[0:22] Yes. Uh just while we wait for staff to get us online, I'd remind everyone to

[0:27] sign in.

[0:38] Eli. >> Okay.

[0:43] » All right. Good evening everyone and welcome. Um just a note that this

[0:47] meeting will be recorded and livereamed excluding any inc camera topics. First

[0:53] order of business I'll call the meeting to order and begin with our historical

[0:57] acknowledgement. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are in Migmagi

[1:01] in the district of Sebagani, the ancestral territory of the Migma people.

[1:06] East Hance further acknowledges the 50 African Nova Scotian communities whose

[1:11] 400year history have contributed to the province's culture, history, and

[1:15] legacies. We are all treaty people. We'll now have a moment of silent

[1:21] contemplation.

[1:36] Next, we'll set the t date and time for next council meetings, which will be the

[1:41] regular meeting of council for policy and in camera, which will be September

[1:46] the 15, 2026, and the regular meeting of council, which will be September the

[1:51] 23rd, 2026.

[1:55] Are there any amendments to the agenda?

[2:02] Seeing none, I declare the agenda approved.

[2:05] Next, we're looking for the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of

[2:09] council for policy and in camera on June the 16th, 2026 and the regular meeting

[2:14] of council June 24th, 2026. >> Second.

[2:21] » We don't need a motion, folks. I just need to know whether there are any

[2:25] errors or omissions. And uh seeing none, I declare them approved. Next, we'll

[2:30] move to correspondence for information. Uh counselors, you have it uh you've had

[2:37] it in front of you for some time and it is on the screen. Is there anything

[2:42] under correspondence for information that any counselor wants to draw

[2:46] attention to?

[2:53] Oh, councelor Mitchell. >> That's looking at item number 17, the 4

[2:59] clubs. Uh, on behalf of council, I'll be presenting those four four trophies at

[3:05] exhibition on the 19th of Sep of August. Just want to let council know.

[3:13] » Thank you, counselor. Any other items?

[3:19] Seeing none, we'll move to correspondence for decision.

[3:28] Okay, we'll start with the um

[3:34] item number 78, notice from the province regarding a new policing billing model.

[3:39] Consultation is planned in August and the CAL and warden need direction for

[3:45] participation. So, who's taking that? CEO.

[3:54] » Thank you, Madam Morton. So, we received this letter today. Um, however, um, at

[4:00] the staff level, we've been to a couple of sessions with the RCMP where this new

[4:05] billing model was discussed. Um, one was strictly on the billing model itself,

[4:10] what that would look like and the level of policing across the province. Uh

[4:15] there was another one which was a general RCMP

[4:18] uh engagement with municipalities where this became uh one of the topics.

[4:25] This change although it looks great you reduce your your policing cost by 25%

[4:31] which is very significant for E stance the caveat is that we must spend that

[4:37] money on other community safety initiatives. So there will be a sort of

[4:44] a drop-own list of what we are permitted to spend the money on based on what our

[4:49] community needs itself. And

[4:55] my my feedback to them was we're not in this business. That's why we contract

[4:59] with the RCMP. We are not in the public safety business generally. I mean, we

[5:05] have bylaw enforcement and sidewalks and that type of thing, but we don't have um

[5:11] community safety officers that we send out to do wellness checks for people. We

[5:14] don't have social workers on staff. We don't have folks who are mental health

[5:18] professionals on staff. And that is what they will expect you to do with that 1.6

[5:24] million that that you're saving from a police perspective. So, it's a really

[5:28] big conversation for East Hans. Um, it's one that I foresee will will force you

[5:37] shifting your priorities from what they are now in your strategic plan to that

[5:41] of public safety. And if you don't, I'm not sure what the what the carrot is

[5:44] that, you know, maybe like do you lose your money or do you pay it to them? I'm

[5:49] not really sure at this point. Um, they haven't been clear about that. On one

[5:54] hand, we will have to do this and on the other hand, they say there'll be

[5:59] municipal autonomy. So, I'm not sure how the two reconcile um yet. Hopefully, in

[6:08] August, they're going to reach out for a virtual meeting. I'm not sure who

[6:12] they're going to ask to attend that meeting, whether it's going to be the

[6:14] police advisory board. Um up to this point, it's been the CEOs. Um now that

[6:20] this announcement's been made, I would assume they're going to involve at a

[6:24] minimum the warden of the municipality they're discussing,

[6:28] but I don't know. So, I guess I need some direction from council as to how

[6:33] far we have these conversations. Um, what it looks like for East Tants, I I

[6:38] can't tell you, but I need to be able to have some kind of conversations with

[6:42] them to move this forward to see where they want us to get to, if that makes

[6:47] sense. >> Okay,

[6:52] » Councelor Perry. Um yeah, looking at this today and reading the provincial

[6:58] announcement, it, you know, was not a detail in the provincial announcement

[7:03] today as much as there is in this letter. And looking at it, I mean, for

[7:07] my for my the way I look at it is, you know, for towns and small areas, you

[7:14] know, that model might work because it's all in the same small geographical area

[7:18] if when you're dealing with with a town, but as a municipality that covers a

[7:22] large footprint, we we already uh with our RCMP um have them stretch stretched

[7:29] pretty thin to respond and cover the area that we currently have them

[7:33] serving. And I don't see how we could in any way um with that little bit of money

[7:41] come anywhere close to providing the services to the residents of the

[7:44] municipality and covering the whole municipality in that manner. Uh so this

[7:50] is definitely something that uh I think needs to be taken and and there needs to

[7:54] be some uh some push back and some hard questions uh asked and uh and I and I

[8:02] would you know if there's a motion needed to say that we need to have these

[8:06] conversations and that it should be the CEO and the warden and leading these

[8:09] conversations I am all for making that motion. Uh, but I see the warden and a

[8:13] couple other people on and if and if after they speak they want that motion

[8:17] made, I'll be happy to make it. >> My mic is just on. So, councelor Rhino.

[8:24] » Thank you, Madam Warden. Well, from this explanation here tonight CEO, there

[8:29] doesn't seem to be any savings to the taxpayer whatsoever. To me, if you're

[8:34] going to decrease [clears throat] the cost of 25%, but you're going to tell

[8:38] somebody how to spend that 25% that you did save, there's no saving. The

[8:44] taxpayer isn't going to see it's the thing. So, uh, until we dive deeper into

[8:50] this and find out, you know, what exactly the province is heading for,

[8:55] this to me is just was a press release that made himself look good. Thank you.

[9:01] Councelor Musa.

[9:06] » Uh, thank you, Madam Morton. So, so they didn't tell you what we could spend it

[9:11] on yet? Like, like could it be extra police

[9:15] officer on the ground? Like, no. Or or like I know probably like uh would would

[9:22] the street lights be in that? No. >> No. So, so the model for policing is

[9:29] changing as you know it. Um, what they've done is they've looked at a new

[9:34] model for calculating the cost of policing not based on the per officer

[9:39] model but based on the crime severity in a in a community based on the um

[9:46] standard assessments um couple of other indexes that they have. So the premise

[9:53] being that every municipality regardless of how much a council wants to invest in

[9:58] policing will get the same standard level of service.

[10:03] » So that's what they're going to agree to pay for is a standard level of service

[10:08] across the board. And if you've and they're adding more money to the pot in

[10:13] order to make sure that happens. So, municipalities won't receive less

[10:19] service than they get now, but they may receive more under this new model.

[10:24] But in the in the discussions I've had with them um and in the press release,

[10:29] the press release says these savings must be reinvested into local public

[10:34] safety priorities such as layered policing, community safety planning,

[10:38] mental health and addictions response, and crime and violence prevention. So,

[10:44] those are all things that we don't do right now. We we have one bylaw

[10:48] enforcement officer. That's what we do. And we do some um senior safety

[10:53] programming with the RCMP. So, all of these things, the way they

[11:00] described it at the meeting I was at is sort of a drop down. What does East

[11:04] Hance want to take from the drop down? What can you do? What does your RCMP

[11:08] office in in East Hance need as supports? and what are your council's

[11:12] priorities for for this? None of these people we have on staff at the moment.

[11:18] Um, so I've I've tried to advocate that they take these folks on. So if you need

[11:23] a layered policing model, those police those people should report to the RCMP

[11:29] commander and provide that support to the officers similar to what we've done

[11:34] with our admin support and court liaison officers. We don't supervise those

[11:38] people or tell them what to do. we pay for them through the RCMP contract.

[11:43] That is not the model that they're going with. So again, I don't know what it

[11:48] looks like. Um, but if it looks like what it looks like in some other

[11:52] provinces, this is like having community safety

[11:56] officers that report in through the CAO, like do you need a that will support the

[12:02] RCMP and their 24-hour policing model? Uh, one of the examples they gave was in

[12:07] Wolfville, you could send in a community safety officer to shut down a party

[12:11] instead of wasting RCMP's time shutting down the party.

[12:15] I don't know how feasible that is, but that was one of the examples that was

[12:20] given in the meeting that that I attended. So, um, the other one would be

[12:24] doing wellness checks for people. Instead of sending officers in to do

[12:27] wellness checks, you could send a community safety officer who would be a

[12:31] municipal employee [clears throat] in to do a wellness check for somebody.

[12:34] again, not the business we're in currently. Um, and not identified as one

[12:39] of your priorities for sure,

[12:47] » councelor McY. >> Uh, thank you, [clears throat] Warden.

[12:50] And, uh, thank you, uh, Kim. That explained at least some of what I was

[12:55] wondering about. But could you, what do they mean by layered

[13:02] policing exactly? I kind of have a thought but uh

[13:06] » so that is that through you madam warden that is that model that I just

[13:10] described. So you [clears throat] have a police officer to do the sort of crime

[13:15] and and whatnot but then you could also have a community safety officer to do to

[13:20] do wellness checks or to take somebody to

[13:24] the hospital. Um,

[13:29] there's stories where you have RCMP officers who go to the hospital and have

[13:32] to sit there for 12 hours and wait with somebody until they get admitted.

[13:36] » That could be a layered policing structure where you have someone who's

[13:40] not a full RCMP officer do that. You have someone who works for municipality

[13:43] take them instead. A community safety officer.

[13:47] So, that's the layered policing. Um, they've talked as well about increased

[13:52] bylaw enforcement. So, a lot of the things that we get the RCMP to enforce

[13:56] in our bylaws now, that could be in um enforced through bylaw enforcement

[14:01] officers that we would hire instead of having the RCMP go out and and hire that

[14:06] or [clears throat] perform those uh you know, if it's

[14:11] parking violations or speed violations, you know,

[14:16] » so would that so would those officers work answer directly to you as CEO or

[14:22] » that would be to be det they would answer to me at some point. Maybe not

[14:26] directly to me. >> No,

[14:28] » but they would be municipal employees. >> Be municipal employees. Yeah.

[14:31] » Right. >> And so you're saying that

[14:34] » nobody [clears throat] will they're going to try to have a standard rate

[14:37] across the province >> for policing.

[14:39] » For policing we're kind of above that standard. We've chosen I think with the

[14:44] 24hour the number of officers that we have per capita in that work. So do we

[14:50] continue with that number of officers? >> My understanding is yes.

[14:55] » So >> yeah,

[14:57] » other municipalities are going to have to come up to our

[15:00] standard. So it's actually going to cost some municipalities money then.

[15:03] » Uh the the model shows that there's no cost increases for anybody in year one.

[15:09] And I I tried to find it earlier. Um there's something about the first five

[15:15] years. there's no increases or there's minimal increases in the first five

[15:19] years to get you to where you need to be. I can't remember the

[15:22] » the formula, but >> so will we still have the choice then of

[15:27] how many officers we have like we have? No, we won't.

[15:30] » So, >> the policing model is such that the

[15:34] department of justice will determine the level of service the province has across

[15:38] the board. They will rein they will invest more money into policing so that

[15:43] everybody gets the same level of service across the board and council will no

[15:48] longer be paying based on the number of officers you have. You'll be paying for

[15:54] a police service that is standardized across.

[15:56] » So we will probably have fewer officers. If if you're going to go down to a mean

[16:01] and you're above that mean then you have to have less.

[16:04] » Not necessarily. But but you will be out of that decision

[16:11] » with this new model >> and that's not up for debate.

[16:14] » Yeah. >> I mean politically you can debate with

[16:17] the province whatever you want but in in this model the new policing model has a

[16:22] standard level of policing across the province. No one will lose the the level

[16:26] they have now. Um

[16:30] and some people won't see a decrease in their cost because they'll

[16:35] the level is not is going to go up. go up for them. Yeah. So, I can't see how

[16:40] » the people that are above the mean aren't going to lose policing, have to

[16:45] lose services if you're wrong to have less. But anyway, maybe I remember when

[16:51] we met with uh the minister and at that time I thought he [clears throat] was

[16:54] trying to convince us that everything would be hunky dory, but I wasn't buying

[16:58] it then and I'm not buying it now. Thank you.

[17:01] » Thank you, counselor. Councelor Mitchell.

[17:05] Thank you, Madam Warden. [clears throat] Based on the discussion and the

[17:08] information, I'm getting a feeling that we might have to add staff to cover the

[17:13] skill sets that we don't have on staff. >> Uh, three, Madam Warden. I certainly

[17:19] don't have anyone on staff who could supervise a

[17:25] community safety officers. So, do we have to uh add somebody to do

[17:32] that going forward or >> uh through

[17:36] » I know they're pushing it on us. >> I think you would have to determine h

[17:40] how this is all going to work. There's no, you know, is it a regional approach?

[17:44] Is it a municipality of East Hans approach? I don't know the answer, but

[17:49] um I >> this is another provincial initiative

[17:52] that has been pushed out with an announcement that is downloading things

[17:56] onto municipalities [clears throat] without a lot of detail on how it's

[17:59] going to work. I'll be blunt. >> And they are setting up separate

[18:04] meetings with each municipality to talk about each municipal unit and how it's

[18:09] going to work and what they what they believe needs to be in place for each

[18:15] community. But you're going to have a community safety board instead of a

[18:19] police advisory board. Um, your community safety board, I assume, will

[18:22] set those priorities for your community and then

[18:26] we'll have to to fund them. >> Okay. U

[18:34] [clears throat] counselors, I'm going to go to councelor garden cole next. I'm

[18:37] going to try and cycle through the counselors who haven't spoken yet and

[18:40] then come back to those who have. So, councelor garden.

[18:43] » Thank you, madam warden. So just thinking about this over in my mind, my

[18:48] concern with this is when you talk about wellness checks and you know mental

[18:53] health checks and those kinds of things that people think might not be fall

[18:58] under the umbrella of policing or might not require policing. Any of those

[19:02] checks has the potential to escalate very quickly to to the point where you

[19:07] do need policing. So, I just don't know how they could strike those off as being

[19:13] potential areas where they could, you know, lean on safety officers.

[19:19] I feel like we would be having to hire police to do the policing for the areas

[19:26] that the police aren't willing to do, which sounds really redundant,

[19:29] » but that would be um, you know, if we can pass that on, that would be the way

[19:36] that I'm seeing it. So through you, Madam Morton, I have passed that on. Um

[19:41] my feedback to them was if you want to have community safety officers that

[19:44] support the RCMP and policing, then the police should operationalize those folks

[19:50] and be able to call on them when they need them, not based on what when I say

[19:53] they should be working and when they're not. So that is part of the conversation

[19:58] I had with them at a meeting in Angones. I don't know how

[20:04] well I asked them again today if it they had taken that into consideration and

[20:10] they have not. >> I I understand that they are looking at

[20:13] their system and saying, you know, it's like taking someone to the hospital and

[20:17] ending up there for 9 hours. I I understand that part of their time seems

[20:21] like it's tied up unnecessarily or for situations that don't require policing,

[20:27] but this sounds like a really drastic attempt to solve solve those problems.

[20:33] Thank you, >> Councelor Miam.

[20:38] » Thank you, Madam Warden. I was wondering if um one avenue for uh giving feedback

[20:45] and advocacy might be the NSFM or Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities. Uh

[20:50] I don't know if they've come out with anything yet, but um maybe this this is

[20:55] a question for the CAO as well. You know, could that be an avenue? Because I

[20:59] I'm thinking this isn't just an US issue. It's a you know, it's an everyone

[21:04] issue. After you, Madam Warden, I know the NSFM

[21:08] was um copied on all of our letters today. Um in one of our sessions, they

[21:13] did say that they were going to engage with the NSFM. Um so that would have

[21:17] probably been a couple weeks ago. Um I'm not sure what the conversations have

[21:22] been with that group. Um but certainly I think if the municipalities all have

[21:28] individual meetings with Department of Justice,

[21:31] it's sort of one of those, you know, divide and conquer kind of situations.

[21:36] Um I think we do need to engage the NSFM as soon as we know what the agreement

[21:42] looks like and what the expectations are. Um and that will come hopefully in

[21:46] our meeting in August with them. >> Okay. Um thank you,

[21:51] Deputy Warden. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'm

[21:54] similar to councelor Mitchell and council garden cole is the uh wellness

[21:57] and the parties and the things like that these people go to hospital injuries are

[22:02] who is going to be training them the liability uh RCMP take a person to the

[22:07] hospital they have handcuffs to handcuff the person to a chair if they have to go

[22:10] to the washroom these people have all this protection for themselves so I

[22:15] think I go back to the warden's comments it's the problems downloading more stuff

[22:19] to municipalities thank Thank you.

