[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:31] Good morning, but call this meeting to order land division. Today is Wednesday, August 26th. It's shortly after 9 in welcome.
[0:42] Have a do we have any requests for deferral of application or any withdrawal?
[0:49] We have none, Mr. Chair.
[0:51] Thank you.
[0:53] Our next item is adoption, our minutes.
[0:55] I'll ask our members if they had a chance to review them, or are there any errors or emissions?
[1:04] I've moved to adopt.
[1:07] Moved in second.
[1:09] Evan, you're calling the vote?
[1:11] Moved by Bill Unger, seconded by Ian Fleck, resolved that the minutes of this meeting held on July 22nd,
[1:17] 2026, be adopted.
[1:19] Do you go to Aldern?
[1:21] Yes.
[1:24] Yes.
[1:25] John Andrews?
[1:26] Yes.
[1:28] Tom Marks?
[1:28] Yes.
[1:29] Bill Unger. Yes. Dave Jenkins. Yes. John Salvin. Yes. Seven zero that motion is carried.
[1:38] Thank you. I do not see a business horizon all the minutes. No one else. We move on.
[1:47] I will remind everyone of disclosure, peculiar interest in the general nature of their up. I can note
[1:54] there are none. Of course one. It's items for information. We have any.
[2:03] Not seeing any.
[2:04] No business arising from course on this.
[2:10] Your business?
[2:12] We'll go
[2:16] ahead.
[2:17] Go ahead.
[2:18] You have a floor.
[2:18] Welcome.
[2:20] Thank you very much.
[2:22] Through the chair, I just wanted to update the committee.
[2:25] And I'm sure you've seen the email come from Alicia last week.
[2:31] There has been a change in direction from county council in relation to the land division committee.
[2:39] It's, and I realize it's not great news, but I'll just read the motion as it was presented.
[2:46] So on August 11th, 2021, county council met to review a recommendation put forth by Committee
[2:52] of the whole at the prior July committee of the whole and council meeting.
[2:57] The recommendation was to defer the decision on the recommendation provided in the Director
[3:01] of Planning's report related to the land division committee.
[3:04] However, that motion was defeated, and the resolution for the, I guess, dissolving the committee was voted in favor.
[3:19] It was a six to three vote, and the resolution is the following, so it's resolved that by law number 2162,
[3:30] which establishes is delegated approval authority of the Land of Vision Committee's repealed,
[3:35] effective November 30th, 2026, and that contentious land of vision applications be reviewed
[3:41] by county council commencing December 1st, and that staff are hereby directed to prepare amendments
[3:46] to the delegation authority by a law for planning and to give effect to the recommendation of the report.
[3:52] So this decision would mean that the Land of Vision Committee's last meeting would be on November 25th,
[4:01] And that, you know, moving forward, staff will be preparing a process by which we will be approving non-contentious applications using delegated authority.
[4:15] So no report, no presentation.
[4:17] If they meet the policies, if the local is happy with it, we'll move forward with the approval.
[4:23] And there is a list of things that obviously would have to qualify to be a non-contentious application.
[4:29] but I just wanted to update the committee on that. I know it's not what you want to hear,
[4:34] and I apologize for that. I still do think it's a good decision, and that it'll ultimately
[4:41] save the applicant money, the county money, it'll save our department quite a bit of time.
[4:47] I know this committee has been around for very long time since the 70s, and this decision is
[4:54] slight to this committee. It was discussed many times how there is a lot of knowledge sitting around
[5:02] this table and that I still think the people around this table should be very proud to have
[5:07] served for the county and served on the committee and I wanted to thank the committee for all
[5:14] of their work. We still have a few meetings to go. There is still some business to take care of
[5:21] And lastly, I guess I'll just say, on our last committee date, I'll make sure we bring in some treats so that we can have a small celebration of the committee's work.
[5:33] And if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
[5:36] I have one question, Matt, can you confirm that we will meet until November? There's not a Lane Duck Council.
[5:44] I can confirm that we will continue to meet even if there is a lame dot council we can
[5:50] continue with business as usual with the committee.
[5:53] Thank you for that.
[5:55] I have been asked that rather than the discussion now would do the applications, it may be
[6:03] your business a time for discussion there.
[6:06] Will you be here for that?
[6:07] Yep.
[6:09] Thank you.
[6:09] Thank you for that.
[6:11] That's fine with everyone.
[6:13] All right.
[6:13] Thank you for that.
[6:14] Matt will continue on with applications.
[6:18] First application is E1626.
[6:24] Tracy Blonabs.
[6:27] 566230.
[6:29] 566232.
[6:29] Heritage line.
[6:30] This is Caldi of BAM.
[6:36] Welcome.
[6:37] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[6:38] Through you to the committee.
[6:39] report before you is for consent application E16-26. Planning staff recommend approval of consent
[6:46] application E16-26 subject to conditions. The purpose of the application is to create a new
[6:52] residential lot. The subject lands are municipally known as 56230256232 Heritage Line. Both
[7:00] the proposed retain and severed parcels will have a frontage of 10.26 meters, a depth of 40.4,
[7:07] Sorry, 40.59 meters and an area of 415.25 meters squared to create one new residential lot.
