? Mr. MacArthur? I see you go ahead.

[54:22] Yeah, this is probably for Mr. Jeff Langlock.

[54:24] Just wondering, the airport road water main was just redone there a few years ago.

[54:32] Is there any idea whether it's size to help?

[54:38] Or size accordingly for this expansion or if there would be another redo 30, 40 years down there.

[54:44] So,

[54:51] we did look at that specifically, we run the model with these additional, you know, assuming

[54:56] that people were all present in heating water, so it does not look like that may

[54:59] need to be operated in terms of diameter capacity based on our initial analysis, and similarly

[55:05] the water main KBR to down, also looks like it would be adequate for the projected growth, based

[55:12] on the assumptions that we know right now, so in both cases they're not going to be obsolete

[55:21] So probably down the road, either upgrade those

[55:24] or we'll be looking for a third water source probably in the area.

[55:30] Yeah, so there's two sort of glass line steel tanks

[55:34] out on the airport facility.

[55:37] And I think there are approximately 7,000 cubic meters.

[55:40] And we need 1,000, so it's essentially, in my mind,

[55:44] who would simply twin that facility.

[55:45] Right, so there would be four tanks there using the same water.

[55:48] It's really about the volume of water stored for firefighting, that's the biggest thing to address with that storage, and the main is big enough to convey the flows through.

[55:57] The extra size, because the flow rate doesn't go up that much from what we assume, it's just the duration is longer.

[56:04] So, anyways, it looks good in terms of, you know, they'll be there for their normal life and not replaced.

[56:10] We do envision there would be water-made loot, essentially across 20,

[56:15] several 21, kind of creating that loop along the side of any side,

[56:20] to help distribute water sources.

[56:24] Thank you very much, Councillor McArthur.

[56:26] Those are good questions.

[56:27] If I can just do a little follow-up on that point before I go to Councilor Dineen,

[56:31] when we do calculations, perhaps even Dan might be able to assist.

[56:36] We do calculations about fire, you know, fire, you know, service.

[56:40] We also take in the capacity of the actual pipes.

[56:45] Like the project at Councillor MacArthur brought up was a significant investment by this community

[56:52] to improve the pipe between the urban center of Stainer and our reservoirs down on local airport

[57:00] road county 42.

[57:02] But the actual size of the pipe increased our capacity for storage because the pipe itself

[57:07] is now much larger.

[57:09] So, I think that we need to understand that while pumping capacity is actually the primary thing when you're dealing with a major fire pumping capacity,

[57:19] but the actual volume of water in the system is sitting in reserves because it's in the pipes.

[57:26] There's a lot of pipes that are actually acting as reservoirs. Is that right? Is that a good philosophy?

[57:33] I would like to be partially accurate.

[57:36] Thank you.

[58:26] Yes.

[58:43] Absolutely.

[58:44] The storage tanks are everything for sure.

[58:47] And so we're very blessed in the standard community with the two that we have.

[58:52] Our event leisure set recently improved and then the new pipe is also a big improvement to connect us.

[58:58] And then the project at KPR at is a very significant water reservoir that's being built.

[59:05] along with the actual pipe itself there that connects perhaps eight kilometers of pipe.

[59:10] So I think that there's a good argument to be said that we will have supply,

[59:17] given all the factors that are available,

[59:19] and to continue the calculations as we slowly build out to this population number that we're looking at.

[59:27] I mean, there's no sense in acknowledging that we're going to do that tomorrow.

[59:30] It's a matter of make plans to build those pipes as we go and so I think that's that's part of it

[59:38] And working with a development community to help pay for these things is important part of it.

[59:42] So thank you.

[59:43] Dan, did you have anything you want to add on that?

[59:45] Since I brought it up.

[59:46] Okay, thank you very much.

[59:47] I'm going to go to the question by Councillor Denino.

[59:49] Thank you.

[59:50] Probably don't even have to ask now.

[59:53] Oh well.

[59:53] But so through your worship to Jeff.

[1:00:00] Today's supply storage, that we're supposed to have for the amount of people that are using it.

[1:00:08] Sorry, for every, for every, for every water source, we're required to keep two days worth of storage.

[1:00:19] So, that issue has come up in the past with the topic, principally in relation to supply

[1:00:26] that's prepared from the town of Collinwood Pipeline, it was kind of where that two-day

[1:00:30] storage.

[1:00:33] You know, guideline comes from generally that wouldn't be the real way to apply for a system that

[1:00:38] has its own storage.