[22:24] » Back to you, Councelor Perry. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Warden. And, and

[22:29] when we talk about the 55, I think it's 55 municipalities in the province of

[22:33] Nova Scotia, you're probably going to see a lot of municipalities are going to

[22:37] get a win out of this because they're not meeting the standard. They don't

[22:41] have 24-hour policing. They don't have enough officers. So, for them, this is

[22:46] going to be good for their areas. For ones like us that have been proactive

[22:51] and been ahead of the curve, it's could be detrimental because they're not going

[22:56] to need to take the money that was already being spent on policing and

[23:00] create new services. Their money is just going to just go to policing uh as ours

[23:04] used to. And when I look at all the services that they talk about in this

[23:07] multi-layered policing, if we had a hospital here that had a mental health

[23:12] unit, if we had, you know, an emergency room or we had any type of the supports

[23:17] that's required to support these positions, it might be something that

[23:22] our municipality could look at, but we don't have any of those within our

[23:26] borders. So we don't even have the supports if we wanted to do layer

[23:31] policing to support the people on the back end for doing this. So that is a

[23:36] huge huge concern as well. Um and for me I I I really think that we could talk

[23:44] about this for the next two hours but the big thing is there's a meeting

[23:48] coming up in August and then there will be a meeting coming up with us at some

[23:53] point. the minister's and his team is going to come here and hopefully meet

[23:56] with all of council about about what's going on. So,

[24:02] I'm going to move that uh you know, we authorize the CEO and the

[24:08] warden to relay at the August meeting uh the displeasure with this current uh

[24:15] funding model and announcement um that was presented by the province

[24:21] today outlining our concerns uh for not only the resident's safety but also the

[24:27] ability for us to manage and protect our residents in the future.

[24:32] » Seconded by councelor McY councelor Rhino, you were on before the motion.

[24:39] » Thank you, Madam Warden. Well, I don't know if I can agree with the motion or

[24:44] not because all we have is a letter. All we have is the little information our

[24:50] CEO has. We don't know. We have assumptions.

[24:55] We have our thoughts. We have our questions. So until we have a sat down

[25:00] meeting and get some final information on what it's going to be like, then I

[25:05] can think we could spend an hour or we could spend an evening on this or more

[25:10] discussing this all together. This is no good to beat this around here tonight

[25:14] because there's too many unanswered questions. There's not enough

[25:17] information. I think councelor, correct me if I'm

[25:21] wrong, councelor Perry, the intent of the motion is really to allow for the

[25:26] meeting that will take place in August, the CAO and I to proceed along the lines

[25:31] that with the information we have at hand, we see some difficulties with

[25:35] this. >> I'll I agree with that. However, putting

[25:39] our concerns out there, we don't know what all our concerns are because we

[25:43] don't have an information. All we have is assumptions on our concerns. And that

[25:47] can be one of the concerns we express. >> I think we just don't want to go into

[25:52] these meetings blind with no idea how council wants us to proceed.

[25:56] » They may invite all the council. I don't know.

[25:58] » Yes. But it could certainly be open. We don't know.

[26:05] » They've already got it all planned.

[26:09] » I see no one else left to speak. There's a motion on the floor. We'll go to the

[26:13] vote.

[26:18] And the motion has passed unanimously.

[26:24] » Okay, we are three minutes from our public hearing. What's the next item on

[26:29] correspondence for decision >> and we might be able to do we might be

[26:33] able to set this date in three minutes. Let's give it a shot.

[26:38] » You're brave. Council

[26:42] has been asked to consider booking a CAO priority session on Thursday, September

[26:46] 3rd, or at another time acceptable to council and the CAO. So, I believe

[26:52] September the 3 is traditionally left open in case there's anything over from

[26:57] August that has to be dealt with quickly. I'm not sure, but that's

[27:02] September 1st. >> Oh, okay.

[27:04] » That's the public information meeting. All right, Councelor Perry,

[27:08] » I will move that uh we book September 3rd to have a CIO pri priority session.

[27:18] » Seconded by Councelor McY, councelor Rhino.

[27:22] » Well, okay. If everybody wants it on the third, that's fine. But I'll inform you

[27:26] now I probably won't be here. I'm getting a new knee on the 25th, so I'm

[27:30] not probably going to be very happy to have you be here that evening. So, and

[27:35] but I I do wish that it had been put off a little bit so I could uh hear those

[27:40] priorities. Thank you. >> Well, we certainly could, if counselor

[27:44] wishes, put it off until October. So,

[27:49] » do October 1st >> and uh anyone and uh

[27:56] councelor Gordon Cole. >> Thank you, Madam Morton. I'm going to

[28:01] make a motion that we put it off until >> we have a motion.

[28:06] » Motion on the floor. We'd have to move to table that motion I believe or

[28:11] » amend it to change the date. I think would not change the intent of the

[28:15] motion. We'd still be having a meeting. >> So if you wish to do that.

[28:21] » Okay, that's what I would like to amend the motion to uh have the meeting on

[28:25] October 1st rather than September 3rd. Second.

[28:29] » Seconded by councelor Miriam. Any discussion on the amendment?

[28:35] » Seeing none, we'll go to vote. Go to the vote. This is on the amendment.

[28:46] Two people who haven't voted yet, folks.

[28:52] » Okay. Motion is passed unanimously by those present in the room. All right.

[28:57] All right, we'll go to the vote on the amended motion.

[29:08] Motion is passed unanimously by those present for the discussion.

[29:13] All right, we have reached the hour of 7:30 which is the time of our public

[29:18] hearing.

[29:23] Uh we have two items on the public hearing agenda this evening.

[29:30] Uh the purpose of this hearing is for council to hear input from the public

[29:34] prior to making a decision on the proposals. To the members of the public

[29:38] who have chosen to participate this evening, welcome. Please note the

[29:43] council's procedural policy requires that you not cheer, boo, clap, or

[29:47] otherwise disrupt this hearing. Everyone who wishes will have an opportunity to

[29:51] be heard. Tonight, council may approve, reject, or defer its decision to a later

[29:56] date. Council approval is required for the proposals to proceed. I will now ask

[30:01] the municipal clerk to outline when the public hearing advertisements were

[30:06] published. >> Uh Madame Warden, a public hearing

[30:09] notice appeared in the July 14th, 2026 and July 21st, 2026 editions of the

[30:14] Chronicle Herald. The notices described the proposals, gave the date and time of

[30:18] this public hearing, and indicated the staff reports were available to the

[30:22] public. >> Thank you.

[30:26] Uh counselors, the first public hearing

[30:30] item this evening is a mapping amendment application from Andrew and Julie

[30:34] Gildby. I will now ask the chair of the planning advisory committee to present

[30:38] his report. Councelor Mitchell. The planning advisory committee has

[30:43] considered the proposal on behalf of municipal council. The committee has

[30:48] reviewed staff reports, completed their evaluation, and will make a

[30:52] recommendation to council during this hearing.

[30:55] Madam Warden, through you, I would now ask staff to present their final report

[31:00] on the proposal. >> Nice. Okay.

[31:06] » Thank you, [clears throat] Madam Morton. So, the subject property is 809 Horn

[31:10] Settlement Road. Uh the property's area is 23 acres. It's currently splitzoned

[31:16] rural use and established residential neighborhood zone. Um the application

[31:22] relates to just the rural use portion of the property.

[31:30] So [clears throat] the applicants are proposing to change the zone and

[31:34] designation from rural use to establish residential designation and zone. The

[31:39] application is to enable the construction of a private road and then

[31:42] subdivide off that private road. In the rural use zone, new roads are not

[31:46] permitted. So the design redesignation and reszoning will result in the whole

[31:51] property being established residential neighborhood designation and zone and to

[31:55] permit that private road. So the applicant suggests an additional

[32:00] eight lots could be created. Uh so that's nine lots total although the land

[32:04] would need to be surveyed and meet the requirements of the subdivision bylaw

[32:09] and this is just their concept. So here are the proposed amendments. Uh

[32:15] the entire property would be established residential neighborhood designation on

[32:20] the left and zone on the right. So staff have referred to the MPS

[32:28] policies associated with the rural use designation as well as general policies

[32:32] related to amending the MPS and land use bylaw. Policy IM10 states council shall

[32:38] consider the this type of application and policy IM19B states council shall

[32:43] have regard for the adequacy of site conditions for private and on-site

[32:47] septic and water systems. So the applicants uh engaged a hydrogeeologist

[32:53] to conduct a level one groundwater assessment for the property. The study

[32:57] found no potential environmental concerns related to the development. The

[33:02] underlying aquifer is capable of supplying sufficient water quantity and

[33:06] quality um with conventional inhome treatment systems for the proposed

[33:10] development. Uh the study suggests that if the number

[33:15] of lots does increase um the study should be reviewed.

[33:21] So planning staff contacted the fire department, RCMP and the municipal

[33:26] infrastructure and operations department for comments. Uh there were no concerns

[33:31] with the reasonzoning of the property. They just highlighted um that the new

[33:35] private road will have to comply with the municipal standards for private

[33:39] roads. Nova Scotia Public Works was also

[33:42] contacted and they do not anticipate a negative impact on the road network. Um,

[33:48] private road access can be obtained in the vicinity of the existing residential

[33:52] driveway on the property.

[33:56] So, an advertisement outlining the proposal and indicating that it was

[33:59] under review was placed in a May edition of the Chronicle Herald. Uh, there was a

[34:04] public meeting public information meeting held on June 2nd. Um, this was

[34:08] for three applications. 14 people attended. Um

[34:13] there was only one comment about this application and it was just to clarify

[34:17] if any of the neighboring properties would be reszoned as well and staff

[34:21] indicated that this was a sight specific amendment.

[34:26] So questionnaires were mailed out to uh all the properties within 300 meters uh

[34:32] of the subject property to allow residents the opportunity to comment on

[34:36] the application. 111 questionnaires were sent out and seven were returned. Um,

[34:42] most letters indicated no concern or oppositions. Um, there were some

[34:47] concerns about where the proposed road would join Horn Settlement Road. Um,

[34:52] they would prefer if the road would be located on the other side of the

[34:55] property. Um, again, there were concerns about land use changes to adjacent

[35:00] properties. Um resident asked if there would be any businesses on the

[35:04] properties or if it would just be private dwellings. Um there were also

[35:09] questions about where the homes would draw their water. Um and then there was

[35:13] just general discussion on neighborhood pride and the wish to maintain the

[35:17] peaceful nature of the area. So a letter was mailed to property

[35:24] owners again within 300 meters indicating the date and time of this

[35:27] public hearing. Um, as we mentioned, a notice of public hearing was placed in

[35:31] the July 14th and 21st editions of the Chronicle Herald. Uh, and the municipal

[35:36] website and social media pages have been updated regularly.

[35:41] So, staff have reviewed the proposed um the proposal for portion of the subject

[35:47] property to be reszoned and redesated to establish residential neighborhood

[35:51] designation and zone. The proposed amendments have been evaluated using all

[35:56] applicable policies in the MPS. Um, and staff are recommending approval of this

[36:01] application. Council's decision on this application

[36:05] is not appealable to the Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board. Thank you.

[36:10] Thank you. Does any member of council have any questions for staff?

[36:19] Seeing none, I would now ask if the applicant has any comments or would like

[36:23] to make a presentation.

[36:30] [clears throat]

[36:40] Uh, good good evening everyone. >> Uh, my name is Andrew Gilby. I'm here

[36:44] with my wife Julie, daughter Grace, and son Gage. Um, I guess most everybody

[36:51] here was at the public information meeting the last time we were here. So,

[36:57] um, I think everyone is, I guess, pretty well, um, aware of what

[37:02] we're trying to do and accomplish. Um, I guess I would first like to thank the

[37:09] staff and everybody here for for, you know, going through this process for

[37:15] the first time, recognizing how much work and detail goes into this. Um, we

[37:20] read [clears throat] through some of the stuff was online

[37:23] a couple nights ago and reading through it like there's a lot that goes into

[37:27] this. There's a lot of detail. There's a lot of, you know, engaging the public.

[37:32] So, um it's kind of eye opening that, you know, um that this stuff happens. Um

[37:39] and so we appreciate uh everyone's efforts on it. And after the previous

[37:44] conversation about the RCMP and police, there's way [clears throat] bigger

[37:49] problems uh than than what we're trying to get through here tonight. So, um I'll

[37:54] keep it short and sweet. We are working our way through this. I can touch on a

[37:59] few points uh that were brought up by some of the questions. We are would be

[38:05] certainly open to moving the driveway over to the other side of the road. We

[38:10] have no preference. Um if that um appeases to a neighbor that asks a

[38:17] question, we're okay with that. Um I think some of it falls in line with

[38:21] sight lines and stopping distances based on the speed limits or speed zone of the

[38:26] area. um we have to work our way through that with the engineer.

[38:30] Um but we're certainly not opposed to to any of that if if that helps um makes

[38:37] this easier for someone else. Um the

[38:43] most of the I think the hydraological study indicated that um they preferred

[38:49] drilled wells on the properties um which most of these properties will have

[38:54] drilled wells. I don't think um living in that area now. I don't

[38:59] think dug wells are um are doing that well. We've we've had some friends and

[39:05] family live close by that have dug wells and they're not they don't produce a lot

[39:08] of water, but I suspect most everybody around drill wells. We're not putting

[39:11] any any kind of water system out of the lake. Um

[39:16] we will, you know, our intent is um you know, keeping the peacefulness and the

[39:22] nature character. We we're from the community. We live on the lake now. We

[39:27] want to uh create a a very nice um property and have lots for our our kids

[39:35] and extended family. And it will be very it will you know our intent is to have a

[39:41] very well-designed and you know nice property that only adds to the community

[39:47] um and doesn't take away from it. So we will respect the uh the natural

[39:52] character of the of the area. We're not, you know, like I said in the previous

[39:56] meeting, it's we're not looking to put in a a big building or apartment

[39:59] building or, you know, have public boat launch or anything. This is a private um

[40:05] family compound and and that's really u all we're looking to intend to do. So,

[40:11] that's really it for me. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to answer

[40:16] them. >> Thank you very much.

[40:21] I will now open the floor for comments and questions. If you are viewing the

[40:26] YouTube live stream, you may use the YouTube chat feature which is being

[40:30] monitored. First, does anyone attending in person have any questions or

[40:34] comments?

[40:40] Seeing none, I would ask if any member of the public has any questions or

[40:44] comments through the live chat on YouTube.

[40:47] » No. >> No. No one is waiting to speak there.

[40:53] Does any member of staff have any final comments?

[41:00] I would now ask the chair of the planning advisory committee to present

[41:04] his committee's recommendation. Councelor Mitchell.

[41:09] Planning Advisory Committee recommends that council give second reading and

[41:13] approve the proposal for a portion of PID 455080801

[41:19] to amend the missile planning strategy land use bylaw by changing from rural

[41:24] use zone and designation to the established residential neighborhood

[41:28] zone and designation. As chair PAC, I so move

[41:35] » second. >> Moved and seconded. Are there any final

[41:39] questions or comments from municipal counselors?

[41:46] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote. [clears throat]

[41:57] And [snorts] the motion has passed unanimously.

[42:05] Okay, councilors. The second public hearing item this evening is a

[42:09] development agreement application from Barry Hill and Darren Lawrence. I would

[42:14] now ask a chair of the planning advisory committee to present his report.

[42:20] » Planning advisory committee has considered the proposal on behalf of

[42:23] municipal council. The committees had to review staff reports, complete their

[42:28] evaluation, and will make a recommendation to council during this

[42:31] hearing. Madame Warden, through you, I would now ask staff to present their

[42:35] final report on the proposal.

[42:53] » Thank you, Madam Warden. Um, so the applicant is Barry Hill and

[42:58] Darren Lawrence. The location of the property is located in South Matland

[43:02] along Highway 236. The subject properties outlined here in

[43:06] red. The approximate size is 50 acres. And the proposal is to enter into a

[43:11] development agreement to permit a motocross track on land zoned rural use

[43:14] north RU2 zone. Um there is currently an existing house and barn on land and the

[43:21] land had been used for agriculture purposes. So the neighboring zones are

[43:25] also um rural use north and there's the five mile river to the south of the

[43:31] property. Um the five mile river starting at the high water park and uh

[43:35] high water mark and going to a depth of about 30 mters. There's the water course

[43:38] green belt along that and then in between um the river and the subject

[43:42] land there's the former DA line and that is zoned open space.

[43:50] Um the Royal Use North Zone permits any potentially obnoxious commercial

[43:54] developments to include vehicle racetracks and amusement park uses by

[43:57] development agreement. In addition to the motocross track, the applicant is

[44:01] also proposing to construct supporting structures such as a tower, bleachers,

[44:04] parking area, portable washrooms, and a temporary canteen. Um, the house is

[44:09] located on the subject properties to remain and at this time the applicant

[44:12] proposes uh the use of the motocross track for practices with events taking

[44:16] place in the future and the DA does include provisions for future events.

[44:20] The development agreement includes hours of operation that extend from 10:00 a.m.

[44:24] to 7:00 p.m. So, here is the site plan for the motocross track. Um, as you can

[44:31] see, the brown squiggly lines is the actual track. Um there is an existing

[44:37] driveway there um that wouldn't be able to be used for the motocross track. Um a

[44:41] new driveway would have to be installed here and personnel would have to be on

[44:44] site to direct traffic during motocross events. So this is where Nova Scotia

[44:49] Public Works has indicated that the driveway shall be located and they're

[44:53] providing parking for 90 parking stalls here in the rear. Um they're showing

[44:57] cantens, washrooms, a first aid station, bleachers and the tower. Um, and also

[45:03] there will be another parking area and that driveway is approved by Nova Scotia

[45:08] Public Works is okay by them. It just has to be upgraded for um for the use of

[45:13] the property. And this here would be for the pit area where you have your utility

[45:16] trailers at. Um, and I should mention that the

[45:20] applicant is proposing to maintain a green buffer along that south uh of the

[45:25] property line here. And this is a aerial photo of the

[45:29] subject uh property and it just shows uh the track that um they had started.

[45:36] So it's policy AR39 of the municipal planning strategy that propins council

[45:39] to consider the development agreement application. Um, so as part of the

[45:44] application, staff contacted Nova Scotia Public Works about the driveways and

[45:48] they, as I mentioned, they did supply feedback and indicated that um, they

[45:53] required to have a new driveway location um, that would allow for that commercial

[45:58] use and um, it has been updated on the site plan. The pit area is acceptable,

[46:02] but the driveway will create require upgrades for the large larger vehicles.

