[4:07] Like to call this council committee meeting to order. Before

[4:10] we proceed, I want to acknowledge that the land upon

[4:12] which we are gathered is the traditional territory of the

[4:15] Adirondronc, the Hodinoshoni. And the Anishnabi people, we are the

[4:19] beneficiaries of ancient agreements, such as the dish with one

[4:22] spoon between the Anishnabi and the hodinos. Hodinoshoney, who agreed

[4:28] to share the abundance of the land through peace, friendship

[4:30] and mutual respect the true role wompum, by which the

[4:33] Hodin Ashony welcomed the settlers and agreed to share the

[4:36] land in mutual respect, and the Treaty of Niagara, considered

[4:40] a fundamental document by first nations in all future relations

[4:44] and treaties with the British. We recognize that we. Have

[4:47] a responsibility to be stewards of the land in cooperation

[4:50] and collaboration with the indigenous people. Not only for one

[4:54] generation, but for all generations to come. We understand that

[4:57] we have an obligation to learn the lessons of our

[4:59] history, educate ourselves about the experiences of the indigenous people,

[5:04] and seek opportunities to heal the wounds that will result

[5:07] in. Reconciliation with our indigenous sisters and brothers. Many First

[5:11] nations, matey and inuit people live and work in Fort

[5:14] Erie. We stand with all indigenous people, past and present,

[5:18] in promoting the wise stewardship of the lands on which

[5:20] we live. We have the good fortune to live in

[5:23] a land of such abundance, diversity and beauty. Let us

[5:26] be vigilant in protecting. Turtle island. Mr. Clerk, the role

[5:31] call, please. Your worship. All members of councilor are present.

[5:36] Okay, so you haven't forgotten that part? Of the job.

[5:39] We have an addendum this evening. There is the addition,

[5:46] under notice of upcoming public meetings on open houses, of

[5:49] a notice of a public open house for park design

[5:51] at 34 40 Thunder Bay Road. That open house will

[5:56] take place on Monday, August the 18th, 2025, which is

[6:00] next Monday from five to 07:00 p.m. at the Ford

[6:03] Public Library Crystal Ridge Branch on Ridge Road and Ridgeway.

[6:07] We also have some additional information attached to report. PBBS

[6:12] 58 2025 which is our official plan. Recommendation report. A

[6:18] couple of announcements. The first announcement relates to. The Friday

[6:25] closures of the 40 urgent care center. There's been some

[6:30] misunderstanding that. The urgent care center would be closed on

[6:33] Friday, September the fifth, and Friday, September the 12th. In

[6:37] fact, those shifts have been covered, so the urgent care

[6:40] center will be open. We've requested that Niagara health update

[6:44] their website to make sure that people understand. That it's

[6:47] not going to be closed on those dates. It's going

[6:49] to be open. And we've also asked the local newspaper

[6:53] to correct their information, that information online once we have

[6:57] full confirmation. I've had confirmation, but they need official confirmation.

[7:04] The second thing that I wanted to mention is that

[7:06] with this hot, dry weather, The fortiry fire department has

[7:10] determined that there will be a burn ban put in

[7:14] place. Tomorrow. That is August the 12th, 2025. That is

[7:19] in line with most other municipalities in Niagara. So the

[7:23] ban will include all open air solid fuel burning recreational

[7:27] fires camp that includes campfires, outdoor fireplaces, chimneys and fire

[7:33] pits and this also includes campgrounds, all open flame cooking

[7:38] fires that are not. Confined within a commercially produced cooking

[7:42] appliance like a barbecue or a smoker are also banned.

[7:47] The use of skylanders and fireworks is prohibited, and all

[7:50] active burn permits which have been issued are temporarily suspended,

[7:55] and the fire department will be monitoring the situation and

[7:58] will advise when the burn band has lifted. My guess

[8:01] would be as soon as we get some rain and

[8:04] who knows? When that will be coming, that'll be. A

[8:07] consideration. Declarations of peculinary interest. There being none. As I

[8:15] mentioned, there's the open house with respect to the Thunder

[8:17] bay. Park naming. There's also a community information meeting tomorrow

[8:21] evening with respect to land use planning. At 171 Gorehum

[8:25] Road. And that takes place. Here. In the town of

[8:32] Fortiere atrium. And starts at 530 and goes until 730.

