[10:02] We are live. I would now like to call to order the July 23rd, 2026 committee of

[10:08] the whole meeting. Madame clerk, for the record of this meeting, please show

[10:13] councelor Ley is absent with notice. Item B, uh, are there any declarations

[10:20] of interest from members of council? >> Not seeing,

[10:26] » right, >> go ahead, please.

[10:30] » Uh, thanks, Madam Mayor. It relates to um item H3 on the designation of the

[10:34] heritage property. So, I own a company which owns uh one of the properties

[10:37] being named in one of the heritage designation process groups. And so, to

[10:41] that end, I'm stepping back from H3. Thanks, Madam Mayor.

[10:44] » Thank you very much. Not seeing any others, I will move to

[10:48] item C, the land acknowledgement statement. The town of Equilbury

[10:53] recognizes and acknowledges the lands originally used and occupied by the

[10:58] first peoples of the Williams Treaty First Nation and other indigenous

[11:02] peoples and on behalf of council I thank them for sharing this land. We also

[11:08] acknowledge the Chipoa of Georgina Island First Nation as East

[11:12] Quillinberry's closest First Nation community and recognize the unique

[11:16] relationship the Chippoas have with the lands and the waters of this territory.

[11:21] They are the water protectors and environmental stewards of these lands

[11:25] and we join them in these responsibilities.

[11:29] We're at item D in the community announcements. Are there any community

[11:33] announcements from council?

[11:37] I'm not seeing any at this point. I will move to item E and that's deputations.

[11:43] There are no deputations uh at this time. Item F, presentations. None at

[11:49] this time as well. Finance with councelor John's in the chair.

[11:55] » Yeah, thanks Madame Mayor. There is just the uh the one item on the um uh the

[12:00] agenda for today and it is um finance report 2026-08.

[12:06] Uh it's in regard to a um letter of support for a council resolution for

[12:10] support to the province and uh if I could ask Mr. Marshall to lead the

[12:15] discussion on this. >> Thank you through Mr. Chair. So the

[12:21] province has been providing a a grant to municipal to uh

[12:27] uh small rural and northern municipalities for their infrastructure

[12:31] renewal needs since 2015. In 2021, the province doubled the amount that they

[12:37] were providing to municipalities, which was very helpful to all

[12:42] municipalities having issues uh u meeting their infrastru infrastructure

[12:46] renewal needs. So the last year of this commitment was 2026 and so the municipal

[12:53] finance officers who represent uh the the fin well as the name says they

[12:58] represent the finance officers in all the municipalities

[13:02] um suggested that uh councils reach out to the province and ask for this uh

[13:08] doubling of the funding to become permanent and uh through a resolution of

[13:13] council. So, this report is looking for committee and council's endorsement of a

[13:20] resolution to request that funding being doubled.

[13:24] » Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Are there any uh questions, comments from uh committee

[13:28] members?

[13:32] I'm seeing none. Uh the resolution is on the screen. I'll just pause for five

[13:38] more seconds in case there's any questions.

[13:43] Seeing none, can I get a mover? Uh, councelor Roy de Clemente. Thank you

[13:47] very much. Uh, all those in favor? Motion carries. Wonderful. Mr. Marshall,

[13:53] do you have anything else for committee today?

[13:56] » Through you, Mr. Chair. Nothing at this time.

[13:58] » And members of committee for Mr. Marshall.

[14:01] Wonderful. Thank you, uh, Madame Mayor. Back to you.

[14:05] » Thank you very much. We are at item H, development services with councelor Roy

[14:10] G. Kanti and the chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh we have

[14:14] a couple of items on our agenda today. Uh the first being uh development

[14:18] services planning branch report DS2026-27

[14:22] which is a zoning bylaw amendment application for 19350 Woodbine Avenue.

[14:28] Uh and we've got a resolution that we receive the report and that we approve

[14:32] it um with sight spec specific permissions and that we uh ratify this

[14:37] at our meeting later today. May I have a mover please?

[14:42] moved by councelor John's. Mr. Kubnik, would you like to present this or is

[14:46] Miss Fumbakas with us? Oh, I see her on screen.

[14:50] » Thank you very much, Madame Chair. Um, just very, uh, briefly, uh, this

[14:56] application, as the chair indicated, is on Woodbine Avenue and it's located on

[15:01] the west side of Woodbine, south of Don Road and north of Mount Albert, uh,

[15:06] Road. We're recommending approval of it um from rural to employment, general and

[15:12] environmental protection in order to permit three industrial buildings with

[15:16] accessory office uh uses. The proposal conforms with both the 2010 existing

[15:23] official plan and with council's 2026 proposed official plan which designates

[15:29] the the subject lands as employment and natural heritage. In addition, the lands

[15:34] are also within the Highway 404 employment corridor secondary plan,

[15:39] which also designates these lands for employment purposes. And just as a a bit

[15:44] of a reminder, employment uses permits a broad range of uses, which includes

[15:50] assembling, manufacturing, research and development, uh warehousing,

[15:56] distribution, utilities, and outside storage.

[16:00] In in large part, this corridor is evolving and it's changing from its

[16:04] rural context into what council envisioned and I I do believe this is

[16:09] occurring is a high quality employment area. Uh with respect to this

[16:15] application um the secondary plan does set a height

[16:19] limit of four stories and to be very specific staff are recommending uh

[16:24] resoning in order to permit a maximum of four stories and a maximum height of

[16:30] 15.25 and the reason for that is floor heights

[16:35] can vary and so we want to be very clear as to what the maximum height would be.