[46:07] Um Matland and District Volunteer Fire Department have no issues with the

[46:11] proposed development and the RCMP um have provided planning staff with

[46:14] comments on the proposed development and one of their concerns was that the

[46:18] proposed ingress egress to the site shall accommodate access for emergency

[46:22] vehicles. Um there CMP have requested that the applicant have parking control

[46:27] personnel for motocross events and that requirement has been included in the

[46:30] draft development agreement. um ensuring that there's adequate parking for the

[46:34] motocross events was another concern and as I mentioned they provided parking for

[46:39] 90 parking stalls and then in addition to that they have a pit and utility

[46:42] trailer area um for uh the motocross events the applicant will be required to

[46:49] build uh yes and um under citizen engagement so an advertisement outlining

[46:56] the proposal and indicating it was review under staff was placed in the

[46:58] Chronicle Herald a letter and questionnaire was mailed out to all

[47:01] property owners within 300 mters of the subject property asking for comments on

[47:04] the proposed application. So we mailed out 28 letters and we had seven

[47:08] responses and the responses were mostly positive. Um there were two concerns

[47:13] mentioned and that was in regards to parking as I mentioned and the tra

[47:17] concerns around traffic if people were trying to park along the road and as I

[47:20] said they've provided parking um for 90 people or 90 stalls and um the other

[47:27] concern was potential noise and motocross events do have noise but um

[47:34] we've limited the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

[47:39] Uh this application as with all development agreements is appealable to

[47:42] the Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board and uh below here is just the

[47:48] process that we followed and we're at the public hearing tonight and um if

[47:51] council will approves or refuses the applicant and the public have the right

[47:55] to appeal. Thank you, Madam Warden. >> Thank you.

[48:01] Does any member of council have questions for staff?

[48:07] Councelor Mitchell. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Warden. Looking at

[48:11] the diagram, my question to you for staff is how did you connect the pit

[48:16] area? How is it that pit area connected to the to the other part, the track

[48:21] area? I don't see a roadway and uh >> um path.

[48:26] » So you madam chair, they probably will drop off their um they may drop off the

[48:31] bikes here or they may put in a path to that area. Not all of the pedestrian

[48:35] pathways have been showing on here. >> Okay.

[48:38] » Yeah. >> Just concerned they might have to go

[48:39] back out on the roadway. That's all. >> Yeah.

[48:41] » Thank you, >> Councelor Gordon Cole.

[48:46] » Thank you, Madam Morton. Uh just a couple of I want to acknowledge the

[48:50] concerns of the uh residents nearby. And so when it comes to parking, I

[48:55] understand that parking on the road would not be ideal for any event, but I

[48:59] see that they've uh put in 90. So hopefully that will suffice. And of

[49:04] course the noise issue. So is this a just because I'm very familiar with dirt

[49:09] bikes and even tracks back at lees. Is this a uh competition only track or is

[49:15] it a uh training and practice track as well? Just trying to get an idea of how

[49:20] often there will be dirt bikes on this track. um through you Metam Morton

[49:24] through from what I understand um it's initially going to be used for a

[49:28] practice track with possible future events taking place but the intention

[49:32] right now is for a practice track. >> So in saying that could it be could

[49:37] there be someone on it every day or just on Saturdays or has that been hammered

[49:41] down? >> Um through you Madam Morton there could

[49:45] potentially be people on it during the days. Um, and when I talked to the

[49:50] advocate, they said if they were going to hold events, it would be during uh

[49:53] like once a month kind of thing on a weekend type event, but yes, there could

[49:58] be people on it uh daily. >> I see. Okay. Thank you.

[50:05] » Okay. I would now ask if the applicant has any comments or would like to make a

[50:09] presentation.

[50:15] » I guess I'm elected to speak. Um, I don't have a lot to add except

[50:21] that I want to thank Debbie because I'm sure I was the epitome of the biggest

[50:27] bother ever. If it wasn't for her, I'd have never got through this

[50:33] and we've worked together hand in hand. Uh

[50:38] we have tried to come up with every option we could to fix everybody's

[50:44] concerns such as the parking, the overflow parking. There's the path down

[50:50] to the track from the overflow parking. It's

[50:55] already there. Just needs to be spruced up a little. And they've come out and

[51:02] showed us where the new driveway was. They'd like to see it. and the other

[51:07] driveway widened out. We gave the dimensions to them that they wanted

[51:13] and I guess it's just kind of up to council now if it goes through

[51:18] before we do anything else.

[51:23] Thank you, Carla.

[51:28] Okay, I will now open the floor for comments

[51:33] and questions. If you're viewing the YouTube live stream, you may use the

[51:36] YouTube chat feature which is being monitored. But first, does anyone

[51:40] attending in person have any questions or comments?

[51:48] Seeing none, I would ask if any member of the public has any questions or

[51:53] comments through the live chat on YouTube.

[51:56] » No. >> No.

[51:58] Does any member of staff have any final comments?

[52:01] » Uh, no. I would now ask the chair of the

[52:05] planning advisory committee to present his committee's recommendation.

[52:11] Planning Advisory Committee recommends the council give final consideration and

[52:15] approval to enter into development agreement for a motocross

[52:18] track use located on property identified as bid 4510440360

[52:27] highway 236 South Matland signed within one year of council's approval. As chair

[52:33] of PAC, I so moved >> seconded by councelor Rhino.

[52:38] And any final questions or comments from municipal counselors? We'll go to

[52:43] councelor Rhino. >> Thank you, Madam Bordon. I believe that

[52:46] this uh opportunity is u another [clears throat] attraction for uh

[52:53] tourism and such in the Hans North area. I've talked to a lot of people. I have

[52:57] the biggest district uh all in East H. I geographical district. I've talked to a

[53:03] lot of people. People in Walton have mentioned it. People in N have mentioned

[53:06] it. people through null road have mentioned and up down the shore and that

[53:10] was mostly all positive. You're not going to please everybody. There's going

[53:14] to be always some naysayers, but I think you know this, as I said, this is

[53:18] another attraction. We used to have the uh uh race matland dragway down there

[53:23] that brought in a lot of people. This has the potential to bring in more

[53:27] people. Has to has the potential to create some employment if it goes to uh

[53:33] bigger events. There's tracks uh motocross is is definitely catching

[53:38] growing bigger uh right across the province and right across Canada and I

[53:44] think that this if if the development agreement is followed I think there

[53:50] should be no hopefully no problems heading down the road. So I'm in full

[53:55] support of this and and uh I hope I hope council is is as well. Thank you.

[54:00] » Thank you. Does any other counselor have any final comments or questions?

[54:06] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[54:13] Motion has passed unanimously.

[54:18] So, that concludes tonight's public hearings and I would just like to thank

[54:23] everybody for attending.

[54:29] » [cough]

[54:31] » So councilors, we'll return to the agenda and we will go back to

[54:38] » correspondence for decision. So we'll go to item 20, which was a

[54:44] letter from Jeff Mercer, the executive director and chief librarian from the

[54:49] Colchester Eastands Public Library requesting repair and paving of a

[54:53] driveway and parking lot at the Mount Uniac Library.

[54:58] Atlanta staff.

[55:03] Go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Warden. Um, so as you

[55:08] mentioned, the request before you was from the Colchester East Tent Public

[55:11] Library executive director, chief librarian um for the paving of the

[55:15] parking lot of the Mount UNIA Library. Uh, so staff have looked at this. We we

[55:20] don't have this listed as a project, nor do we have funding identified. And um

[55:25] estimates for this kind of work would be around $75,000. So from a staff

[55:31] recommendation, um we would suggest that council, if you wanted to support this,

[55:35] would actually bring it forward as part of 2728 budget discussions and that

[55:39] would allow us time to um you know, determine funding sources, etc., etc.,

[55:44] but certainly up for council discussion and consideration. Councelor

[55:50] Perry, >> I I wholeheartedly agree with staff. Um,

[55:55] as we see a lot of things in flux coming up in the next number of months and uh

[56:00] we are over halfway throughout the year. I think this is something that we should

[56:04] uh bring to budget discussions. Uh no no definitive answer whether it's going to

[56:08] be done or not be done but to be discussed at budget time in 2627. So, I

[56:13] will move that uh the the conversation around paving the UNIAC library be

[56:19] brought up at budget discussions for 2627.

[56:25] » Moved and 2728. >> I was just going to say I think you

[56:28] » 272828. >> Yeah. I can't I can't go back in the

[56:31] past. Sorry. >> Okay.

[56:32] » Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[56:36] » Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[56:45] And the motion has passed unanimously and someone will contact Mr. Mercer and

[56:50] let him know we're putting that into our budget discussions.

[56:55] Next item, due to staff availability for the September 1st, 2026 public

[57:02] information meeting, staff are seeking an alternative date to hold a PM

[57:06] anticipating four topics. staff suggests September 14th or 21st or another date

[57:14] at council's discretion

[57:26] » and a reminder [clears throat and snorts] counselors

[57:28] don't have to come to the p >> I understand that but depending on what

[57:31] it is there might be uh counselors that wish to attend

[57:37] um My only suggestion would be that in the interest of perhaps

[57:44] there are some things that I expect will be coming up with these PIMS that folks

[57:49] would be hoping we would get through the PIM and perhaps be able to have a report

[57:55] and some recommendation at committee in September

[57:59] which would require the PIM being held prior to the 15th. So Councelor Perry

[58:08] Thank you, Orton. I I understand uh your comment about having it uh done and have

[58:14] a report. I just don't know if if it's uh if it's feasible to have a a meeting

[58:20] the day before and a report generated for the next day. Um,

[58:25] I I I would move that the 14th or 21st be set aside for the PIM based on

[58:32] staff's availability, but uh if if it's the will that you want

[58:37] it done before then, then you'd have to look at moving it to a different date

[58:43] because I I just don't think the 14th will work for any type of report uh that

[58:49] comes into us at the standard that our staff brings to be done.

[58:53] you know, in zero time because if it's the meeting's in the evening, there's no

[58:57] time to do a report until the next day. So, uh,

[59:03] yeah, I'll wait and see what other counselors like to say.

[59:05] » So, you're moving? >> I

[59:08] » Or you're going to wait? >> I'm not I'm going to wait. I was going

[59:10] to move that based on staff availability and uh but I'll wait to see if anybody

[59:17] else has anything to say. >> Okay. Well, Councelor Mitchell,

[59:24] » just a question through you to staff. Could they go the the week before,

[59:29] » Tuesday the 8th?

[59:32] » Here. >> That would give them time to do a report

[59:36] for the 15th. Looking at the calendar, [clears throat]

[59:42] » I think the staff read of the country. >> Oh, okay.

[59:47] » Yeah. The the issue uh Madame Warden, is I don't think all the

[59:53] staff that need to be at that meeting are going to be available until the week

[59:56] of the 14th. >> Okay.

[59:58] » Is there any chance we could do? Are any staff available that we could if there

[1:00:03] are four? That's a lot to do in one night anyway. Could we do two?

[1:00:07] » Yes. So, the week before um there would just be one staff person, critical staff

[1:00:12] person missing. So, we there are probably some applications we could

[1:00:15] bring forward to append the week of the 7th. That's the Labor Day weekend.

[1:00:21] » I guess my my concern is that these are issues that [clears throat] have been

[1:00:25] brought to council and we are off for the month of August, which already has

[1:00:31] these folks waiting an extra month and to put it late enough into September,

[1:00:36] but that adds another month to the process is is not ideal. So, I guess

[1:00:43] it's no secret. What are the four items that we would be looking at going to a

[1:00:48] PM4 in September? >> Um, they are the

[1:00:54] uh let me see here.

[1:01:03] Yeah, the So, if you're willing to come to two nights that month, then the

[1:01:08] eighth we could do as well. Um, let me just find the

[1:01:19] » I believe one is the um changes to the subdivision bylaw for churches and

[1:01:25] cemeteries. >> Yes, that is one of them. Um,

[1:01:31] the other ones >> townhouse parking.

[1:01:36] Um, no, it's a um,

[1:01:44] uh, would be the 100 unit maximum under DA. So, it would be another one.

[1:01:49] And the other two I don't have in front of me. So, I they're from an earlier

[1:01:53] applications.

[1:01:56] Um, so

[1:02:02] » yeah, I think that is Yeah, let me just um find another document here.

[1:02:08] » Well, it's kind of hard to make a decision. I really

[1:02:12] » I'd like to know what we could do on the [clears throat] ETH and what would have

[1:02:16] to wait. Well, um, so Madam Morton, if you would just want to set this aside

[1:02:20] for a bit, then I'll go back and look and tell you exactly which applications

[1:02:24] are, uh, >> and which could be done earlier and

[1:02:27] which would have to wait. >> Okay. So, someone remind me to go back

[1:02:31] to John later. Is that okay with counselors?

[1:02:36] » Okay, next item.

[1:02:43] the paving of subdivision Jclass roads. Is that Jesse or No, that's Kim. Okay,

[1:02:53] » go ahead. Through you, Madam Warden. And this is an agreement that's very similar

[1:02:57] to agreements you've um approved in the past. We do need a motion of council to

[1:03:03] sign it based on the provincial requirements. and it essentially enables

[1:03:07] you to enter into the paving agreements with the province that may come up. It's

[1:03:14] not a paving agreement for a particular road. It just it enables us to to enter

[1:03:20] into them at a future date. And we do need a motion of council to approve

[1:03:24] signing the agreement and then I can sign it.

[1:03:27] » Is someone prepared to make that motion?

[1:03:32] Councelor McI. Uh, thank you, Warden. Uh, I move that

[1:03:38] council approves entering into a three-year agreement with the province

[1:03:43] entitled parking of

[1:03:46] » paving >> or paving of subdivision Jclass Streets

[1:03:49] Agreement, which will be active until March 31st,

[1:03:54] 2030. >> Second.

[1:03:57] » Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:04:02] » Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:04:09] And the motion is passed unanimously by those present.

[1:04:16] Okay, that concludes correspondence for decision. Um we'll go through these uh

[1:04:22] first readings and second readings and then maybe we'll circle back to John

[1:04:26] before we go into the committee reports or we can wait till PAC report.

[1:04:32] So, next is um Councelor Perry and it is uh first reading of bylaw IO-300-2,

[1:04:42] an amendment to bylaw IO300, a bylaw respecting the regulation of connections

[1:04:47] and discharges to public sewer systems.

[1:04:53] Go ahead, councelor Perry. >> Thank you, Madam Water. Madame Warden,

[1:04:58] sorry, not water. [laughter] at the regular meeting of count. Okay.

[1:05:03] First reading bylaw IO 30300-2 an amendment to bylaw IO300 a bylaw

[1:05:09] respectricting the regulations. The infrastructure and operations

[1:05:12] committee received a staff report at the July 21st, 2026 executive committee

[1:05:17] meeting regarding the sewer bylaw recommending that the bylaw be updated

[1:05:22] to decrease the allow of biochemical oxygen demand the BOD concentration. The

[1:05:28] Infrastructure and Operations Committee recommends that council give first

[1:05:31] reading to bylaw IO300-2, an amendment to bylaw IO-300,

[1:05:37] a bylaw respecting the regulation, connections, and discharge to public

[1:05:41] sewer systems, the sewer bylaw, as attached the executive committee agenda

[1:05:45] of July 21st, 2026. Chair of the committee, I so move second.

[1:05:49] » Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:05:54] » Seeing none, we will go to the vote.

[1:06:00] The motion has passed unanimously. Next, we are looking at second reading

[1:06:07] of bylaw F-300-1, an amendment to bylaw F-300, bylaw

[1:06:13] respecting the maintenance and improvements of private roads.

[1:06:19] And we will go to Councelor Garden Cole.

[1:06:26] The corporate and residential services comm reading bylaw F300-1 an amendment

[1:06:31] to bylaw F300 respecting the maintenance and improvement of private roads. The

[1:06:35] corporate and residential services committee received a staff report at the

[1:06:38] June 16th, 2026 executive committee meeting regarding housekeeping

[1:06:42] amendments for bylaw F300 to change the fee charged to road associations

[1:06:47] promotion C24 422 reducing the fee from 5% to 3%. The

[1:06:53] reduction was included in the 2526 budget and the bylaw amendment is the

[1:06:57] final change needed. First reading was done in June and second reading can now

[1:07:01] proceed.

[1:07:06] The corporate and residential services committee recommends that council give

[1:07:09] second reading to bylaw F300-1, an amendment to bylaw F300, a bylaw

[1:07:14] respecting the maintenance and improvement of private roads as attached

[1:07:18] to the executive committee agenda dated June 16th, 2026. As chair of the

[1:07:23] committee, I so move >> seconded by councelor Mariam. Is there

[1:07:27] any discussion on the motion? >> Councelor Musa.

[1:07:34] [laughter] >> Uh thank you, Madame Gordon. Uh I think

[1:07:39] that reduction is is very good.

[1:07:44] I I would like to see it at zero, but 3% is better than 5%. and uh

[1:07:51] uh we already hearing some good feedback from from the community about that and

[1:07:57] they're happy with it. So I will be in full support of it. Thank you.

[1:08:01] » Thank you. >> Any further discussion?

[1:08:06] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:08:12] Motion has passed unanimously.

[1:08:17] Okay.

[1:08:22] Okay, we will go back to bear with me

[1:08:29] John with our question on public information meetings.

[1:08:32] » Thank you, Madam Morton. Okay, so the two applications that would be ready to

[1:08:36] go for the week of the 8th would be the 100 unit uh change and the LRO Williams

[1:08:43] resoning application in Lance. and then we would have to wait for say the 15th

[1:08:48] for um the swinks application as well as the cemetery report.

[1:08:55] » I'm quite disappointed to hear that because the one is very timesensitive,

[1:09:02] but it is what it is, I guess. Um so there's no way these could be have

[1:09:07] before the 14th. Um, we could if it's um if it's

[1:09:13] important to council, we we would just have to bring another staff person in to

[1:09:17] stand in for the planner whose application it is. And we could do that.

[1:09:21] It's not ideal, but we could do that.

