[9:33] Good e good good evening. I will now
[9:35] call to order the July 23rd to 2026
[9:38] municipal council meeting. Madame clerk,
[9:41] for the record of this meeting, please
[9:43] show councelor Ley is absent with
[9:46] notice.
[9:48] Item B in our agenda tonight is a
[9:51] declaration of interest. Are there any
[9:54] declarations of interest from members of
[9:56] council?
[10:00] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh so the first
[10:02] declaration is item uh F1 as it relates
[10:05] to file 010426
[10:07] as this item uh directly pertains to
[10:10] myself regarding a high school in
[10:11] Eastchoolbury. Item G2 under the uh July
[10:15] 21st recommendations. Um uh number two
[10:19] and three, it's regarding the
[10:20] designation of the heritage properties.
[10:23] Um I own a company that owns uh one of
[10:26] the properties that's being designated.
[10:28] And then I will um also address uh July
[10:33] 23rd's committee of the whole uh from
[10:35] earlier today. I don't have the numbers
[10:37] to those yet, but we can address the
[10:39] those numbers when we get to it. So
[10:40] thank you, Madam Mayor.
[10:42] Thank you very much.
[10:45] We're down at
[10:50] land acknowledgement statement. The town
[10:52] of Esquilenberry recognizes and
[10:54] acknowledges the lands originally used
[10:56] and occupied by the first peoples of the
[10:59] Williams first treaties nations and
[11:01] other indigenous peoples. And on behalf
[11:04] of council, I thank them for sharing
[11:06] this land. We also acknowledge the
[11:09] Chipawas of Georgina Island First Nation
[11:12] as Eastberry's closest First Nation
[11:15] community and recognize the unique
[11:17] relationship the Chipoas have with the
[11:19] lands and the waters of this territory.
[11:22] They are the water protectors and
[11:24] environmental stewards of these lands
[11:27] and we join them in these
[11:29] responsibilities.
[11:33] Before we begin hearing from deputants,
[11:35] I'd like to outline expectations for
[11:38] conduct at this meeting. All
[11:41] participants are expected to conduct
[11:43] themselves respectfully and in
[11:44] accordance with the town's procedure
[11:47] bylaw. Disruptive behavior, including
[11:50] interruptions or inappropriate language,
[11:53] will not be tolerated. Each deputant
[11:56] will have up to five minutes to speak
[11:58] unless otherwise approved and must limit
[12:01] their remarks to the subject for which
[12:03] they have been granted approval.
[12:06] As a reminder, deputent shall not speak
[12:09] disrespectfully
[12:10] of any person, use offensive and
[12:13] unparliamentary language, speak on
[12:15] matters outside their approved topic, or
[12:18] disobey the rules of the procedure or
[12:21] decision of the chair. If there is
[12:24] disorder or breach of these rules, I may
[12:27] curtail a deputation or rule it
[12:31] concluded. An individual may be asked to
[12:34] leave. We will now proceed.
[12:45] » Madame Mayor,
[12:46] >> yes. Um, do we not need to make a motion
[12:48] to rece to uh allow these p these
[12:51] deputations to proceed given our prior
[12:53] uh resolution? I know that the there have been submissions written. I'm
[12:57] fine to to allow the the deputations,
[12:59] but I just want to make sure that we are
[13:01] following our our prior procedure. Happy
[13:04] to make the the motion to receive both
[13:06] of these deputations.
[13:07] >> Madame clerk, could you assist with this
[13:10] please?
[13:10] >> Through you, Madame Mayor. That's
[13:12] correct. So um in accordance with the
[13:13] procedure bylaw, the consent of council
[13:15] is required. Councelor Ray de Clemente
[13:17] has moved to consent to hearing the two
[13:19] deputations listed on the agenda. You
[13:21] will require a seconder and a vote of
[13:23] council.
[13:25] >> Do I have a seconder and a vote of
[13:27] council? Counselor.
[13:31] » Thank you.
[13:34] And we're fine.
[13:40] All those in favor
[13:42] and that's carried. Thank you.
[13:47] And we will start with uh number one a
[13:50] lusty on behalfan
[13:53] a making a deputation to council
[13:56] regarding item L1 bylaw 2026-072
[14:03] being a bylaw to adopt the new town of
[14:06] East Berry official plan.
[14:10] >> Welcome. Good to have you with us this
[14:12] evening.
[14:12] >> Thank you and it's great to be here. As
[14:14] a preliminary matter, I'm wondering if
[14:16] my letter could be brought up on screen.
[14:18] There's just a graphic in there I'd like
[14:20] to make reference to on the first page
[14:22] of it,
[14:25] >> but I can start anyway while that's
[14:27] happening. So,
[14:29] >> if you're good with that, then
[14:30] >> yeah, fantastic. Uh, well, look, good
[14:33] evening everyone. Uh, good evening,
[14:34] Madame Mayor, members of council. My
[14:36] name is Alex Lusty and I'm a lawyer at
[14:38] Davies How. Our address is 425 Adelaide
[14:42] Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5V3C1.
[14:47] And as soon as that letter gets up on
[14:50] the screen, um I'll show you where the
[14:53] properties that I'm uh dealing with
[14:55] tonight are. But I'm appearing for a few
[14:58] corporations with some properties at uh
[15:01] 19,61.
[15:03] There they are. uh 19,071
[15:06] and 19,083 Lesley Street which is just
[15:09] south of the Vince's Market Plaza and
[15:12] not very far from here at all. And I
[15:14] have just one request tonight and that's
[15:17] to please defer any decision about these
[15:21] lands in the new official plan.
[15:25] Doing that won't hold up the official
[15:28] plan, but it'll give my client a lot of
[15:31] clarity. And so what um we're proposing
[15:36] um is is that it be deferred. And the
[15:39] reason for that is when you look at the
[15:41] new official plan, it's supposed to be
[15:43] forwardlooking, but um right now it
[15:47] doesn't reflect the intended future
[15:49] state of my client's property. The
[15:51] site's going to be redeveloped. It's
[15:53] going to be a mixeduse site. There's
[15:54] going to be 139 residences there. uh
[15:58] some 188 parking spaces, groundf flooror
[16:01] commercial, that kind of thing. That
[16:03] application's still in process, but
[16:04] that's what the current proposal is. Um
[16:07] and if there were more time to work on
[16:09] this official plan, maybe we would have
[16:11] got the policy right for this property,
[16:14] but uh it it just hasn't turned out that
[16:16] way, and that's why we're asking for
[16:18] some more time. If we could scroll to uh
[16:21] page three of the letter, so just down
[16:23] two pages, um you'll see some text
[16:26] there. There's some a couple uh
[16:28] underlined areas where it's just minor
[16:30] modifications to the adopting bylaw. I
[16:34] think that would do it. Um they're not
[16:37] lengthy. It just makes it clear those
[16:39] properties are being excluded. And um
[16:42] notes can be added to the schedules for
[16:44] the official plan to say these
[16:46] properties aren't part of it. And I
[16:48] think that approach is pretty simple. I
[16:50] think it'll be effective and it won't
[16:52] hold anything up because I remember when
[16:54] I was a planner and projects would come
[16:57] along and you need to move them on or
[16:59] they stack up and they get delayed,
[17:01] progress falls behind and it's no good.
[17:03] So, we don't want to hold anything up,
[17:05] but we think it's a it's a simple
[17:07] request. And what the modifications do,
[17:11] okay, is provide certainty to my client
[17:15] about two things. And the first is that
[17:18] they won't run into an interpretive
[17:20] issue with the new official plan. And
[17:24] not that we have one today that I know
[17:26] about or whatever, but I'm looking at
[17:28] this from the perspective of a lawyer
[17:30] thinking about a process into the
[17:32] future. Okay. And sometimes what happens
[17:35] is people get in a rush to apply the
[17:37] policies in a new official plan to
[17:40] applications that were never made under
[17:41] it. And we that's when you get a dispute
[17:44] and we just don't want that to happen.
[17:46] Um the other is, you know, you get to
[17:49] the end of the official plan process,
[17:51] it's approved, the application's still
[17:53] out there and folks say, "Well, they
[17:55] just approved a new official plan.
[17:56] You're you're off side of that. What are
[17:58] you doing?" And we want to avoid that.
[18:00] We don't want those headaches. and
[18:02] that's why we're asking for this minor
[18:04] modification.
[18:06] So, I hope you'll agree with me that
[18:08] what we're seeking requires minimal
[18:10] effort to implement, but it'll go a long
[18:14] way to ensuring fairness for my client.
[18:17] Um, so in conclusion, these changes
[18:21] would bring a great deal of peace of
[18:23] mind to my client. Um, and I don't think
[18:25] they're harmful to the town in any way.
[18:28] So, thank you. That's all I had intended
[18:30] to say. Thank you.
[18:51] Do I have a mover and seconder from
[18:53] members of council?
[18:57] Thank you.
[19:10] Moved by councelor Cone, seconded by
[19:13] councelor
[19:15] Ry Clemente.
[19:19] Be it resolved that the deputation made
[19:20] by Alusky on behalf of area regarding
[19:24] item L1
[19:26] bylaw 2026-072
[19:33] being a bylaw to adopt the new town of
[19:35] Eastenbury official plan be received?
[19:40] >> Yes, please do.
[19:41] >> Just a comment on the motion uh through
[19:43] you, Madame Mayor to Mr. Lusty. Uh I
[19:46] guess uh we're simp I I believe we're
[19:47] simply going to be receiving your
[19:48] deputation. From my perspective, uh
[19:51] notwithstanding your client's
[19:52] application, our official plan is our
[19:54] expression of our vision for our
[19:56] community and those lands. And so uh
[19:58] you've got an application in place that
[20:01] in that we're processing uh that asks us
[20:03] to change that vision, but we're being
[20:05] consistent in our vision for those lands
[20:07] at this point. And so from my
[20:09] perspective, I'm not I'm not u taking
[20:11] action on your deputation because I I
[20:14] simply believe in uh the process that
[20:16] we've undergone and uh and we're going
[20:18] to continue to process your your
[20:20] client's application under the under the
[20:23] provisions of of our documentation. So I
[20:25] just wanted to make that comment rather
[20:27] than simply receiving it and sending you
[20:28] on your way. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[20:30] >> Thank you.