[16:40] Um the application was actually before committee not too long ago. In fact, it

[16:46] was in in front of committee back in um March of of this year and it's been

[16:53] significantly revised. At that time, the applicant was proposing both ashold and

[16:58] concrete matching and that created concerns both from staff, the

[17:02] surrounding residents and from council. The application's been revised to remove

[17:07] all those uses very quickly and uh now we're dealing with with a standard

[17:14] employment um use. The application has no cons that's been

[17:20] circulated. There's no concerns from any of uh the commenting department or

[17:25] agencies. One of the reasons we're asking for same day ratification and I

[17:31] do believe uh Mr. Mendes or a representative from the race group may

[17:35] be present is that there is a timing issue with respect to a potential um

[17:41] tenant in the property. And so that is one of the reasons we are seeking same

[17:45] day ratification. Anyways, thank you madam chair. I'm happy to answer any

[17:49] questions of members of council. >> Uh thank you Miss Mvakus. Members of

[17:54] committee any questions?

[18:00] Uh, councelor Foster, go ahead, please. >> Thanks, Madam Chair. Not a question, but

[18:04] just a comment. I think it's refreshing for us to go through the process of a

[18:10] public meeting and hear some concerns from different people um, and have

[18:17] uh, the developers hear those questions loud and clear and and make the changes

[18:22] that people were looking for. So, I'm I'm happy to support this moving

[18:26] forward. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Anyone else?

[18:32] Go ahead, councelor Cone. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,

[18:36] I [clears throat] I just want to verify uh I understand that the the the truck

[18:42] traffic for this particular development is going to be substantially less than

[18:47] uh our u other other locations down uh south on

[18:53] Woodbine. Uh I I have I think in my notes 37 trucks per day. Uh can someone

[19:02] on staff or perhaps the applicant could confirm that today?

[19:07] » Um I'm happy to confirm uh councelor Cone through through the chair that my

[19:13] understanding is that there's 15 trucks anticipated in the AM peak and 22 trucks

[19:19] anticipated in the PM peak. And when the traffic impact study was undertaken, it

[19:24] not only looked at this site, but it looked at the broader area to ensure

[19:29] that the truck traffic was within acceptable ranges.

[19:33] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Vakus. Um, my only

[19:39] concern with this one is making sure that we um that the neighbors are

[19:43] treated with respect and that there's some well and foundation monitoring for

[19:47] the neighboring properties. Is that something that is going to happen as a

[19:51] matter of course or is that something we should be building into our resolution

[19:54] today? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh we will start

[19:59] doing there will be baseline well assessments will be conducted prior to

[20:03] any on-site construction. Uh a hydro geologist is also going to complete

[20:08] assessments and will be doing monitoring for any properties within a 500 meter

[20:14] radius of the proposed development. And there will be also well and foundation

[20:19] monitoring and that will be conducted throughout the construction period for

[20:23] these properties. >> Happy to hear that. Thank you very much.

[20:28] So uh seeing no further uh uh questions or concerns, I have a motion as

[20:34] presented uh moved by councelor John's. All those in favor?

[20:39] Opposed? And that motion carries. Thank you.

[20:46] Uh the next item on our agenda is uh development services planning branch uh

[20:51] report uh DS26-28 which is a zoning bylaw amendment

[20:56] application for 20366 Lesley Street uh a private club which is the Sharon Masonic

[21:03] Temple Association. Um,

[21:08] we have a motion uh that we receive the report that we approve the matter in

[21:14] principle and that the zoning bylaw be brought forward to a future council

[21:18] meeting after the owner has obtained site plan approval and entered into a

[21:22] site plan agreement with the town. May I have a mover, please? Moved by councelor

[21:27] Chrome. Thank you very much. Miss Bumakus, would you like to present your

[21:30] report to us, please? >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[21:35] This is a slightly unusual recommendation for committee and council

[21:40] to be considering because usually we bring forward a full recommendation uh

[21:44] whether it be to refuse or approve. In this instance, we're trying to help

[21:49] facilitate moving the application along but we're still require additional

[21:55] information which we have not received. And so uh I will give one example. The

[22:02] proposal requires a reduction in parking and the applicant has had discussions

[22:07] with the Holland Landing United Church who has indicated that they will allow

[22:12] parking on their property. However, that's an informal arrangement and staff

[22:18] are recommending in order to protect the municipal interest that that be

[22:23] formalized through a a formal agreement with Holland Landing and that be form

[22:28] part of the site plan agreement. We want to ensure that there is sufficient

[22:33] parking for the site available when members are are attending the club

[22:38] meetings. In addition, uh our understanding is that there could be up

[22:44] to 50 attendees, although our understanding is at any given time there

[22:49] may be only 25 members present. And at this point in time, in the absence of uh

[22:56] information with respect to the septics system, we're unable to confirm that the

[23:01] existing septic could handle the load. So again, we're recommending that it be

[23:07] approved in principle, but subject to a site plan being submitted and these

[23:11] matters being addressed. So happy to answer any questions that

[23:16] anybody may have of me. >> Thank you. Members of committee, any

[23:20] questions?

[23:24] Council Johns, go ahead, please. >> Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. When I was um

[23:28] when I was reading the the way that the resolution was um

[23:33] drafted, I I thought to myself, well, that's pragmatic. And then and then when

[23:37] I was reading it and I was thinking about the reason why it's in principle

[23:42] and not for uh to move forward, but I was looking at the fact that it it has

[23:47] to do with site plan. But the thing is is that we as a a body can't inform site

[23:53] plan. Um previously uh council could comment and inform on site plan. Uh but

[24:01] the province has changed that. So I guess really kind of what I'm thinking

[24:06] is is that if we are improving in principle could we not like given that

[24:12] uh this meeting is we're sitting here in July and then we have one more meeting

[24:16] in September but uh likelihood of this hitting a September uh agenda I don't

[24:22] know that it would be realistic. Is there a way that um that we can approve

[24:27] in principle with the authority going to uh our staff to to finalize once the

[24:34] conditions have been met because we as a body don't we can't comment on site plan

[24:39] anyway and so uh just taking a pragmatic approach if if I don't know if there's

[24:44] any comments towards that if um our our staff wanted to comment on that.