[8:38] There are no public meetings this evening. There is no

[8:42] consent agenda. We're going to go. Straight to planning, building

[8:45] and bylaw services. And that's you, Councilor Christensen. Thank you.

[8:48] Your worship. The planning building and bylaws. Plan. Services subcommittee

[8:57] is now in session. We have. Two presentations this evening.

[9:06] The first. Is by Zachary George with respect to an

[9:12] update on the tree planting initiative. Mr. George. Can you

[9:18] please. Good evening, mayor. Eddie, cop and council.

[9:28] Tonight I'll be providing an update on the town's. Tree

[9:30] planting initiative. How we've used funds from consent payments, tree

[9:39] clearing penalties and tree permitting revenue to expand our urban

[9:42] canopy and build climate resilience within the town of Ford

[9:45] Erie. This work directly supports our strategic plan priority on

[9:49] environmental and climate change resiliency. Is that better?

[10:02] This initiative began when council requested in December 2024 an

[10:07] update on how consent tree funds and tree permit revenue

[10:10] were being used. From January to March 2025, staff developed

[10:18] a comprehensive planting plan to address both current needs and

[10:22] the long standing backlog. From May to currently, we've been

[10:27] implementing that plan, delivering planting projects across the town. These

[10:31] efforts will continue through to October and into future years.

[10:36] From 2008 to 2024, over 200 consent applications contributed funds

[10:42] for public tree planting. The primary objective of these funds

[10:46] is to enhance the town's urban canopy through the planting

[10:48] of boulevard trees. Or in public owned lands when conditions

[10:52] are not ideal. To plant on the boulevard. Due to

[10:59] limited staffing in earlier years, these trees were never planted,

[11:03] creating a backlog that predated most of our current team.

[11:08] In March 2024, our new tree bylaw came into effect,

[11:12] creating modest but important new revenue. Streams through tree permits,

[11:16] cash and lieu and penalties. These funds, along with the

[11:22] previously mentioned consent funds, now form the backbone of our

[11:25] planting initiative. The condition on the screen

[11:35] now is an example of how we have worded our

[11:37] committee of adjustment conditions related to tree contributions. The intent

[11:43] of this condition is to provide a boulevard tree where

[11:45] it is practical. In situations where planting a boulevard tree

[11:49] is impractical, the intent has always been to use the

[11:53] funds on public property so that the town can increase

[11:55] its urban canopy. This initiative has three main funding

[12:05] streams. The first being consent funds payments tied to severance

[12:09] approvals, with funding applied to a new boulevard tree if

[12:13] feasible, and used elsewhere if not. Tree clearing penalties funds

[12:17] that are collected when trees are removed without a permit

[12:20] or prior approval. And finally, tree permitting revenue fees from

[12:25] permits for tree removal under the bylaw as well as

[12:27] cash and loop payments. In response to council direction, community

[12:37] planning staff sent letters to eligible property owners on the

[12:40] consent backlog list. In situations where a property owner has

[12:44] elected to receive a private tree staff from both legal

[12:47] and corporate services highlighted significant liability concerns regarding town staff

[12:52] or contractors planting on private property. As a solution to

[12:57] this concern, property owners were given the opportunity to receive

[13:00] a tree by the town to be planted using their

[13:03] own methods. If the owners declined or simply didn't respond,

[13:07] the funds are redirected to the public plantings. This process

[13:12] has allowed us to clear all backlog files up to

[13:15] spring 2022. As consent files have two years to satisfy

[13:21] their conditions. A yearly review will continue to be conducted.