[7:15] Each lot will hold one unit of the existing semi-detached dwelling.
[7:19] A privately owned and operated communal well and publicly owned and operated sanitary sewer system
[7:24] is proposed for both the severed and retained lands.
[7:27] The application has been reviewed in the context.
[7:30] Context of the Provincial Planning Statement, the Algan County Official Plan, and the Municipality of
[7:34] Beham and Official Plan, and in the zoning by law. Proposal supports residential intensification
[7:41] within an established settlement area and is consistent with provincial planning statement,
[7:45] the Algan County Official Plan, and the municipality of Beham Official Plan.
[7:49] Repose 7s represents an appropriate form of residential development that makes efficient use
[7:54] of existing development and services.
[7:57] The subject lands were also part of a minor variance application that was submitted concurrently
[8:01] with the proposed consent application to prevent a reduced law area and increased
[8:06] driveway frontage coverage, the driveway coverage maximum in response to the previous
[8:10] minor variance application of which has been granted approval by the municipality.
[8:15] Thus, the proposed consent is consistent with the provincial planning statement, conforms
[8:19] to both the county of Algan official plan and municipality of BAM official plan and meets
[8:24] intent of the municipality of BAM's owning by law.
[8:27] Planning staff recommends the support of consent application E-1626, which would facilitate
[8:32] a new residential lot.
[8:34] As such, planning staff are the opinion that the application is acceptable from a planning perspective
[8:39] and again, recommend approval subject to the following conditions.
[8:43] The county of Elgin should receive a digital copy of the draft and final deposited reference
[8:48] plan.
[8:49] solicitor undertaking to provide a copy of the registered deed for the severed parcel once
[8:54] completed, be provided to the county of Elgin. Municipal addressing be provided to the county of
[8:59] Elgin by the local municipality to the satisfaction of the county of Elgin. And additionally,
[9:05] that the following conditions form the municipality of BAN be included as conditions of consent.
[9:11] That the owner applies to and pays all fees to the municipality with respect to civic addressing
[9:16] for the retain law that the owner obtains all necessary permits for the municipality for the
[9:22] installation of new municipal water and sanitary service connections to the proposed retain
[9:26] law that the owner provide a deposit of reference plan prepared by an Ontario land surveyor
[9:32] and copies of the registered transfer slash deed or electronic registration documentation
[9:36] that a grading and drainage plan be submitted and approved to ensure proper drainage for both
[9:41] and retain lands to the satisfaction of the municipality
[9:44] that the owner provide confirmation
[9:46] from the county of Oregon respecting road access, approval,
[9:49] and or permitting requirements.
[9:52] The cash in lieu of Parkland Education be paid in accordance with Section 51.1
[9:56] of the planning act to the satisfaction of the municipality
[9:59] and lastly that the owner receive approval
[10:01] for a minor variance application to permit reduced minimum lot area
[10:04] from 831 meters squared to 415.25 meters squared
[10:09] and to increase maximum driveway coverage from 68.5% to 73.1%. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[10:18] Thank you for that. Back to our applicants or agents and interested parties, which
[10:25] to speak to this application, please introduce yourself to the committee and welcome.
[10:31] Good morning through you, Mr. Chair. My name is Tracy Peeler. I'm a land use planning consultant
[10:34] on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has reviewed the staff report and have no objections to
[10:41] the conditions and support the staff recommendation.
[10:43] Again, it's an existing semi-detached line.
[10:45] The staff raises along the common wall,
[10:48] just so that each unit can be sold individually.
[10:50] So happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
[10:54] Thank you for that.
[10:55] I'm going to open the floor for questions or comments
[10:57] from our board members.
[11:00] We'll head John.
[11:03] Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to Miss Pillian Abs.
[11:09] This was originally going to be done in July, but the signage wasn't up, but you were
[11:15] getting a variance done for that as well.
[11:17] Were you just looking to get that variance?
[11:19] If I've got that correct done first before you were seeking to get the actual consent done.
[11:25] A 3D Mr. Chair, yes, I do confirm that the minor variance application has been submitted
[11:29] to the lower tier and has been approved in the appeal period is now over signage was missed
[11:36] during the land division notification,
[11:38] but it has now been posted according to the planning act
[11:42] regulations.
[11:43] So we are in compliance with the notifications.
[11:45] So we're ready to move forward.
[11:48] Thank you.
[11:49] I wasn't concerned that they hadn't been done correctly this time.
[11:53] And in fact, your client put them up where they were clear
[11:56] and easy to see, which is greatly appreciated.
[11:59] Thank you
[12:01] for the comments.
[12:06] It's been moved in seconded.
[12:08] Evan, please call the vote.
[12:11] Move by John Andrews, seconded by Ian Fleck,
[12:13] resolve that 7th application E1626,
[12:16] be approved subject to conditions.
[12:19] Do you hold Alder?