[24:50] » I I think that's what we're trying to do. Councelor John's, but uh I'll ask

[24:54] Miss Mubakus to to confirm for us. >> Thank you through the chair. Councelor

[25:00] John's, excellent question. Um what we're trying to do is ensure that

[25:06] council has looked at this and considered it and you think it is an

[25:10] acceptable use subject to the site plan agreement. And I I appreciate that you

[25:15] cannot um comment on it, but at the staff level, we can. And the

[25:22] recommendation is saying you can improve this in principle but we won't bring

[25:27] forward the bylaw until these matters have been done. So there's two possible

[25:32] routes for this. One is that the applicant submits a site plan. This is

[25:36] not a complicated site plan. Uh from the perspective that it is an existing one

[25:41] and a halfstory building. There are no changes to the exterior except to the

[25:46] driveway and the parking. There'll be changes in the interior, but that's not

[25:50] subject to site plan control. But from a building code perspective, we need to

[25:55] ensure that there's servicing capacity, and we haven't received a site plan from

[26:01] the applicant. So, this enables you to approve it. And there's two scenarios

[26:06] that I see happening here. If the applicant submits something quickly and

[26:11] and submits the uh assessment, the septic assessment that we're looking

[26:15] for, we could potentially put a bylaw on the September meeting. In the event that

[26:21] they don't and they need more time, then this matter wouldn't need to be

[26:25] reconsidered. We would just put the bylaw forward to the uh December meeting

[26:30] of council. So in in many respects, we're trying to give them the indication

[26:34] that you're supportive of it, but they need to do work.

[26:40] » Thank you, Miss Mvakus. I I I know I don't think that time is as of a huge

[26:44] essence here because we've been dealing with this file for a number of years, if

[26:47] I'm not mistaken. So, uh, if we get this right, then it's just the next step in

[26:52] this process. Councelor Cone, this is your motion. I'm wondering whether it

[26:56] might be appropriate for us to add in that into that second clause that uh

[27:01] council approve in principle subject to an approved site plan application and

[27:06] associated agreement as well as a formal shared parking agreement included as

[27:11] appendix 4 to reszone the land so that we put it right into the resolution.

[27:15] » I'm I'm happy to support anything that will move this thing along. I I think

[27:20] it's been we've been at it for a few years now and I think we need to get her

[27:25] done. So what whatever it takes I'm I'm happy to support.

[27:28] » Does that help address your question? Councelor John's go ahead.

[27:32] » Thanks Madam Chair and I think that that is that is good insight. So just to

[27:36] clarify for my ignorance. So your wording uh within the resolution

[27:41] wouldn't mean that the applicant would need to come back. uh it would be

[27:45] approved based on uh the um uh I'm getting a nod anyway. So, we're good.

[27:50] » So, so the the point is that we're saying we're okay with reszoning this to

[27:55] a sightsp specific zoning to allow this particular land use and staff are going

[28:00] to go back and work with the applicant to get the the parking agreement and the

[28:05] site plan and the parking and all of that sorted out. And once that's been

[28:09] sorted out, the zoning bylaw will be brought to us for adoption to this chair

[28:14] to this body for adoption. And whether that's later or or sooner, that's up to

[28:19] the applicant and staff. >> And then in in followup to that, uh

[28:26] given that time is of the essence, is there and we are at the meeting, do we

[28:30] need any type of resolution that would need to be ratified tonight?

[28:37] Miss Mbachus, what do you think? >> Ratification.

[28:41] » I would suggest you do that and that way the applicant has the assurance that

[28:47] that council is approving it in principle and it certainly sends a

[28:51] message saying please submit your site plan because staff will work with them

[28:56] very quickly to try and resolve this matter. I certainly don't want council

[29:00] having approved something in principle and it's dragging on for two years. My

[29:05] goal would be that the applicant responds quickly and certainly staff

[29:08] will will address these matters. >> Okay. So, it looks like uh councelor

[29:12] Cone would like to add a clause for same day ratification into this into this

[29:17] resolution. Madame clerk, I've sent you the um proposed wording for clause two.

[29:24] And then I'm just I guess we'll just pause while you work your magic on

[29:27] screen. >> Sorry, one more followup question while

[29:32] we're doing that. Um, Madam Chair, you made the comment uh about uh time being

[29:36] of the essence and and and may or may not be required. I'm

[29:41] wondering if I I do see the applicant sitting in the audience. Is there could

[29:46] I get clarity uh through you, Madam Chair, just on the the timing of this of

[29:51] versus getting this done for September versus December?

[29:59] I I don't know if we're in a position to staff. Do you I think it what it comes

[30:04] down to is it's up to the applicant to provide staff with this information that

[30:08] they've asked for. >> It just if I may add uh uh you are quite

[30:15] correct uh councilor Roy de Clemente, we don't have a site plan application. We

[30:20] need one so that we can take the next steps. So, so really the it's up to the

[30:28] applicant to make to take the next step so that we can advance this.

[30:33] If they don't submit a site plan, in [clears throat] essence, what's what

[30:36] will happen is we will never bring forward a resoning application or

[30:40] resoning uh bill in order for council to enact

[30:53] We're just waiting for madame clerk to three. Madam chair, we are going to

[30:59] share those changes on the screen momentarily. Just wanted to make sure

[31:03] that there are no changes to the u third clause. Uh and we're keeping it as is.

[31:10] Yes.

[31:17] Members of committee, you've seen uh the motion on the screen. You've understand

[31:21] the intent of the motion. It's moved by councelor Cone. Any further discussion?

[31:26] Seeing none, all those in favor? And that motion carries. Thank you. Thank

[31:31] you, staff. And uh the last item on our agenda is development services planning

[31:37] branch report DS26-29, notice of intention to designate

[31:41] properties located within the Lesley Street corridor and rural areas. I feel

[31:46] like of a bit of a case of deja vu since we dealt with two similar matters um

[31:52] earlier this week. I'm just going to pause and see if Miss Muvakus, would you

[31:59] care to present your um report to us today? Sorry, we just got a bit of

[32:03] disruption as people are deciding that they don't want to hear the riveting

[32:08] rest of our meeting. Maybe they're just going to their car to

[32:11] go watch it on their phones.