[13:25] To determine which files have closed and are eligible to

[13:27] be included in this initiative. Funds that are not identified

[13:32] as usable for boulevard trees and that have been declined

[13:35] for use on private properties will continue to be used

[13:37] for public plantings that not only beautify our communities but

[13:41] also provide valuable climate related benefits. Less than half of

[13:50] our planting funds for this tree planting initiative actually come

[13:53] from the consent conditions. Most now come from penalties and

[13:57] other sources. The rate for a boulevard or public tree

[14:01] contribution has also recently risen to $1,000. To reflect the

[14:06] realities of tree planting costs. The current cost to plant

[14:10] a public tree, including planting maintenance, watering, and a two

[14:13] year warranty is between 800 and $900, depending on species.

[14:19] Public tree contributions were $500 from the beginning of the

[14:23] 2008 backlog until 2023. Funds from penalties compensate the difference

[14:31] between the old fee amount and the new cost. To

[14:33] plant a tree. These are some examples of current projects

[14:37] that the Tree planting initiative has undertaken to improve the

[14:40] tree canopy within our town. In May 2025, we launched

[14:50] a pilot program to teach school age children about tree

[14:53] planting. They participated with a hands on approach. Some of

[14:58] the topics that they learned were how to plant water

[15:01] and maintain a tree. They were also taught about the

[15:05] value and benefits that trees provide their communities. This will

[15:09] continue into fall 2025. There's a couple more pictures of

[15:14] the school plantings. In August 2024, a significant weather event

[15:22] swept through Stevensville, resulting in the loss of seven mature

[15:26] trees along Coral Avenue. This area was quickly identified as

[15:33] an ideal location to invest tree planting funds, ensuring the

[15:37] project would deliver visible and immediate benefits to the community.

[15:41] Less than a year later, coral avenues tree canopy has

[15:44] been restored, bringing renewed shade, beauty and environmental value to

[15:48] the neighborhood. In June 2025, cedar trees were planted along

[15:54] the borders of the Black Creek waterfront windows, creating a

[15:57] natural privacy screen for residents. This enhancement not only improves

[16:01] privacy, but also transforms these spaces into a more inviting,

[16:05] functional. And enjoyable area for the community. Just two weeks

[16:14] ago, in July 2025. Seven new red maple trees were

[16:23] planted at AC Douglas park for shade and canopy coverage

[16:26] in our brand new facility that's being built there. You'll

[16:36] notice that most of these public planting projects so far

[16:38] have been concentrated in Stevensville. And Douglas Town. This was

[16:42] due to the location of many community needs identified this

[16:46] season in future years, our focus will expand to other

[16:49] areas across the town to ensure canopy growth is distributed.

[16:52] More easily. This initiative is a strong example of how

[16:57] we can turn unused funds and permit revenue into tangible

[17:00] community benefits. Expanding our urban canopy delivers a wide range

[17:07] of benefits, including reducing urban heat, island effects, improving air

[17:11] quality, increasing storm water capture and sequestering carbon. These initiatives

[17:16] directly advance our climate change action plan while creating greener,

[17:20] healthier neighborhoods for our residents looking ahead. We will continue

[17:24] delivering projects this fall and into 2026 to both clear

[17:28] the backlog and address new consent files each year. We

[17:32] will expand planting to underserved areas of the town and

[17:35] continue strengthening partnerships with schools. And community groups to build

[17:38] engagement and increase environmental education. Thank you so much for

[17:42] your attention, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank

[17:51] you, Councilor Christensen. Thank you, Mr. George, for your presentation.

[17:54] And thank you for taking care. Of ward six very

[17:56] much appreciate it. The dollars that we're looking at. And

[18:02] you may not have this answer because. You're referring to

[18:06] consent applications. What about the money that was collected prior

[18:11] to 2008? I don't have the information for money. That

[18:16] was cleared prior to 2008, but the list. I was

[18:19] given was that the backlog started in 2008. I don't

[18:22] have much information. Prior to that. I'll bring that up

[18:27] under the report. Excellent. In regards to. The. Picture of

[18:36] the cedar trees. On the wad windows. Those trees aren't

[18:43] $1,000 apiece, right? Those trees do not equal $1,000, I

[18:48] believe. Those specific trees are approximately $600 plus tax, installed

[18:54] with a two year warranty. Install? Yes. Those specific ones.