[1:00:39] Like that was more through the nature of the agreement through Collinwood Tech than our

[1:00:44] are typical approach to water storage.

[1:00:46] It's much more cohesion derived from the anticipated population

[1:00:50] for a big that is.

[1:00:53] Population says it's this big a fire flow.

[1:00:55] You'd be able to apply it for this long.

[1:00:58] And that goes into storage.

[1:01:00] That's the majority of what's in there.

[1:01:01] There is a emergency storage and equalization storage.

[1:01:05] We won't get into that.

[1:01:06] We need more.

[1:01:08] And the grid news is that that pipeline

[1:01:10] is likely going to be able to convey it.

[1:01:11] particularly, we put a sort of a new boundary man around to help move it around the area.

[1:01:16] And it doesn't matter where the storage is located.

[1:01:19] To some extent, it does, as I noted, when it's a fire loss of pressure, through the pipe

[1:01:26] is a function of length and diameter.

[1:01:29] So, but we've run it through the model that we have at the township water system, with the assumptions

[1:01:33] we've said of more water coming from KBR and more stored at airport road and the forecast

[1:01:39] that flows, viral flows, available, viral flow, and pressure, looks acceptable.

[1:01:44] Yeah, so it's just the amount of storage is just determined by the users.

[1:01:48] And of course all the new developments have new pipes which help convey the water through

[1:01:52] and that will be sized to more detail.

[1:01:54] They all come forward.

[1:01:55] Okay, thank you.

[1:01:58] Yeah, thank you.

[1:01:59] We're just adding, I think, to Councillor Dunne's point, to the connection of the two

[1:02:09] systems,

[1:02:11] one system, but the connection of KPR and the airport road, the connection of that and trying to

[1:02:19] loop them together, give you better flow with the storage. That's more critical than having

[1:02:27] the two day storage that was assumed as part of the if there was a connection to

[1:02:35] the

[1:02:44] Just clarification to our clerk to understand that we've got a meeting posted for September 14th.

[1:02:51] That's part of our regular meeting.

[1:02:54] I thought we would be doing this under a planning meeting, but we're doing this under a regular council meeting.

[1:03:00] Through your worship to the deputy mayor, this is an important matter.

[1:03:03] It's a strong mayor decision.

[1:03:05] So we are putting it for front at our regular meeting in September.

[1:03:09] We are getting low on council meetings before the next term.

[1:03:12] we need to move forward. So staff know that that's coming on as a public meeting during the regular meeting.

[1:03:17] It's always on the agenda, you see it. We just normally don't have any items,

[1:03:20] but this is a priority for the municipality. So then a question you just brought up.

[1:03:25] I know the mayor loses his strong mayor powers. Is it a continuation of his strong mayor powers

[1:03:31] to continue this application? Through your worship to the deputy mayor, we still have to

[1:03:36] the guidelines under the Planning Act and we still have to hold a public meeting and we still

[1:03:41] had to follow the statutory notice period for that.

[1:03:45] Thank you.

[1:03:47] Thank you.

[1:03:48] Very good.

[1:03:49] Other other questions?

[1:03:50] Mr. Broderick?

[1:03:51] Mr. McArthur?

[1:03:52] Mr. Walker?

[1:03:53] All right.

[1:03:55] I would have a couple if I can.

[1:03:58] And since you're here, Jeff, I appreciate we're going to go right back to water again.

[1:04:02] In your notes, in your presentation, to talk about the NMCEA would be required for an alternate

[1:04:08] water source.

[1:04:10] Looking at the investment that the township's already made in the KPR site, there were four

[1:04:18] wells that were investigated on that site and identified as all four of them are identified

[1:04:25] as individual sources.

[1:04:26] As I understand the project right now, we are going to be accessing two of those wells of the four.

[1:04:34] So is that a correct statement?

[1:04:36] We're using two of the four in the project that we're building right this minute.

[1:04:43] My recollection is they're all being built.

[1:04:44] They're certainly all permanent to be constructive.

[1:04:47] Yes.

[1:04:48] In the approval for the Minister of Environment, they may not be needed on day one in terms of you don't need to turn them all on.

[1:04:54] because it's just more capacity than you need in the very near future.

[1:05:00] That's where I think that stands, I could confirm that.

[1:05:03] Yeah. As again, as I understand it, we're going to be building all the pump.

[1:05:08] They're all of the wells, but we're not going to be turning to the pumps,

[1:05:14] or KPR 3 and 4 until the time that we have that expansion requirement.

[1:05:20] So, like we'll have the ability to do it, but it's a matter of a little future investment that will be needed to make that happen.

