[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.