[18:59] The cedar trees are the lowest value tree that we

[19:02] have. Yeah, I'm just warning tonight that I'm hoping we're

[19:04] not paying $1,000 for. Cedar trees that I can pay.

[19:09] Again, thank you for your presentation. I will be asking

[19:11] more questions when the report is on, but. Thank you.

[19:14] No problem. We have one more question. I saw the

[19:19] list of the people you contacted. I don't know. You

[19:25] sent the letters out. I was one of the recipients

[19:27] of the letter. It looked like 90% of the people

[19:32] didn't respond. I'm just using that term loosely. What did

[19:37] we do to encourage response besides sending out a letter?

[19:43] There was no follow up to the initial letter that

[19:45] was sent, but I will point out. There were not

[19:49] very many bounce backs. So people did receive these letters.

[19:52] But again, there was nothing other than the letter being

[19:56] sent. Correct. Crickets. There was crickets correct on both sides.

[20:03] Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you

[20:10] very much, Mr. George. Appreciate that. The next presentation. Is

[20:18] by Jessica Abrams, our senior environmental planner. About rather exciting

[20:24] initiative for those of us who. Have environmental backgrounds. The

[20:31] climate change action plan. And for all of us who

[20:33] want a healthy earth. Good evening, your worship and members

[20:38] of council. I'm happy to be bringing forward. An initiative.

[20:47] For a proposed climate change action plan. Porteri takes pride

[20:51] in being stewards of the natural environment and the climate

[20:55] change action plan. Has been identified as a priority through

[20:58] the current strategic plan. This plan has been a collaborative

[21:01] effort with different subject matter experts from various departments across

[21:05] the town. And through public engagement. This is a living

[21:09] document and it's meant to be updated continuously. So why

[21:16] create a climate change action plan? Well, Fordier is a

[21:22] town that's situated on Lake Erie and the Niagara river,

[21:25] and the town has put together a forward thinking plan

[21:29] that will incorporate methods to minimize human activity contributing to

[21:32] climate change. There have been recent examples of flooding and

[21:36] fires that are attributing to the changing climate and climate

[21:41] change is essentially the long term shifts in temperatures and

[21:44] weather patterns that can occur. Naturally or be influenced by

[21:47] human activity. So. As a starting point. In developing the

[21:56] action plan, town staff explored some of the action that

[22:00] the town. Is already taking that contribute to climate friendly

[22:05] activities. So some of these actions that the town is

[22:08] already doing are the tree bylaw. The tree giveaway every

[22:12] year. The natural Asset Management plan has done some great

[22:16] work, as well as the energy conservation and demand plan.

[22:21] The following slide will provide some examples. So this slide

[22:28] here kind of talks about the way that the action

[22:30] plan is broken up into. Three different time frames. So

[22:34] there are short term actions. There are medium term actions

[22:38] that are between three to five years and long term

[22:41] actions that are a longer time frame. So five years

[22:44] plus. So the following slides will provide some examples of

[22:49] short term actions that town staff have proactively undertaken. So,

[22:58] adaptation plan. Goal number one is the tree planting plan.

[23:04] So town staff are planting trees with students at local

[23:08] schools. And again, sorry. This is. My apologies. I got

[23:14] them confused. The first one is actually public engagement, not.

[23:19] The tree planting plan. This one is indicative of the

[23:22] tree planting plan. So this has been developed in, as

[23:27] you saw in Mr. Georgia's presentation, trees are being planted.

[23:33] Another short term action is mitigation goal number three. So

[23:37] the town was awarded a grant. Of $116,000 to support

[23:41] the installation of level two EV chargers and a pilot

[23:45] project was granted to get an EV vehicle, so that

[23:49] is one of the actions. Another short term goal is

[23:55] adaptation. Goal number four, which was town staff, recently brought

[23:59] forward an amendment to allow naturalized gardens within the town.