[32:15] Go ahead, Miss Mubakis. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I I will be

[32:20] very brief in my remarks because I know my commentary from the other day, I'm

[32:24] sure, is fresh in everyone's mind. This is a report that's recommending that

[32:30] council indicate its notice of intention to designate properties within the

[32:36] Leslie Street corridor and rural areas. Um the report recommends four properties

[32:43] along Leslie Street and six properties within the rural areas receive notices

[32:49] of intention to designate. Um similar I will I will highlight because I'm

[32:54] anticipating a question that we did receive two letters of objection. We

[33:00] received a letter of objection from the owner of 19463 Leslie Street and 21689

[33:09] Kennedy Road. So, one within Leslie Street, one within the rural areas, both

[33:13] uh indicating they objected to any action by council to take the next steps

[33:18] of issuing the notice of intention to designate. So, I'm now in the hands of

[33:24] council as to what direction you would like to take.

[33:28] » Uh, thank you, Miss Mvakus. Um, councelor Foster, I'm assuming since

[33:32] you've made the other two res the other two motions that you would like to move

[33:36] this as well. >> Absolutely.

[33:37] » Okay. Yes. All right. So, this has been moved by uh councelor Foster. Any

[33:41] discussion on the motion? >> Go ahead. Uh, councelor Kurthers. Oh,

[33:45] before you speak, I just want to make sure that we note for the record that

[33:48] councelor John's has declared an interest in this and has vacated his

[33:52] seat at the dis. Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Kathers.

[33:56] » Thank you. [clears throat] Um on June 2nd when the first batch of

[34:01] uh potential designations came before us at committee committee um

[34:08] approved a motion to fac that staff would facilitate consultation with the

[34:13] impact of property owners and I wanted to get an idea of what that entailed and

[34:20] uh how that came how that unfolded. >> Okay. Um Miss Vakas go ahead. Yep. Thank

[34:28] you very much through the chair. We sent out letters to all of the property

[34:33] owners in all of the groups explaining what the notice of intention to

[34:38] designate meant. It explained the process and it also offered the

[34:44] opportunity for any property owner to speak to staff.

[34:49] With respect to that, we did have AC I'm I'm not speaking with specifically with

[34:54] this grouping, but across the board, we did have a number of individuals who

[34:59] reached out who had their questions responded to. Some of those individuals

[35:05] did not uh submit any letters in support or opposition.

[35:11] um they've just remained silent and I suspect that in that instance some of

[35:16] the individuals are waiting for the process as it normally would unfold for

[35:21] council to issue notices of intention to designate. I do want to highlight that

[35:28] we were concerned about making sure that individuals did receive the letters. So

[35:33] we sent all the correspondents by registered mail. I can tell you that in

[35:38] some instances those letters were not picked up. In others, we've just not

[35:42] heard from the individuals. And as I said, in some instances, people objected

[35:47] and in others they just uh followed up with staff and had their queries

[35:52] answered. >> Thank you very much for that. Um, of the

[35:57] registered letters, how many were not picked up?

[36:01] » Um, I'm going to ask Mr. Krebnuk to answer that but I think the I think it

[36:08] was approximately five Mr. Krebin am I correct on that?

[36:12] uh through you madam chair uh that is the number the total I have as well five

[36:17] » was there any followup on that uh the the letters that that weren't picked up

[36:21] was there any followup because the the motion was very clear that um staff were

[36:25] to facilitate consultation so when when the letter isn't even received um what

[36:31] what's the next step in facilitating consultation

[36:36] » through you madam ch through you madam chair that's very difficult to respond

[36:41] to registered letters. One would hope that the individuals pick them up. We

[36:47] cannot um we're not about to go doortodoor. We do not have the staff

[36:52] capacity to do that. Um my intention is should council and in in terms of your

[37:00] decision making the other night, we will again send registered letters out to the

[37:05] individuals. We are also proposing to offer a meeting not with individuals. We

[37:11] don't have the capacity but between now and September and our hope is to do this

[37:16] in the next uh 3 to four weeks is to engage uh with members uh recipients of

[37:24] the letters to have their questions answered. So we're trying to target that

[37:28] for the third week in August. I know that's not ideal, but at this sta stage,

[37:33] there's no ideal date between now and the September meeting of council.

[37:37] » Th Thank you very much. Um I would hope that as we get into this next stage, the

[37:42] people who have not responded and not picked up the registered letter that if

[37:46] there's only five of them, I would think we have the capacity to go and knock on

[37:50] their door. I think this is very significant for these people. And when I

[37:53] hear back from residents that say, "I never got a letter." It it worries me

[37:57] greatly because I was under [clears throat] the impression that that

[38:00] more of an effort would be made to facilitate uh the consultation with them

[38:05] after we passed that motion back uh six or seven weeks ago. Uh so I'm

[38:09] disappointed to hear from residents that that they haven't been contacted. I just

[38:12] want to ensure that simply sending a registered letter is not enough that

[38:16] that we're going to need to make sure ensure that everyone understands as we

[38:22] move forward into this next um step of the process. everyone whose house is on

[38:27] this list understands what what's happening. Thank you.

[38:30] » Thank you, councelor Kthers. I can also share with you personally that uh while

[38:35] we did get one I saw an email come through uh my town email that said I

[38:41] didn't get a letter and I know that I personally handd delivered a letter to

[38:45] that address. So, uh I didn't get a letter doesn't necessarily mean they

[38:50] didn't get a letter. It's just that they didn't engage with the process or didn't

[38:53] read it. So that's that's another challenge too.