[20:37] All [clears throat] those in favor?
[20:42] And that's carried. Thank you very much.
[20:55] » We're now at number two in our uh
[20:58] agenda. M. Corey on behalf of the
[21:00] Eastbury White Belt Land Owners Group
[21:04] making a deputation to council regarding
[21:06] item L1 bylaw
[21:09] 20226-072
[21:13] being a bylaw to adopt the new town of
[21:15] East Squenberry official plan and item
[21:21] L3
[21:23] bylaw2026-074
[21:27] being a bylaw to amend
[21:29] bylaw number 202015-078.
[21:37] Specifically, a schedule A to revise
[21:40] fees and charges for the corporation of
[21:43] the town of East Squillberry in relation
[21:45] to items L1 and L3.
[21:49] I have a mover, please.
[21:53] Thank you. And a seconder.
[21:57] Thank you. All those in favor
[22:02] » I'm sorry. Go ahead, please.
[22:06] >> No problem. Uh good evening and and
[22:09] thank you, Madame Mayor, and to council
[22:11] for hearing the deputation. Really
[22:13] appreciate it. Um you've already had a
[22:15] lot of time with you. Uh you heard me
[22:17] before, but there's just two items we
[22:18] really like to talk about. I'll keep it
[22:20] very brief. Um I'll start with the
[22:22] official plan item L1. Um really
[22:25] appreciate all the work that your staff
[22:27] and consultants have done. Uh we think
[22:29] they've done a great job with the
[22:31] official plan. Very eager to see that go
[22:33] to the province. As we all know, the
[22:35] province can take a horrendous amount of
[22:37] time to finally approve it and we want
[22:39] to get that ongoing so that can happen
[22:41] immediately. So very much want to see
[22:43] that go forward tonight. There's just
[22:44] one last uh comment we had we'd very
[22:47] much like you to consider. Um uh that is
[22:51] the distribution of the retail uh
[22:54] commercial uh quantums uh through the
[22:57] new community uh design areas community
[23:00] plan areas in um the new communities as
[23:03] part of uh the official plan. Um uh we
[23:07] had previously made comment on this and
[23:09] asked for a revision to the amount.
[23:11] We're not asking for that. Um really all
[23:13] we're asking for tonight is a
[23:15] redistribution. Um, I had covered this
[23:18] in the submission I made on June 30th uh
[23:21] to committee prior to uh it being
[23:23] adopted. Um, it wasn't addressed at that
[23:26] time. Still hoping it's something we
[23:29] could get addressed and and so
[23:30] respectfully requesting that council uh
[23:34] potentially give direction to staff to
[23:37] make a modification to redistribute the
[23:39] retail commercial amongst the CDP areas
[23:42] in accordance with table two of what we
[23:44] had submitted. That's something that we
[23:46] have looked at and vetted with our
[23:48] landowner group. Uh it maintains the
[23:51] same amount of retail that uh is being
[23:53] contemplated overall. But the reason for
[23:56] the change and I I completely understand
[23:59] why uh the consultants and the staff put
[24:02] forward the distribution that's in the
[24:03] official plan. That is a distribution
[24:05] that's focusing on uh concentrating a
[24:08] lot of the retail on arterial roads,
[24:10] especially second concession. Um but
[24:13] that as much as that is a traditional
[24:15] and a well- tested and a well um
[24:18] successful way of delivering retail, it
[24:21] also has the effect of concentrating
[24:23] retail into certain areas and really
[24:25] promoting potentially more drive to for
[24:28] those uh retailing experiences and
[24:30] commercial experiences. Whereas the
[24:32] distribution that we had requested would
[24:35] put retail um in uh commensurate size
[24:38] and in location with the amount of
[24:40] population that's happening in each of
[24:42] the different CDP areas. So it's the
[24:44] same number. It's it's a minor change, I
[24:46] think, but it's a redistribution to
[24:48] really put the retail and commercial on
[24:50] sites that are within walking distance,
[24:53] which is very much in keeping, I think,
[24:55] with what this council I've heard over
[24:56] the years talk about in terms of
[24:58] walkability, sustainability, having um
[25:01] services people can get to without
[25:03] having to get into their car. That's the
[25:05] real intent of that request. And it also
[25:08] helps with the relative amount of retail
[25:10] relative to the size of each of those
[25:11] CDP areas by right sizing them. So there
[25:14] isn't an overwhelming amount of retail
[25:17] space versus other uses. So it's a good
[25:19] balance overall. I know we've vetted
[25:21] this with our whole group. The group is
[25:23] supportive of it. Um so we're very much
[25:25] asking please if you can make that
[25:26] change. I I know it's something that
[25:28] could happen through the discussions
[25:30] with the province. Uh with respect I've
[25:33] been through a few of those processes.
[25:35] Um getting changes done with the
[25:37] province can be quite painful. Um and
[25:39] it's not certain. Uh I I'd much rather
[25:42] see uh this council and staff have
[25:44] something that they put forward that
[25:45] they're uh happy with and that we can
[25:47] work together on. So that's the request
[25:50] on that, Madame Mayor. Happy to stop
[25:52] there and answer any questions and have
[25:53] something very brief to talk about on
[25:55] the fee bylaw.
[25:57] >> Thank you very much. Uh I will allow
[26:01] time for you to u give some information
[26:05] as well.
[26:06] >> Okay. Uh maybe why don't I cover the the
[26:08] fee bylaw then as well. Madame Mayor,
[26:10] it's a very brief point on that one.
[26:12] That's item L3 on your agenda. Um, very
[26:15] simple request. Uh, many places now when
[26:18] these new fees are created, uh, there's
[26:20] a perunit fee. And the common practice
[26:23] throughout York Region and Durm Region
[26:25] is to put either a cap a maximum cap on
[26:28] a perunit fee just because it's meant to
[26:31] be a cost recovery mechanism and and
[26:33] that ensures that happens or uh the
[26:35] perunit fee is graduated down as you
[26:38] have more and more units. And the reason
[26:40] for that is if you have a fairly large
[26:42] subdivision plan for instance come
[26:44] forward uh the fees can get quite
[26:46] excessive. Um I I can I can tell you
[26:49] that um when we did a rough calculation
[26:51] of what the fee would work out to for on
[26:53] the subdivision for instance under the
[26:55] new bylaw if you had a thousand units in
[26:57] a subdivision which would be you know
[26:59] probably larger than anything you'd get
[27:02] but it's a it's a good quantum measure
[27:04] the fees would be upward of 500
[27:06] something thousand just for the
[27:08] subdivision. Um the city of Vaughn has
[27:10] just imposed a maximum fee on
[27:12] subdivision of just under 170,000 as a
[27:16] comparator and there's other uh fees
[27:19] that are in that range. So, not asking
[27:21] for anything specifically, but but
[27:23] respectfully requesting that staff and
[27:25] council consider a cap on the fees to
[27:28] just keep them uh within context of cost
[27:32] recovery um and in uh context of what
[27:35] other fees are being in the rest of the
[27:36] region and other places. With that,
[27:39] thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm happy to
[27:40] take any questions on either of those.
[27:42] >> Thank you, Mr. Corey. Um, I have a mover
[27:46] by councelor John's and seconded by
[27:49] councelor Roy D. Clemente.
[27:53] Comments. Go ahead, please. Uh, thank
[27:56] you, Madame Mayor. Uh, I'll start with
[27:58] the last one first. Um, as far as the
[28:01] fees and charges are concerned, uh, as
[28:05] you note, it's a cost recovery
[28:06] mechanism. Uh, the report that came to
[28:09] us, uh, last month, uh, noted that we
[28:11] hadn't changed our fees in six years.
[28:14] And so, um, I know that, uh, by
[28:17] comparison, we are still some of the
[28:19] lower fees in in the the province. And
[28:22] quite frankly, um, it was one of the
[28:24] first orders of business that our our
[28:26] new general manager of planning, uh, and
[28:28] development services came in and said,
[28:31] we're not recovering what we need to
[28:32] recover. And this was one of her first
[28:34] initiatives. And so, uh, coming from the
[28:36] city of Toronto, I think she would have
[28:37] a little bit of experience with that.
[28:39] And so, if she's making that
[28:40] recommendation to us, I'm loathed to
[28:42] change that. Um, so that's that's my
[28:44] opinion with respect to that. Uh, as far
[28:46] as um the redistribution of the
[28:48] commercial. Uh, it's a it's a little
[28:50] interesting because um I note that you
[28:52] did make a deputation at our last
[28:54] meeting and I wasn't here so I went back
[28:56] and watched and you said that our OP
[28:58] needs to go ahead and you're happy to
[29:00] see it adopted. Um, committee at the
[29:02] time chose not to make any changes or
[29:04] give direction to staff. So you're
[29:06] asking again. Um and uh from my
[29:09] perspective um
[29:12] building communities includes creating
[29:15] commercial opportunities close to home.
[29:17] And so you're suggesting that uh your
[29:20] clients would prefer not to have
[29:22] commercial uh on on second concession
[29:25] because they would prefer to build build
[29:27] houses rather than put commercial bu
[29:29] commercial commercial buildings there.
[29:30] And so from my perspective, uh I want to
[29:33] see commercial there. And and quite
[29:34] frankly, after six years of work, uh if
[29:37] this is the only issue we have together,
[29:39] then I think we've done really really
[29:40] well. Uh if we were to reconsider re the
[29:43] distribution of that of that commercial
[29:45] land, we would have to go back to the
[29:47] drawing table with all of the other
[29:49] community design plan stakeholders and
[29:51] other land owners because you're
[29:53] suggesting, well, we don't want it. We
[29:54] want to give it to somebody else. but
[29:56] what if that other person has already
[29:58] invested in their community designs and
[30:00] their secondary plans? So, I think at
[30:02] this point we have a really great plan
[30:04] and I'm proud to support it tonight. So,
[30:06] I I appreciate you taking the time to
[30:07] try again. Um but I'm I'm not I'm not
[30:10] comfortable with making any changes at
[30:11] this time. Thank you.