[24:08] And another goal, a short term goal, is a mitigation

[24:12] goal number two, which is looking at. Encouraging climate friendly

[24:20] gardening. So, actually, as part of the landscaping for town

[24:25] hall, there's a pollinator garden being put in. Some of

[24:29] the medium term goals. One of the medium term goals

[24:33] that's being proposed is looking at developing an early warning

[24:36] system and emergency preparedness plan. So that's a longer term

[24:40] goal. And again, a longer term goal from that would

[24:46] be looking at infrastructure resilience, and I would say. Another

[24:52] medium term goal, too, is incorporating some new policies into

[24:55] the Op that encourage climate friendly actions as well.

[25:05] So a bit of a good news story. One of

[25:11] the actions was about public engagement, and as part of

[25:13] this action, town staff approached canadian tire for a donation.

[25:19] In return, canadian tire generously offered four bikes to be

[25:22] used as used for purposes to raffle. Off during. Education

[25:26] sessions with elementary school children next year. So we have

[25:30] plans to do some engagement sessions. With the schools. And

[25:34] now we have some great prizes to keep the students

[25:36] interested. So thank you for your attention and considering the

[25:41] climate change action plan for adoption. And I'll open the

[25:44] floor up for questions. Thank you very much. Are there

[25:53] questions as Ms. Abrams. Okay, thank you very much. We'll

[25:57] wait for the report. Then. We now move so that

[26:05] ends our presentations. We now move. To reports. The first

[26:13] is pbbs. 57 2025. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment. File

[26:22] zba eight 2025. The recommendation report for 3957. Rev.

[26:31] Stock road. Councilor Lewis seconds. And so that report is

[26:38] now on the floor. For questions and comments.

[26:49] Councilor Lewis. Thank you. I'll jump in first. And I'm

[26:52] using the web. Version, not escribe. So bear with me

[26:55] if I'm looking for something. I just want to start

[26:59] by saying I'm pleased to see that we're moving. In

[27:01] the right direction with this in terms of the density

[27:03] and the number of units, although it's still not following

[27:06] the crystal beach secondary plan. I'm glad to see that

[27:11] the developers been able to make some amendments. I do

[27:16] have some concerns. Certainly with drainage. Still, I'm no in

[27:19] the report. It mentions. That it appears that the revised

[27:26] conceptual site servicing plan proposes a slip drainage of poach

[27:31] to the north portion of the lot, which would be

[27:35] designed to convey. Storm water flows to catch basins located

[27:40] in the front yard and that this is an acceptable

[27:42] strategy. But it goes on to mention from the engineering

[27:46] department that the rear yards appear to remain in their

[27:49] existing condition with no changes to the current drainage patterns

[27:53] proposed. Goes on to say that this is acceptable, but.

[27:58] It's that second part and the backyard portions of this

[28:01] property that I've still got some concern from on. I'm

[28:05] glad that they've done what they've needed to do to

[28:09] try and get as much moving to the north as

[28:12] possible, but. I don't know. How you're still going to

[28:17] fight gravity going downhill. And I'm still concerned with the

[28:22] need for pumps and how that access to those properties

[28:26] will be. Made. That was one comment that I wanted

[28:30] to make. And then the other, a couple of questions.

[28:34] Some were similar to a few that I had in

[28:36] terms of the tree removal, but I just wanted some

[28:39] clarification in the area where there's a lot line, tree

[28:42] and part of the tree is on one property and

[28:45] part of the trees on the other. Is it my

[28:48] understanding that consent would have to be made? By the

[28:53] neighboring property for that tree to be removed. And if

[28:57] I could just get clarity from staff, that would be

[28:59] great. Miss Bell warrior. Madam Chair, I would answer the

[29:04] question about the tree. Yes. The owner would require the

[29:07] consent of the neighboring property owner to remove those boundary

[29:11] trees. Okay. And if. I may continue, madam chair, if

[29:15] they do not have consent from the neighboring property owners.