[38:56] » Yeah, I I appreciate that and that's why I think we need to make sure that we do

[38:58] that next step. I don't want someone coming back later and saying I didn't

[39:01] receive the letter. So if we can say the letter was handd delivered, then that

[39:05] would be great. Thank you. and sent by registered mail.

[39:09] » And and if I could just add, we did have that

[39:13] » um through you, Madam Chair, we did post it on the website and we did post

[39:17] information with respect to to the notices of intention to designate on um

[39:23] EG connects. So we we've done quite a bit uh obviously not to the satisfaction

[39:30] of all, but we certainly have reached out and this is the start of the

[39:34] process. It's usually engagement happens after council issues the intention to

[39:39] designate. >> Thank you. Any other questions?

[39:43] Councelor Cone, go ahead, please. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you

[39:46] to staff. Uh I want to thank you for taking the steps of uh employing

[39:51] registered male. I think I think I had hinted that doing that. So I thank you

[39:57] for hearing me. Uh and it is I will say it's a challenge. I even know from my

[40:01] private sector days when we sent out uh registered mail, not everyone answered

[40:07] them. Uh but it's sat it satisfied a statutory condition that we needed. So

[40:12] um just you know it's a challenge all marketers have just when you think

[40:16] you've communicated enough you have to communicate more. So, uh in keeping with

[40:22] uh my uh my trend from yesterday or from Tuesday, uh the the two

[40:32] uh uh property owners that uh objected to their uh designation

[40:38] uh D and H, that's at 19463 Lesley Street and 21689 Kennedy Road. I would

[40:46] recommend that we uh we strike them from the list and uh and leave the others

[40:54] as well. Could staff confirm I had a a property owner for 18611

[41:01] Lesley Street. Wanted to make sure that their name wasn't on the list, but I

[41:04] don't see it on the list. So, I just want to make sure there's no been no

[41:10] omission there. >> Mr. Mr. Kubnick or Miss Miss

[41:13] » Makis through you, Madam Chair. I do not see that address um on the list here as

[41:19] well for Leslie. 186

[41:23] » 611 >> 18611.

[41:26] » So, all right. >> I do not see that. Thank you.

[41:28] » They can rest. They can rest easy. >> They may be part of the Heritage

[41:31] Conservation District. They would be in the HCD and not necessarily on the list

[41:35] for designations. Got >> through you, Madam Mayor. That could be

[41:37] a possibility. >> That makes sense. Okay. Thank you. All

[41:40] right. That's it for me. Uh, Madam Chair.

[41:43] » Councelor Foster. >> Thanks, Madam Chair. I I had uh quite a

[41:48] bit to say about this on Tuesday, and I'm I'm not going to um repeat

[41:53] everything that that I went through on Tuesday, but I think council needs to be

[41:58] cautioned about taking um properties off these lists without going through the

[42:06] proper appeal process. we are circumventing the Ontario Heritage Act

[42:11] um by doing what we're doing. I I don't think that's the best thing to do and I

[42:17] and I I can use 1982 Young Street and Holland Landing as a good example of

[42:23] that. That was the site of the upper landing that dates back hundreds of

[42:29] years. um without going through the proper

[42:33] appeal process. We have no idea if the owner of that property simply sent a

[42:39] letter in saying, "I don't want to be on the list." We have no idea that they

[42:43] know what they're actually sitting on. Um have they had the opportunity to read

[42:49] through the consultant's report? You've got a report here where that particular

[42:53] property meets five of the nine criteria. There's history to galore

[42:58] about that property. Um, and I if if there's a if there's a shining example

[43:04] of one that needs to go through the process, it's that one. And and I dare

[43:10] say that, you know, this council and and the town and and our management uh and

[43:17] staff have been drugged through the mud about another piece of property that we

[43:23] simply did not know about. This piece of property we do know about

[43:29] and by what we did on Tuesday, we've turned our back on giving that piece of

[43:34] property any heritage protection at all depending on how the the uh the whole

[43:39] process works out. So, I think that needs to be looked at. Uh I I may want

[43:44] to speak to this uh in tonight's meeting. Um and and just to end off, one

[43:51] of our heritage committee members sent me an email

[43:55] and and mentioned that, you know, maybe council's not looking at the big

[43:59] picture. And her words were, uh, yes, we look back at a century or two,

[44:06] but we also have to look ahead. The houses that are being built today uh are

[44:11] not built to last, and they won't. These houses stood the test of time for

[44:16] a reason, and our built heritage will be gone altogether if residential

[44:20] properties are not preserved, as well as landscape and institutional buildings.

[44:25] I thought that kind of summed everything up very well and it was worth saying.

[44:28] So, uh, I'll I'll leave it at that. If we strike, uh, the two off this list, I

[44:36] will still vote to work on on the remainder. Uh, so I I don't want it

[44:41] looking like I'm going both ways here, but uh, I I just want to make sure that

[44:46] a couple of those things were said and and maybe we talk about it later

[44:49] tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Foster. I do note

[44:53] that Ms. Crosby is also on the line and she's uh she's done quite a bit of work

[44:58] for us on these files. Um I had heard it from somewhere and it may have been Miss

[45:03] Mumvakus who said this to me, but I heard somewhere that it was unusual for

[45:07] a property to to meet uh I think it was two or three. Anything more than three

[45:13] of those nine criteria meant that it was a pretty exceptional property. Can can

[45:18] you uh if you wouldn't mind, Miss Crosby commenting a little bit more on those

[45:22] nine criteria and and how often properties meet those criteria?

[45:28] » Yes, absolutely. Um, as most you have heard in preamles in various meetings

[45:34] that we've had, uh, the her Ontario Heritage Act has um, nine

[45:41] criteria that any individual property has to meet uh, to make a designation.