[1:05:29] Yeah, I would need my hunches. Again, they would probably use them.

[1:05:33] I expect they will rotate through all of them, right? In terms of trying to make sure they're all ready to go if they're needed as opposed to just using two and leaving two to sit.

[1:05:42] It probably kind of want to exercise them essentially right and rotate through.

[1:05:46] Yeah.

[1:05:46] I could check with the construction team.

[1:05:48] Let's check what I've asked.

[1:05:49] He's watching that project.

[1:05:51] He might be there if it goes so that I am.

[1:05:54] Yeah.

[1:05:54] I think your worship.

[1:05:56] That's a Jeff Nail that the all four are going to be put in production.

[1:06:02] I call it.

[1:06:03] The volume that it's going to produce isn't going to be needed right away until more build out is done.

[1:06:11] But Jeff's correct, there's going to be a rotation between the four on an as-needed basis

[1:06:18] with lots of built-in redundancy. If one of those five ten years from now needs to be worked on,

[1:06:26] we have three other ones there to take its place.

[1:06:31] There'll all be producing water on a rotational basis on an as-needed basis,

[1:06:38] The volume or the frequency, I guess, will increase as it has needed as building hopefully ramps up here in the next year or so.

[1:06:51] Yeah, certainly, again, this goes back to the design of this whole project is that it will gradually move forward.

[1:07:00] I mean, we're going to have to get the infrastructure in place.

[1:07:02] And then the planning and building department will be very busy receiving applications to build more homes.

[1:07:10] And as those more homes come online, and as more people move to our community, there will be more demand on the water system.

[1:07:18] So I think it's very wise of how we're spending this money to build this system, to have the four wells available.

[1:07:26] I recall talking.

[1:07:30] Jeff, it wasn't you. It was another one about how the capacity volume that we would need, even to reach the 4,000 units in that neighborhood, could be achieved with two wells, and that was the conversation we had that we could achieve it.

[1:07:46] But you're right. That would put huge demand on those two wells all the time. So, by cycling through, Dan, as you're suggesting, that's a little news to me, but I'm happy to hear it.

[1:07:56] because it does demonstrate that we have the capacity to have redundant systems, as well as to keep those other wells functioning well correctly.

[1:08:06] Perhaps. So anyway, thank you very much for that. So that MCEA with that, is that a step that we would have to engage to as part of this process.

[1:08:17] If we can have to do that and go through that process as well, even though we have approved water source.

[1:08:23] So the Cape Air Facility, like I said in early step, that's all been completed in the past.

[1:08:28] Right. I can't remember how many years ago now, but seven years ago or something like that?

[1:08:33] Yeah.

[1:08:33] That facility was approved under the year. It was an addendum to the standard year.

[1:08:37] And so now, it's through the future facilities, such as a reservoir or a new, well, at a new site or a new wastewater all would have requirements to satisfy the requirements of the missile class EA.

[1:08:51] There are proposed changes to that that are actually anticipated in the new year.

[1:08:57] Okay.

[1:08:57] Under the current framework, they would require it.

[1:09:00] It's anticipated that if it rolls out, like we think it's going to roll out.

[1:09:04] Some of them may be pre-approved as we move forward, and it should get easier out of her.

[1:09:08] Okay.

[1:09:10] All I can ask there is to make sure you keep Council informed of that, but this is who's

[1:09:14] long.

[1:09:15] So that's great.

[1:09:16] Can I ask another question?

[1:09:17] I'm looking for other members.

[1:09:18] I have another question then.

[1:09:19] going to switch over to the wastewater treatment plant agreement, we have a terrific agreement with

[1:09:24] our partners in the town of Osaga Beach.

[1:09:28] You referred to the pumping station, is that SCS-2, is that what that is?

[1:09:34] The one that's probably pumping public works building?

[1:09:37] That's okay.

[1:09:38] So SCS-2, it does have the capacity to meet the requirements that we have currently

[1:09:43] build in the current settlement area.

[1:09:47] Upgrade to that facility because of the inputs that could come there, is that been sort of

[1:09:54] fought out as far as how extensive that could be?

[1:09:59] Are we thinking of another 30 foot dig into that soil or is that an above ground mid-ground

[1:10:07] sort of project?

[1:10:10] So I do believe there'll be either significant upgrades to the SPS2 or an alternate, like

[1:10:16] a new replacement, that's larger, required in the future.

[1:10:20] The one that is constructed is ready to deal with the first half of the number that's

[1:10:25] supposed to go to a second, and the pipes are ready for the full agreement.