[30:13] >> Thank you. Other questions, counselor,
[30:16] go ahead, please.
[30:17] >> Thank you. um listening to your
[30:19] presentation, you're talking about the
[30:20] redistribution that there isn't enough
[30:23] uh homes in the current uh CDP area to
[30:27] warrant that much retail. When I look at
[30:29] it, I'm looking at the homes that have
[30:31] already been built. And certainly in
[30:33] that area, we have a lot of development
[30:34] planned and de development that's
[30:36] recently been executed uh that requires
[30:38] more uh commercial. So, I I take your um concern about the
[30:44] redistribution. I just wanted to see if
[30:46] uh staff could uh respond if this is
[30:49] something that can be if we can continue
[30:51] to adopt the plan and this is something
[30:53] that can be looked at as we progress
[30:55] further into um moving towards the uh
[30:59] secondary plans. Thanks.
[31:01] >> Thank you.
[31:05] » Uh thank you uh through you madam chair.
[31:08] Um certainly this is uh a conversation
[31:10] or letter that was received uh examined
[31:13] uh by our department and also had uh
[31:16] meetings with our own um retail
[31:19] consultant
[31:20] um who was here with us today if council
[31:22] had any questions uh Mr. Rowan Fluty of
[31:25] Urban Metrics um and and certainly at to
[31:29] promote commercial within the town of
[31:32] school and uh we are uh at least of the
[31:37] opinion that um the flexibility for land
[31:41] owners to be able to uh reallocate some
[31:44] of that commercial is something that
[31:46] we're certainly open to. Uh the concern
[31:49] for us was to retain the overall uh GFA
[31:53] for retail commercial. Uh and this
[31:55] proposal does not uh suggest to reduce
[31:58] that. It simply uh or more simply
[32:00] suggests to reallocate amongst uh the
[32:03] land owners within the community design
[32:05] plan areas. Uh so to that to that uh
[32:08] point um because of that uh we felt
[32:12] comfortable uh with the change if that's
[32:14] something that council uh directs staff
[32:15] to move forward.
[32:20] Yes, go ahead, please.
[32:22] >> Um, thank you. So, what I'm hearing from
[32:25] you is that this is something that we
[32:26] can look at going forward because to
[32:28] councelor Roy de Clemente's point, I
[32:30] would be uh I think it would be unfair
[32:32] for us to make a change and another land
[32:34] owner end up with more commercial than
[32:36] what they thought was going in.
[32:37] Otherwise, they'd be up here at the
[32:38] microphone. Uh, if it was different, we
[32:40] really really are in the 11th hour now.
[32:43] Um, and I I think making those kind of
[32:44] changes uh to a plan that has been
[32:46] unanimous unanimously um agreed to by
[32:50] council uh would be a step backwards and
[32:52] I think we really really need to be
[32:54] moving forward. So I'm hoping that staff
[32:55] can work with each of the land owners um
[32:58] as on a go forward basis to uh ensure
[33:01] that we are getting enough commercial
[33:03] and that it is in the right place. Thank
[33:05] you.
[33:06] >> Thank you councelor Foster.
[33:09] >> Thanks Madame Mayor. Um, I may be trying
[33:12] to simplify this too much and Jack,
[33:14] hopefully you can uh help me out here,
[33:16] Mr. Krebnik.
[33:17] Uh, the question that jumps out at me is
[33:20] who's going to be responsible for
[33:22] redistributing?
[33:23] Is that going to be a function that town
[33:25] staff looks after or is that going to be
[33:27] a function that the uh the landowners
[33:29] group looks after? And what simply
[33:32] happens if you don't have a willing
[33:35] partner to uh to trade with? I mean, it
[33:37] just it sounds good. I'm not sure it I'm
[33:40] not sure it works.
[33:44] » Uh thank you councelor for your question
[33:45] and through you madam chair. Uh
[33:47] certainly um my assumption in uh in
[33:51] hearing from uh Mr. Corey is that he is
[33:54] representing the east school liberty um
[33:57] landowners group um sorry the the
[34:01] land owners group that are part of the
[34:04] um commlete communities dime plan
[34:06] process. So, um, you know, there is some
[34:10] confidence in that that that those land
[34:12] owners are comfortable with the numbers
[34:14] putting forward or put forward to
[34:16] council here today as well. If um and certainly I'm of the opinion that
[34:22] I'd like to give uh retail and
[34:24] commercial the best possibility of
[34:26] success within Eastchoolbury. So, that's
[34:28] why I'm open to um reallocating if
[34:31] that's the best thing for each to do.
[34:35] Um, that being said, it's it can either
[34:37] be directed here by council today for us
[34:40] to make that change. Um, and if council
[34:43] did not direct staff to make that change
[34:45] here today, uh, we would, you know, I'm
[34:48] sure Mr. Corey would make that um,
[34:51] submit his his letter or thoughts to the minister. uh when there is an ERO
[34:56] posting on the official plan. Uh or we
[34:59] can also um and and the ministry may
[35:02] make that change or we can also examine
[35:04] that at a future point in time after an
[35:06] adoption uh of this op by council and an
[35:09] approval by the province.
[35:19] » Councelor John's comment.
[35:22] >> Yeah, thanks Madame Mayor. That was uh
[35:24] through you madame mayor to to Mr.
[35:26] Kernick that it's it's interesting you
[35:28] have now spoken twice saying staff is
[35:32] open to it to you said
[35:36] best possibility for success to in order
[35:39] to have uh commercial neighborhood
[35:40] commercial which is which is
[35:41] interesting. So, I was reflecting on
[35:43] that comment while I'm sitting here and
[35:45] I'm I was picturing what had happened um
[35:48] in these past three and a half almost
[35:50] four years and I feel like um many times
[35:55] applications come forward
[35:57] um where a uh stakeholder developer is requesting the change because the
[36:05] market conditions aren't necessarily
[36:07] correct for commercial. they either want
[36:10] it downsized
[36:11] um or looking to have somewhere in a
[36:14] different location. And I'm actually I'm
[36:17] sitting here from a pragmatic
[36:19] perspective and I'm thinking if the if
[36:22] the landowners group are proactively
[36:26] to councelor Roy de Clemente's comments,
[36:28] this is now your second time before us.
[36:30] You're sending us letters. Um, I tend to
[36:34] treat whispers as louder yells when I
[36:37] hear things multiple times. And so,
[36:41] multiple deputations, multiple letters,
[36:44] uh, I just had a this the staff member,
[36:46] Mr. Krebn, just said
[36:49] twice open to the possibility. Um,
[36:53] I don't know if I have support on this
[36:55] council to send it back to staff, but I
[37:01] would move it because
[37:03] the thing is is that we need the best
[37:05] possible outcomes. And I picture what a
[37:07] next term could end up being is that if
[37:10] this doesn't go through or the the
[37:12] province um doesn't contemplate this,
[37:17] then are we going to witness four,
[37:19] eight, 12 years
[37:22] uh it could be maybe it's 20 years based
[37:24] on our official plan 16 years since our
[37:26] last official plan. Are we just going to
[37:28] get hit with uh stakeholder developers
[37:32] coming forward and saying change change?
[37:34] I don't know what the answer is. But I
[37:36] guess the reason why I would support
[37:38] sending it back to staff to look further
[37:41] is because I don't know what the answer
[37:42] is. But I do know from experience um uh
[37:47] if it doesn't slow down the official
[37:48] plan process then why wouldn't we let
[37:51] staff who have now said twice to us we
[37:54] would be open to it. So those are my
[37:56] comments. I would be happy to move a
[37:58] motion if there was support around the
[37:59] table for a pragmatic uh approach to it.
[38:06] » Yes. Go ahead please.
[38:09] I worry sending it back to staff delays
[38:11] um getting on with the the official plan
[38:14] and it's been in the works for a very
[38:15] long time. Um the change change change
[38:18] that you talked about councelor John's
[38:20] we're going to see that they always come
[38:21] forward and ask for changes. We we know
[38:23] that's that's a fact of our job is to um
[38:27] debate and deliberate on the changes
[38:29] that uh developers want to make to our
[38:31] plan. Uh I also heard Mr. Kick say it's
[38:33] something that they can look at uh later
[38:35] going forward. Um, so hearing that from
[38:37] our staff, I'm I'm comfortable with
[38:38] moving ahead [clears throat]
[38:40] uh with the plan uh as we uh voted on it
[38:43] at our last uh CWC um sorry in our June
[38:47] CWC um that's here for ratification
[38:49] tonight. Thanks.
[38:52] >> Thank you, Councelor Cone.
[38:54] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um through you
[38:56] to Mr. Corey. I'm not unsympathetic to
[39:01] your your concerns. I I I think you may
[39:04] have a legitimate beef with the
[39:08] aortionment of commercial property. Um
[39:12] and uh
[39:16] and and and you know what as as
[39:20] members of the of of the council here,
[39:23] uh we want we want all our our partners
[39:25] to be successful because if you're
[39:27] successful, we're successful. Um,
[39:31] that's that's the positive stuff I'm
[39:34] gonna say to you. Now, [laughter]
[39:37] I I I really wish wish we could have uh
[39:41] gotten a little more serious about this
[39:44] earlier. So, it's not at the we're at
[39:46] the, you know, we're not at the 11th
[39:48] hour here. We're at the 11th hour and
[39:49] 59th minute. And it's I I I really am
[39:54] not a fan of rushed decisions because
[39:58] sometimes you don't always make the best
[40:00] decisions when you're rushed. So, uh, I
[40:03] would what I would say my my comments is
[40:06] to to to staff and to to to yourself,
[40:10] let's endeavor to try and and find that uh situation that sets everyone up
[40:17] for success, whether it's
[40:20] starting tomorrow and getting ready for when this this is uh sent their
[40:25] official plan is sent to uh uh to the
[40:29] province for for their approval. But
[40:31] let's start it. Don't Let's not delay
[40:33] because delay got us to this point. So,
[40:37] let's not find ourselves in that
[40:38] position again. But I I think I I have a
[40:41] hard time trying to send this back now.