[45:47] So, it's not just a listing. We all know that uh, a lot a lot we have a lot of

[45:51] buildings uh, and properties on listing. It's easy to get on a list. Uh, not so

[45:57] easy to get considered for designation. and you have to prove that you meet uh

[46:01] at least two of the nine criteria and the way the criteria is set up is uh the

[46:07] first three are directly related to um the architecture. So how rare is the

[46:14] building? How unique is the building? Does it have design value? Uh does it

[46:18] have high craftsmanship for example? Um and then does it demonstrate a high

[46:22] degree of technical or scientific achievement? Uh not all properties would

[46:26] get that. The second section is a historical section. It has three uh

[46:31] criteria. Uh the first one is it has direct associations with a theme, event,

[46:37] belief, person, activity or organization that is significant to the community. Uh

[46:43] the fifth one is the property does it have historical value or his associative

[46:48] value because it yields or has the potential to yield information that

[46:52] contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. And the sixth one

[46:56] is the property has historical value or associative value because it

[47:01] demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, a builder, an

[47:06] artist, a designer or theorist who is significant to the community. And the

[47:11] last three speak to contextual value of a property. So it could talk about

[47:17] number seven would be it the property is important in defining or maintaining or

[47:22] supporting a character of the area. It could be that uh it has contextual value

[47:28] because it is physically functioning functionally visually or historically

[47:33] linked to its surroundings. And the last one is is the property um does it have

[47:39] contextual value because it's a landmark. Um,

[47:44] I would say once you have checked, in my experience, three and up, um, you're

[47:49] starting to get into a region of a property being, um, uh, pretty

[47:54] important. Uh, if we go back to the counselor's property that he talked

[47:58] about at 1982 Young Street, for example, the one at um, the upper landing, that

[48:06] checked five of the criteria. And to look at that property uh at first glance

[48:12] you think well it's not much but it did check the architectural style because it

[48:16] is an early example we suspect that it's a log building underneath that so it's

[48:22] very early it's 1817 and that um in you know in this part of uh this part of the

[48:29] province is early very early um it was heavily significant in terms of the

[48:35] historical section I'm going I'm going to interrupt you

[48:39] because I I'm concerned that we are diverting from a matter that's not on

[48:43] our agenda. Um and and I I I just was hoping to get an understanding from you

[48:49] about how unusual it was. Uh you basically to paraphrase in order to be

[48:55] designated you need two you need to have two criteria and meeting

[49:01] three or more means it's an it's in your opinion an exceptional property.

[49:07] Yes, I would agree with that. >> Thank you very much. I uh I will reserve

[49:11] um our conversation. It sounds like we're going to be having some

[49:14] conversation about uh 1982 Young Street later today and that's and

[49:19] that's fine, but I want to make sure that I keep us to what's on our agenda

[49:22] and the list of properties before us. So, at this point, I have a motion um as

[49:28] presented from uh Councelor Foster. Any other discussion on the motion?

[49:36] Councelor Cone, go ahead. >> Madam Chair, you were uh I had

[49:40] recommended the deletion of two. >> You had recommended it, but didn't move

[49:46] an amendment. >> Oh, we're going to be like that. Uh I

[49:49] would like to make an amendment that we delete those two.

[49:52] » Councelor, I I have a reputation for being a stickler for the rules.

[49:56] [laughter] All right. We have a motion to amend the

[49:59] uh the resolution in front of us. Any discussion on the motion to remove uh 1

[50:05] 19463 Lesley Street and 21689 Kennedy Street from the list, Kennedy Road. Any

[50:13] discussion?

[50:18] So that's I'm going to call the vote. All those in favor?

[50:22] Opposed?

[50:27] That motion fails. Madame Mary, you did not vote. Did you how in I'm sorry. Can

[50:33] you please clarify? I did not see which way you voted. Did you vote to amend the

[50:36] resolution to remove the the properties or did you wish to keep those two

[50:40] properties? >> Keep those two. Please

[50:42] » keep them on the list. Okay. So to amend fails. So we're back to our original

[50:47] amendment. So we're back to the original

[50:50] resolution. So the list is intact. All those in favor?

[50:56] Opposed. And that motion carries. Thank you.

[51:02] That brings us to the end of our prepared agenda. Miss uh Miss Vumvakus,

[51:06] do you have anything further to add at this time?

[51:10] » No. Thank you very much, chair, for asking.

[51:12] » Thank you. And I want to thank Miss Crosby as well uh for being with us

[51:16] today and for for her support in the the meeting as well. Uh members of

[51:20] committee, anything further to raise under this area?

[51:23] Seeing none, I'll turn the chair back to you, Madame Mayor. Uh and I'll just

[51:27] pause so that uh councelor Johns can return to his seat on the deis. Thank

[51:32] you. Thank you very much. Just

[51:37] just having a look at our agenda at this point. Uh L engineering and public works

[51:42] with councelor Roy D. Clemente in the chair in the absence of councelor Ley.

[51:49] » Uh thank you madame mayor. I'm happy to chair this portion of our CWC agenda. We

[51:54] have uh three uh items on our prepared agenda. Um mostly just here for receipt.

[52:02] Yes, they are. Uh so the first item is engineering and public works memorandum

[52:06] regarding a drinking water quality improvement partnership update. Uh

[52:10] that's quite a mouthful. Um I see that Mr. Megot is here uh in lie of Mr.