[1:09:29] » Okay. Uh, councelor Perry,

[1:09:34] » I would not be in favor of of uh having another planner stand in because they

[1:09:40] wouldn't know the intricacies of of the person who's handling the file uh if the

[1:09:45] public do have any question marks. I understand it could be an inconvenience,

[1:09:48] but there have been plenty of inconveniences done uh for multiple

[1:09:53] different applications based on this. If the only way that we avoid this is have

[1:09:59] more staff, staff need to have the ability to go on vacation and they they

[1:10:02] have every right to do it. So if it creates an inconvenience, that's just

[1:10:06] the way it is based upon our our numbering levels. And I don't think that

[1:10:10] we should put other staff under stress to try and meet something that uh when

[1:10:15] the director has clearly said that he can do two on one and and the other the

[1:10:19] the one on the other, it's uh I I don't think we should be picking based upon

[1:10:25] applicants. We should just be looking at what can be processed. And if we want

[1:10:29] things to to to be able to be processed at any time, then we need to look at

[1:10:33] budget of hiring a lot more pe people. Thank you.

[1:10:36] Thank you, councelor Gordon Cole. >> Thank you, Madam Morton. [clears throat]

[1:10:42] So, is there is there a different uh setup that we can do? Is there is there

[1:10:48] a different uh combination that would allow for the cemetery one to come

[1:10:52] forward first? >> Um through you, Madam Morton. Again, um

[1:10:58] the way to do that would be another staff person would fill in for the

[1:11:01] planner that's going to be away. Um and again, we can do that. It's not, as I

[1:11:06] said, it's not ideal for the reasons councelor Perry cited, but it could be

[1:11:10] done. [clears throat]

[1:11:14] » Councelor Mitchell, >> thank you, Madam Warren. [clears throat]

[1:11:20] Looking at the calendar, is the PIM on the first still going?

[1:11:26] » Sorry. Is >> on the calendar up there?

[1:11:28] » Yeah. >> Public information on the first due to

[1:11:31] the first. Um >> well that's that was the original

[1:11:35] schedule but um I've got even more staff away that week. So

[1:11:39] » okay >> that's

[1:11:40] » so we're looking at the 8th and beyond. >> Okay. Okay. Just trying to get some

[1:11:45] clarification. Thanks. >> I would just ask the deputy warden if he

[1:11:50] would take the chair for a moment. >> Okay. [clears throat] Go ahead and

[1:11:53] warden. >> I guess I don't quite share of a deep

[1:11:56] concern about having our staff stand in for one another. Um, we have very very

[1:12:01] efficient staff and some of these PIMS they're not public hearings, they're

[1:12:07] public information meetings and I think that all our staff are quite capable of

[1:12:12] presenting the reports and it's not like these are deeply deeply complicated

[1:12:18] reports. So, personally, I would have no problem with having other staff stand in

[1:12:23] and try and move these items along and not add another month to a process for

[1:12:30] for some of these things. But that is simply my opinion. Um, yes, staff are

[1:12:36] certainly entitled to have a vacation, but the business of the municipality has

[1:12:40] to continue whether we have staff on vacation or not. Thank you.

[1:12:44] » Is that everything, man? >> That's it.

[1:12:46] » Okay. Now we'll go to councelor King

[1:12:53] » uh through the chair. Uh if if the uh development that or the situation that

[1:13:00] uh the warden is looking at is is that important. Is there any possibility or

[1:13:05] would it be reasonable to uh switch with another py that's going to happen? like

[1:13:10] would would one of those be upset if if the the date was changed

[1:13:16] » through Madame Morton. It it's it's not really a matter of like time on the

[1:13:20] agenda. It's the people available. So, >> okay.

[1:13:23] » Um again, first is what we would normally schedule. Uh but I've got some

[1:13:28] folks away. I've got one back on the the next week and they're both back the week

[1:13:33] after that. >> Understood.

[1:13:51] Thank you. Uh, Deputy Warden, um, according to the schedule that you have

[1:13:58] presented, um, the ideal schedule, is that the

[1:14:02] order in which the the applicants were received? because to me it's it's uh

[1:14:10] everything's a pressing issue for everyone every one of these people. Uh

[1:14:15] and whether it's timesensitive or not, I I don't believe we should be showing uh

[1:14:20] favoritism to any applicant when they come in, it should be done in order and

[1:14:24] uh pushing things forward based on somebody else's need. It should be done

[1:14:28] in the process that they're received. um through Madam Morning. It's not

[1:14:32] really an issue of capacity or one sort of bumping in front of another. You

[1:14:36] know, we always take these things when they're ready regardless of when they

[1:14:39] come in and you know, some things just happen faster getting comments back from

[1:14:43] reviewing agencies and so on. So, it's really just the issue here is staff

[1:14:47] availability. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:14:57] » Thank you, Deputy Warden. Um, I kind of tend to agree with the with the warden.

[1:15:04] Uh, this is July 29th, if I'm not mistaken. Uh, you're looking for what,

[1:15:11] September the 8th or or whatever. If if staff

[1:15:17] can't update another staff member to stand in for a public information

[1:15:22] meeting in that amount of time, we're in serious difficulty. Thank you.

[1:15:29] Is that everything? >> Seeing no one else is speaking, I'm

[1:15:32] going to ask the director question. Do you feel that staff would be ready for

[1:15:35] the ETH if we could if the time permitted?

[1:15:38] » Um through Madamorn, yes, we could. Um again, we always prefer that the planner

[1:15:44] whose file it is is there for the pin, but as I said earlier, we could do it.

[1:15:49] » Thank you. I'm going to pass the chair back to his warden, please.

[1:15:56] » All right. So council what is the wish?

[1:16:06] We have heard we can split it in two. We can do it all later. We have indication

[1:16:12] from staff that if it's council's wish they can do them all I believe on the

[1:16:16] 8th. Is that correct John? >> That's correct.

[1:16:21] » Councelor Rhino. >> I move that all pals would be directed

[1:16:25] to September the 8th. Do we have a seconder?

[1:16:30] » Second that >> moved and seconded. Is there any

[1:16:32] discussion on the motion? [snorts]

[1:16:36] » Councelor Musa

[1:16:39] trying here. >> So the director said he could

[1:16:46] [clears throat] move one. So now we're adding another one.

[1:16:49] » So we're going to do all four at the same day.

[1:16:51] » Yeah. Uh it it it's basically the same issue. Um, so you know, we could do them

[1:16:57] all on one night that like doing four on a night is not usually an issue unless

[1:17:01] they're unless they're very controversial. It was just a matter of

[1:17:04] who was available. So, you know, whether we do all four on the eth or not doesn't

[1:17:09] uh or three doesn't matter.

[1:17:15] » Okay. Thank you,

[1:17:19] » Councelor Perry. [clears throat] I can't support the motion based upon

[1:17:25] the availability of staff and I believe that we are getting in the weeds in the

[1:17:29] operation and showing favor favoritism towards certain applications we want

[1:17:33] process in a certain time uh for certain applicants and this does not happen for

[1:17:38] every applicant that comes in. Thank you.

[1:17:42] » Well, councelor Mitchell >> through you mad and warden to staff is

[1:17:48] John. You're saying it's doable to do all four and uh how much time would be

[1:17:52] required do you think for to get through four

[1:17:57] to >> you never know with a pin madam chair

[1:18:01] you know could take 10 minutes for an item or 40 minutes um with these four I

[1:18:07] I'm sure we'll be out of there in a couple of hours.

[1:18:09] » Okay. Okay. If you're comfortable I'm comfortable.

[1:18:14] » Any further questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:18:25] Motion is passed by a vote of nine to two

[1:18:29] with counselors Musa and Perry voting nay. And I would just like to comment

[1:18:35] that this is not intended to move any application ahead of any other

[1:18:38] application. It is intended to keep these PIMS as close to the regularly

[1:18:44] scheduled PIM date that these all would be expecting.

[1:18:49] Thank you.

[1:18:55] Okay. Next on our agenda is the Municipal Firefighter Long Service

[1:19:01] Awards annual report. I'm guessing that's Adam.

[1:19:05] Go ahead. >> Yeah. uh through you madam warden or uh

[1:19:09] to council just this is a an item on your uh correspondence um we could have

[1:19:15] a motion to accept it really is an information item for council we started

[1:19:18] putting this on your agenda a few years ago just as an awareness factor for for

[1:19:22] council as a whole so it's here you can accept it we process it uh according

[1:19:25] policy through your annual uh >> so you don't need a motion for this it's

[1:19:30] just anformational report >> correct yeah

[1:19:32] » okay thank you councelor Rhino Yes, >> just wanted to point out that there is

[1:19:38] an error in that the 15 years of service by Chris Thompson is not through the

[1:19:43] Kennagook District Fire Department is through Maitland.

[1:19:52] Uh three on board. Thank you councelor for that and uh we'll modify it.

[1:19:59] » Deputy Warden. >> Thank you madam warden. Uh question I

[1:20:03] have about the awards. We present the awards and the volunteer service these

[1:20:09] black lapels or labels for them did uh most times it's a different design like

[1:20:16] the province federal municipal government. I do not care for the black

[1:20:21] ones. I think that we should really look at a different color more like the

[1:20:26] province and the other levels of government. I don't know that's ever

[1:20:28] been discussed or how that decision came. has been brought to me by members

[1:20:32] of Enfield as well as members of uh Milford.

[1:20:37] » Adam, >> yeah, thank you, Madam War. That's

[1:20:39] something we'll take back to staff. I'm not sure how many we have in inventory.

[1:20:42] We we do order them kind of in bulk. Um but absolutely when we work through our

[1:20:46] inventory, we could look at a different uh color selection. I guess the other

[1:20:50] thing I would say is um that I didn't mention earlier is these awards, we

[1:20:55] typically notify the counselors of the area as part of it. uh they do go to the

[1:20:59] departments themselves, the 10 and 15 year awards. So sometimes uh counselors

[1:21:04] may present them, other times the department will present them themselves.

[1:21:07] It's a little less formal than your uh annual awards event as part of the uh

[1:21:11] volunteer recognition week. Um so we will uh definitely be uh keeping council

[1:21:17] informed of the awards in their their area. Um and then the other piece I'll

[1:21:21] note, you have a motion on the books for uh it'll be coming back to you in

[1:21:25] September. There was a request from the fire service around adding in this the

[1:21:29] the service bars for the station gear. So we'll have a report forward uh back

[1:21:33] which is separate from this but it sometimes the topics can get uh

[1:21:37] interchanged. >> Great. Thank you

[1:21:41] » councelor Rhino. >> Yeah through you. Did I hear like I I

[1:21:45] guess the last time that I presented these sort of to some of my fire

[1:21:49] departments is that did I hear that's going to be the case again that you will

[1:21:53] contact the counselor from the area to do this or can you clarify that please?

[1:21:59] » I think it's usually left up to the fire department.

[1:22:03] » Adam three war I believe uh Amanda reaches

[1:22:07] out to the the fire departments and also makes the local counselor aware. Um we

[1:22:12] we typically leave it up to the department to determine how they want to

[1:22:16] present it. Some do it on a general night. Some do it as part of an awards

[1:22:19] banquet. Sometimes um the local counselors are invited. It's not kind of

[1:22:23] a mandatory requirement. Okay. But we do keep uh everyone informed, but it does

[1:22:27] go to the to the chiefs of the department. Thank you for allowing me to

[1:22:30] clarify that. >> Thank you.

[1:22:34] » All right. So moving along,

[1:22:39] we'll go into our committee reports and we will start with the corporate and

[1:22:43] residential services committee. Uh councelor Gordon Cole.

[1:22:52] The committee held regular meeting on July 21st, 2026 in council chambers. The

[1:22:56] following motions are coming forward as a result of that meeting. First item,

[1:23:00] carry forwards report. At the end of March 31st, 2026, there were several

[1:23:04] amounts that had been approved in the 2526 budget that had not been entirely

[1:23:08] spent. Budget managers requested that some of these previous budget items be

[1:23:12] approved to be included in the 2627 budget so the work can be finalized. The

[1:23:17] corporate and residential services committee recommends that council ratify

[1:23:20] the transfer to reserves and year-end carry forward amounts as presented in

[1:23:24] the 2526 budget carry forwards request report dated July 15, 2026 and presented

[1:23:30] on July 21st, 2026 be accepted and approved. As chair of the committee, I

[1:23:34] so move >> second.

[1:23:35] » Seconded by councelor Mitchell. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:23:40] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:23:48] Motion has passed unanimously. >> Second item, housing accelerator fund

[1:23:52] allocations report. The municipality was approved to receive 5.885 million

[1:23:57] through the federal housing accelerator fund in February 24 following a review

[1:24:01] of spending and project timelines after the March 31st, 2026 fiscal year end.

[1:24:06] Staff are recommending updates to current funding allocations to ensure

[1:24:09] all half funding is spent by the February 23rd, 2028 deadline. The

[1:24:14] corporate and residential services committee recommends that council

[1:24:17] approve the reallocation of half funding as noted in table one of the July 21st,

[1:24:22] 2026 report. As chair of the committee, I so move.

[1:24:27] » Well, that was a tie. Seconded by the deputy warden. Is there any councelor

[1:24:32] Tingley? Uh question for staff. Uh the 1,135,700

[1:24:40] that was taken removed for the lift station at Highway 277, how will that

[1:24:45] impact that uh that work or does it impact it at all?

[1:24:56] » Go ahead, Wade. Uh from a financial perspective, it

[1:25:01] won't impact the work. Um the funding will have because we can't get that work

[1:25:08] done within the time frame needed to spend it on half. We're simply taking

[1:25:13] those half and then allocating it elsewhere. Uh but we will have to find

[1:25:18] funding for that uh elsewhere. uh and

[1:25:26] uh it may be through a debenture at the moment but we will determine that as we

[1:25:30] move forward. >> Okay. So the brutal honest fact is it

[1:25:35] can't be done quick enough to >> yeah understood

[1:25:39] » u and so we'll be looking to find other funding and exactly

[1:25:44] » and the date when the work will be done will be determined.

[1:25:47] » Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Thanks.

[1:25:50] Any further discussion on the motion?

[1:25:56] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:26:02] » Motion has passed unanimously. >> The corporate and residential services

[1:26:05] committee also recommends that council direct staff to draft the next iteration

[1:26:09] of the half-funding update consider funding 100% of the Mount UNIAC

[1:26:13] streetlight project. As chair of the committee, I so move.

[1:26:17] » Seconded by councelor Musa. Is there any discussion on the motion? Councelor

[1:26:22] Musa. >> Uh, thank you, Madame Morton. I guess

[1:26:26] Jesse wasn't here last time to ask him the question. [snorts] So, what happened

[1:26:31] with that uh [clears throat] project? Like, we we were Did we buy all the

[1:26:36] lights? We were supposed to buy them all, right?

[1:26:46] uh through Madam Morton as as was talked and and we updated uh actually there was

[1:26:50] a meeting um where we went through the scope um uh at the Mount Union Pizzeria

[1:26:57] actually with with both of you. We went through the scope of what could be done

[1:27:00] and and how many lights were included and what was out of scope and there was

[1:27:05] no wiring availability for a section um on on what set of roads and so we're

[1:27:11] waiting for uh development expansion which was a

[1:27:15] large uh that's in the Long Lake area. We're waiting for the developer to

[1:27:19] potentially go that route and so we ordered the lights that were available

[1:27:24] for spots to go up and that's what we did on scope. Oh,

[1:27:27] » okay. So, we didn't buy the extra the extra lights. So, okay. Yeah, just

[1:27:33] » wasn't sure if we should relocate them somewhere else if we already bought them

[1:27:36] or something. Okay. Thank you. >> Any further discussion on the motion?

[1:27:43] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:27:48] Motion has passed unanimously. Item three, potable water options during

[1:27:54] droughts. As its June 24th, 2026 meeting, council directed staff to

[1:28:00] explore drought response options with community organizations and bulk water

[1:28:03] carriers and confirmed the municipality would shift from bottled water

[1:28:06] distribution to education, conservation, and support programs. This report

[1:28:11] summarizes staff's findings, including limited bulk water capacity and review

[1:28:15] of rain barrel programs. The corporate and residential services committee

[1:28:18] recommends that council direct staff to have the municipal climate change action

[1:28:22] plan include an initiative on water scarcity and drought resilience planning

[1:28:27] as part of the plan update and to include a timeline and resources

[1:28:30] associated with the plan. As chair of the committee, I so move.

[1:28:34] » Second. >> Seconded by councelor Mitchell. Is there

[1:28:37] any discussion on the motion? >> Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:28:48] Motion has passed unanimously. >> The corporate residential services

[1:28:51] committee also recommends that council direct staff to include a water

[1:28:54] conservation assistance program with a total program budget of 50,000 to

[1:28:58] support the purchase of rain barrels or water storage totes for eligible

[1:29:01] residential properties in the 2728 draft budget for further discussion. As chair

[1:29:06] of the committee, I so move. >> Second.

[1:29:09] » Seconded by the deputy warden. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:29:14] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:29:20] Motion has passed unanimously. Item four, fire service review. At its

[1:29:26] March 26th regular meeting, council directed staff to report on options for

[1:29:30] a fire service review. Since then, provincial developments related to the

[1:29:33] fire service governance have emerged. The July report proposed a fire services

[1:29:37] master planning framework, including a community risk assessment, and fire

[1:29:41] protection service review to help council proactively assess current

[1:29:45] service delivery, future needs, and long-term planning ahead of provincial

[1:29:48] timelines. Based on subsequent discussion at the July 23rd regular

[1:29:52] meeting of council policy, and in camera meeting, and further clarification, the

[1:29:57] following updated wording is recommended. that council authorized the

[1:30:00] chief administrative officer to undertake a fire protection service

[1:30:04] review and a fire services master plan with a project budget of 150,000 to be

[1:30:10] funded from GTR contingency reserve and further that engagement with council be

[1:30:14] done after each stage of the process and that we thank the East Hanss Fire

[1:30:19] Service Association for their June 2026 letter and respond with the following.