[12:21] John Selden?
[12:22] Yes.
[12:26] Yes.
[12:27] Bill Unger.
[12:28] Yes.
[12:30] Dave Jenkins.
[12:31] Yes.
[12:32] Ian Fleck.
[12:33] Yes.
[12:34] 7-0, that motion is carried.
[12:36] Thank you, Evan.
[12:38] The decisioner under today
[12:39] If this application would be circulated within 15 days, there's a 20-day appeal period from
[12:45] the giving of the notice of decision during which the applicant, the minister, the specified
[12:50] person or any public body may appeal the decision or any condition imposed.
[12:55] If no appeals received within 20 days of the giving of notice, the provisional consent becomes
[13:01] final.
[13:02] The applicant has two years to meet the conditions imposed and submit the necessary documents
[13:07] for certification or the consent will lapse and the new application will be required.
[13:13] Please leave the identification signs in place until the appeal period ends after which they
[13:18] can be removed. If you'd like to be notified of today's decision, please request a copy by email
[13:24] in landivisionadelgon.ca. A copy of the comment package is also available upon request
[13:30] and includes all correspondence received. Thank you.
[13:36] Move on to our next application E4826.
[13:41] John, who's developed?
[13:42] 9, 6, 1, 3, Curry Road,
[13:45] Ms. Peldey of Dutton Dunnwich.
[13:47] Evan, please.
[13:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[13:50] Through you to the committee's staff recommend approval
[13:52] of consent application E4826, subject to conditions.
[13:56] The application proposes to sever the property at
[14:00] three-curry road to create a new residential lot of approximately 1,33 square meters while retaining
[14:05] a residential lot of approximately 1,032.8 square meters. Both lots are intended for low-density
[14:11] residential development. The lots will be serviced by municipal water supply and private
[14:15] sewage supply. The property is located within the wall's town tier two settlement area.
[14:20] It is designated a Hamlet under Ms. Faldi official plan and is known Hamlet residential.
[14:25] The proposed severed supports residential intensification within the existing settlement area
[14:30] and is consistent with the provincial planning statement,
[14:32] the Algonquin County Official Plan, and Mr. Pauli's Official Plan.
[14:36] The proposed routine parcel complies with all provisions of the HR zone.
[14:40] The sever lands comply with all required setbacks
[14:42] with the exception of the three-meter setback from an enclosed train
[14:45] which is addressed as a condition of consent.
[14:48] The municipality have done which recommends approval subject to conditions.
[14:52] County Engineering requires direct connection to a legal outlet
[14:55] for the severed law and requires a lot-grading plan for the severed law.
[14:58] with that.
[15:00] Planning staff recommends supportive consent application E4826, which would facilitate the 7th
[15:05] Secureate a New Residential Lot. The application is consistent with the PPS, conforms the
[15:09] County of Elagon official plan, municipality of Dunn, Dunn, official plan policies, and meets
[15:14] the intent of the municipality of Dunn, Dunn, which is owning by law. As such, planning staff are
[15:18] of the opinion that the application is acceptable from a planning perspective and recommends
[15:22] approval subject to the following conditions. One, the County of Elagon should receive
[15:27] with a digital copy of the draft and found deposit reference plan.
[15:30] Two, solicitor undertaking to provide a copy of the register
[15:32] deed for the severed parcel once completed
[15:35] be provided to the county of Elgin.
[15:37] Three, that municipal address and be provided
[15:39] to the county of Elgin by the local municipality
[15:42] to the satisfaction of the county.
[15:44] Four, direct connection to a legal outlet
[15:46] for the severed lot is required.
[15:48] If an existing condition connection is unavailable
[15:51] to the satisfaction of the county engineer,
[15:53] all costs be borne by the owner, discharge of water
[15:55] So the county road allowance is prohibited.
[15:58] Five law-creating plan is required for the severed law.
[16:02] And three of you, Mr. Chair,
[16:02] would like to introduce a verbal amendment to add a condition
[16:04] number six to the county conditions.
[16:07] This condition states that if necessary,
[16:09] an entrance permit be obtained from Elgin County
[16:12] for the new entrance for the severed in or retain personal.
[16:15] All costs with this shall be borne by the owner.
[16:18] And additionally, that the following conditions in this appele
[16:20] have done which be included as conditions of consent.
[16:22] One, that the owner must pay all fees, including cash in the parkland and satisfy all
[16:28] obligations required, pursuant to the dueling acted by laws of the misallity of
[16:32] Dunnewetch to the satisfaction of the municipality.
[16:35] Two, that the owner shall submit an engineered stamped grading and stormwater management
[16:38] plan for the severed parcel to the satisfaction of the misallity,
[16:43] demonstrating that the proposed law grading and training patterns will be a
[16:51] of the street. The plan shall include the approved fill-based septic system design, and shall
[16:57] be submitted as part of the building permit process. Three, that the owner applies in
[17:01] pays all fees to the municipality to respect a civic addressing slash signage for the
[17:06] severed lot. Four, that the owner shall obtain written confirmation from the municipal
[17:10] building department that the proposed fill-based septic systems are suitable for the intended
[17:14] use, comply with all required septic from the property lines and structures, and are accurately
[17:19] shown in the reference plan to the satisfaction of the municipality.