[52:15] Molineri. Did you want to present this? But before I ask you to do that, may I

[52:19] have a mover to receive please? moved by councelor Foster. Mr. Megot, would you

[52:24] like to present this, please? >> Thank you through uh you, Madam Chair. I

[52:29] want to reiterate to council and the public that the town's drinking water is

[52:32] safe. It's robustly monitored and tested. Staff continue to be active and

[52:37] engaged participants in the multi-year cooperative study with the region, our

[52:40] consultants, and leading industry experts to assess a aesthetic water

[52:45] issues. And the results of the study are targeted for completion in 2028. One of

[52:50] the outcomes of this source totap approach will be a cost sharing analysis

[52:54] for ongoing required flushing performed by the town to maintain acceptable water

[52:58] quality following municipal best practices. I would also like to add that

[53:02] we're very pleased that most recently we were recognized by the MECP and obtained

[53:06] a 100% audit score for a water quality management system. And I welcome any

[53:11] questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Meet. Um, any questions

[53:15] from members of committee? Madame Mayor, I see your microphone is on. Would you

[53:20] » I was agreeing with our Thank you very much. It was good to

[53:25] hear. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions on this

[53:28] matter? >> Mr. Megan, I did want to reiterate I I

[53:33] know staff have been working really hard. I would be remiss whenever

[53:36] drinking water doesn't comes in it comes up in the chamber that I bring up the

[53:40] issue of iron and manganesees uh in the regional wells and and while uh it is

[53:45] 100% safe it is an aesthetic issue that our residents comment on regularly we've

[53:52] got we've got some significant the more houses we build the more complaints we

[53:56] get and so I just wanted to reiterate I know that you and and have been working

[54:00] with the region on on advancing uh the need for addition additional filtration

[54:05] at the regional wells and I just wanted to ask if you've made any progress

[54:10] » through you madam chair. Yes we have. The region has uh acknowledged that uh

[54:14] they'd like to come to council to make a presentation on how they're going to

[54:18] enhance the removal of manganesees and iron and that's going to happen in the

[54:21] new year. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you for that

[54:23] update. Uh seeing no further questions, I've got a motion moved by councelor

[54:28] Foster that we receive the update from engineering and public works. All those

[54:32] in favor? And that motion carries. Thank you. Uh the next item is engineering and

[54:37] public works memorandum regarding the LED street light conversion strategy.

[54:41] May I have a mover to receive this? Moved by councelor Chrome. Thank you

[54:45] very much. Mr. Meet, would you like to present this one to us, please?

[54:49] » Thank you, Madam Chair. There's I'm sure there's a joke here about how long it

[54:52] takes to change light bulb, but I'm not going to go into that.

[54:54] » You can absolutely go there. [laughter] >> Although this initiative has been

[54:58] lengthy, a number of milestones have been recently achieved and are

[55:01] highlighted within the context of the report. It's worth noting that of the

[55:04] town's 4,000 street lights, 40% or 1500 are LED currently and they're focused in

[55:11] new development areas as they meet the current design standards. The remaining

[55:15] 2500 legacy street lights are to be updated as part of this LED enhancement

[55:20] program, including the rehabilitation of 800 poles that we've performed this

[55:25] year. So, we've we've been busy. Um, our approach is to extend the life of our

[55:29] legacy street light assets at minimal costs and be shovel ready for

[55:33] cost-effective opportunities to advance LED conversion such as grants or

[55:38] alignment with other capital programs. I would welcome any questions. Thank you.

[55:42] » Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Megot?

[55:48] » Well done. All those in favor?

[55:52] That motion carries. Thank you. Um, the last item on our prepared agenda is

[55:57] another memorandum regarding the 2025 annual Phil site alteration program

[56:02] update. May I have a mover, please? Councelor Cone. Thank you.

[56:09] Go ahead. >> Thank you, if I may. Thank you, Madam

[56:12] Chair. This annual memo is provided for council's awareness of ongoing site

[56:16] alterations uh for monitoring and operations within the town. Currently,

[56:20] the only large-scale operation for Phil is the Mount Albert Pit, which is

[56:24] current which the current owner has indicated will be closing, and it's

[56:27] expected that final grading will be completed in 2027. They're almost at

[56:32] capacity right now. Staff remain diligent in responding to all site oper

[56:37] alteration concerns and in 25 investigated a total of 28 sites, 11 in

[56:42] conjunction with the LSRCA. We also want to thank the cooperation of bylaw

[56:46] services and YRP for their continued support and ongoing assistance for this

[56:51] uh ongoing concern. Uh thank you and I welcome any questions.

[56:55] » Thank you Mr. Megot. Any questions for him on commercial phil? Go ahead

[57:00] councelor Chrome. >> Thank you Madam Chair and through you

[57:03] too Mr. Megot. Um, I'm looking at a page three of your uh your report and um

[57:13] specifically the the uh the row uh listed under sites investigated for

[57:18] non-compliance by town staff. So last year we had 28 sites. Now, just help for

[57:26] clarity, are those sites um are those 28 individual sites or could that be maybe

[57:34] a repetition of certain sites and that's in that goes into the 28 number?

[57:42] » Mr. Megot. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, those could

[57:45] be continuation of sites that were carried over from from the previous

[57:49] year, but they are 28 unique sites throughout the town. But yes, it could

[57:54] be a repeat from the previous year. >> Okay, that Yeah, I appreciate that

[57:59] through your >> Sorry, it was a bit confusing.

[58:02] Are they the same at There's 28 sites. Those 28 sites are unique addresses. So,

[58:09] we might be visiting them three and four times, but they're still only 28 sites.

[58:14] » That is correct. >> Appreciate the clarification.

[58:18] » Thank you. >> Um,

[58:21] that's a When you when you look at we have last

[58:25] year we had one active permit and then we have 28

[58:31] sites going on where it's being illegal. That tells you how how important

[58:39] enforcement is. There's a there there's a message in

[58:42] here for everyone. So, uh I appreciate you sharing this information. Um, I

[58:48] think it's good uh good reading and uh we have to do everything we can to make

[58:53] sure we can I think you know recent updates to our our bylaws certainly help

[58:58] with enforcement. So I hope we can see this number go down in the future. Thank

[59:04] you, Madam Chair. That's it for me. >> Thank you. It it also doesn't include

[59:07] the work that the LSRCA is doing on enforcement on on files that involve uh

[59:12] the wetland lands as well. And so it actually the scope of the problem is

[59:17] actually pun intended a lot deeper. Um so uh thank you for your comments

[59:22] councelor Cone and it and it's an it's an important reminder for everyone um

[59:26] that there there's a reason why we need to have those rules to be followed. So I

[59:31] have a motion that we receive the update. Any further comments or

[59:34] questions? Seeing none. All those in favor? That motion carries. Thank you

[59:39] very much. That's the end of the prepared agenda. Mr. Mega, did you have

[59:41] anything further to add? >> I know nothing at this time. Thank you,

[59:45] members of committee. Anything further? Seeing none, I'll turn the chair back to

[59:48] you, Madame Mayor.