[1:30:23] council is supportive of funding a fire service master planning process in

[1:30:27] collaboration with the East Hanss Fire Service Association and that the EHFSA

[1:30:32] will be invited to participate in the full process in a format to be

[1:30:36] determined by the chiefs and that the municipality will utilize the results of

[1:30:40] the community risk assessment to complete a fire protection service

[1:30:43] review as part of a fire service master plan in collaboration with the EHFSA

[1:30:48] and that due to the significant investment being made by council and the

[1:30:51] anticipated participation of of the AHFSA. The results of the fire service

[1:30:56] master plan will be binding. I so move.

[1:31:02] » Seconded by councelor Perry I think was first and a direct uh

[1:31:09] deputy warden. >> Thank you madam chair. Guess the

[1:31:11] question I have one pri says and that the ehfsa will be invited to participate

[1:31:17] in the full process in a format to be determined by the chiefs. I'm taking

[1:31:21] that that would include comments from the fire personnel under that chief's uh

[1:31:25] operation.

[1:31:29] I don't think it's actually worded in there.

[1:31:32] » Okay. CO

[1:31:39] » through Madame Morton. So, it's important that the the chiefs are the

[1:31:43] group that we we correspond with the fire service are the chiefs, right? So

[1:31:48] it's important for them to come to the table in the format that they want. Um

[1:31:53] at individual departments um you know the chief represents the

[1:31:58] department. However they gather that information from their personnel or

[1:32:02] whether it's it might be the whole group that we um that we engage with um it may

[1:32:08] be a subset. We will look to them to tell us that. Um

[1:32:14] and there may also be engagement with the whole fire service as well. So um

[1:32:20] that that is really to make sure that we're not telling them how we get

[1:32:24] information from them that they come to the table and and have that say.

[1:32:29] » My concern I guess to the CEO is u not all chiefs relate to the fire service

[1:32:34] and I think there's a lot of valuable firefighters that could contribute

[1:32:37] information to this and hoping that we can include them in that. Yeah, I would

[1:32:41] say the consultant that does that undertakes this work, I am almost

[1:32:46] positive they're going to want to engage with the whole fire service in some

[1:32:51] manner. Um, how that looks, we don't know at this point, but it'll be

[1:32:54] important that the chiefs um buy into the methodology of

[1:33:00] [clears throat] the the engagement. >> I appreciate that. Thank you.

[1:33:03] » Thank you, Councelor Rhino. >> Thank you, Madam Warden. So to be clear

[1:33:08] and kind of on that subject, collaboration then means information

[1:33:12] gathering. Would that be correct? Because

[1:33:17] I just want to get that clear because collaboration means different things to

[1:33:21] different people and and some may take that as municipality and the fire

[1:33:26] service are doing this together where this is review should be somewhat

[1:33:30] independent but the information and should be gathered through the east

[1:33:35] fire. So I just want to make I want to get this corrected on this uh meaning of

[1:33:43] collaboration

[1:33:46] » three a metamorton. Um it absolutely will be done by an independent

[1:33:52] body like through a consultant. Um the piece we need to be uh mindful of is the

[1:33:57] legislation is doing this in collaboration or in conjunction I'm not

[1:34:01] sure of the exact wording of the legislation but involving our fire

[1:34:04] service providers. Mhm. >> So, um we do uh and we have a great

[1:34:09] relationship with with the East Hands Fire Service. So, it's a really good

[1:34:12] opportunity for council uh and them to be undertaking this together. So,

[1:34:16] collaboration um means they they need to be part of the process. You know, we're

[1:34:20] going to um work through that um with them uh with how they as the CEO

[1:34:26] mentioned how they want to be engaged and we'll be going through the chief's

[1:34:30] association as our starting point um to to start to ask those questions.

[1:34:35] Okay. >> So, so collaboration

[1:34:38] um they need to be part of the process. It won't necessarily mean that they're

[1:34:42] driving the process, but they need to be involved in a meaningful uh way. Uh

[1:34:48] yeah. So, I guess my concern is we make that perfectly clear up front that

[1:34:53] they're independent from this independent person doing this, but the

[1:34:57] they are there for information gathering and uh questions being asked of them. I

[1:35:03] just don't want them to think this is part and parcel uh us and the review

[1:35:09] person are uh are doing this together and I think it has to be independent

[1:35:15] really. I really do. >> Thank you.

[1:35:18] » Thank you.

[1:35:22] Any further questions on the motion? Seeing none, we will go to the vote.

[1:35:31] Motion has passed unanimously >> that until the fire service review is

[1:35:35] complete, council requires any projects using fire levies that relate to capital

[1:35:39] spending to be approved by council. I so move

[1:35:43] » seconded by councelor he [clears throat] councelor Musa.

[1:35:48] » I sorry I will not be supporting this motion. I know we have few fire

[1:35:52] department and already have some capital budget and they're saving some money for

[1:35:56] it and anything that come to council could put them behind and they could

[1:36:00] they could miss out on a on a buy or something. So, they've been doing it

[1:36:04] forever and they're the one on on the ground. They know what they need. They

[1:36:09] know what they want. They know where the fire station is going to go. So, I will

[1:36:12] not be supporting this. I I will rely on the experience of my firefighter before

[1:36:17] I rely on anybody here. Thank you. Councelor

[1:36:21] Rhino Megaw Warren. I understand the pro the process of this. However, my concern

[1:36:27] lies if there is if there is something that has to be

[1:36:33] made a decision on quickly. Will that not hold up that process by having to

[1:36:39] come to council for a decision? And this is where that I'm I'm really concerned

[1:36:45] about this.

[1:36:48] I think perhaps to answer that first, we should uh

[1:36:55] we should perhaps the wording of this motion is capital spending

[1:36:59] » and I don't want to go into specific. >> I believe it would be major capital

[1:37:03] projects or something. I'm I'm not thinking that um I don't know if a fire

[1:37:10] department needs to buy six new BAS that they would have to come to council. So I

[1:37:17] just would go back to staff to see if there's something that you know

[1:37:26] CIO through you Madame Warden. The intent

[1:37:31] here is for like major capital projects that wouldn't be sort of rush spending

[1:37:37] um things that would involve some long-term planning. Um and again if if

[1:37:43] fire departments have contracts let for things then you know that's not included

[1:37:48] in this because they they do their own procurement and if they have contractual

[1:37:52] obligations that wouldn't be included. This would be any new spend um that

[1:38:01] should be long like have long-term planning attached to it.

[1:38:06] Well, I guess I I think we were on camera the last time we discussed this

[1:38:10] and I brought up a specific uh uh item and and I just don't want to we may

[1:38:17] things may have to be acted on on quickly and to hold this up or may pro

[1:38:23] possibly lose an opportunity because of the time frame has got me concerned.

[1:38:29] I like I say, I understand the purpose of it, but I'm just I'm wondering if we

[1:38:36] could give the CAO a little bit of room to

[1:38:41] authorize something. >> Well, I was going to say perhaps um it

[1:38:46] has been in the past, if I could weigh in, when fire departments have had

[1:38:50] something come up quickly that they needed approved, we have called

[1:38:54] emergency meetings to uh to deal with those requests. And I don't think any it

[1:38:59] can be done by Zoom, >> you know, if it's a one item thing. And

[1:39:03] I don't think any counselor ever objected to coming together to vote on

[1:39:07] whether or not to release money for a >> if that's the way we can do this. I I I

[1:39:12] would be happy with that, but I just put people on notice that that could very

[1:39:16] well happen. So >> So I mean, do we need that added to the

[1:39:20] motion or is that just simply understood that that's okay, Madam Board? If we got

[1:39:26] a request at, you know, August 10th that they had to know by August 17th or so

[1:39:32] it's something then we would call a a meeting of council.

[1:39:35] » Thank you. >> By Zoom, not

[1:39:38] » so there be. Thank you. That >> that helps. Thank you.

[1:39:43] » Any further discussion?

[1:39:47] Seeing none, we will go to the vote.

[1:39:55] And the motion is passed by a vote of 10 to one

[1:40:00] with councelor Musa voting nay. >> Item five, 202526 annual report

[1:40:05] including the treasures report. The CEO and director of finance presented the

[1:40:09] 202526 annual report including treasurer's report. Discussion ensued

[1:40:14] and questions were addressed by staff. Corporate and Residential Services

[1:40:17] Committee recommends that council accepts the 202526 East Hance annual

[1:40:21] report including treasures report and that it be made available to the public.

[1:40:25] As chair of the committee, I so move >> second.

[1:40:28] » Seconded by councelor Miriam. Any discussion on the motion?

[1:40:34] Seeing none, we will go to the vote.

[1:40:40] Motion has passed unanimously. Item six, D land management proposed D corridor

[1:40:46] legacy encroachments policy and the municipal fee policy. During the July

[1:40:50] 2020 20 July 23rd 2026 regular meeting of council and policy and in camera

[1:40:55] meeting council gave notice of intent to two policy updates and council can now

[1:40:59] consider approving the dates to those policies followed the required 7-day

[1:41:03] notice period that council consider adoption of the D corridor legacy

[1:41:08] encroachments policy as presented and attached to the July 23rd 2026 regular

[1:41:13] meeting of council policy and in camera agenda. I so move

[1:41:17] » second >> seconded by councelor Mitchell. I'm

[1:41:21] going to ask the deputy warden to take the chair. [snorts]

[1:41:24] » Okay, madam wooden, go ahead, please. >> Just a brief comment. Uh certainly a lot

[1:41:28] of hard work and an excellent report from staff, but as I said at the

[1:41:33] committee meeting, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor for the simple

[1:41:37] reason that I would have preferred a more robust uh encroachment policy for

[1:41:44] the residents affected. Um an encroachment license that uh could have

[1:41:51] uh more easily followed with the property in case of sale or things like

[1:41:56] that. I I just would have preferred a little more protection for the

[1:42:00] residents. Thank you. >> Would you like me to finish this?

[1:42:03] » Sure. >> See anyone else to speak? Call for the

[1:42:06] vote.

[1:42:10] » I'll pass the chair back to Madam Warden. Thank you.

[1:42:13] » And motion is passed by a vote of 10 to one with myself voting nay. That council

[1:42:18] approve added adding encroachment fees to the municipal fee policy as attached

[1:42:22] to the regular meeting of council policy and in camera agenda dated July 23rd

[1:42:27] 2026. I so move >> second.

[1:42:32] » Seconded by councelor Tingley. Discussion on the motion.

[1:42:37] We'll go to the vote.

[1:42:42] The motion is passed by a vote of 10 to one. Once again with myself voting nay.

[1:42:48] » This concludes the report. >> Thank you.

[1:42:52] Next we will go to parks, wreck and culture with councelor Rhino.

[1:42:59] » Hey madam warden committee held it regular meeting on July 21st 2026 and

[1:43:04] councelor chambers. The following motions are coming forward as a result.

[1:43:09] » [clears throat] >> Tinsmith shop museum operating options

[1:43:13] following the east east historical society's annual general meeting and

[1:43:19] successful completion of the governance review requirements and municipality

[1:43:24] released the 2026 operating staff funding.

[1:43:32] So fun that the parks recreation and culture committee recommends that

[1:43:36] council continue the current partnership model with the east museum

[1:43:41] society there I I said the eastance historical that should be corrected to

[1:43:45] the east museum society so I'll start again continue that the current

[1:43:51] partnership model between the east museum society and the municipality with

[1:43:56] the municipal staff providing support to strengthen the governance and operation

[1:44:01] and request that the society develop a 3 to fiveyear operational plan to help

[1:44:07] guide future operations and plan for available grant funding and encourage

[1:44:12] the society to pursue additional grant opportunities to strengthen its

[1:44:16] operations and reduce reliance on municipal funding and enlist a

[1:44:23] structural engineer to assist the building structure for better long-term

[1:44:27] planning up to $8,000 HST from professional fees reserve and that

[1:44:34] the East Hance Museum so Society be required to present to council as part

[1:44:40] of the 2728 budget discussions as chair of the committee. I do so moved

[1:44:46] » moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:44:51] » Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:44:56] » And the motion has passed unanimously. This concludes my report.

[1:45:01] » Thank you. Next, we will move to the infrastructure and operations committee.

[1:45:08] Councelor Perry. >> Thank you, Madam Warden. The committee

[1:45:12] held its regular meeting on July 21st, 2026 in council chambers. The following

[1:45:16] motions are coming forward as a result of that meeting. Snow clearing standards

[1:45:20] for Mount Uniak Business Park and Municipal Roads. Staff presented a

[1:45:25] report outlining a standalone service level to allow staff to utilize current

[1:45:29] contractor availability and gain a better understanding of the potential

[1:45:33] challenges posed by conducting snow clearance operations in the UNIAC

[1:45:37] business park. The current contract for snow clearing runs through 2728 fiscal

[1:45:41] cycle and this would allow for additional updates at that time. As a

[1:45:46] result, updates to the policy were suggested. The infrastructure and

[1:45:49] operations committee recommends that council approve the East Hance policy

[1:45:52] for winter clearing standards for roads and sidewalks as presented to the

[1:45:56] committee on July 21st, 2026 and that council approve the East Hance policy

[1:46:01] for winter clearing standards for roads and sideswalks as attached to the July

[1:46:06] 21st 26 committee agenda. As chair of the committee, I so move.

[1:46:11] » Second. >> Seconded by councelor Mitchell. Is there

[1:46:14] any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:46:22] » Motion has passed unanimously. >> Bylaw IO300-2,

[1:46:27] an amendment to BO IO 300, a bylaw respecting the regulation of connection

[1:46:32] and discharges to public sewer system updates was dealt with earlier in the

[1:46:36] meeting. So, this concludes the report. >> Thank you.

[1:46:40] Next, we will go to the planning advisory committee report. Councelor

[1:46:44] Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Warden. The committee

[1:46:49] held its regular meeting on July 21st, 2026 in council chambers. The following

[1:46:53] motions are coming forward as well this meeting.

[1:46:57] Number one, plan 26-004 Andrew and Julie Gilby red designation resoning infill

[1:47:03] first reading which was dealt with at the public hearing. Number two, plan

[1:47:08] 26-009 Swinks Agro Engineering Limited land use

[1:47:13] bylaw amendment. The municipality has received an application from Switz Agro

[1:47:18] Engineering Limited on behalf of the Atlantic Borers Limited to amend the

[1:47:22] land use bylaw to reduce the minimum setback requirement for an intensive

[1:47:27] livestock operation use from the public road to the rural use

[1:47:33] rural use north zone. The planning advisory committee

[1:47:37] recommends the council direct staff to seek comments from the east hands

[1:47:42] agriculture advisory committee on the applicants to amend the municipal

[1:47:45] planning strategy and land use ped to allow an intense livestock operation in

[1:47:50] the rural use north zone which does not meet the minimum se separation distance

[1:47:55] in section 5.2.3 to be considered by development

[1:48:00] agreement and authorize staff to schedule a public information meeting.

[1:48:05] As chair of the committee, I so move >> seconded by councelor Rhino. Is there

[1:48:10] any discussion on the motion? >> Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:48:18] [clears throat] Motion has passed unanimously.

[1:48:22] » Number three, plan 26 as 007 Barry Hill and Darren Lawrence development

[1:48:28] agreement of final report. It was dealt with at the public hearing. Number four,

[1:48:33] amendments to official community plan regarding setbacks from cemeteries.

[1:48:39] Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the east end official

[1:48:43] community plan that would enable the subdivision of properties containing

[1:48:49] places of worship, former places of worship from cemeteries. Council

[1:48:54] directed that these amendments should enable reduced setback

[1:48:59] setback area and frontage requirements to permit the cemeteries and the

[1:49:04] buildings to be relocated on separate lots. The planning advisory committee

[1:49:08] recommends that council authorize staff to schedule a public information meeting

[1:49:13] to consider an application for amendments to the missile planning and

[1:49:17] subdivision bylaw to allow the subdivision of places of worship former

[1:49:22] place of worship from cemeteries and all zones where there is deed access to both

[1:49:27] lots. As chair of the committee, I so moved.

[1:49:32] » Seconded by councelor Rhino. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:49:37] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[1:49:44] » Motion has passed unanimously. >> Number five,

[1:49:48] municipal planning strategy policy regarding 100 units max in the DA

[1:49:53] initial report. Planning and development staff have been directed to change the

[1:49:58] MPS to not entertain any developments over

[1:50:01] 100 units without a second access to an arterial or collector road by

[1:50:06] development agreement. This report proposes a new policy.

[1:50:13] » I'm sorry it's turned off. You saw me turn it off.

[1:50:17] » This report proposes a new policy to be added to

[1:50:21] » part D. Realizing the plan of the missile planning strategy MPS to address

[1:50:27] council's direction, the planning advisory committee recommends that

[1:50:30] council authorized staff to schedule a public information meeting to consider a

[1:50:35] council proposal to amend the municipal planning strategy by adding a new policy

[1:50:39] to part D realizing the plan which would only permit council to consider

[1:50:44] development agreements for more than 100 dwelling units where a proposed multiple

[1:50:49] unit development is serviced by more than one access to a collector or

[1:50:55] arterial street. As chair of the committee, I so moved.

[1:50:59] » Do we have a seconder? >> Seconded by councelor Mcy. Councelor

[1:51:03] Garden Cole. >> Thank you, Madam Morton. I I just wanted

[1:51:07] to comment on this because I've been on the fence about this topic since it

[1:51:12] first came up and [snorts] I see the need for action in this area, but I just

[1:51:20] can't decide what action is appropriate. So, I was on the Lucasville Road the

[1:51:27] night that um they were evacuated from Hammond's Plains area back a number of

[1:51:31] years ago when the fires happened. And one thing that I keep going back to is

[1:51:36] that they were exiting on the sackful end because they weren't permitted to

[1:51:39] exit on the Hammonds Plains end of that road. And [clears throat] while the ex

[1:51:46] the the evacuation was steady, it wasn't uh panicked uh crazy like it would have

[1:51:54] been in a subdivision or or in a more densely populated area where everybody

[1:51:59] was desperate to get out all at the same time where the houses are a little more

[1:52:03] staggered. It was it was a steady evacuation process.