[17:23] Five that the owner have a drainage re-appointment of the wall of strain, wall of street
[17:28] drain, and the color drain pursuant to the drainage act to the satisfaction and clearance
[17:32] of the municipality.
[17:34] Six that the owner shall demonstrate a minimum setback of three meters from the center line
[17:38] of the enclosed municipal drain to all permanent buildings and structures, either through
[17:43] the submission of a revised drawing or relocation of the enclosed municipal drain in accordance
[17:47] with the municipal requirements to the satisfaction of the municipality, all costs be borne by the owner.
[17:53] 7 that the proposed severed parcel will be individually connected to the municipal water supply with all costs,
[17:58] including applicable fees and charges to be borne by the owner, to the satisfaction of the municipality.
[18:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[18:06] Thank you, Evan.
[18:08] Applicants are agents in address and parties who wish to speak this application.
[18:12] We see to introduce yourself to the committee and welcome
[18:25] here for the applicant,
[18:32] volume on.
[18:35] Yeah, hello, sorry. I believe John's trying to connect to say something.
[18:42] We will give him a minute.
[18:45] Yeah.
[18:47] Hope that didn't sound like a threat.
[18:50] Yeah.
[18:51] Some way.
[18:53] Oh, God, I stuck in a mean that question.
[19:01] I struggle with tech colleges, actually simple things.
[19:11] Yeah, it's okay.
[19:12] I'm hearing you
[19:20] dead.
[19:20] Oh, well now.
[19:23] Very good.
[19:23] Very good.
[19:24] Welcome, sir.
[19:25] Yeah.
[19:27] My name is Yolk Ostevelt's president of Ostevelt construction.
[19:30] And we already have a good for this severance.
[19:34] And we would agree with all the conditions that have been stipulated by the planning department, both from Elegant County, and in regards to the Suits from Dutton, done with Stownship.
[19:50] We're aware of the drainage requirements and we're aware of the kilo grain we have been in contact with the engineering firm that is doing the work on the kilo grain and we've been in contact with the drainage inspector concerning the relocation of that grain to the edge of the property.
[20:14] So, it would be more feasible to construct both a single-family dwelling and a septic system that would adhere to the clears of the student killer brain.
[20:29] Thank you for that.
[20:30] I'm going to open the fourth to our committee members.
[20:33] If they have any questions or comments,
[20:37] go ahead John.
[20:39] Thank you Mr. Chair through you to our director.
[20:44] I believe this is the first consent application that includes an Elgon County record of consultation
[20:53] and sector act.
[20:57] Through the chair, I'm not certain, to be honest, there could be other applications that have included pre-consultation.
[21:06] Well, I thank you for that.
[21:08] To my memory anyway, I think it's the first time I've seen it in application.
[21:12] I thought it was a very interesting summary, and I think it was a bonus to the application.
[21:19] Thanks. In, that has happened before on county roads.
[21:32] When we have a problem with if there's a
[21:36] drain in the Son of County Road, it's dealt with by the county before the application is approved.
[21:44] Did you find it a good thing in this application or a helpful thing?
[21:48] I thought it was.
[21:51] Well, as far as I know, and done, done, which has always been done.
[21:58] I'm sorry.
[21:58] I don't mean to belabor the point.
[22:00] I just don't remember seeing that report form in an application consent before.
[22:06] Through you, Mr. Chair, I would say about 70% of applications go through the pre-consultation
[22:13] process.
[22:14] It's not a requirement under the planning act that they have to go through the pre-con any
[22:17] more. I believe the applicant just included it as part of their submission, documentation
[22:23] with the application, so that's why I was included in the agenda. But that's something we
[22:28] could look for in the future.
[22:30] I'm sure to make that a requirement to include the application that if they went through a pre-con that they include those notes with the application, because like you said, it is helpful to get a better understanding of where they came to with the application and the proposal.
[22:45] Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised.
[22:49] Yes, I was pleasantly surprised. Sorry, my mic was not.
[22:53] for the comments.
[22:56] Move to accept.
[22:59] Move to move to second.
[23:01] Please go.
[23:02] Move by Bill Unger, seconded by Dave Jenkins.
[23:05] Resolve that severance application.
[23:08] E4826 be approved.
[23:09] Subject to conditions.
[23:11] Do we go all day?
[23:12] Yeah.
[23:13] John Selbin.
[23:14] Yes.
[23:15] John Unger.
[23:16] Yes.
[23:17] Tom Marks.
[23:20] Bill Unger.
[23:21] Yes.
[23:23] Yes.
[23:24] Ian Falk.
[23:25] Yes.
[23:26] 7-0.
[23:26] That motion is carried.
[23:28] Thank you.
[23:29] The decision rendered today for this application will be circulated within 15 days.