[40:44] Um
[40:46] I think we're we're we're
[40:48] at the commitment line and we have to
[40:50] make a decision. So, that's that's where
[40:52] I I stand. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[40:54] >> Thank you. Other comments,
[40:58] >> Madame Mayor. Um Council Cohen was
[41:00] speaking to me. I maybe through you if I
[41:02] could just address something a couple
[41:04] things that were just said. I I just
[41:05] want to be crystal clear. The request
[41:07] from the LERs group is not to send this
[41:09] back or delay it at all. It's to approve
[41:11] the official plan tonight. The only
[41:13] consideration is whether there's
[41:15] direction to staff to reconsider that
[41:17] table in finalizing it and sending it to
[41:19] the province. Absolutely. We don't want
[41:21] this delayed or or held up in any way.
[41:24] Um just the second thing uh madame mayor
[41:26] and to council um the CDP areas we're
[41:29] talking about are represented by me by
[41:32] the whole land owners group and they own
[41:33] 90 something% of it. They've all looked
[41:35] at this. They're comfortable with the
[41:36] redistri numbers. We're not trying to
[41:38] put this on somebody else. We're just
[41:40] talking about a redistribution
[41:42] um amongst the owners and absolutely not
[41:45] a reduction of any kind. I think it
[41:47] could be a very simple and quick change
[41:49] if council directed staff to do it. But
[41:51] that being said, um also hearing uh the
[41:55] concerns and very much so I think second
[41:58] place for us would be uh a nod from
[42:01] council and staff to say it's something
[42:02] we'll prioritize and look at and
[42:04] finalizing it with the province too. Uh
[42:07] absolutely have no intent and don't want
[42:09] it in any way this to be held up
[42:10] tonight. Want it approved tonight for
[42:12] sure just to be crystal clear. M madame
[42:14] mayor and council.
[42:15] >> Thank you. Some comments,
[42:42] » councelor Foster and go ahead, please.
[42:46] Thanks, Madam Mayor. I had to give that
[42:47] one some thought. Um,
[42:50] Mr. Krebnik, if if we go ahead with the
[42:52] official plan tonight, but as Councelor
[42:56] John suggested, maybe we send something
[42:58] back, how long is it going to take to
[43:01] put a
[43:03] an information report together to get
[43:05] back to council, and does that hold up
[43:10] the official plan going to the province?
[43:14] Uh thank you for your question counselor
[43:16] through you madam chair. Um I think Mr.
[43:19] Corey made it clear and I thank him for
[43:20] that that there is no um desire I
[43:24] believe on our part that's and and I'm
[43:26] speaking for staff and that on the land
[43:28] owners to um send this back or to delay
[43:31] it from being adopted here by council
[43:33] and going uh then proceeding to the
[43:35] province. Um so I would suggest um we we
[43:39] either do that or we do it with um a
[43:43] replacement of the official plan uh or
[43:47] we do it as well sorry with a
[43:49] replacement of the of the official plan
[43:51] table five as presented in the official
[43:54] plan uh with um Mr. Cory's uh table two
[43:58] in the letter dated uh June 30th to
[44:00] staff.
[44:04] » Go ahead please.
[44:10] There's too many microphones on. There
[44:12] we go. Thank you. Um
[44:17] my perspective is that when when we are
[44:20] when I'm I'm looking at the schedule
[44:22] 3G-1
[44:24] and it shows where the commercial mixed
[44:26] use is going to go, it is adjacent to
[44:29] lowdensity residential and medium
[44:32] density residential as well as
[44:34] residential mixed use. And for me, um,
[44:37] part of the appeal of, for example, the
[44:41] village of Sharon is that while I live
[44:43] in Sharon, I can also walk to the
[44:46] grocery store and get something. I don't
[44:48] have to get in my car. And if we move
[44:51] this commercial mixed use out of this
[44:55] area and put it somewhere else, then
[44:57] we're allowing the development community
[45:00] and the land owners to put in just
[45:03] houses or just what they want and not
[45:04] what we want. And I'm I'm sorry, but the letter that was received by uh by
[45:11] staff uh shows that there was a there
[45:14] was a requested reduction from 74,000
[45:18] square
[45:19] GFA meters squared to 45,000. I think
[45:23] that's a five, maybe a six. I don't have
[45:25] my reading glasses on. There was a a
[45:28] requested reduction. What's happening
[45:30] now is they're leaving the reduction off
[45:33] the table and they want to simply move
[45:36] things around. This is too little too
[45:38] late in my opinion. I would like us to
[45:40] move forward. the province still has the right to make changes and the
[45:45] development community still has the
[45:46] ability to make applications to make
[45:49] changes to the official plan as they're
[45:51] going to do anyway. So, let's just move
[45:54] forward tonight. That's my opinion.
[45:56] Thank you.
[45:58] >> Thank you,
[46:05] » Councelor Johns.
[46:06] >> Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. Just one
[46:07] comment off of that. what was said like
[46:09] I I actually don't see it that way. Like
[46:11] I actually do see like when you are
[46:14] clustering commercial there's an
[46:17] opportunity on the flip side to be able
[46:20] to have neighborhood retail for walking.
[46:23] I I if if you were looking specifically
[46:26] in that area, I will agree with the
[46:28] statement that you said, but if you were
[46:30] looking at the overall picture, um
[46:33] having um
[46:36] having commercial
[46:39] um redistributed throughout the
[46:42] community does not necessarily give the
[46:44] negative approach because it's not
[46:47] finalized. So, you can't say it's
[46:49] negative. And what I'm suggesting is is
[46:51] that staff have now made two comments
[46:53] that they are open to it. Uh because
[46:57] they don't actually necessarily know
[46:59] what it looks like on the other side.
[47:01] And I'm simply saying if it doesn't slow
[47:03] down the process and if we have an
[47:05] opportunity to improve it, even if it is
[47:08] 1159 and there is an opportunity to
[47:10] improve it, I'm simply suggesting that
[47:14] why wouldn't we do that if it doesn't
[47:16] slow down the process? And if staff feel
[47:18] that it doesn't uh doesn't improve, then
[47:20] so be it. I will say that maybe there's
[47:23] a small window for a seconder from one
[47:25] of my colleagues, but I will also I do
[47:27] feel that I don't have the votes to
[47:29] carry. But I do want to uh state that
[47:35] um an opportunity just because it's
[47:38] 11:59 doesn't mean that it's an
[47:40] opportunity that we shouldn't explore.
[47:42] I'll leave it at that. If there's any
[47:43] further discussion that would allow for
[47:46] a further window to um to explore it,
[47:49] then I'm open. If if there's no further
[47:51] discussion, then that's it.
[47:57] » Thank you.
[47:59] Other speakers at this point,
[48:04] we have a motion uh to receive the
[48:07] deputation. This has been moved by
[48:09] councelor John, seconded by councelor
[48:11] Roy de Clemente.
[48:14] All in favor?
[48:18] >> And that's carried.
[48:20] >> Thank you, madame mayor and council for
[48:21] listening to us.
[48:35] » We're at item E in presentations. Report
[48:37] of the integrity commissioner, town of
[48:39] Equilenberry, formal code of conduct
[48:43] complaint number 0110426,
[48:48] investigation report. Could I have a
[48:51] mover and a seconder, please?
[48:53] >> Sorry, Madame Mayor. Just uh for clarity
[48:55] purposes, I have uh declared conflict of
[48:57] interest and uh I believe it's customary
[49:00] that there is an opportunity for the
[49:02] individual to speak prior to the um uh
[49:05] the agenda proceeding to the item.
[49:17] » Okay,
[49:19] go ahead please.
[49:21] >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. I just have uh
[49:23] three brief paragraphs I'd like to say
[49:26] as it relates to this item. I'd rather
[49:28] be too loud about what matters to
[49:29] residents than risk being comfortable
[49:31] with the silent status quo. East Wenbury
[49:33] is the only municipality in York Region
[49:35] without a public high school. Over
[49:37] 40,000 people and growing. And every
[49:39] single morning, our kids leave town and
[49:41] go to school in someone else's
[49:43] community. For generations, residents
[49:45] have been told the same thing. The
[49:47] numbers aren't quite there yet. The
[49:48] formula isn't right. Eventually, in
[49:50] time. And there's a style of leadership
[49:52] that values keeping things comfortable
[49:54] over getting things done, that mistakes
[49:56] silence for professionalism and calls it
[49:58] leadership. And I don't buy that. Our
[50:01] residents deserve fierce advocacy that
[50:03] champions their needs. Thanks, Madame
[50:05] Mayor.
[50:07] >> Thank you.
[50:14] » I'd like to refer to the integrity
[50:17] commissioner to provide an overview of
[50:19] this report.
[50:22] Thank you, Madame Mayor. uh to you
[50:24] through you and to members of council.
[50:27] The report before you sets out my
[50:29] findings of the formal code of conduct
[50:30] complaint 010426
[50:33] in which uh councelor Brian John's was
[50:35] named as respondent in relation to his
[50:38] conduct involving the March 31st, 2026
[50:42] delegation to the York Region District
[50:44] School Board's Finance and Property
[50:46] Standing Committee, a related
[50:48] publication on his website, and a
[50:51] related public communication. The events
[50:53] and materials at the center of this
[50:55] matter have been in the public domain
[50:56] for some time, the delegation itself,
[50:59] the slide deck, the related social media
[51:01] post. As a result, I do not intend to
[51:03] take you through this report in detail
[51:05] as has been my custom. Instead, I will
[51:08] give a highle overview of what I found,
[51:10] explain the sanction I have recommended,
[51:13] and close with a few words on the role
[51:15] of my office and the role of council.
[51:20] Let me begin with what this matter is
[51:22] not.
[51:24] It is not about whether East Squirre
[51:26] should have a new high school. It is not
[51:28] a finding that a member of council
[51:30] cannot advocate for a school or for
[51:33] other matters important to their
[51:34] constituents. Advocacy on behalf of
[51:37] constituents before this council before
[51:39] outside bodies and agencies is
[51:42] legitimate. It's important and it's
[51:45] expressly protected. The respondent was
[51:48] fully entitled to advocate for high
[51:51] school in East Willoughbury, to question
[51:53] existing educational planning, and to
[51:56] call for further study. Nothing in my
[51:58] report should be read as, nor was it
[52:01] intended to discourage any member from
[52:04] doing so. Speaking about needs and
[52:07] bringing those needs of the public to
[52:09] council or committees of council is what
[52:11] a counselor does when working to affect
[52:14] change within the decision-making
[52:16] framework of their municipality.