[1:52:07] And I just keep thinking about that and wondering if by making a blanket motion

[1:52:16] that the whole municipality is going to be under this 100 dwelling units limit

[1:52:22] that it might not be the best thing for the entire municipality. That maybe we

[1:52:29] should be looking at breaking this type of motion down to

[1:52:37] » [snorts] >> more densely populated areas versus more

[1:52:41] rural areas or roads that could possibly be evacuated

[1:52:46] uh with less of a uh urgency or less chaos and panic. Obviously, if you're on

[1:52:52] a street that has three or four apartment buildings or you're in a very

[1:52:55] densely populated area, you are going to everybody's going to be trying to leave

[1:53:00] at the same time. So, if you've got apartments and there's two apartments

[1:53:03] with 72 units and everybody's got two vehicles, everybody will literally be

[1:53:09] trying to get, you know, 144* 2 out at the same time if they're being

[1:53:14] evacuated. And I just see that as being different from even though there's only

[1:53:19] one exit on a long road that might be in Enfield or it might be in Mount Unia

[1:53:23] area or it might be somewhere else that people it's going to be more of a

[1:53:28] staggered exit or a steady exit not so much of a of a panicking chaotic exit as

[1:53:36] it would be in a more densely populated area.

[1:53:39] So that's what that's what I have come up with and

[1:53:44] » as a result result of that I would like to make a motion. Now there is already a

[1:53:50] motion on the floor. So what if my motion is different from the motion on

[1:53:54] the floor?

[1:53:58] What what's my pro what's my options? >> If it's a different motion we would have

[1:54:04] to deal with this motion first I believe.

[1:54:07] » So I can't You can >> you can move to table this motion.

[1:54:13] » So there's no way of amending this making an amendment to this motion.

[1:54:17] » Well, that would depend on what the amendment was because the the intent of

[1:54:21] this motion is for council would only consider development

[1:54:27] agreements for more than a 100 dwelling units where a proposed multiple unit

[1:54:31] development is serviced by more than one access. So

[1:54:36] you would be very limited in what you could make for an amendment. I believe

[1:54:39] that wouldn't change the intent of that motion.

[1:54:42] » Okay. >> So, and I mean I don't know if council

[1:54:48] has an appetite for this, but I just feel like it's it's uh it's worth making

[1:54:53] a uh it's worth putting a motion out there that we this is the this would be

[1:55:00] what my motion would be given the opportunity. I just want to lay it out

[1:55:03] there for council is that we look at putting a 100 limit on more densely

[1:55:08] populated areas and that would have to be determined.

[1:55:12] » Yeah, there'd have to be some more clarity to that.

[1:55:16] » Okay. So, I guess I would be looking for a motion to table this motion that's on

[1:55:23] the floor. >> You can make that motion if you desire.

[1:55:26] » Okay. So, I'm going to make a motion to table this motion.

[1:55:31] That's my motion. >> Is there a seconder for the motion to

[1:55:35] table? >> There is no debate on the motion to

[1:55:38] table. So, we'll vote on the motion to table this motion.

[1:55:50] And the motion has failed by a vote of 8 to3

[1:55:56] with councelor Rhino, councelor Perry, and councelor Garden Cole voting in

[1:56:00] favor to table and everyone else voting nay.

[1:56:04] Okay, we'll go back to the motion on the floor.

[1:56:11] Uh, it hasn't changed, Sher. Oh, wait. I can do that myself. Never mind.

[1:56:17] Okay, CIO, have you wished to speak? Okay, councelor Perry.

[1:56:24] » Thank you, Madame Warden. And as along the same lines as uh councelor Garden

[1:56:28] Cole, I believe this is this is overregulation. And uh I I do not

[1:56:34] believe in blanketing anything. We should be looking at things on a

[1:56:36] case-byase basis. Uh because there are always many contributing factors in any

[1:56:42] development which can be access to water, length of road, uh frontage and

[1:56:46] and many different things. And just putting a blanket thing out there for

[1:56:50] 100 dwelling units and requiring these two things might take care of five or

[1:56:56] you know 70% but there's still 25% that can be be there. And I just don't think

[1:57:01] uh this is is good policy. I think it's uh it's over government regulation. and

[1:57:08] I cannot support this motion. >> Thank you, councelor Musa.

[1:57:15] » Uh, thank you, Madam Morton. I'm glad councelor Gen Cole mentioned that, but

[1:57:19] we're comparing Hammonds Plane Road or like Hammonds Plane Road to

[1:57:26] all old Anfield Road, not degrading old road, but hardly any people on that. So,

[1:57:31] if you have a 100 homes, you could evacuate that in no time.

[1:57:34] » Correction, we're not doing that. We're we're not comparing Hammond's Plains. We

[1:57:40] are simply discussing any development agreement anywhere

[1:57:45] with over a hundred dwelling units. It could be the old Enfield Road. It could

[1:57:50] be >> like not not even any road in East come

[1:57:54] close to that road like to to what started the whole thing. That that fire

[1:57:59] started the whole debate about this. That's why I'm saying we're comparing

[1:58:02] that that fire that happened over there that a possible fire that could happen

[1:58:06] here in in East Ens and we forgot that if we have apartment building you don't

[1:58:10] have to to run away with your car you could leave your car you have insurance

[1:58:14] on your house on your car and you could run away on foot so there is a lot of

[1:58:18] pathway between those apartment building so we should be looking at something

[1:58:22] that encourage our development not hinder our development and we need that

[1:58:27] tax base all the time So I wouldn't be supporting anything like that. So we

[1:58:33] should be looking at some new strategy and look what where each look at each

[1:58:39] area by by itself. Like we have some uh I could state couple area in mount uniak

[1:58:44] that it's a dead end street like uniak mines road have 10 houses on it and they

[1:58:50] have one subdivision of 100 homes and we're we're stopping everything over

[1:58:53] there. So I I don't think that's good governance that's hindering development

[1:58:58] and we should be looking at something could be save could be safe but could be

[1:59:03] open to to new ideas, new development, new thing going on. Thank you.

[1:59:09] » Okay, councelor Tingley. >> Uh through the chair, I'm going to

[1:59:13] support the motion uh because I think it's in line with the fires smart

[1:59:18] guidelines from what I understand. Uh, and I haven't heard anybody else present

[1:59:23] anything any better or if if somebody can present something that's uh can

[1:59:28] alleviate that concern, I'd be happy to hear it. Uh, the other thing, we're

[1:59:32] going to a py. We're not making a decision here tonight to uh to do this.

[1:59:37] We're going to go to a public public information meeting. I would like to

[1:59:40] hear what the public has to say about it. Uh, it's a big issue, not just here,

[1:59:44] right across Canada. So, I wouldn't want to shut it down without going to a pin.

[1:59:49] That's it.

[1:59:52] Council Rhino. >> Thank you, Madam Warden. I will not be

[1:59:55] supporting the motion because just for the fact I know it's going to the motion

[2:00:00] is to go to appeal. However, I think Councelor Garden Cole has brought up

[2:00:06] another idea and aspect and I think we would be doing our due diligence if we

[2:00:12] took a little breather, listen to what her motion might a it or might say and

[2:00:19] then get a staff report on that. It may be something that that may be doable.

[2:00:23] So, I don't know the why the rush on this. However, I'll respect the will of

[2:00:29] will of council, but uh I cannot support this meeting or this motion, excuse me,

[2:00:34] [laughter] >> councelor McI.

[2:00:37] » Oh, thank you, Warden. It seems to be a bit of confusion here when we talk about

[2:00:41] things like the old Enfield Road. Well, you could go to [clears throat] trunk

[2:00:44] 14. You can come out to trunk two. There's two ways out any place off of

[2:00:50] the old Enfield Road. If there were 100 homes in the road I live on, you could

[2:00:55] go to trunk two. You could go to Route 224. There would be two ways out. If you

[2:01:01] are in the New Havenwood development and there's 150 homes in there, there's only

[2:01:07] one way out to trunk two. So, that's the kind of scenario we're talking about.

[2:01:13] And yeah, it's fires smart. If you read it, that's what this is in line with.

[2:01:19] And it is a P a pin that we're talking about. Not making a final decision on

[2:01:24] anything. So, I'll certainly be supporting the uh motion. Thank you,

[2:01:34] » John. >> Uh thank you, Madam War. From a couple

[2:01:37] of comments, I just want to uh maybe clarify that this only applies to when a

[2:01:43] development agreement is triggered. So, if you're on an existing road, you have

[2:01:46] an existing lot, doesn't matter if there's more than 100 dwelling units on

[2:01:50] that street, whether it's UNIAC mines or whatever, you can still build a house

[2:01:53] there. This is only when you're a development agreement is triggered for

[2:01:57] multi-unit development. >> Thank you. Any further comments or

[2:02:03] questions? Councelor Musa.

[2:02:10] » So, so you consider reszoning as a development as something like that too

[2:02:14] or

[2:02:19] » or subdividing or something like that? So,

[2:02:21] » yeah. Well, so there's there's existing regulations that would impact your

[2:02:26] ability to subdivide. That is the 100 lot rule. So, right now, council does

[2:02:30] have in the subdivision bylaw rule that prevents you from um creating more than

[2:02:36] 100 lots with one access. So, that's separate from this 100 unit rule. Um and

[2:02:42] you know, okay, >> but where the lots have already been

[2:02:45] created, then nothing's going to stop you from getting a building permit

[2:02:47] there. >> Thank you.

[2:02:50] Any further comments or questions? Seeing none, we will go to the vote.

[2:03:02] And the vote is passed by a vote of 7 to4

[2:03:07] with councelor Musa, councelor Rhino, councelor Perry, and councelor garden

[2:03:11] cole voting nay.

[2:03:18] » Oops. Sorry, Councelor Mitchell. [laughter]

[2:03:22] Go ahead. >> The planning advice committee recommends

[2:03:24] the council direct staff to come back with a report on secondary access

[2:03:29] options across the municipality to make the community safer. As chair of the

[2:03:33] committee, I so moved. >> Seconded by councelor McY. Is there any

[2:03:40] discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[2:03:49] Motion has passed unanimously. >> Number six, plan review what we heard

[2:03:55] report. Planning advisory committee received a

[2:03:59] report summarizing public consultation in the plan review. To date, East has

[2:04:04] sought active engagement from East residents and property owners through

[2:04:10] visioning meet visioning meetings, surveys, and interest holder meetings.

[2:04:15] Community engagement will continue throughout the planning process through

[2:04:19] community meetings, social media posts, and direct engagement with property

[2:04:23] owners whose property may be considered for a land use designation

[2:04:29] and zone change. Number seven, pre-application policy

[2:04:34] requests. The committee considered two requests under council's pre-application

[2:04:39] policy. This policy enables developers an opportunity to request a discussion

[2:04:45] with PAC regarding a proposed development in CRA prior to an

[2:04:50] application being submitted. The committee approved both requests but has

[2:04:55] directed that the presentations be held in open

[2:04:59] committee instead of in camera. This concludes our report.

[2:05:04] » Thank you. All right. That brings us to the

[2:05:08] warden's report. So, I'll turn the chair over to the deputy warden.

[2:05:12] » Okay, mad warden. Go ahead, please. >> I keep my report very brief this evening

[2:05:17] as we still have a couple of inc camera items to deal with. Um, I did attend the

[2:05:23] graduation at Hance North on June the 26th. In spite of the fact that they

[2:05:28] were expecting counselor Rhino, and I know the crowd was disappointed, I did

[2:05:32] manage to get through it. Um on the 27th I I attended the opening of a memorial

[2:05:39] park at the Legion in Null which was uh very enjoyable and well attended and

[2:05:44] they've certainly done a beautiful job there. attended Canada Day celebrations

[2:05:49] in uh watched the parade in in Shubanakadi and then took with a friend

[2:05:55] um took a drive down through the shore and dropped into several of the

[2:06:00] locations of interest along the shore drive and uh did enjoy the day. Um other

[2:06:07] than that uh numerous community uh functions and uh presentations and uh

[2:06:14] director's meetings and just on the 27th um attended uh the director's meeting

[2:06:21] with councelor McI and the MLA where a public uh photo was taken for the

[2:06:29] announcement of the we're getting ready to begin those new apartments those um

[2:06:34] public housing in Shubanagod. And we're pleased to say that instead of 16 units,

[2:06:40] there are now going to be 18. So, uh anyway, that uh that concludes my report

[2:06:46] at this time. Thank you. >> Thank you, madam. I'm going to pass the

[2:06:49] chair back to you. >> All right. We'll now move into business

[2:06:52] from counselors and we'll start with councelor Tingley

[2:07:00] » uh through the chair. I'm just going to discuss one item here tonight. Uh

[2:07:05] I I I've had a lot of inquiries or yeah quite a few inquiries actually about

[2:07:11] bylaw issues, dust, lights, sewer uh the sewer system um about uh connecting uh

[2:07:18] the sewer into the storm drain and stuff like that. And uh first I want to prefix

[2:07:25] it by I I I think staff generally provide good service on everything. But

[2:07:31] uh I end up in with uh dozens of communication uh when somebody puts in a

[2:07:38] uh a concern and says could we look into the dust from this job site or can you

[2:07:42] look into the lighting from this? and they're all bylaw issues and uh it

[2:07:48] doesn't seem like there's a full explanation or a a prompt response that

[2:07:52] goes back to the uh to the u constituent and I I like to provide swift accurate

[2:08:01] friendly service to people and I don't know what the timeline is for getting to

[2:08:05] the bottom of something but uh I wish I'd like to see a a a reasonable

[2:08:11] timeline on getting back and making a decision. whether we're going to uh deal

[2:08:16] with these issues or not. And the issues are even worse with the province. Uh you

[2:08:23] know, like I made a mot couple of motions that that uh constituents came

[2:08:27] to me uh uh in January. I think I made the motions around uh Jake Brakes on the

[2:08:34] connector and uh [snorts] uh a crosswalk on the connector in Lance and it's

[2:08:40] crickets. I I don't get anything back from anybody. Um, and I I don't want to

[2:08:46] make a big issue of it, but I would like to know

[2:08:51] uh through staff, is there timelines on getting a a firm answer on these things?

[2:09:01] » Okay. Well, public member two wants to speak for some reason. Don't ask me how.

[2:09:11] » Okay. Go ahead, John. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Warden. Um, to

[2:09:15] answer the counselor's question, there there's not directly a specific, you

[2:09:19] know, we'll get back to you in 24 hours or whatever number of days. It's it

[2:09:23] really depends on the issue. Um, as soon as somebody puts a complaint in through

[2:09:27] our online portal, they immediately get a an email back, an automatic email, so

[2:09:32] that they know that their complaint has been received. Um

[2:09:38] but we're also careful about um what we tell complainants uh because it's an

[2:09:43] investigation. It's an enforcement action potentially. So you know you

[2:09:47] don't want to jeopardize an investigation by um you know u

[2:09:52] I guess u telling folks too much but we do uh probably heir on the side of

[2:09:57] sharing information. Um and but as I say it depends on the

[2:10:02] issue. It depends on um how quickly staff are able to get to it and and so

[2:10:09] on. So there's not a a service standard per se about getting back to a

[2:10:13] complaintant within a specific period of time.

[2:10:16] » Well, let me give you an example. I I've got one constituent. He's been

[2:10:20] complaining about dust for a year and I don't know if anybody's gotten back to

[2:10:26] him and and confirmed that uh yeah, we know you have dust. It's reasonable.

[2:10:32] it's unreasonable. Uh we're going to do this or there are precautions being

[2:10:37] taken. Uh you know what staff know about like a year is a long time and like this

[2:10:43] particular guy I must have 30 emails and um

[2:10:49] you know he's he's a demanding constituent. Um, but and I have my own

[2:10:53] opinions about it and I'm not trying to drive staff as to what the ultimate

[2:10:56] decision is, but I don't want to go on for a year. Uh, like I I don't feel like

[2:11:01] I'm providing good service that way, >> but I do believe and I'll refer to the

[2:11:06] CA on this. I do believe at that particular instance there have been

[2:11:10] responses. >> Yeah, I Madam Warden, I don't think it's

[2:11:12] fair to say he's been complaining for a year and not gotten a response. We've

[2:11:17] been back and forth several times with individuals around dust. of it. I don't

[2:11:21] know the person you're speaking about, but I can assume I know who it is.

[2:11:24] » You're right. >> Um because I'm copied on most of the

[2:11:27] emails to and from the individual. Our bylaw enforcement officer has been

[2:11:32] dealing with dust complaints both in Enfield and Lance. Um but but I would

[2:11:37] say in this instance, bylaw enforcement isn't something that's

[2:11:42] done. It's not a back and forth communication. like you're not going to

[2:11:47] get direct communication back to somebody to say this is like we don't

[2:11:52] update the complainant every step of the way. We go out and we investigate. It's

[2:11:58] not a back and forth between us. >> I understand this, but let me ask

[2:12:01] » right. But but you're making it sound like we're doing nothing for a year.

[2:12:04] » Let me ask a question. And uh do we know if that contractor is taking reasonable

[2:12:11] precautions? Do we know that? From everything that I've read and the

[2:12:15] communication that's been had, yes, I believe they are and and that has been

[2:12:20] communicated. >> Okay. Well, I'll accept that. I live

[2:12:25] there and I know what the situation is, but if that's what if that's what staff

[2:12:28] says, I'll I'll accept that. But I don't I I haven't seen anything

[2:12:34] that went back to him and said, uh, yes, they're taken. I believe there's been at

[2:12:39] least two mail two emails today saying that to that

[2:12:43] » might have been today, but this has been for a year,

[2:12:45] » but there have been other emails back and forth between he and our b law

[2:12:48] enforcement officer. >> Okay.

[2:12:50] » And through you, Madam War, I would say it's not all the same case. Like if

[2:12:53] somebody put a complaint in last summer, um that is not the same file as, you

[2:12:59] know, a complaint that comes in um six or eight months later. It's like

[2:13:03] obviously that one has been dealt with and and so on and now we're it's a new

[2:13:07] complaint that we're dealing with. >> It's a different situation, but I I live

[2:13:11] there and he's sending us photographs. >> Yeah.