[23:35] There's a 20-day appeal period from the giving of the notice of decision during which the applicant, the minister, a specified person, or any public body, may appeal the decision or any condition imposed.
[23:46] If no appeal is received within 20 days of the giving of notice, the provincial consent becomes
[23:52] final.
[23:53] The applicant has two years to meet the conditions imposed, and submit the necessary documents
[23:58] for certification for the consent or lapse, and a new application will be required.
[24:04] Please leave the identification signs in place until the appeal period ends, after which
[24:09] they can be removed.
[24:10] And if you'd like to be notified of today's decision, please request a copy by emailing
[24:16] landdivision at elgin.ca, copy of the comment packages.
[24:21] It's also available upon request and includes all correspondence received.
[24:25] Thank you.
[24:29] All right.
[24:32] Thank you.
[24:33] You're welcome.
[24:35] Have a good day.
[24:37] Yep.
[24:38] Have a good meeting.
[24:39] Thank you.
[24:40] Have a good day.
[24:42] The next owner, date of her next meeting, is everyone.
[24:49] Through Mr. Chair, date of the next meeting is September 23rd, 2026.
[24:58] I guess we'll open the floor now for some new business and that there's any comments.
[25:09] Matt is here to answer any questions.
[25:14] Maybe I'll start off.
[25:16] I think let's keep our comments respectful and I trust that will happen.
[25:23] I will note that there's nothing self-serving from any of these members, there's five
[25:29] of them at the time doubt, so it's not like they're looking for a job next year, because
[25:32] I'm not going to happen anyways, so I have to admit I was pretty disappointed in the
[25:41] and I'll be quite right now and invite anyone for any comments.
[25:48] John, you're up first.
[25:50] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[25:53] I appreciate you being here, Mr. Director, and to my fellow colleagues.
[25:59] I guess I feel that this is eight years for four or five of us, four years for the others.
[26:10] And I just, Mr. Director, I feel like we were excluded from what was happening to the committee that we dedicated ourselves to.
[26:19] And I don't quite understand why we weren't involved.
[26:23] And also, at the end of eight years and four years for some of us, at least for me, I'm feeling
[26:30] like we're leaving under a shadow that we were inefficient because apparently we've slowed
[26:35] up the process, which I don't see, and we're too expensive.
[26:41] I don't think either of those arguments have been made in detail, but regardless, as far
[26:48] As I can see between the Elmer Express and the public of large, we're this slow, financially
[26:56] overburdened committee that need it to be gotten rid of.
[27:01] It's a hard way for us to end our time on the committee.
[27:04] Anyway, I struggle with it.
[27:07] Coming here, I hope each month is fantastic and the work that we put in, I think has made
[27:14] big difference, particularly for, and you refer to it as a gap, that 2% and one of your presentations
[27:22] arguing for your case, that 2% is addressed by the incredible local knowledge of the people
[27:31] here around this table, and what I call the lifers, and that's all gone. And it's gone under
[27:37] shadow of, we're too expensive and we're sold. I just, I feel like, we were shot down,
[27:48] and we weren't part of the process. If you're going to change just at least let us defend ourselves
[27:54] or contribute to the change you needed to make it better, that you feel could make it better.
[28:01] It's just a hard way for the LDC to end for me. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
[28:07] Bill, you're up next.
[28:09] I just wanted to make a few comments, knowing the history and everything else, I probably
[28:16] served on this committee now for the last four years, but I remember back when just started
[28:23] in the mid 70s, why the land division committee was started or back then, it was called
[28:29] severance board, and that was to create transparency, that not, and this is no offense, Mr.
[28:37] Director, that's creating transparency and to take it away from the hands of the municipality
[28:43] or the county, because back in the early 70s, when I was a teenager, it didn't matter what
[28:55] It's true you know on county who you knew on council that you could get your severance time
[29:00] I'm been proud to serve this committee for the last four years and I'm extremely disappointed in the decision that has been made
[29:07] Thank you for your time, everyone
[29:10] I
[29:10] Just the time in here quickly
[29:13] I wish I was a teenager in the 70s but I I remember them
[29:18] Yeah
[29:20] In the arm of it used to be, if you wanted a severance, you didn't have to be a conservative
[29:25] and a stranger, but it's sure helped.
[29:27] That has been repeated many, many times, and there's a lot of truth in it.
[29:39] I agree with what both John and Bill have said so far, you know, we got committee here that's
[29:43] been here, who we're half to been here for eight years.
[29:46] I think we're a committee that's very adapt at what we're dealing with.
[29:51] I don't know all of members of County Council, but for the most part, I think there are
[29:55] people that could be considered quite adequate for the decisions they've made.
[30:00] I really wonder how I got to it. As far as staff goes, I'm not pointing any fingers at staff. I feel you're all doing your job. You know, the point is made that we're in a adequate and we're costing money. I look back eight years ago when I was on this committee, we had seven members just like we do today. We were probably doing 10 to 15 applications a month at that time.
[30:24] lately we've from probably I'd say averaging five to seven a month.