[52:20] What I found was narrower and it's about
[52:23] the manner in which the respondent
[52:25] communicated not advocacy. The
[52:28] respondent's conduct crossed the line
[52:30] from legitimate advocacy into using the
[52:32] indisha of his office in a way that
[52:34] conveyed an authority he did not have to
[52:37] submit aspirational positions albeit
[52:40] needed and wanted by your community as
[52:43] approved town positions. He branded his
[52:47] materials east. He framed his own
[52:49] proposals as town planning, including
[52:52] statements such as, "Town planning
[52:54] envisions a coll-located campus model,
[52:57] town branding, but aspirational
[52:59] position." And he presented conceptual
[53:02] infrastructure concepts as though they
[53:04] were grounded in municipal planning,
[53:07] direction, and approved. Taken together,
[53:10] this created a reasonable impression
[53:12] that he was advocating and advancing an
[53:15] authorized position of town direction
[53:18] when in fact council had adopted no such
[53:20] position.
[53:23] The consequences I set out in the report
[53:25] was real public and institutional
[53:28] confusion. with his presentation on his
[53:31] website and intent to make a delegation
[53:34] at the school board. Town staff
[53:36] clarified the town position and then
[53:38] following the presentation on March
[53:40] 31st, the school board made a decision
[53:43] to write to families to address what
[53:45] they believe to be the confusion the
[53:47] respondent's presentation had created
[53:50] regarding the move of a school. As
[53:52] underscored several times in the report
[53:54] before you, the finding of breach is not
[53:57] that the respondent advocated and
[53:59] represented a much and very strong a
[54:03] much needed and very strong voice of his
[54:04] constituents. The report sets out the
[54:07] finding of breach in so far as the
[54:08] respondent's conduct had the foreseeable
[54:11] result of blurring the line between
[54:14] aspirational position as a political
[54:16] representative of constituents and an
[54:19] official position of the town and the
[54:22] statements of town planning were not
[54:24] accurate to which as the respondent
[54:26] stated in his comments to the draft
[54:29] findings uh through his legal counsel
[54:31] his delegation before the school board
[54:34] purported to have reliance on and
[54:36] legitimacy in a 2018 document on future
[54:41] projections and options. The
[54:43] respondent's comments to the draft
[54:46] findings that I provided to him in
[54:48] summary stated the town's 2018 master
[54:51] plan and the school board's previous
[54:54] enrollment studies said what he said in
[54:57] his delegation. This is what was
[55:00] received. I found differently those
[55:02] documents did exist. The 2018 documents
[55:06] identify the possibility and the
[55:08] opportunity of a future muchneeded high
[55:11] school in your town and projected
[55:14] enrollment supports the need for
[55:16] additional capacity. My findings do not
[55:19] dispute that in any way. But identifying
[55:22] a possibility in a plan, particularly
[55:25] one adopted in 2018, a possibility is
[55:31] not the same as a current council
[55:33] authorized municipal planning position.
[55:36] The breaches that the respondant
[55:37] presented an envisioned possibility as
[55:41] though it were a decided
[55:43] authorized position.
[55:46] I have recommended the council issue a
[55:48] formal reprimand to the to the
[55:50] respondent. Let me explain what a formal
[55:52] reprimand is and why I'm making this
[55:54] recommendation. The municipal act at
[55:57] section 223.4 sub5 gives two penalties
[56:01] where uh the integrity commissioner
[56:03] reports to uh council on uh the actions
[56:06] of a member. A reprimand or a suspension
[56:09] of pay for up to 90 days.
[56:11] A reprimand is a formal public censure
[56:15] which is a statement by council placed
[56:17] on the public record in minutes or
[56:19] following the meeting that council makes
[56:21] that the member's conduct in their view
[56:23] based on the findings of the integrity
[56:25] commissioner fell short of the standard
[56:27] of the code requirements. It's a public
[56:30] statement for the record. The
[56:32] legislature created two uh deliberate
[56:35] penalties that council could impose in
[56:38] response to the integrity commissioner's
[56:40] findings and can be uh proportionate
[56:43] based on her findings. The reprimand
[56:45] marks and denounces the breach and
[56:48] affirms the standard set out in the code
[56:50] and affirms council's commitment. Even
[56:53] though I found two breaches or of two
[56:55] sections of the code, um I did not
[56:58] recommend suspension of remuneration.
[57:01] And let me explain why. First, two
[57:03] breaches uh two sections of the code
[57:06] breach does not mean that there have
[57:08] been multiple breaches. Um the fact that
[57:11] the same conduct, the delegation to the
[57:14] school board and the post related to
[57:17] that delegation on its own does not make
[57:19] it twice as serious. Uh second, this was
[57:22] not a case of dishonesty for personal or
[57:24] financial gain or harassment or
[57:26] disparaging staff or the public or
[57:29] calling into question the professional
[57:31] integrity of staff. It was advocacy, but
[57:34] it was advocacy that overreached and
[57:38] confused through giving the perception
[57:40] of an approved town position. Currently,
[57:43] the regulations for the municipal act as
[57:46] it relates to codes of conduct has four
[57:48] requirements in codes of conduct. Gifts
[57:51] and benefits which underscore the need
[57:53] to avoid conflicts of interest.
[57:55] Respectful conduct in particular towards
[57:57] staff as it is very important not to
[58:00] undermine the role of staff. Protection
[58:02] of confidential information and
[58:04] appropriate use of property of the
[58:06] municipality. So, generally speaking,
[58:08] where there is a finding of breach that
[58:10] relates to those significant areas,
[58:12] there likely will be based on the facts
[58:14] a recommendation of a harsher uh
[58:16] penalty. But in this case, I did not. I
[58:19] determined that the recommendation of a
[58:21] formal reprimand is proportionate in
[58:24] this instance to the conduct that I
[58:27] found with this particular matter.
[58:29] Before I close, I will say a few words
[58:31] on process and roles. I've said it
[58:33] before. I'll just reiterate for clarity.
[58:36] My role as integrity commissioner is to
[58:38] investigate the complaint independently
[58:40] to apply the code rules to the facts
[58:42] that I have gathered and to make
[58:44] findings on a balance of probabilities
[58:46] and report to you council and you
[58:48] council are the decision maker based on
[58:50] my findings. You make a decision on the
[58:53] recommendation. I have done that and now
[58:55] it's up to you. My investigation is
[58:58] complete and my report before you is
[59:00] final. Council is now to receive the
[59:03] report, decide whether to adopt my
[59:06] recommendation, vary my recommendation,
[59:08] or reject my recommendation. In doing
[59:11] so, council may ask me questions on
[59:13] clarification about the process I
[59:15] followed um and the recommendation on
[59:18] sanction um but cannot open the
[59:21] investigation. The investigation is
[59:23] complete. This evening is not an
[59:25] opportunity for council to reopen or
[59:27] rearview the findings to introduce new
[59:30] information that is not in the report or
[59:32] to question the respondent uh who has
[59:34] already been given an opportunity to
[59:36] respond. Uh he was provided with the
[59:39] complaint. He was provided with uh the
[59:41] opportunity to reply that is appendex A
[59:44] to this report. Also, in accordance with
[59:46] the rules of procedural fairness, the
[59:48] respondent was given a copy of my draft
[59:50] findings and provided an opportunity to
[59:52] make comments on errors or emissions. He
[59:55] did so and you can find those comments
[59:57] on page 17 to 19 of the report before
[59:59] you. I'd like to close by saying as set
[1:00:02] out in the preamble of the code,
[1:00:04] formalized standards and rules help you
[1:00:07] to provide uh uh to have a reference
[1:00:10] guide with respect to your conduct and
[1:00:13] it supplements the legislative
[1:00:14] parameters when within which members
[1:00:17] must operate. Code rules enhance public
[1:00:20] confidence that the town's elected
[1:00:22] representatives operate from a base of
[1:00:24] integrity given the weight and the
[1:00:27] credibility that you gain when you
[1:00:29] become an elected officer. Members are
[1:00:31] therefore expected to perform their
[1:00:33] duties of office in a manner not just
[1:00:37] doing so, but in a manner that will
[1:00:40] always bear the closest scrutiny. I
[1:00:42] thank you for your time. I appreciate
[1:00:44] the work you do. I'm happy to answer any
[1:00:46] questions you may have.
[1:00:48] Thank you very much for taking the time
[1:00:50] out of your your time to spend uh with
[1:00:54] us. I appreciate it very much. Thank
[1:00:56] you.
[1:01:01] Are there any questions or comments from
[1:01:03] members of council regarding the
[1:01:05] integrity commissioners report?
[1:01:09] >> Councelor Cone.
[1:01:11] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I think I
[1:01:13] said this the last time we found
[1:01:15] ourselves here uh receiving a report
[1:01:18] from the integrity commissioner uh for
[1:01:20] councelor John's. It's it's a truism
[1:01:23] that in politics the often the worst
[1:01:26] wounds that are inflicted are the ones
[1:01:28] that are self-inflicted.
[1:01:31] You know, there was a but I want I want
[1:01:33] to draw a line from a report from the
[1:01:36] report that that really jumped out at me
[1:01:39] and gave me concern. The line was the
[1:01:42] complaint is politically motivated and
[1:01:45] constitutes an attempt to weaponize the
[1:01:47] code to restrict legitimate political
[1:01:50] expression.
[1:01:52] Now the integrity commissioner uh is an
[1:01:55] append independent officer of council
[1:01:58] appointed by us to apply the code of
[1:02:00] conduct impartially without regard to
[1:02:02] politics or electoral calendar. That
[1:02:06] independence is the whole point of the
[1:02:07] office. When a finding doesn't go
[1:02:09] someone's way. The answer isn't to look
[1:02:11] for a scapegoat. It's to accept the
[1:02:13] outcome and to do better.