[2:13:14] » Like it's well documented. >> Yeah. And and

[2:13:16] » I think counselor, what we're being told is that staff have received the

[2:13:20] complaint >> and they've dealt with it. Okay.

[2:13:22] » And they have dealt with it and they have been in contact with the

[2:13:26] complainant. >> So the other guy

[2:13:28] » and and we continue to be in contact with the developer. Right.

[2:13:33] » We will continue to monitor it because it is an ongoing

[2:13:36] um construction site. >> Well, the the other couple of situations

[2:13:40] uh with the lighting, it was like uh he was just dropped as far as I'm

[2:13:46] concerned. Like nobody nobody helped deal with the situation at all. and the

[2:13:51] the follow with the sewer. He's been asking about, you know, can the

[2:13:55] municipality do an investigation into um uh people dumping their sewer into the

[2:14:02] uh or their their uh storm drainage into the sewer uh because it's affecting him

[2:14:08] where he lives at the bottom of a street. and uh I don't think he's ever

[2:14:12] got a direct answer as to u whether we can or will do anything to to

[2:14:20] investigate it. >> I do know that staff regularly when they

[2:14:23] become aware of these situations do take action on that.

[2:14:28] » So and through to you madam I would say this about that particular case that one

[2:14:33] is still an open file I would say. So it hasn't been concluded yet.

[2:14:37] » Okay. Uh, and uh, so anyway, I'm I'm I'm airing

[2:14:44] what my concerns are with with these people, and some of them have been going

[2:14:48] on for a year, and I think uh, they're open, and they keep following up with me

[2:14:53] because they don't think they're getting an adequate response, and

[2:14:57] [laughter] I'm going to accept your response here

[2:15:00] that you give me tonight, >> CO. So through you, Madam Morton, the

[2:15:04] bylaw process is a regulated process and it doesn't involve counselors.

[2:15:10] So, if we receive a bylaw complaint and it has been investigated and it has not

[2:15:18] and and it isn't what the person wants to see as a resolution, they may come to

[2:15:24] you as their counselor to say this wasn't what I expected as a resolution

[2:15:29] or I'm not happy with the service I received or whatever that might be. In

[2:15:33] that case, you send those to me and then I will look internally as to what's

[2:15:38] going on. when we get emails being sent to two different directors in the case

[2:15:43] of dust. Uh we've had a meeting internally where I've just said there's

[2:15:47] too many emails going around about dust because I can't keep track of who gets

[2:15:51] sent what and then John responds or Jesse responds and then the bylaw

[2:15:55] officer's responding and then the counselor sending stuff to one director

[2:16:00] and not the other like it's almost impossible to to keep track of it all.

[2:16:05] So if we have issues with bylaw enforcement in particular because it is

[2:16:09] a regulated process, those should come to me and I will sort it out internally

[2:16:14] and get back to the counselor whether it was dealt with appropriately from from

[2:16:19] my investigation. And I do investigate those things like I pull the team

[2:16:23] together and say, "Okay, what have we done? What should have been done? What

[2:16:26] was expected? Where did we fall down?" I do all of that. Um and I will respond

[2:16:31] back to the counselor. that in specifically with bylaw enforcement

[2:16:36] cases, it is not a back and forth between staff and counselors,

[2:16:41] staff, counselors, and the the complainant. Um, that can't be the

[2:16:45] process we follow because it's not it's just not okay.

[2:16:50] » Well, it might not be okay, but if they don't feel they're getting an answer,

[2:16:53] they're going to they're going to contact me,

[2:16:55] » right? And then you contact me, >> right?

[2:16:57] » I'm your employee. I I you're all you're CC to every one of

[2:17:02] them. >> But I'm CC. But but

[2:17:04] » just contact me and I will sort it out and get back to you. And if I feel like

[2:17:09] we've fallen down and not done the right thing by the complainant, we will I will

[2:17:14] » Well, I've got three things here that have not been sorted out. And

[2:17:17] » I would caution you. I just caution you to be respectful.

[2:17:21] » Well, I'm going to be respectful, but I'm I'm going to advocate for my

[2:17:25] constituents. And the same thing when dealing with the province uh when we

[2:17:30] when they bring a concern and you raise it and it goes six months, eight months,

[2:17:35] nine months or a year and you get no response. Uh you know what what h how

[2:17:41] can you even help them? Like does nobody have to respond to anything?

[2:17:47] » You know, is is that's not a fair that's not a fair question. I'm going to

[2:17:52] address I I believe that's an unfair question because I do believe that

[2:17:57] municipal staff do do their very best to reply to everything. The CEO has

[2:18:02] outlined the process that if a counselor feels that an item has not been dealt

[2:18:08] with or that they need further information on how it's been dealt with,

[2:18:12] then the avenue as it has always been is to go to our one and only employee, the

[2:18:17] CEO, and have her dig a little further. With regards to the province and their

[2:18:23] speed or lack thereof in responding to things, we have no control over that. We

[2:18:29] can certainly make a call. We can write another letter, but we have no way of

[2:18:34] forcing them to answer any faster than what they do.

[2:18:38] » Well, are we following up? >> Are we following up?

[2:18:44] » That would depend on the situation. Council,

[2:18:47] » can anybody get a straight answer? So through you, Madam Warden, the

[2:18:52] » any issues that we send a letter to the province, and I'll use Jesse as an

[2:18:56] example, um if we send a letter to the province on an issue, he will follow up

[2:19:02] with the province. If we have a meeting with them on a regional sort of

[2:19:07] transportation meeting, those issues all get brought up from a transportation

[2:19:11] perspective. Yeah. >> Um and then any updates to those motions

[2:19:15] that you've made or letters that are written um will be on your status update

[2:19:20] report that you get every month right before council. You get an update on the

[2:19:24] status of things. Um, we can't control what the province does, but we certainly

[2:19:29] when council has an issue that is they want brought to the forefront, we try to

[2:19:35] keep that at the forefront, but we can't >> I don't recall ever getting an update on

[2:19:39] after after the motion was made other than a letter was sent.

[2:19:43] » But I'm not going to >> but those are followed up with staff.

[2:19:46] So, >> when we have the opportunity to, we do

[2:19:50] follow up with them. >> Right. I'm not going to beat this to

[2:19:53] death any further. I'm just wanted to mention it. Uh it is very uncomfortable

[2:19:59] when people follow up with you 3 months, 6 months, a year and uh you've got

[2:20:05] nothing to report back. That's that's it.

[2:20:11] » Okay. No.

[2:20:20] Okay. Next, we will go to councelor Musa.

[2:20:26] soon as I find you here. Go ahead.

[2:20:31] » Uh, thank you, Madam Morton. I was going to I had my lights on, but I thought I'm

[2:20:37] next so I could ask my question. So, my question is we have all kind all kind of

[2:20:42] bylaws here. Do we have enough officers like bylaw officers to

[2:20:48] to address all those? because I know like sometimes somebody call about blast

[2:20:53] in Mount Yuniaak and you're like 35 minutes away so everything happening

[2:20:58] there you're not going to be doing anything right so but but my question is

[2:21:03] sometimes the the the the resident was asked to contact me so what

[2:21:09] I'm going to do about that so I think if we have bylaws we should have enough

[2:21:14] people to to enforce them or we should never have them because when when you

[2:21:18] have bylaws there the residents uh expect something from you and if you

[2:21:23] don't have anybody to enforce it we might not have them better. I think it's

[2:21:26] better not to have them. Thank you. Do >> you have any comment on that John?

[2:21:30] » Sure. Thank you madam warden. Um I I would say we do I mean we have one very

[2:21:34] good bylaw enforcement officer right now and um in addition when he's doing dog

[2:21:39] control we have backup for that function. Um but remember it's not an

[2:21:43] emergency service. So it's not a 911 service. it's a um an investigative

[2:21:47] service that but the idea that somebody's going to respond immediately

[2:21:50] or within 10 minutes or 30 minutes it that's really not the way we operate. Um

[2:21:57] and so you know we do we're I think fairly timely within uh a day or so if

[2:22:03] there's a bylaw infraction somebody's brought to our attention we will get out

[2:22:06] and have a look at it um to start an investigation. Not to say that it would

[2:22:10] be completed, but um yeah, so I think we do have the resources that we

[2:22:17] need right now and um you know, something I guess we pay attention to

[2:22:22] every year when budget time comes around to look at staffing.

[2:22:28] » Yeah. I just want to make sure that you have enough employees for for that. And

[2:22:32] uh and that's that's all for for me for now. Thank you.

[2:22:37] » Thank you.

[2:22:43] Councelor Perry. >> Nothing at this time. Warden,

[2:22:48] » Councelor Miam.

[2:22:53] » Uh, great. Uh, thank you, Madam Warden. And, uh, mine is very short, too. I I

[2:22:58] just want to take the opportunity to extend congratulations to the organizers

[2:23:04] of and and the volunteers as well of Tidefest which happened this past

[2:23:08] weekend. Um you know I I went uh a number of times. Uh it was an excellent

[2:23:14] kind of a homecoming event. Very well attended. Everyone seemed to be having a

[2:23:18] great time. So hats off uh to those folks. and um other than just general

[2:23:24] constituency type work, nothing uh nothing to report. Uh no, I'm not

[2:23:29] bringing any motions forward at this time. Thank you.

[2:23:32] » Thank you, Deputy Warden. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh just a couple

[2:23:37] quick things. Uh I also attended Tidefest and was quite impressed with

[2:23:40] it. Uh Canada Day, I uh Enfield Fire Department had their breakfast and this

[2:23:44] is the most profitable year they've ever had, which is the thanks to the

[2:23:48] community. And most of the complaints I got I forward to our MLA and hopefully

[2:23:52] he'll resolve them. The bridge in Enfield that's uh tying up traffic and

[2:23:56] the dust and all those issues. Um the only I see coming as an issue maybe in

[2:24:00] the future is we're going to redo the sidewalks in Enfield and there's so many

[2:24:04] people walking and they have will they have to walk out in the road or if some

[2:24:08] we can address that ahead of time because there's a to me it's a future

[2:24:13] concern that maybe we can look at before it happens.

[2:24:17] » Throwing it right at you Jesse. Uh yeah through through uh Madame Warden the

[2:24:23] there is a sidewalk replacement project there's two actually on the capital

[2:24:26] budget uh the Enfield a large portion in Enfield is set to be designed this year

[2:24:32] ideally constructed next year it will be an expansion in width and a rebase uh so

[2:24:38] they're currently um uh 1.2 two wide, so four feet wide,

[2:24:43] if you will. Um, currently in ashvault and and it and the base hasn't held up

[2:24:48] and so they've got the waves in them, if you will. Uh, those are being replaced

[2:24:52] with concrete 1.8 m wide and that's how we're setting up with some accessibility

[2:24:59] features. And so that is is the plan. There's also um uh staff has gone out

[2:25:06] for some pricing for continuous um sidewalk repairs. Some have already

[2:25:11] started. Uh there was some priority areas of larger holes if you will that

[2:25:16] had to be taken care of first uh in Milford and then there's some spots in

[2:25:20] Lance, but those are all being triaged this summer and are active now.

[2:25:24] » So that hopefully will help shortterm and there is the plan for longterm in

[2:25:28] Enfield >> because the long term my concern would

[2:25:31] be people having to walk out on the street when they're doing the

[2:25:34] construction because I know even I'm one of the walkers now my age I had to do

[2:25:38] it. uh through through Madam Morton st

[2:25:44] standard practice is is you there isn't always a great opportunity to redirect.

[2:25:49] You have to close a sidewalk and and ideally communicate in advance so the

[2:25:54] public can make alternative routes for the day that those are are going to

[2:25:58] happen. Um, if there is an opportunity to create a a detour around, that's

[2:26:03] ideal. But say I would I would suggest a lot of those are challenging, especially

[2:26:08] if it's along the number two because it's such a busy street that redirecting

[2:26:12] or alternative routes onto the road rightway isn't ideal and so we wouldn't

[2:26:16] do that as a best practice. >> Okay, thank you. That's everybody

[2:26:19] everything I have. I hope everybody enjoys the month the bug is off. Thank

[2:26:22] you. >> Thank you.

[2:26:25] Okay, Councelor McI. >> Uh, thank you, Warden. I am going to

[2:26:32] make a motion here, but first I'll just give a little preamble and it's to do

[2:26:36] with the Shibanacity uh the ball field in Shibonacity at the Shibanaki River

[2:26:42] Park. Um, the lights are old. Uh I was there on

[2:26:48] the 30th of June when the second game of the night uh they just got started

[2:26:54] played one inning I think the lights went off on one side they reset them

[2:26:59] they played another inning the lights went off again and the

[2:27:03] » [clears throat] >> umpires called the game. Now one of the

[2:27:06] teams that was participating was from Cape Breton. So this is a you know has

[2:27:12] become an important ball field for the association and uh the lights are very

[2:27:17] old. So uh I'm going to uh move the council direct staff to bring forward a

[2:27:22] Shibanagi ball field light replacement capital project as part of the 2027 2028

[2:27:30] budget discussions. >> Second.

[2:27:34] » Seconded by councelor Tingley. Is there any

[2:27:39] discussion on the motion? Councelor Garden Cole.

[2:27:44] » Thank you, Madam Morton. I'm just thinking so Enfield

[2:27:48] the [clears throat] Legion Ballfield had their lights replaced not that long ago.

[2:27:53] Was that something that we were a part of? I'm just

[2:27:58] wondering who typically funds >> We don't own that field. We own the

[2:28:02] shooting. >> Gotcha. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[2:28:08] Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[2:28:20] Someone has not voted

[2:28:25] and the motion is passed by a vote of 10 to one.

[2:28:31] Councelor Rhino voting nay.

[2:28:35] » Okay. Okay. And just a couple other things, uh, the CBC had a radio and and

[2:28:42] also on their news site, uh, report regarding the Senate half and

[2:28:48] Shubinakadi and, uh, council for district 5 was interviewed and I just

[2:28:53] like to correct one thing. He stated in his interview that uh, everyone was

[2:28:58] happy now and I just want to let council know that indeed everyone is not happy

[2:29:02] in Shanaki with this. I'll just leave that at that. Uh along that same line,

[2:29:08] the rejuvenated uh parking uh area in Shibanac is looking really good at this

[2:29:14] with the site. Um that [clears throat] includes the Senate

[2:29:19] and uh I see that it looks like the parking lot's going to be paved next

[2:29:24] week. People have been anxious to keep asking me if this really is going to be

[2:29:29] paved. So, I've been assuring them it has. So, I'm glad to see that it's going

[2:29:32] to be going ahead soon. Um, Heydays was a huge success. I'd just like to thank

[2:29:38] all the volunteers and sponsors and make the event possible every year. That was

[2:29:41] our 40th year. Also, the fireworks display was exceptional this year. A lot

[2:29:46] of people were very impressed and uh yeah, was great attendance. same as the

[2:29:52] Enfield Legion, the or Fire Department, the Shibanagi Legion had their biggest

[2:29:58] turnout yet for their breakfast and of course like people pointed out it was on

[2:30:02] a Wednesday so more people around. Um the pro provincial road committee uh

[2:30:08] continues its work and we had a meeting today with some of the CAOs. Uh um

[2:30:16] it looks like the consultation with counselors may begin or probably will

[2:30:21] have to begin in August. Not uh not great, but

[2:30:26] if we're going to get the report done in the timeline that we're probably going

[2:30:29] to have to just do that, it might run into September with the uh

[2:30:34] consultations. Also, I have received an email from Don

[2:30:37] Smith, Harry Smith's uh nephew, and he was glad to see that some activity has

[2:30:43] been occurring. Uh he's been following us. He has been in contact with uh

[2:30:47] Jackie at the uh museum, and he uh made a donation to the tea party, so that

[2:30:54] they're having in next month, I guess, August coming right up. And also, I

[2:30:59] attended with the Gordon and the MLA the housing announcement. So that was

[2:31:04] exciting for Shanaki. Thank you. >> Okay, councelor H.

[2:31:09] » Thank you, Warden. Two or three little things. Uh July 1st, I was uh present at

[2:31:15] the Hayes and participated in the uh car show. Couple of uh social events going

[2:31:21] on in the communities around and uh got to uh socialize with a lot of people

[2:31:25] throughout the municipality. And uh one note that uh we had a longtime resident

[2:31:30] of Nim River pass away, Cara Vandoule. Uh she was 106 years old and uh it was

[2:31:38] uh I didn't I knew she was up there, but I had no idea she was that old. Anyway,

[2:31:43] uh I'm going to make a motion here. Um, Route 14 and Nim River by the Renfruit

[2:31:48] Road has been a long time place for cars leaving the road and because there's a

[2:31:54] couple big intersections, most of them just they don't go in the ditch, but

[2:31:57] over the years I've had several light poles there and we've had four people uh

[2:32:02] lose their life at that intersection. And uh it's mainly because of the S turn

[2:32:07] approaching that Renfruit Road. It's uh it's very sharp and it's only 70 km, but

[2:32:13] most people don't recognize it is 70. So, [laughter] I'm going to move for the

[2:32:17] municipality to submit a request for an intersection sign each review along that

[2:32:21] section of Route 14 at the intersection of Renfruit Road and seek approval from

[2:32:26] the public works to have a municipally owned digital speed sign be located on

[2:32:30] the west side of the Renfruit Road entrance to support drivers awareness of

[2:32:34] the S term risk while drivinging eastbound. Second

[2:32:38] » moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[2:32:44] Seeing none, we'll go to the vote.

[2:32:50] Motion has passed unanimously.

[2:32:55] Anything else? Councelor H. Okay. Councelor Mitchell.

[2:33:04] » Thank you, Madam Morton. Just a couple items. uh attended the graduation. Hence

[2:33:08] east at the end of uh June, the young lady that got the municipal award

[2:33:16] also [clears throat] had the highest average for grades 10, 11, and 12.