[30:30] Application is at that time I may be slightly wrong in these numbers but I
[30:34] think application eight years ago will cost twelve hundred dollars for an
[30:37] applicant to apply. I read in here done one of these applications I believe it's
[30:42] twenty six hundred and seventy five dollars today for an application. Seven years
[30:47] ago I think we have got one raise as land division committee members in that
[30:53] time of $25. I think I might be wrong. I don't think our mileage per DM has went up in those
[31:00] eight years. I think we're getting the same plumbers we were then.
[31:06] We've done it when we started
[31:07] on paper. Now we have computers, which for the most part almost every meeting we have to have
[31:13] somebody from IT in here to work on our computers. So there's an added cost that wasn't there
[31:18] eight years ago. Eight years ago, we had one member of the county in this room at the meetings.
[31:26] Today, we have, well, five in here. For the argument to be made, like, for county council
[31:35] and make a decision, I figured either had to have been a pre-determined decision or they weren't
[31:40] giving all the facts because if all those facts were there, I don't know how they could come up with
[31:45] inclusion that this committee has been inefficient and a cost burden to the county.
[31:55] One thing I'm going to ask staff today, I've been my intention to invite the mayor's to our last meeting.
[32:01] That's why I want to clarify if we go up to the full terms.
[32:05] If I could request staff to invite the mayor's to our last meeting,
[32:10] do I have a consensus of that? That's a good idea.
[32:13] I'm sure they want to come in and...
[32:19] Continue to the discussions for the comments, John.
[32:26] Just the same questions that were brought up previously, and when we started, and one thing
[32:32] that really bugged me, I read the Almyr paper last week, and the same thing, we're cost-prepared
[32:38] of it.
[32:39] And the South-Old Mayor made the statement that he had just got a severance, and it took
[32:44] longer than normal.
[32:44] Well, what is it? 90 days or 120 days? It has to be acted on. I'm not sure the number.
[32:55] But it doesn't matter whatever it is. So when we get them here, we do them today.
[33:00] But a staff happened for 60 days, 90 days. It looks like we're inefficient.
[33:08] And I'm not blaming staff at all, but I think that the mayor's need to know that made the decision to get rid of this committee
[33:16] That this committee is not the whole problem and I found that really when a self-sled mayor made a statement that we were longer and then I also hear that that done which
[33:28] Mayor he was going around and he had a
[33:32] A person call me that was getting some severances and I thought that was why would he do that if he's got a job like that
[33:40] He doesn't need to be getting somebody to call me to complain about the board
[33:44] like he's there to make decisions that are supposed to work.
[33:49] So I found a problem with that and I guess my other question is if I buy a bottle of wine
[33:54] from map, I don't like it, or I buy some vegetables from Malaysia, is that, and I badmoth
[34:01] him, is that going to hurt me when I want something done in the next previous months or years?
[34:08] So who is, who, is there going to be just two or three people that make that decision?
[34:15] And if they don't like John Andrews, is he got a problem?
[34:19] Like, that part I find, I'd like to know how that's going to work.
[34:22] Like I said, the question to Matt, like, is who, who do I, we just go to OMB and fight about it?
[34:29] Or do we, is there a, appear, you know, something that we can talk about?
[34:36] I appreciate it. John made the statement that stuff just started because then all we met
[34:41] like two or three months ago, I'm one of our projects and I appreciate that. I mean, it was,
[34:47] I know it's really after you're just so eating, but it's that there needs to be something in place that is visible,
[34:58] and I can feel content that somebody's looking after me.
[35:01] So, and I don't, I'm not maybe asking for an answer today,
[35:05] but I think that's something that really needs to happen.
[35:08] And we, myself, we have done quite a few in the last few years
[35:13] and I've been well pleased, like I think the statement
[35:17] was made about staff.
[35:18] I don't have problems with staff.
[35:21] I just think we need to move ahead.
[35:24] Let's do it right.
[35:28] Go ahead.
[35:29] No, through the chair, I, you know,
[35:32] Transparency is an important thing, especially in government.
[35:36] The way the system is going to be set up is going to be very transparent.
[35:41] If you meet the policies, so that we have a list of criteria.
[35:44] So if you're consistent with PPS, if you can form with the official plan for the most part,
[35:51] if you comply with zoning, and there's even some wiggle room there.
[35:55] Let's say you don't comply with zoning.
[35:57] Let's say there's a setback issue or something like that.
[35:59] Like, you know, as long as it's a standard zoning requirement or a minor variance or something like that,
[36:05] and then there's some other qualifiers at the local level as well.
[36:10] So if local council has no concerns, if there are no concerns from the public or your neighbors,
[36:14] like there is a long list of things that make this non-contentious.
[36:17] So if you can make all of those checkboxes, then it's non-contentious.
[36:23] And then it just goes, it's basically an automatic approval.
[36:26] There is no, at the staff level, if there is no, if somebody likes you, they don't, it's just an automatic approval.
[36:36] The nice thing is, there's no report, there's no presentation.