[1:10:31] They would need to be an upgrade to the pumpings.

[1:10:33] Within the existing building, essentially, replacing pumps to go to the second stage.

[1:10:38] So it's a relatively modest upgrade to get to the agreement that was anticipated.

[1:10:42] Go on beyond that.

[1:10:43] we haven't really looked into that yet,

[1:10:45] whether there is room to cram more,

[1:10:48] or with where the other development is,

[1:10:49] which is actually downhill from where that is.

[1:10:52] It's hard to be cram.

[1:10:54] So there's a lot of gravity there that helps it.

[1:10:56] It might be a blend of the two,

[1:10:58] but we'll sort that out in the future.

[1:11:00] But it will be more popping capacity for certain.

[1:11:02] I'm kind of thinking of whether we need to sort of take another look

[1:11:06] at the site there, do we need?

[1:11:10] Like, what we need more real estate around that current building

[1:11:13] to build out or are we comfortable in the size of the building we have right now there to

[1:11:18] do the works internally. I'm just seeking a construction project here to add on to that

[1:11:24] wastewater treatment, volume that we're going to need when we make this settlement boundary

[1:11:28] expansion. Are we going to need more space there and this is another large project that

[1:11:36] be facing. Dan, maybe that's for you. Jeff may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but

[1:11:44] as he pointed out, that the force means going to a Sega Beatrice sized appropriately.

[1:11:50] I think there is space in

[1:11:55] the pump house that's out of the pump house. It's the wet well,

[1:12:00] the sewage goes into. I think that's the general theme of that is if we need a little bit

[1:12:07] room, we don't know all that here. But I think the building itself, I think you just add either

[1:12:13] larger pump or more pumps to it with an additional storage area. I think what I understood

[1:12:19] it to be constructively.

[1:12:21] I think for the original service area, I think there was hope that it would be expanded at that

[1:12:26] site, but because the new area is essentially downhill, it's like, can you get it back into the existing

[1:12:32] one without a being deeper? We haven't quite got the detail done on that yet. So it's presented

[1:12:38] conservatively, and that we need to, you know, it will work if you build a new one. Can we

[1:12:42] optimize it and leverage or borrow what's there?

[1:12:51] It's ready to pump 25, easily upgraded to 5,000.

[1:12:56] But those ultimate numbers are well beyond that, right? So why do you expect your

[1:13:00] of the organization, eventually went all that

[1:13:03] group materialized.

[1:13:04] Exciting stuff, I know.

[1:13:05] It did.

[1:13:06] Again, I try to think long-term, as far as into the future,

[1:13:11] what kind of expenses the committee could be facing,

[1:13:14] what we're looking at.

[1:13:17] So I look at it.

[1:13:18] We have a really good investment in this particular SCS-2,

[1:13:22] RSPS-2, and the fact that we have real estate around it,

[1:13:25] if we had to do an extra wet well,

[1:13:27] we already have space to do that.

[1:13:29] we can incorporate that into that site without too much issue.

[1:13:36] And it can be engineered and it can be built

[1:13:39] given the resources that we have available to us.

[1:13:43] All right, so that's good for that.

[1:13:44] And I think that that agreement, Mr. Ferguson and I

[1:13:48] had a talk about that agreement some months ago,

[1:13:50] about the fact that it'll be many years until we reach that point,

[1:13:55] where we have to renegotiate that agreement.

[1:13:57] The good news is that the pipe that connects us

[1:13:59] from Stainer to the Vasagovic wastewater

[1:14:01] to the plant will handle the capacity.

[1:14:03] So we don't have to open up those pipes again,

[1:14:06] which is great.

[1:14:07] So we're really in a good spot there.

[1:14:10] So I'll look to my council if there's other questions.

[1:14:13] No further?

[1:14:14] All right.

[1:14:16] Can I just ask a question and a staff regarding the first

[1:14:20] nations and indigenous consultations?

[1:14:23] We just confirm, did we receive any responses

[1:14:26] Steve or Patrick, did we receive any responses on that or are we still going to engage consultations

[1:14:34] with them to seek their inputs on this?

[1:14:38] As of our last discussions with your staff, there haven't been any responses yet, but

[1:14:46] there is some time here between now and the September 14th meeting, so we'll continue monitoring

[1:14:53] and following up. Okay, I think we've got an answer on.

[1:15:00] We haven't received anything, but they have been emailed as well as mailed regular mail, the notice, but we haven't received anything yet.

[1:15:09] Okay, so we're still engaging in making sure that we have those consultations. That's good. All right, that's great.