[2:33:20] So he made a good choice. Uh attended the July 1st parade as a

[2:33:26] spectator and uh had a chance to visit with some of my neighbors who I don't

[2:33:30] get to see very often. Uh on the 22nd, the mutual aid barbecue was held at

[2:33:37] Elmstead fire and we had uh departments from the corridor come in have eating a

[2:33:43] fellowship with hot dogs, hamburgers and some

[2:33:47] some pop and water. I attended Tidefest on Saturday and Sunday. Had a chance to

[2:33:52] talk to some of the washer tossers and I went back on Sunday to watch some of the

[2:33:57] cornhole players. Uh uh on the discussion of dust, uh as you

[2:34:07] know, Elmwood Drive is next to Elm Lumber and they have trucks coming and

[2:34:11] going all day every day and they do create dust.

[2:34:18] But besides the dust, we also get some wood f wood wood fibers.

[2:34:23] And if an issue comes uh up with the dusting, I just make a call to Elmstead

[2:34:28] Lumber and they deal with it. And as a resident of Elmwood Drive, I uh don't

[2:34:35] call as a council, I call as the resident.

[2:34:38] And if the pictures that council tendi was the amount of dust that his

[2:34:44] constituents are complaining about, mine' be happy to have that amount of

[2:34:48] dust from those trucks because that is not the dust that we see on a dry day

[2:34:56] when the log trucks are going into Elm cell lumber. Those are my comments and

[2:35:01] they're my feeling as a resident.

[2:35:07] Anything further? >> And that's all.

[2:35:10] » Councelor Garden Cole. >> Thank you, Madam Warden. I just want to

[2:35:15] touch on a few uh things that I attended. We had the July 1st parade

[2:35:18] going from Ellensdale to Enfield. It was uh very successful. I want to thank the

[2:35:24] RCMP, the local fire departments, the volunteers who helped barricade the ends

[2:35:28] of the roads, and also everyone who went to the trouble of participating. Uh it

[2:35:33] was very much appreciated. We had a ton of uh spectators and it was enjoyed by

[2:35:40] all. I also end my July 1st uh always always have by going to the Shibonacity

[2:35:47] uh um fireworks and they were extra extra amazing this year. So I thank

[2:35:52] Shibonacity for that. I caught some Tidefest activities and it looked to be

[2:35:58] very uh very successful and everybody appeared to be having a good time. So

[2:36:02] appreciate all the people who go to the trouble to put that that on for our uh

[2:36:07] for our residents. Just wondering um to staff, is there any developments in the

[2:36:14] street sweeping?

[2:36:21] » Go ahead, Jesse. >> Uh

[2:36:25] through Madame Warden. So uh staff have contacted the province. They do have a

[2:36:31] street sweeping along the two scheduled. Uh did inquire and to get their

[2:36:37] perspective on the municipality also doing

[2:36:41] rounds. Uh they're very much open to it. Uh so we would get we would get approval

[2:36:46] to do something like that of of course. No shocker there either, right? So um uh

[2:36:52] so uh Park Road was done as as the business

[2:36:56] park uh gets done annually usually through uh it's like a it's part of a

[2:37:01] annual business uh uh related cost for the business park

[2:37:05] upkeep. Uh we're looking to benchmark those costs and then try and translate

[2:37:09] that to figure out what the cost would be based on council's motion along the

[2:37:12] two and see where it could fit in. Um it looks like there's been some efforts

[2:37:17] along the two. Um, but I it wasn't the municipality, the po Porticana. I I I

[2:37:23] took a look uh this morning at it and that that developer has actually had a

[2:37:30] sweeper in. It's actually clear right around, but that wasn't us. Uh are

[2:37:34] looking at it. There is gaps. There's still mounds in different locations, but

[2:37:38] we've been reviewing and and it and trying to build that scope up. So, it's

[2:37:43] a work in progress. uh but very active and that's everything

[2:37:49] I know on the topic as of now. >> Okay. So, just a couple questions. You

[2:37:54] say that the business park gets um street sweeping done as a separate

[2:37:58] business initiative. Who does it? >> So, through through Madam War Morton uh

[2:38:03] a contracted street sweeper uh and it's it's always been a a EBD cost uh over

[2:38:09] the years. it's not a something that's tended to hit uh the roads cost center.

[2:38:16] Um and so in the past we we've sought out

[2:38:20] different contractors and so there's rental companies that do it uh and you

[2:38:25] just check on availability. There's one in Burnside and also uh Elmstale

[2:38:31] Landscaping has a truck and if it's got availability or sometimes we've used

[2:38:35] them in the past as well. So those are the the options we would explore. Okay.

[2:38:39] [snorts] >> So, it's it's not a flat rate. It's an

[2:38:42] hourly rate. And sometimes you you get what you get. Uh we had uh the the

[2:38:48] business park had to have a second run. Uh they had some mechanical issues, but

[2:38:55] » well, I guess that will be part of the report that's brought back to us. And I

[2:38:59] also me I also noticed that uh the curly development uh cleaned a section of the

[2:39:06] of the street there which was quite encouraging. Um which leads me to my

[2:39:12] next topic which is no surprise dust. Um so I sent uh pictures and videos around

[2:39:20] to uh the other counselors just so that you can get a feel for the area that I'm

[2:39:25] talking about. It is extreme this uh development that's going on in that it

[2:39:30] is and now mind you the pictures that I sent were not at a time when there's any

[2:39:35] activity going on but you can from the general uh geographic uh pictures you

[2:39:41] can get a an idea of when that is loaded with heavy equipment and trucks the

[2:39:47] amount of dust that would be uh happening on that particular site and

[2:39:52] also the close proximity that the neighbors are to it. So, I mean, we are

[2:39:58] talking not swimming in their pools this year, not hanging clothes on the line.

[2:40:02] Some of them had their lines ripped ripped down, um not not enjoying their

[2:40:07] backyards at all, not on their back decks, and and I mean really impacting

[2:40:13] their quality of life. On the front side, we have, as we know, and I already

[2:40:18] discussed this, the trucks trucking down Albany Drive. So after the rain last

[2:40:24] week on Wednesday and Thursday and for us it was a pretty substantial rain

[2:40:29] Friday evening I drove up Alony Drive for something else and was appalled at

[2:40:37] the you can imagine those big trucks using Aldery Drive after all that rain

[2:40:42] and the muck. huge chunks of mud on the road just just a disaster and then had

[2:40:49] driven over them. So they were huge patties of muck everywhere and never

[2:40:54] never cleaned the road when they left their site on a Friday after after this

[2:40:59] mess was left on it. I I uh commented to a a resident who flagged me down and

[2:41:06] said about the street cleaning and he said yeah. He said they don't they don't

[2:41:10] clean the street. they don't care and nobody nobody does anything about it.

[2:41:14] So, and then he just just walked away. So, my question is and I didn't realize

[2:41:19] it was a bylaw officer. So, so dust control on a construction site is a

[2:41:25] bylaw. Is that correct through you to staff?

[2:41:33] » Go ahead, John. >> Yeah. Through you, Metamor. Yes. that

[2:41:35] your community standards bylaw has a section that deals with what we call

[2:41:39] fugitive dust. >> Okay. So then every development would be

[2:41:43] subject to that at some level depending on how dusty a development is.

[2:41:47] » Correct. >> Okay. So

[2:41:50] so does every time So does dust control never happen? Are they never obligated

[2:41:56] to take some measures of dust control unless they are contacted with

[2:42:00] complaints by a >> by residents to a community bylaw

[2:42:04] officer? >> Yeah. through you, Madam Warden. I mean,

[2:42:06] we do operate on the basis of a complaint. So, when we do get a

[2:42:09] complaint, we get in touch with the property manager and

[2:42:13] um some developers are quite good. They're using sodium chloride. They're

[2:42:18] occasionally using water, other techniques, uh slowing their vehicles

[2:42:22] down and so on to try and suppress dust. Um and the bylaw doesn't say you can't

[2:42:27] have any dust that escapes your property. That would be unreasonable for

[2:42:30] a construction site. It basically says um has the property owner taken you know

[2:42:36] reasonable steps to prevent the release of dust. So are they using any kind of

[2:42:41] dust suppression on site or um water or what have you. Um

[2:42:46] » so right so that would indicate that they actually are responsible they if

[2:42:52] following the bylaw they are responsible for maintaining some level of dust

[2:42:56] control. >> They are. Yes.

[2:42:58] » Okay. So then when they don't, that's when the bylaw officer steps in. Because

[2:43:02] I had a resident send me this. Under the East T community standards bylaw P 100,

[2:43:07] there are no visible dust suppression measures, uh, routine water truck

[2:43:11] spraying, soil bonding agents. Uh, so those would be the things that they

[2:43:17] would be expected to do under our bylaw B-1.

[2:43:21] » Yes, those would be some of the reasonable steps that they could take to

[2:43:24] to try and prevent dust from escaping. >> Okay. So for a developer that isn't

[2:43:31] doing any apparent dust control. So then that's it. It's all hinges on complaints

[2:43:38] and then staff >> and then we start a discussion with the

[2:43:44] property owner the or the contractor and if that gets nowhere there are fines

[2:43:50] available. I mean they they sort of ramp up from$150 to$300 to $600 a day kind of

[2:43:55] thing. But um uh we haven't used that to this point. We've simply talked to

[2:44:00] property managers and and they've taken corrective action.

[2:44:04] » Really? So you So they've taken corrective action there.

[2:44:07] » Yeah. Uh I I don't know specifically about the Enfield site. I'm not sure.

[2:44:12] » Uh other than complaining about the road, we've actually had complaints

[2:44:15] about fugitive dust come in. >> Um

[2:44:18] » Okay. I guess I'm just getting the complaints.

[2:44:21] » Yeah. um >> you need to send them to

[2:44:22] » Yeah. encourage people to go online and and log it in that way,

[2:44:25] » right? Uh and you know what, some people want to come to their

[2:44:31] counselors with complaints and sometimes they do that first, sometimes they do it

[2:44:35] as a as a an an end measure, but it is challenging as a counselor when a

[2:44:42] resident is coming and you're hoping to resolve their issues. I mean, we are

[2:44:45] elected officials. Uh second part of that is that the road the mess of the

[2:44:50] road. So I guess they are in keeping with the dust control or lack of it.

[2:44:55] Same with the with the lack of washing the road.

[2:44:59] » Yeah. Slightly different that because and again it's it's it falls under the

[2:45:03] traffic authority I guess. Although in this case it's even more complicated

[2:45:07] because it's a provincial role but I'll let Jesse speak to that part.

[2:45:11] » Thank you. >> Uh through Madam Warden. So yeah, the

[2:45:15] the debris on Alderne, if you will, the

[2:45:20] debris getting onto Alderne, um the topic comes up as what is the

[2:45:27] erosion and sedimentation control plan for the development. Uh the design

[2:45:31] engineer for the development uh lists the criteria of what needs to take

[2:45:35] place. Um uh so from a staff perspective, staff have followed up with

[2:45:42] that design engineer saying, you know, look at requesting for them to follow up

[2:45:47] with the the contractor to make sure they're following their sedimentation

[2:45:51] and erosion plan and also staff notify the province so they're aware of the

[2:45:58] condition of the provincial road. And so the area manager was engaged and we

[2:46:02] notified them as well. and we notified the contractor of the complaint so they

[2:46:08] were aware in case the province was act requesting anything just as being

[2:46:14] transparent as possible with them. >> So if you've got a contractor, if you've

[2:46:19] got a developer who is

[2:46:24] isn't concerned about it and you've got the province who doesn't action it,

[2:46:30] that's it. There's there's no other tools in the

[2:46:35] toolbox currently. >> Okay. Um and my last item is that a uh

[2:46:42] resident on Alderney concerned about the um the traffic, the speed and and

[2:46:48] obviously now all the new issues on Alderney um wrote to the MLA and the uh

[2:46:55] um Department of Highways, the old Department of Highways Public Works and

[2:46:59] to address the situation wanted to know about um speed mitigation like in the

[2:47:05] rest of the subdivision. And you I think you were c I'm not sure if you were

[2:47:09] copied on this or not. Uh I think it was co uh Cody the MP and the MLA and the uh

[2:47:16] Department of Public Works. Anyway, the response back to her was that in order

[2:47:21] to for them to look at it as on a provincial road, um there needs to be a

[2:47:26] request from the municipality to spark them to do a

[2:47:32] assessment um to see if that's required. Does that

[2:47:36] sound right to you

[2:47:41] » Jesse?

[2:47:45] » Through madam. Um

[2:47:50] I'll give some additional information then I'll answer the question.

[2:47:53] » Okay. Um

[2:47:57] [snorts] so interestingly enough uh as as you

[2:48:02] know it's been it's at times challenging to to get um digital speed display signs

[2:48:10] up on provincial roads. Uh a request did come in uh for from the province if the

[2:48:17] municipality would engage a temporary DSDS on Alderney. So, we're looking into

[2:48:22] that >> to help support with the current

[2:48:24] challenges. >> Okay.

[2:48:25] » Um, so to get that on the list in the schedule, I don't have any uh ETA on

[2:48:29] that, but >> that that is something we're looking to

[2:48:33] accommodate to support. Um, yes. Uh, so so any review

[2:48:41] would be an official request. So, if council wanted to make a motion for a

[2:48:44] request for um

[2:48:48] um trafficcoming options to be reviewed or an assessment

[2:48:53] for the need for traffic calming on Alderney subdivision or Alderney Drive,

[2:48:58] I should say specifically where it's provincial. That could be a motion of

[2:49:02] council. Uh that that could go. Um, anecdotally,

[2:49:08] staff have had discussions with provincial staff in the past about

[2:49:14] um, ultimately an Eastand staff perspective is on a pre-existing road

[2:49:20] where you're not going to realign or the road you're you speed humps are are the

[2:49:26] way you're going to go. Uh, and that's typically something that the province

[2:49:29] has not accepted or not moved forward on. And that is kind of going to be

[2:49:35] where this likely ends up in a request for review. Uh, however, doesn't mean

[2:49:40] you don't ask and don't put it out there cuz I'm just because we've as brought it

[2:49:45] up in the past doesn't mean the answer won't change the next time we ask. So, I

[2:49:50] just want to manage expectations of that too where we've been given feedback that

[2:49:55] that's not something that that would tend to happen. Well, I just think in

[2:50:00] this particular section section of the road with um the speed mitigation action

[2:50:06] being taken in the rest of the subdivision, which all feeds out into

[2:50:09] this road, and there's going to be way more feeding out in this road and and

[2:50:13] the problems that are going to ensue with it. And with them giving her that

[2:50:17] direction that um it would come from the municipality for a request for an assess

[2:50:22] for them to do an assessment. I felt like like

[2:50:26] » you know >> councelor you could make a motion asking

[2:50:28] council to send a letter to public works and ask them to do that.

[2:50:32] » Yeah. So I'm going to make a motion asking uh

[2:50:36] requesting that the municipality send a work to send a uh a letter to public

[2:50:42] works asking that they do an assessment on Alderney Drive for

[2:50:50] speed mitigation.

[2:50:54] uh for traffic calming consideration due to

[2:50:59] speed concerns. >> Right.

[2:51:03] » Seconded by >> councelor M.

[2:51:05] » Councelor Musa. >> Discussion on the motion. Councelor McI.

[2:51:12] » Uh thank you Warden. I would just uh I will support the motion, but at the 16th

[2:51:18] of June road provincial roads committee, I brought that up with the officials

[2:51:25] from public works thinking specifically of Alderly Drive, not mentioning Aldery

[2:51:29] Drive and was told that they just don't support traffic calming and won't

[2:51:35] support it. Not saying we shouldn't make the motion and send the letter, but I

[2:51:39] have to agree with Jesse. is probably going to be a no, but maybe they'll

[2:51:43] change their mind. Thank you. >> No one left to speak. We'll go to the

[2:51:49] vote. [clears throat]

[2:51:54] » Motion has passed unanimously. >> Uh, thank you council for that. I know I

[2:51:59] was a little long, but just um things going on. Thank you.

[2:52:04] Okay. Coun councelor Rhino. >> Deputy warden says it's the best for

[2:52:11] last. So we're we're waiting with baited breath.

[2:52:14] » That's to be voted on. All right. On pardon me.

[2:52:21] On uh June the 26th, I attended the no uh Legion Peacekeepers Awards and on the

[2:52:28] 27th along with the warden, I attended the

[2:52:32] opening of the Veterans Park. On July 1st, I attended and participated in the

[2:52:39] fireworks of the Melan Fire Department. On July the 11th, I had the uh occasion

[2:52:47] to present a 90th birthday certificate to Mr. Leonard Green who was very

[2:52:52] appreciative and it was a great gathering on Oh, I missed the June 30th

[2:52:57] one which was 50year anniversary to Northfield residents uh Mickey and

[2:53:02] Cheryl Mlullen. They were very appreciative of that. On uh July from

[2:53:08] July 17th to the 19th, I attended various things at the N fun fair. And on

[2:53:13] July 25th, I did the same thing for the Walton uh fire fireman's day. So, uh, it

[2:53:20] was a very busy month and, uh, I took great pride in covering the area. Thank

[2:53:26] you. >> Thank you. That concludes business from

[2:53:31] counselors. Uh, counselors, uh, I know the hour is

[2:53:34] getting late. We do have three in camera items on the list. Um, so if we're going

[2:53:42] to continue, I would be looking for a motion to move in Cameron to discuss a

[2:53:46] land issue, a legal issue, and a contractual issue.

[2:53:52] » Okay. Moved by councelor Hib, seconded by councelor Musa. All those in favor?

[2:53:58] » Contrary, motion is carried. We will give staff time to take us in camp.

[3:31:01] Okay, welcome back everyone. I would report that we met in camera to discuss

[3:31:05] a land issue, a legal issue, and a contractual issue. There are no motions

[3:31:10] coming forward from those discussions as staff was given direction. That

[3:31:15] concludes the business on tonight's agenda.

Regular Meeting of Council - July 29, 2026

Transcript