[29:19] With respect. To those trees, then they would have to

[29:21] modify their proposal and come back with something slightly modified.

[29:27] Madam chair. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And that will lead

[29:30] to something a little bit later. In terms of. The

[29:38] urban design. I know there were. Some modifications made. And

[29:44] when I look at the two pictures, There is slight

[29:48] difference to the gables in one over the porch, but

[29:52] really. The only changes going from brick. To some type

[29:57] of vinyl siding is what I understand. Madden shit. That's

[30:01] correct. I'm just going to keep going through some of

[30:05] my questions. I'm going to yield in case there's anyone

[30:08] else who has any others. While I formulate my thoughts

[30:13] without. Counselor Duverno has. Yeah. Thank you very much, madam

[30:19] Chair. And through you. I don't know if this is.

[30:21] Something Ms. De la or Mr. Frost would be able

[30:24] to answer, but councilor Lewis raised a good point about

[30:28] the drainage, and my concern has always been about the

[30:31] need for a mechanical systems. And potential maintenance that the

[30:34] municipality would be forced to take over if. The property

[30:38] owners don't do it. So I'm just wondering if we

[30:41] can get some clarification. So if we approve this report

[30:43] this evening, for it to move forward, Would we be

[30:46] bound? To allowing a mechanical system or. Would this exclude

[30:54] that? And we'd have to do gravity flow similar to

[30:57] every other development. Because I'm concerned if we approved something,

[31:00] if it could lead to legacy costs down the road.

[31:03] That aren't applicable to other developments. So, again, I don't

[31:06] know if this is Mr. Frost or Ms. Do Oreo.

[31:08] But Madam chair district, Frost is waving his hand through

[31:14] you. Madam chair. We worked with the developer to look

[31:17] at different ways to drain the lot when they first

[31:19] came into where we are now, and we had proposed

[31:22] this idea of taking. All the eaves troughs to the

[31:24] downspouts and bringing the entire roof catchment to the front

[31:28] yard to get any of the catchment of the buildings

[31:31] themselves draining away from the southern parts of the property.

[31:35] When we look at the southern part of the property,

[31:37] it will still continue. To drain as nature intended. With

[31:39] the topography, however, the drainage that it would now be.

[31:43] Bringing south down to those properties at the rear would

[31:46] be substantially less than it is today, given that any

[31:50] of the structures are now draining towards the roadway. Currently

[31:53] under conditions today, there is one. Structure. I don't know

[31:57] exactly where it's training, but I would speculate that. Some

[31:59] is from that roof leading to the rear yard and

[32:02] that building itself. If. We swap that out with a

[32:04] new is all moving to the front as well as

[32:07] any green. Area that it doesn't currently occupy that would

[32:09] be future occupied. So in terms of drainage, I think

[32:12] we had found a solution, or the developer had proposed

[32:15] a solution. I should say that. Tries to take as

[32:17] much of the development related from the buildings itself. Drainage

[32:21] to the front in the rear yard. I don't think

[32:23] that we would be. Considering having any sort of pumping

[32:26] system or mechanical system put in the rear yard, I

[32:29] don't. Think that would be fair. To have them deal

[32:32] with additional drainage from pre to post is usually a

[32:36] net zero. In this case, pre to post would be

[32:39] better than under existing conditions. Today. Councillor Duverno. No. And

[32:44] thank you very much. And again through you, madam Chair.

[32:47] I appreciate. That answer because it gives me a little

[32:49] bit of comfort, because I've been concerned about the need

[32:50] for mechanical drainage on the back of the property. So,

[32:53] just for clarification, I'm very dead set against the idea

[32:59] of any kind of mechanical drains, because even if we

[33:01] have. Them part of, like an agreement, like a landowner

[33:06] agreement. If maintenance falls to the wayside people. Decide not

[33:10] to pay into it. One way or another, municipal taxpayers

[33:13] are going to be on the hook for it, and

[33:14] that's not something that we want to have happen. So

[33:17] I'm just wondering. If. Either from assurance from staff or

[33:21] whether we need to amend the recommendation this evening. But

[33:25] just for clarification. There will not be any mechanical drains

[33:28] in. When I say mechanical drains, I mean like sump.