[1:15:16] And I guess the last thing is back to the county issue, which Derek, this might be for you, if I can.

[1:15:22] Moving this whole project as a recommendation from this council, as we go to a full council meeting and get the public input.

[1:15:28] And we get that report, and we take OP A4, and we move it over to the county, and then the

[1:15:35] province of Ontario is removing the county authority to make these type of decisions anyway.

[1:15:39] So are we facing a roadblock, do you think, or are we going to be looking at changes to the

[1:15:49] county system given their timeline of when they give up the authority to make those decisions

[1:15:56] on planning matters. Derek, what do you think?

[1:16:01] Through your worship, it's a great question.

[1:16:05] And one I've been in connection with Nathan Westendorf there.

[1:16:09] He and as well as other staff have informed me that the county will still have their decision

[1:16:16] making authority, come November 4th.

[1:16:19] I think it's just those are those three municipalities in his fill Bradford and Newtek

[1:16:23] that will operate kind of as a single tier municipality and not require county as approval

[1:16:27] authority. So following the election and on that date that the province did set out county,

[1:16:34] the county of Simcoe is still our approval authority for planning act decisions.

[1:16:38] What remains in question is what county council will look like?

[1:16:42] Come November 4th. I know the numbers are dwindling and when they will actually

[1:16:46] have their next county council meeting, but we're in constant communication with the county

[1:16:52] even Nathan and his team to sort this out and just want to point out that in no way does our

[1:16:59] decision affect their decision, like they will still formulate their own planning rationale,

[1:17:06] but it doesn't necessarily mean that the county is going to automatically approve it,

[1:17:10] but they will still have to go through their approval process to amend their county official plan.

[1:17:15] All right. Thank you for sharing that with everyone here. Appreciate that.

[1:17:20] One more time, is there any further questions?

[1:17:22] So we take the mic a lot here.

[1:17:24] Okay, you're all good?

[1:17:26] Well, listen, thank you very much staff.

[1:17:28] Thank you very much to our consultants.

[1:17:29] Thank you to Burnside, Jeff, to have you guys here.

[1:17:33] This is certainly a positive step forward to to get us to this point.

[1:17:38] Madam Clerk, the advertisements are out to advise the public about a public meeting

[1:17:43] where we hope to have anybody who's interested in this particular issue.

[1:17:47] to come forward for the 14th, we will certainly endeavor to make that meeting agenda not as heavy.

[1:17:58] Madam Clerk, hint hint.

[1:18:01] Well, it's just, it's a tough one because we have so many other departments we have to deal with at the same time.

[1:18:06] It's just, it's going to be a big decision and an opportunity.

[1:18:09] Thank you very much for that. Okay.

[1:18:12] So if there's nothing further, we do have a small recommendation here, which is just to receive this.

[1:18:16] So again, I want to thank our staff and our consultants and Burnside Engineering, etc.

[1:18:21] And thank you, Council, for all these terrific questions.

[1:18:23] Recommendation says, be it resolved that Council of the Township will clear, be hereby.

[1:18:27] Receive report, PB034-2026.

[1:18:30] This is the Stainer Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Phase 1 Status Update, stated August 26,

[1:18:36] 2026 for Information, moved by the Deputy Mayor of Seconded by Mr. Walker.

[1:18:41] Thank you very much, sir.

[1:18:43] Any questions on that motion?

[1:18:47] Thank you very much.

[1:18:50] All right, Council.

[1:18:51] This is a special meeting, but we do have the

[1:18:53] Confermetory by law for this meeting as we do.

[1:18:56] It says we have resolved that by law 2559,

[1:19:00] being a by law to confirm the proceedings of the August 26-26

[1:19:03] Council meeting.

[1:19:04] If you presented and read the first second at the time of

[1:19:07] Finally passed the 26th day of August 26,

[1:19:09] Councilor Denise.

[1:19:10] Thank you very much.

[1:19:11] Councillor McArthur. Thank you. And the bylaws have been read. Any questions? Seeing none

[1:19:16] all in favor? Bylaw Carey's. Thank you. Council we're out there motion to adjourn for

[1:19:22] our special meeting. We're going to call it 49 by the time we get there. 649. Maybe we should

[1:19:28] all by a ticket. Councillor Broderick. Deputy Mayor, would you like to move that motion

[1:19:33] to adjourn? All those in favor. Thank you very much. Very good folks. Thank you very much

[1:19:39] for joining us.

Special Council Meeting - Planning Public Meeting

Agenda

Transcript