[59:55] » Thank you very much. Um I'm looking at um item J, Parks, Recreation, and

[1:00:00] Culture with Councelor Cron in the chair.

[1:00:04] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. We have one item on the agenda today, and it's the parks,

[1:00:09] recreation, and culture memo, parks, capital, and new development project

[1:00:12] update. And uh we have uh Mr. Misada uh sitting in for us today. Uh Mr. Misada,

[1:00:19] would you like to uh take us through this please?

[1:00:21] » Great. Thank you. Through you uh Mr. Chair. Uh the memorandum in front of

[1:00:25] council provides updates on six park and 12 facility projects that are either

[1:00:30] currently underway, scheduled to commence or anticipated to be completed

[1:00:34] in 2026. These projects represent the town's ongoing investment in enhancing

[1:00:39] parks, recreational amenities, and municipal facilities to meet needs of

[1:00:43] the community and support council's strategic priorities.

[1:00:48] I'd like to note since this memorandum was prepared, I am pleased to share that

[1:00:52] the first project on the list, the Health and Active Living Park,

[1:00:55] officially opened to the public two weeks ago. I had the opportunity to be

[1:01:00] at the park uh for the soft opening and it was inspiring to see it full of life.

[1:01:06] Seeing the park being used exactly as it was envisioned is a reminder of the

[1:01:09] value these investments bring to our community. I welcome any questions or

[1:01:14] comments. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Bada. Uh before we go

[1:01:18] into questions, can I have a mover for this, please? Moved by councelor

[1:01:21] Kurthers. All right. Any questions or comments

[1:01:26] from committee? Councelor Kthers,

[1:01:31] » thank you. Um, and it goes without saying, great work on on all of these uh

[1:01:36] projects. Um, I'm very excited about Soldiers Bay uh boardwalk. It'll be the

[1:01:41] I think the first time that we have uh public space that allows residents to

[1:01:46] access uh the water. So, uh it's it'll be unique and I'm looking forward to the

[1:01:51] opening. When do we think that we'll have a ribbon cutting on that one?

[1:01:55] » Mr. Mazado. >> Through you, Mr. chair. Uh we are

[1:01:59] anticipating late in the year uh the project will be done. Uh so following

[1:02:04] that we'd have to establish if we can do a ribbon cutting uh most likely in

[1:02:08] colder weather. Um I would suggest that uh it might happen uh in the spring when

[1:02:13] the weather is a little bit warmer. >> So it'll be open though for residents to

[1:02:17] use later in the fall. >> Correct.

[1:02:19] » Wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councelor Foster, you have a

[1:02:23] question. >> Thank you. Um

[1:02:27] to go a little further on the Soldiers Bay uh uh project there. Being a person

[1:02:33] that spent a lot of time on the river uh and on that bay in the wintertime on a

[1:02:37] snowmobile, I I'm hoping that we're going to make

[1:02:40] sure that there's lots of lighting there. There's reflectors on that

[1:02:44] lookout pier uh so we don't have snowmobiles coming down there and and

[1:02:48] having an issue. I know that in the past um it's very easy if you're not sure

[1:02:53] where you're going to end up on the bay rather than follow the river to the

[1:02:56] south. So we want to make sure where those people are. This report is great

[1:03:00] news. Everything that we've looked at here is great news. The the other

[1:03:04] question I had was I have heard from some residents and I think councelor

[1:03:07] Kthers has too um about the pickle ball courts in Anchor Park and the slight

[1:03:14] disruption to the BMX bike track that was there. I think we lost a couple of

[1:03:19] uh of stations, I guess you could call them there. Are we doing anything about

[1:03:23] restoring that or are we going to change or is there do we have any idea how

[1:03:27] often that is actually used? >> Mr. Mazado

[1:03:31] » through you, Mr. Chair. Uh we have seen a decrease in use related to the BMX

[1:03:36] park. Uh two of the events that were in line with the uh BMX track or the I

[1:03:42] guess the the circuit uh they were removed. uh they are being looked at in

[1:03:47] terms of reestablishing them within the open space uh and uh there is room to do

[1:03:52] it. So it was uh it was a decision to that was made to facilitate the pickle

[1:03:57] ball courts uh and we will look into ensuring that they are replaced.

[1:04:03] » Okay. Any other questions? Well, councelor Kthers,

[1:04:09] » and do you have a uh sort of some timing on when that might be um those those

[1:04:14] extra stations put back? >> Uh yep. Uh through you, Mr. Chair. We

[1:04:20] are looking at by the pickle ball courts are actually almost completed. Uh we're

[1:04:24] looking by the end of the year as well as looking at reestablishing those

[1:04:27] features. >> Thank you.

[1:04:30] » Okay, last call for questions.

[1:04:34] Okay. All those in favor and that is carried. Uh Mr. Mazada, do

[1:04:41] you have anything for committee? >> None at this time. Thank you.

[1:04:45] » Uh does committee have anything they

[1:04:49] anything else they'd like to ask Mr. Mazado?

[1:04:53] See none. I will pass the chair back to you, Madam Mayor.

[1:05:00] » Thank you very much. There are no items listed on the prepared agenda under K

[1:05:05] through zero. Are there any updates uh to share from members of council?

[1:05:14] Seeing none, we will move to P item P adjournment.

[1:05:21] And if I could have a mover and a second. Thank you. Seconder.

[1:05:27] All those in favor. And that's carried. Thank you very much.

Committee of the Whole Council - 23 Jul 2026

Transcript