[1:02:16] Blaming political opponents for your own
[1:02:18] accountability failures is a tactic more
[1:02:20] common south of the border than it is
[1:02:22] here. And it's not one that East School
[1:02:24] residents deserve to see imported to our
[1:02:26] local politics. Our community expects
[1:02:29] better of the people who serve it and
[1:02:31] frankly so do I.
[1:02:33] But to suggest that these comments are
[1:02:35] politically motivated points a finger
[1:02:38] directly at me
[1:02:40] and that I am the only opponent right
[1:02:42] now in the current election towards
[1:02:44] councelor John's and I want to make it
[1:02:47] crystal clear on this point.
[1:02:50] I categorically deny making this
[1:02:52] complaint or having any involvement with
[1:02:55] it or my team having any involvement
[1:02:57] with it whatsoever in this process that
[1:02:59] led to this ruling.
[1:03:01] Now, I know we're not supposed to ask
[1:03:03] the respondent any questions, but at
[1:03:06] some point, I would hope councelor
[1:03:08] John's will either withdraw these
[1:03:10] remarks or at the very least state that
[1:03:14] he accepts my assurances about my
[1:03:16] non-involvement.
[1:03:17] I have tried to conduct my campaign
[1:03:20] differently and my actions towards
[1:03:22] councelor John's. This is
[1:03:27] this has nothing to do with me. So
[1:03:29] that's it for my comments. Uh Madame
[1:03:33] Mayor, thank you.
[1:03:36] » Thank you. Are there other speakers at
[1:03:39] this point?
[1:03:44] » Councelor Kthers, go ahead, please.
[1:03:48] Thank you. I too am so disappointed that
[1:03:50] we find ourselves here again. When the
[1:03:53] integrity commissioner finds in an
[1:03:55] unbiased independent investigation that
[1:03:57] a counselor has breached the code of
[1:03:59] conduct, it brings shame to this chamber
[1:04:02] because it undermines the public trust
[1:04:05] our residents have put in us. One
[1:04:08] mistake can be excused if there is a
[1:04:10] genuine desire to take responsibility
[1:04:12] for one's actions and change behavior
[1:04:14] going forward. But sadly, that doesn't
[1:04:17] seem to be the case here.
[1:04:19] In the response from councelor John's
[1:04:20] and his lawyer, I'm hearing excuses. I'm
[1:04:23] hearing blaming. I'm hearing deflection.
[1:04:26] Again, this is not the first time our
[1:04:28] integrity commissioner has called out
[1:04:29] councelor John's behavior by using words
[1:04:32] such as misleading, inaccurate, and
[1:04:34] misinformation.
[1:04:36] Words like these were used over a dozen
[1:04:38] times in the last investigation of
[1:04:40] councelor Jones behavior and almost 20
[1:04:42] times in the ruling before us tonight.
[1:04:45] misleading, inaccurate, misinformation.
[1:04:49] This is now a clear and troubling
[1:04:50] pattern of behavior that absolutely
[1:04:52] cannot be excused. It's a pattern of
[1:04:54] misleading the public. The report is
[1:04:57] very clear that this is not about
[1:04:58] advocating for high school. This report
[1:05:00] and findings are about misleading the
[1:05:03] public when doing so. Without a
[1:05:05] demonstration of remorse for his actions
[1:05:08] or even a demonstrated understanding of
[1:05:10] what his obligations are under the code
[1:05:12] of conduct, I don't see this pattern of
[1:05:13] behavior changing. Residents need to be
[1:05:15] aware of the findings of this
[1:05:16] investigation because there has been no
[1:05:18] evidence from councelor John's that he
[1:05:20] intends to change this behavior. A
[1:05:22] formal reprimand is how we do that. The
[1:05:25] public places their trust in us and that
[1:05:27] trust is broken when one counselor is
[1:05:30] found by an impartial third party to
[1:05:32] have misled the public on multiple
[1:05:34] occasions. It's a troubling pattern of
[1:05:37] behavior that councelor Jones did not
[1:05:38] appear willing to change. Thank you,
[1:05:47] » councelor. Go ahead, please.
[1:05:51] >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. I I'll be short
[1:05:53] here. Uh I I don't like making these
[1:05:57] things personal. Um this is numerous
[1:06:01] investigations uh during this term.
[1:06:05] Uh I I can't help but wonder how many
[1:06:07] times
[1:06:09] that we've engaged with the integrity
[1:06:12] commissioner. Um we we talk about strain
[1:06:15] on funds. I think we're inventing ways
[1:06:17] to spend money. Um, and you know, as a
[1:06:21] kid, I was taught this, and I and I
[1:06:24] think this points here to
[1:06:28] a sober second thought before you uh
[1:06:32] open up and start to speak. Um, and and
[1:06:36] far be it for me, but I mean, again, who
[1:06:38] knows? Maybe it'll be me tomorrow that
[1:06:41] says the wrong thing. Um, but I I just
[1:06:45] think this is a terrible road that we've
[1:06:47] gone down. Um, and need to do a lot of
[1:06:51] thinking before you open up your mouth.
[1:06:53] I'll I'll leave it at that.
[1:06:57] » Council Roy Demente.
[1:06:59] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um,
[1:07:04] every single one of us at this table has
[1:07:08] an opinion, a passion,
[1:07:11] uh, a way of wanting to vote.
[1:07:15] And
[1:07:17] uh at the opening comments made by the
[1:07:20] respondent uh there was a suggestion
[1:07:22] made that somehow um that
[1:07:29] his colleagues were complacent and quiet
[1:07:32] and essentially not championing the
[1:07:35] needs of our community.
[1:07:37] And I want to say that I I deeply resent
[1:07:41] the suggestion that any one of us,
[1:07:42] despite our differences,
[1:07:45] has not championed our community, fought
[1:07:47] for what our residents need
[1:07:50] simply because we have not undertaken
[1:07:52] the same sort of unacceptable behavior
[1:07:55] that has unfortunately become a pattern
[1:07:57] here at this table. And um
[1:08:03] there's a right way of advocating and
[1:08:06] leading and there's a wrong way. And
[1:08:10] we've now heard repeatedly that this was
[1:08:13] the wrong way of doing it and that there
[1:08:15] are good ways of doing it and there are
[1:08:17] effective ways of doing it.
[1:08:19] So I am um really disappointed
[1:08:24] um that we find ourselves as we've as my
[1:08:27] colleagues have said that we find
[1:08:28] ourselves here again. Um madame mayor I
[1:08:32] would like to uh move receipt of the
[1:08:34] report as well as uh that we adopt the
[1:08:39] recommendations of the integrity
[1:08:40] commissioner as outlined in the report
[1:08:42] before us today. Thank you.
[1:08:55] Do I have a seconder? Please, counselor.
[1:09:15] Be it resolved that the report of the
[1:09:17] integrity commissioner dated June July
[1:09:20] 20th, 2026 entitled Town Squilbury
[1:09:24] formal code of conduct complaint
[1:09:28] 01
[1:09:31] 0426
[1:09:33] investigation report be received and
[1:09:36] that the recommendations contained
[1:09:38] within the integrity commissioner's
[1:09:40] report be adopted. All those in f
[1:09:43] >> Yes,
[1:09:43] >> madame mayor. Uh my motion was that the recommendations be adopted.
[1:09:49] >> That's what I have on there.
[1:09:51] >> The recommendation on the screen says
[1:09:53] that the the recommendations contained
[1:09:55] be received.
[1:09:56] >> I'll I'll just repeat it. That the
[1:09:59] recommendations contained within the
[1:10:01] integrity commissioner's report be
[1:10:03] adopted. Thank you.
[1:10:12] Are there any questions, comments at
[1:10:14] this point? Now
[1:10:19] the vote's been called.
[1:10:22] All those in favor?
[1:10:26] Opposed?
[1:10:29] It's carried. Thank you.
[1:10:48] We are now moving now our agenda down
[1:10:50] our agenda. Uh item G, committee
[1:10:53] recommendations. Number one, to adopt
[1:10:55] the committee of the whole council
[1:10:57] recommendations from the meeting held on
[1:10:59] June 23rd,
[1:11:01] 2026.
[1:11:03] But I have a mover and a seconder,
[1:11:05] please. Councelor Cone, Councelor
[1:11:09] Foster,
[1:11:10] all those in favor. And that's carried
[1:11:14] to adopt the committee of the whole
[1:11:15] council recommendations from the meeting
[1:11:17] held on July 21st,
[1:11:20] 2026.
[1:11:22] Could I have a mover, please?
[1:11:23] >> Sorry, madame mayor. I just wanted to
[1:11:25] flag that um uh item G2 as we're voting
[1:11:28] on now for the July 21st
[1:11:30] recommendations. I declare a conflict of
[1:11:31] interest on the items uh two and three
[1:11:33] that are contained within that.
[1:11:34] >> I apologize.
[1:11:37] >> Thank you.
[1:11:37] Madam
[1:11:41] » I'm just wondering if we can have them
[1:11:42] put on the screen, please. I I believe
[1:11:44] there are a couple of them that we may
[1:11:46] wish to to pull for some discussion.
[1:11:47] >> We can do that. It'll take a few
[1:11:49] moments, but we'll do the best that we
[1:11:51] can.
[1:11:59] Madame Mayor, uh per I'm not sure if it
[1:12:02] is the will of council, but perhaps if
[1:12:04] uh you would like to entertain
[1:12:06] considering number two and three to
[1:12:08] which council Johns has declared an
[1:12:09] interest first and then we can uh bring
[1:12:11] forward the balance of the
[1:12:12] recommendations.
[1:12:13] >> Thank you.
[1:12:14] >> Yes, thank you.
[1:12:15] >> Okay, just bear with us as we um
[1:12:18] populate the screen with those.
[1:12:20] >> Happy to move those two.
[1:12:22] >> Thank you.
[1:13:25] Madame Mayor, on the screen before you
[1:13:27] is uh recommendation number two that
[1:13:28] councelor Johns had um declared an
[1:13:30] interest. Subsequent to that is number
[1:13:33] three. I believe those were moved by
[1:13:35] councelor Kurthers. You do require a
[1:13:37] seconder.
[1:13:43] » We need a seconder at this point. Is
[1:13:46] that correct?