[36:39] We'll basically have a check box, a sheet, that we will double check that it's non-contentious.
[36:45] And then if it is, of course, there are still statutory requirements.
[36:48] We'll have to go through the notice period and there'll be circulations and all the rest of it to the neighbors.
[36:52] None of that changes.
[36:53] the planning act is very specific and rigid about all of those types of requirements.
[37:01] It will be an easier process for the applicants.
[37:06] It's just making sure that the local municipality is happy and then when it comes up to the county,
[37:14] the approval process can be quite simple.
[37:16] Now, if it doesn't meet all of those checkboxes, then it just goes to county council.
[37:20] staff have nothing to do with that point. We continue to write a report. We make a presentation and then county counselors will make that ultimate decision.
[37:30] So, so it's really it's policy driven or it's the decisions being made by county council.
[37:36] It's not a, you know, how to somebody feel that day, it's very rigid in how this will get set up.
[37:43] So, and of course, we're going to continue to offer pre-consultation for anyone coming in for consent applications.
[37:49] And, you know, we strongly suggested especially where if you're not 100% sure if the application meets the policies.
[37:55] We're here to help you through that and if it doesn't, we'll try to find a way to help you
[38:03] change your application so it does.
[38:13] I think that's really important and I think that we need to.
[38:19] We've been here eight years and some of us and it worked but I think we need to think positive.
[38:26] and we had to, I don't think we need to.
[38:29] Be a little or feel on this.
[38:31] What's going to happen?
[38:34] Thank you.
[38:36] Go ahead, Ian.
[38:38] And so I think I agree with some of the,
[38:40] what has come on, but I think that times
[38:42] we have had problems in municipalities,
[38:45] not getting back to us for a while.
[38:48] And I know when Paul was here, we had a couple in Dutton, Dunwich.
[38:52] Because of waterline problems, water had to come across
[38:56] an easement of one farm that was owned by somebody else because the water wasn't on that
[39:02] road. And other reasons that it took longer than what it is. And I think we're going to
[39:07] see that again because some of the roads in our area we don't have the water line as to come off
[39:13] a side road and you've got to work easements back and forth and we have seen that. And I think
[39:19] people who got to realize that it takes time and municipalities sometimes it takes a month
[39:26] to get a proper, or longer to get a proper, something approved by them before it can come
[39:31] to us. And it's going to get more. That's all I have to say right now. It does, there is
[39:37] a delay at times. Go ahead, Dave.
[39:42] I remember a number of years ago when we were facing a severance across the road from our
[39:49] very barns. And I had a chat at that time with dunked Mcsale, the late dunked Mcsale.
[39:57] And there was one thing that dunked who was on land division at that time did say to me.
[40:05] And it stuck with me even when I was appointed to this board, that the land division board is a quasi judicial board.
[40:16] And when I've had people come to me and say we want to do this and can you take care of it?
[40:25] And I said, no, you have to go to your township and go that road.
[40:30] I can't deal with it until it comes to the meeting.
[40:34] And I've never forgotten that.
[40:36] And we're not at the stage as members of this board where we are lobbied.
[40:44] Whereas, I think members of Council and Mayor's will be lobbied, and when I look at some
[40:54] of the things where we were told have been told by the staff that we should approve
[41:03] a certain way, and we had more history given to us on a property, like the one in West
[41:11] that you get told us about, and there are other ones where it made sense for the decision that we made as this board was the proper decision.
[41:26] And I think the fact that all of us sitting around this seven committee members know the properties,
[41:33] know the areas and I know in my own situation anything that comes up with malahide
[41:42] and once in a while I sneak across the line into BM and into Central Elgin to look at
[41:50] those properties so that I understand them better and I think that's key and I know
[42:02] even that you've had to drive around and look and I know that Paul did as well, but the
[42:08] simple fact of the matter is you're dealing with a quote, don't make fail again, a quasi-judicial
[42:17] board. And I take that very seriously. One of the first severances that was going on was with
[42:29] second cousins of mine and I simply left the room. I wanted to maintain the integrity of the
[42:39] board. And that's key to me. It's three generations or more of my family who practice that.
[42:49] From my father, my grandfather, and I practice it as well. And it concerns me that we're
[43:00] losing people who know areas with this board being terminated.
[43:06] Thank you.
[43:10] Matt, members, there's me right.
[43:15] If this vote hadn't happened, it was your intention to come today to give a report.
[43:21] Was that correct?
[43:24] Yep, through the chair to committee, if the decision had been deferred to the first meeting
[43:31] of the next term of council, the plan was to amend the terms of reference of the committee.
[43:38] This committee actually doesn't have a terms of reference, somehow, but we would create
[43:43] a terms of reference for the committee.
[43:46] Could you share that expand on that?
[43:49] It's kind of a move point now.
[43:51] It's a move point now, but all it would do is basically explain how the committee runs, when
[43:57] meetings are, you would talk about, you know, compensation, all of those kinds of things.
[44:05] What would happen when it would be like a procedure manual for the committee.