[33:31] Pumps or like sump pits and feeding up back to

[33:36] the road. Everything is going to be gravity and natural

[33:38] at the back of the property, if I understand this

[33:40] correctly. Through you, madam Chair, for my understanding any of

[33:45] the drainage from the roof leaders or the lot. Itself

[33:47] will be gravity. There may still be the need for

[33:50] sump pumps within the dwelling units. Themselves as any basement

[33:52] may have, but that's separate from the outside exterior drainage.

[33:57] Yes, there will not be any under this proposed plan.

[33:59] Any pumps external to. The buildings. And one final follow

[34:05] up, if I may, madam chair. So if it did

[34:08] turn out that for. Whatever reason, due to topography or

[34:10] construction, that. It was determined that there was too much

[34:14] water at the back of the property, and it did.

[34:15] Require some kind of mechanical pumping. Would that be something

[34:18] that would come back to council if such a request

[34:20] or would staff just say no? Through you, madam chair.

[34:25] It's staff's perspective from the engineering position that we don't.

[34:28] Want any external pumps for residential units or lots in

[34:32] this case, so we would not be supportive of that

[34:34] type of solution. Councilor noise thank you, Councilor Christensen. My

[34:41] understanding is that the eavesdrops and. It's going to be

[34:42] one in the front and one in the back is

[34:44] going to be a single east trough on each side

[34:47] from start to finish. Covering all the townhouses. Right. And

[34:53] those east trouts will then drain to the front. Am

[34:57] I correct on that? Madam Chair. Yes. As we discussed

[35:01] with the developer and their consultant that regardless the configuration

[35:05] of the eavesdrops and where the downsmouths be that the

[35:08] water captured from the roof. Of the structures would be

[35:12] conveyed to the front of the property via trough downspout

[35:15] leads. Whatever it may be, ultimately not on the ground,

[35:19] but brought. Through some sort of device to get to

[35:22] the front. Okay. Now I am confused. Because in the

[35:28] meeting with one eavesdrop in the front, one eavesdrop in

[35:30] the back and. They would be draining. On the far

[35:34] sides. Okay? But having heard that, If it is a

[35:39] single east trough or whatever, how do the middle units

[35:41] are the ones I'm concerned about. Because they obviously won't

[35:45] have, like, they won't have any drainage. The other child.

[35:48] Will go extend beyond them. Am I correct on that?

[35:53] There's not going to be any drainage. Into the front

[35:55] of their properties. Per my understanding, the back of the

[35:59] roof. Or the south part of the roof would have

[36:02] an east trough running east west, whether it be on

[36:05] one corner higher sloping down to one direction, or if

[36:08] it's per se, crowned in the middle, but any eavesdrop

[36:11] along the southern face at the back of this dwelling

[36:14] units. Would travel the water to the sides of the

[36:17] townhouse unit and then up the sides of the unit.

[36:20] So the middle. Ones don't have side walls, but they

[36:23] would have a rear eaves trough that catches. That to

[36:25] convey to the sides of the overall structure. Yeah, that's

[36:28] my understanding. And we talked about what happens if. Something

[36:33] happens to that eavesdrop in the middle. Because. They're freehold.

[36:39] I understand. So what if the person, the people in

[36:43] the middle. Who really don't have the east trap going

[36:46] through their property. There's a problem with it or they

[36:50] don't maintain it or something like that. Is there going

[36:52] to be anything? In the agreement, the purchase agreement, to

[36:55] say they have to maintain. The e stroke. The worry

[37:00] of you. Met ever one of you has. Madam chair,

[37:07] that is usually a case whenever it's a block of

[37:09] townhouses or street townhouses. That's usually a case. It's my

[37:12] understanding that could be covered in the sales or purchase

[37:16] agreement. That would be something that would be sorted out

[37:19] between the owners of the property. That would be my

[37:24] take on it. If I can continue. And I agree

[37:28] with you, but is there any way we can ensure

[37:31] that. That actually happens, that it's actually in the purchase

[37:33] agreement. Item chair, there would be another application that the

[37:37] applicant would have to go through to create these lots.