[1:13:49] >> Councelor Chrome,
[1:13:56] » Councelor Foster.
[1:13:57] >> Uh, thanks, Madam Mayor, and Madame
[1:13:59] Clerk, if you can help me with this. I
[1:14:01] don't know that uh I'm 100% in my right
[1:14:04] to uh to do what I want to do here, but
[1:14:07] I I just want to state that I I still
[1:14:10] disagree with the fact that we are
[1:14:11] taking
[1:14:13] um addresses off
[1:14:16] our uh intention to designate I think
[1:14:18] we're circumventing the Ontario Heritage
[1:14:20] Act, but specifically with uh number
[1:14:24] three
[1:14:26] um the removal of 1982 Young Street,
[1:14:30] which is the upper landing. Um I I said
[1:14:34] earlier if there's any piece of property
[1:14:36] in East Williambury that needs to go
[1:14:38] through the proper process with the
[1:14:40] Ontario Heritage Act, I believe this is
[1:14:43] the one. Um, you know, I I've got a few
[1:14:47] things written down here that I can I
[1:14:48] can go very quickly and I hope that
[1:14:51] there's a maybe an appetite to
[1:14:53] reconsider the removal of of this one.
[1:14:57] Um, you know, we're talking about a
[1:14:59] piece of property that is directly
[1:15:01] associated with the War of 1812. It was
[1:15:04] a part of of a network of trails used by
[1:15:06] indigenous people to travel through what
[1:15:08] is now southern Ontario.
[1:15:10] Um, it was at the original northern
[1:15:13] terminus of Young Street. Uh, Joe
[1:15:16] Johnson, who built the inn there, uh, is
[1:15:19] linked to the 1837 rebellion.
[1:15:23] This piece of property and the house on
[1:15:24] it met five of nine criteria, and we
[1:15:27] were told earlier today that anything
[1:15:29] over three is considered to be very, important.
[1:15:34] This is the site where indigenous people
[1:15:36] embarked along the East Holland River to
[1:15:39] make that trek across Lake Simco, what
[1:15:41] is now Lake Simco, uh, and ended up in Penitentang. Now, the property in
[1:15:47] Penetang has been long recognized as a
[1:15:50] historically significant property,
[1:15:53] although there's been nothing done at
[1:15:54] this end. And, uh, we have the province
[1:15:58] ready to uh, bulldoze the lower landing
[1:16:02] for the Bradford bypass.
[1:16:04] which I think may make this uh even a
[1:16:07] little bit more important.
[1:16:09] I'm very surprised that since Tuesday,
[1:16:12] we haven't heard from some of our
[1:16:14] harshest critics
[1:16:16] uh about this property actually being
[1:16:18] taken off. So, I'm not sure if they were
[1:16:22] on their game the way they should have
[1:16:24] been, but uh uh I think this one's very
[1:16:27] important. So, I will leave it at that.
[1:16:28] Hopefully, there's there's more here at
[1:16:30] the table that uh think along the same
[1:16:32] lines as myself. Thank you.
[1:16:36] >> Thank you. Um,
[1:16:37] >> Madame Mayor,
[1:16:38] >> yes.
[1:16:39] >> Can I just
[1:16:40] >> Yeah, sure.
[1:16:42] >> Since I move the motion, I would like to
[1:16:45] add to that motion 1982 Young Street if
[1:16:49] that's okay with the second.
[1:16:53] » Madame Mayor, I'm [clears throat] quite
[1:16:55] uh
[1:16:57] quite happy to entertain this. I had a
[1:17:00] uh a very good conversation with uh
[1:17:02] Councelor Foster the other day and he
[1:17:04] made a number of compelling arguments.
[1:17:06] Uh I I was in favor of taking it off,
[1:17:11] but uh Councelor Foster did did his best
[1:17:15] work and I uh I found the arguments uh
[1:17:18] worthwhile and I'm happy to to to put it
[1:17:21] back on the list. I will say though that
[1:17:23] the the the homeowner has still has the option to appeal and and get their
[1:17:31] removal. And I would uh I would
[1:17:34] encourage uh history buffs in uh in East
[1:17:37] Gulenberry to to make the argument about
[1:17:41] why they should do this. And uh u I
[1:17:44] think I think it could be good. So let
[1:17:47] them uh let them do their work. Uh
[1:17:50] anyway, happy happy to uh to put this
[1:17:52] back on the list.
[1:17:53] >> Thank you.
[1:17:58] » Go ahead, please.
[1:17:59] >> Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. uh as I was chairing uh this portion of our
[1:18:04] committee of the whole meeting, I I was
[1:18:06] somewhat subdued in my comments and and
[1:18:09] I just wanted to express that um for all
[1:18:12] of the the uh properties that were being
[1:18:15] proposed. I felt very strongly that we
[1:18:17] should be following the process and that
[1:18:19] we should be making those notices to to
[1:18:21] declare so that we could have those
[1:18:23] meaningful conversations with those
[1:18:25] property owners. Uh I'm really delighted
[1:18:27] to hear that u my colleagues have agreed
[1:18:30] with councelor Foster about this
[1:18:32] particular property. Um I know that uh
[1:18:36] through its real estate history uh the
[1:18:38] listings when it has changed hands have
[1:18:41] always um reflected uh the the
[1:18:44] historical and heritage importance of
[1:18:46] that property. And so I think it's it's really important for us to uh to
[1:18:51] proceed with it in this way. So, I just
[1:18:53] wanted to express my support for
[1:18:55] councelor Foster's work. Thank you.
[1:18:57] >> Thank you.
[1:19:00] Are there others that wish to speak at
[1:19:02] this time?
[1:19:08] I'm not I'm not seeing any.
[1:19:12] Madame May, just for clarity, um as you
[1:19:14] can see on the screen, that particular
[1:19:15] property has been added as item J on on the screen on the projector.
[1:19:22] Thank you.
[1:19:29] All those in favor
[1:19:31] and that's carried. Thank you very much,
[1:19:36] >> Madame Mayor. Uh we are uh still at the
[1:19:39] July 21st committee of the whole
[1:19:41] recommendations. These are pertaining to
[1:19:43] the balance of the recommendations to
[1:19:45] which councelor Johns does uh not have
[1:19:47] he has not declared an interest in. So
[1:19:50] what you see on the screen uh in the
[1:19:51] next couple of seconds will be the
[1:19:53] balance of the recommendations from our
[1:19:55] Tuesday's meeting.
[1:19:56] >> Thank you,
[1:20:06] » Madame Mayor. I do apologize. We're It's
[1:20:08] a little slow. Um our team is working
[1:20:10] diligently to move it down. Just bear
[1:20:13] with us as as it moves down.
[1:21:14] three. Madame Mayor, we have been able
[1:21:15] to capture those on the screen. Starting
[1:21:17] with number one and it proceed it moves
[1:21:20] to number four as we just dealt with
[1:21:22] number two and three.
[1:21:30] You would require a mover and a sec
[1:21:33] seconder if it's the will of council to
[1:21:35] move and second all items.
[1:21:41] No. Um, can I just ask our production
[1:21:43] desk if we can scroll up? Thank you.
[1:21:52] Yeah,
[1:22:01] » Madame Mayor, I'm happy to move all four
[1:22:03] of these.
[1:22:05] Thank you.
[1:22:06] >> Sorry, the one on Solar um staff were
[1:22:09] going to try and get the wording nailed
[1:22:10] down and uh I just want that's the
[1:22:12] wording that's changed that I need to to
[1:22:14] see, but it scrolled too fast and too
[1:22:16] slow at the same time. Thanks.
[1:22:18] [laughter]
[1:22:41] Madame Mayor, I'm I'm comfortable with
[1:22:42] that language. I want to thank staff for
[1:22:44] putting that together and appreciate you
[1:22:46] catching that council ks.
[1:22:50] Second.
[1:22:58] » All those in favor?
[1:23:02] Opposed?
[1:23:04] That's carried. Thank you very much.
[1:23:21] We're on number three at this point to
[1:23:23] adopt the committee of the whole council
[1:23:24] recommendations from the meeting held on
[1:23:26] July 23rd, 2026.
[1:23:32] Three, Madame Mayor, those uh are the
[1:23:34] recommendations from uh this afternoon's
[1:23:36] committee of the whole meeting. As you
[1:23:38] can see on the screen before you, they
[1:23:40] are noted in a sequence of one, two, and
[1:23:42] we will scroll down so that you can see
[1:23:44] the balance of them.
[1:23:52] » Uh madame clerk, if I could just uh
[1:23:54] address I spoke earlier at the beginning
[1:23:56] of the meeting regarding the declaration
[1:23:58] of conflict of interest and I just want
[1:23:59] to be clear. I believe that this is uh
[1:24:02] night number three is in relation to
[1:24:04] what I declared at the committee of the
[1:24:06] whole. I believe
[1:24:08] And so to that end for number three, I
[1:24:10] won't be participating in that vote as
[1:24:12] well.
[1:24:15] » Perhaps Madame Mayor, if you would like
[1:24:16] to uh entertain the balance of the items
[1:24:20] that councilor Johnson does not have an
[1:24:21] interest and then we can separate out
[1:24:23] number three for a separate vote in a
[1:24:26] count taking into account the conflict
[1:24:28] of interest.
[1:24:28] >> Then I would be starting at number
[1:24:31] three. Uh three madame mayor you'll be
[1:24:33] starting with number one and two to
[1:24:35] which councelor John does not have an
[1:24:37] interest.
[1:24:37] >> Thank you.
[1:24:39] Number one, be it resolved that
[1:24:40] development services planning branch
[1:24:42] report DS2026-27
[1:24:47] dated July 23rd, 2006,
[1:24:53] 20 thou 2206 entitled zoning bylaw
[1:24:57] amendment 1 19350
[1:25:01] Woodbine Avenue 19
[1:25:04] 350
[1:25:06] Woodbine Avenue, Inc.