[44:11] We just, we like manuals, we like processes and planning and committees, surprisingly,
[44:17] never had a terms of reference, so it was time to create one if the committee was to stay
[44:22] around.
[44:24] That's quite an astounding statement after 50 some years, some of them woke up and found out
[44:30] we didn't have the term of reference, and that is no fault of yours, but that is a
[44:34] pretty astounding statement for the county of Albany.
[44:39] I expressed my disappointment in the decision, I'll get over it, you know, and I'll make
[44:46] the bold statement because the council, the day, can change and terminate land,
[44:53] vision, or other policies.
[44:56] The future council can go back, so the future will.
[45:00] We'll arrive someday, we'll see. I've been
[45:07] informed by four people at four different times
[45:12] in the last week, ten days, and month ago or three weeks ago now, I guess. None of them
[45:20] wanted me publicly named, which I regret, but I'll respect that. They asked me, or told me,
[45:27] I guess that's what it was that,
[45:30] certain mayors asked staff to lobby certain mayors.
[45:35] So, I'll ask that question.
[45:38] Were staff involved in trying to influence any mayors?
[45:44] Through the chair, no, I don't even know what it means.
[45:49] To lobby the certain mayors to change.
[45:52] Two mayors are changing mind.
[45:55] And the question is that their opinion was that staff
[46:00] I'll try to influence them at the request of other mirrors on the side.
[46:03] That's none.
[46:03] I'm aware of.
[46:05] You're a man of your words.
[46:07] I'll accept that.
[46:14] Don't go ahead.
[46:17] I beg a prime minister chair.
[46:18] Didn't mean to interrupt you.
[46:20] May I add one additional point that really concerns me.
[46:24] And I'm coming off Dave Jenkins, excellent.
[46:29] Our comments and particularly both the quasi judicial nature.
[46:32] One of the things that's changed in the committee.
[46:35] And the evaluation is that county planners now do the evaluation of a consent application for some of the LMPs, not all, but some.
[46:47] Then they also, that same planner is also doing the evaluation from the county point of view.
[46:52] It's a county planner paid by the county as opposed to by the LMP.
[46:57] I believe this is actually a direct conflict of interest, but at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
[47:03] And from a legal point of view, I think that's hazardous, and if this will continue on after this committee is gone, I think it's problematic.
[47:14] Anyway, I wanted to bring that up because it's part of this whole process.
[47:18] And it could profoundly affect an LMP's ability to make its case if the county's making the case for the LMP and for the county itself.
[47:29] Well, the planner here, these are all people of integrity, aren't about to change from
[47:34] the evaluation based on the LMP and then on the county.
[47:39] And I think that's a very problematic issue from an evaluative point of view and also possibly
[47:45] from a legal point of view.
[47:47] So thank you Dave for bringing up the issue both of the quasi-dude issue.
[47:50] I think that's very important.
[47:55] Dugal.
[47:56] Just a couple more comments that have been said from what John said here, you know, I think
[48:03] it's got to be very difficult sometimes for to represent the county and municipalities because
[48:09] you've got to wear two hats and you've got to decide which one to put on sometimes.
[48:14] And then today's comment about how this is sort of quasi-idesial, an arms length group, where
[48:21] Now it's going to the county council decide.
[48:23] Hopefully these mayors commit decisions without the thought of influence.
[48:30] But sometimes if you get a severance that involves a large family and you make a decision
[48:35] that's going to piss that family off, it can make an awful lot of difference on how the next
[48:40] vote goes if you want to get back in.
[48:42] So I think going that way, it kind of opens up a dangerous road.
[48:52] Well, I think we've got a lot off our chest.
[48:57] I think we're very cognizant of the fact that we are recommended by lower tier, but we
[49:04] are appointed by the county, and they are the decision makers.
[49:08] I think there's a consensus that we have done our job,
[49:16] it really was a contentious decision.
[49:18] And the fact that it took three attempts, somebody, and I take matter to this word, but
[49:27] some, somebody changed in minds and here we are, and you know, that was surprising.
[49:32] But we'll live with it, and the future, who knows, you know, we got a place across the road
[49:39] when people are getting upset about those buildings come down.
[49:43] But the province of the ones that put the dead's nation on, the province of the province
[49:46] can take them off.
[49:47] We don't have to let all the decisions that are made, but we have to respect them.
[49:51] So I want to thank staff for their work today.
[49:56] I want to thank the members for being respectful and blunt.
[50:03] I'm pleased to hear that we still have work to do to the end of the term.
[50:07] If there's nothing further, we'll look for adjournment.
[50:13] We'll play John, second by Bill.
[50:15] Please call the vote.
[50:18] move by John Andrew seconded by Bill Unger. Result that the committee adjourned at 9.50 a.m. on August 26,
[50:25] 26 to meet again at 9 a.m. on September 23rd, 26. Do you go, Alder? Yes. John Selden? Yes.
[50:38] Bill Unger? Yes. Dave Jenkins? Yes. Inflac? Yes. Yes.
[50:49] We are adjourned. Have a good day, everyone. Thank you.