[1:25:08] be received and that council approve the
[1:25:11] zoning bylaw amendment ZBA
[1:25:16] 20 62 included as an appendix to report
[1:25:22] DS2026-27
[1:25:26] to reszone the lands from rural RU to
[1:25:30] environmental protection EP and
[1:25:33] Employment General M2-194
[1:25:37] four with a with site specific
[1:25:40] permissions and the recommendations of
[1:25:43] the report DS2026-27
[1:25:47] be ratified at the July 23rd 20 and026
[1:25:54] meeting of municipal council be it
[1:25:56] resolved that the development services
[1:25:59] planning branch report DS2026-28
[1:26:05] dated July 23rd
[1:26:07] 2026 entitled zoning bylaw amendment
[1:26:11] application 20366
[1:26:14] Lesley Street Private Club.
[1:26:18] Sher Sharon Ma Masonic te temple
[1:26:22] association be received and
[1:26:27] the council approve in principle subject
[1:26:29] to an approved site plan application and
[1:26:32] associated agreement as well as a formal
[1:26:36] shared parking agreement include
[1:26:39] included as appendix 4 of report
[1:26:42] DS2026-282
[1:26:46] reszone the lands from residential
[1:26:48] private services RPS
[1:26:51] to sightspecific residential private
[1:26:54] services RPS-195
[1:26:58] bracket and that the implementation
[1:27:05] zoning bylaw be brought forward for an
[1:27:09] enactment
[1:27:11] uh at a future council meeting after the
[1:27:14] owner has obtained site plan approval
[1:27:16] and entered into a site plan agreement
[1:27:19] with the town and that the
[1:27:21] recommendations of the report DS2026-27
[1:27:26] be ratified at the July 23rd, 2026
[1:27:32] meeting of municipal council.
[1:27:39] I need a mover and a seconder.
[1:27:42] >> Thank you, Councelor Foster.
[1:27:49] All those in favor
[1:27:51] and that's carried. Thank you very much.
[1:27:56] Madame Mayor, we're now proceeding to
[1:27:57] number three. Um, which is the item that
[1:28:00] councelor Johns had declared an
[1:28:02] interest. So, you would require a mover
[1:28:03] and a seconder for this.
[1:28:05] >> I have a move and a seconder, please.
[1:28:08] Councelor Foster. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:28:14] and councelor Roy declmente.
[1:28:20] All in favor? And that's carried.
[1:28:30] I'm now at item H, adoption of minutes.
[1:28:34] Uh, could I have a mover and a seconder,
[1:28:36] please?
[1:28:38] Councelor Kthers, Council Cone.
[1:28:42] All those in favor?
[1:28:46] That's carried. Be it resolved that
[1:28:47] council adopt the following minutes.
[1:28:49] Committee of the whole council minutes
[1:28:50] from the regular meeting held on June
[1:28:53] 23rd,
[1:28:54] 2026. And council
[1:28:58] minutes
[1:29:01] uh from regular meeting held on June
[1:29:03] 23rd, 2026.
[1:29:14] Thank you.
[1:29:18] We are now on item I, correspondence for
[1:29:21] consideration. There is none at this
[1:29:24] time. I will move to item J, reports.
[1:29:27] None at this time.
[1:29:30] Item K, resolutions. None at this time.
[1:29:34] Item L, bylaws.
[1:29:37] I have a number here.
[1:29:40] >> Madame Mayor, might might I suggest we
[1:29:42] uh we separate out uh bylaw uh number
[1:29:47] one, the adoption of the official plan
[1:29:49] because it is a uh fairly momentous
[1:29:52] occasion. I think we should uh also call
[1:29:54] for a recorded vote.
[1:29:58] >> Thank you.
[1:30:00] So, a request to remove uh number one
[1:30:04] bylaw. Is that correct?
[1:30:09] separating it out.
[1:30:14] » Madame Mayor,
[1:30:15] >> yes.
[1:30:16] >> Um, with respect to bylaw number uh
[1:30:18] 2026-072
[1:30:20] associated with the town's official
[1:30:22] plan, councelor Cone has requested for a
[1:30:25] recorded vote. You would require a mover
[1:30:27] and a seconder.
[1:30:32] » Councelor Cone.
[1:30:34] Enter.
[1:30:36] >> Chair. Thank you,
[1:30:38] >> Madame Mayor. Can um I'm now going to
[1:30:41] carry out the uh recorded vote. So,
[1:30:42] councelor Cone, uh you have requested
[1:30:44] for a recorded vote. How do you vote?
[1:30:46] >> Yes.
[1:30:47] >> Thank you. Councelor Foster, how do you
[1:30:49] vote?
[1:30:50] >> Yes.
[1:30:50] >> Mayor Haxton, how do you vote?
[1:30:52] >> Yes.
[1:30:53] >> Councelor Johns, how do you vote?
[1:30:54] >> Yes.
[1:30:55] >> Councelor Lehey is absent with notice.
[1:30:57] Councelor Roy de Clemente, how do you
[1:30:58] vote?
[1:30:58] >> Yes.
[1:30:59] >> Councelor Kathers, how do you vote?
[1:31:01] >> Yes.
[1:31:01] >> Madame, that motion carries unanimously.
[1:31:03] Thank you very much.
[1:31:06] >> Madame Mayor, can we also do the next
[1:31:08] one for a separate and recorded vote? So
[1:31:10] that's bylaw uh 2026-073
[1:31:15] uh which is uh regarding um uh the
[1:31:18] Greenear Village project.
[1:31:20] >> Happy to second that as well, Madame
[1:31:22] Mayor.
[1:31:23] >> Thank you.
[1:31:27] » Three, Madame Mayor. This item has been
[1:31:29] moved by councelor Ray de Clemente,
[1:31:31] seconded by councelor Cone. There's been
[1:31:33] a request for a recorded vote. Councelor
[1:31:35] Ray Demente, how do you vote?
[1:31:36] >> Yes.
[1:31:37] >> Councelor Kathers, how do you vote?
[1:31:38] >> Yes.
[1:31:39] >> Councelor Cron, how do you vote?
[1:31:40] >> Yes.
[1:31:41] >> Councelor Foster, how do you vote?
[1:31:42] >> Yes.
[1:31:43] >> Mayor Haxin, how do you vote?
[1:31:44] >> Yes.
[1:31:44] >> Councelor Johns, how do you vote?
[1:31:46] >> Yes.
[1:31:46] >> And to for the record, Councelor Ley is
[1:31:48] absent with notice.
[1:31:50] >> Madame Mayor, that motion carries
[1:31:52] unanimously.
[1:31:53] >> Thank you very much.
[1:32:07] Madam Mayor, might I suggest we bundle
[1:32:09] the remaining bylaws into one?
[1:32:12] >> Happy to move that.
[1:32:13] >> And I'll second it. No. Thank you.
[1:32:20] [laughter]
[1:32:25] » All in favor?
[1:32:27] And that's carried.
[1:32:31] We're at item M, other business. There's
[1:32:34] none at this time.
[1:32:35] >> Madame Mayor, given that uh given that
[1:32:37] there is other business um on the agenda
[1:32:40] and given that the procedural bylaw does
[1:32:42] allow for um for council, if they do
[1:32:46] wish to entertain uh a motion, I I've
[1:32:49] prepared a simple motion uh given
[1:32:51] tonight's meeting uh for the council to
[1:32:53] simply endorse the need for a high
[1:32:55] school in East Wenbury. And so if uh
[1:32:57] procedurally I would like to move it, if
[1:32:59] somebody wishes to second it um uh that
[1:33:03] would be appreciated so that we can we
[1:33:05] can fully endorse a high school the need
[1:33:07] for a high school with any school.
[1:33:11] » Do we have anyone who is
[1:33:16] interested at this point about a high
[1:33:18] scale school?
[1:33:21] I'm not seeing anyone at this point.
[1:33:28] Madame Mayor, we would need a motion to
[1:33:31] discuss this um by all of council in
[1:33:34] order to put it on the table. We don't
[1:33:36] have the motion. We have not seen the
[1:33:37] motion. We've not had any time to
[1:33:38] prepare for this motion. We've not been
[1:33:40] able to talk to staff. We do not have
[1:33:42] another meeting coming up until
[1:33:43] September. So, I think trying to put
[1:33:45] this shoehorn this in at the last minute
[1:33:48] when it's very clear that everyone at
[1:33:50] this table has said repeatedly that we
[1:33:52] want a high school. But I don't think
[1:33:54] that this type of uh lastm minute trying
[1:33:56] to throw something on the agenda um is
[1:33:58] going to make any difference to us
[1:34:00] getting a high school. Uh so I I'm not
[1:34:02] prepared to entertain at this time
[1:34:03] because I would want to have time to
[1:34:05] think about and make sure that
[1:34:06] everything is included in that motion
[1:34:08] etc. So I will not be uh voting to
[1:34:10] entertain this.
[1:34:11] >> Thank you. Other comments?
[1:34:18] » I have Mayor. May I move to the uh
[1:34:20] adoption of the confirming bylaw,
[1:34:22] please?
[1:34:28] » That would be uh item M under other
[1:34:32] business.
[1:34:34] >> Madame Mayor, no, it's just
[1:34:37] letter N.
[1:34:38] >> N I missed it by one.
[1:34:39] >> Confirming bylaw. I moved it. I don't
[1:34:41] know if you need a seconder, but I'm
[1:34:42] pretty sure you do.
[1:34:43] >> I have a seconder confirming bylaw. Be
[1:34:46] it resolved that the bylaw 2026
[1:34:50] 79 being the bylaw to confirm the
[1:34:52] proceedings of the council meeting held
[1:34:54] on July 23rd,
[1:34:57] 2026 be taken as read and acted and
[1:35:00] signed by the mayor and municipal clerk.
[1:35:04] All in favor?
[1:35:07] That's carried. Thank you very much. Uh,
[1:35:10] and we have an adjournment in front of
[1:35:13] us at this point this evening. Uh, could
[1:35:16] I have a mover and a seconder? Councelor
[1:35:19] Kthers. Council
[1:35:22] >> Councelor Johns.
[1:35:26] Be it resolve that the meeting of
[1:35:28] council adjourn at 7:26 p.m. All those
[1:35:33] in favor?
[1:35:34] And that's carried. Thank you very much.
[1:35:37] Thank you for all your support and um
[1:35:40] feedback. back.