[37:40] That would be as a plan of subdivision. So maybe

[37:42] at that time we can have some. Easements or we

[37:45] can. Have more detailed drawings at that stage, and that

[37:50] time we can address that issue. Okay, I would appreciate

[37:52] that. And if I can continue, one question about drainage,

[37:56] and I understand, Mr. Frost. Description about the thieves troughs

[38:01] are going to be moving the water from the roofs

[38:04] to the front. I understand that, but. I don't quite

[38:08] grasp the whole thing that. There's going to be all

[38:11] that, much less. Because right now. There is grass and

[38:15] there's soil. And that is absorbing some of the water.

[38:20] So right now. When the houses go up and the

[38:23] driveways go up. That absorption is going to be lost.

[38:28] So. We're going to help it over here, but. There's

[38:33] this other issue too. With the lack of the soil,

[38:36] the lot coverage is now much more extensive. So there's

[38:38] not going to be any absorption into the sauce that's.

[38:40] One concern. The sump pumps. Where will they discharge to?

[38:46] The sump pumps would discharge in accordance with the lot

[38:48] grading plans as well as the building code. I would

[38:52] imagine they would be to the front yard as well,

[38:55] to where those catch basins. Are, but I haven't specifically

[38:57] myself looked at those plans that would probably come at

[38:59] the time of building permit. If I can continue, is

[39:05] there any way that we can ensure that the sum

[39:07] pumps will be. Going to the front, not to the

[39:09] back. Through you, madam chair. I believe during the planning

[39:13] applications, when you get to that stage, you could. Put

[39:15] the condition saying that the sump pumps shall be front

[39:17] yard drainage councilor or director. Dewario. Correct me if I'm

[39:21] speaking of turn, madam chair. That's correct, because they still

[39:25] have to go through another planning application. At this stage,

[39:27] we are just working on the land use. If. That's

[39:32] the purpose of this discussion about the zoning application. But,

[39:35] yes, they would have to go through a subdivision application

[39:38] where there would be detailed grading plan and servicing plan,

[39:40] and we can include that condition at that stage, and

[39:43] I appreciate that, and I know that's going to happen

[39:45] later on. But at the same point, I know a

[39:47] lot of the residents are one of their main concerns

[39:50] is drainage. So if they know that we. Are going

[39:52] to be addressing this. And we understand that that's a

[39:56] priority. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor flag. Thank you, madam

[40:01] Chair. I'm trying to understand. I'm reading this and rereading

[40:06] it, and I take it two different ways on page

[40:09] 15 of 16. And it says, since the public meeting,

[40:13] town staff has initiated a peer review. Of the previous

[40:16] functioning service report, which concluded that. There is adequate downstream

[40:21] sanitary sewer capacity for each townhomes. Does that mean that

[40:25] there's a peer review? Reviewing the functioning service report, which

[40:31] concluded this, or does it mean that the peer review

[40:34] concluded that there is downstream servicing. If I'm not mixing

[40:41] myself up, trying to get clarity on something. Mr. Frost.

[40:49] The functional servings report, in a nutshell, would say. You

[40:54] need a 300 millimeter diameter sanitary sewer. We have a

[40:57] 300 millimeter sewer. Everything is okay. What a peer review

[41:01] does is it actually looks at our hydraulic model and

[41:03] looks at, well, how full is that sewer? How full

[41:06] are the pump stations? How full is the treatment plant?

[41:09] And then? Looks at the actual detailed model to say,

[41:11] if we add these new flows to that 300 mill

[41:14] diameter sewer. Do we still have capacity? So that peer

[41:18] review confirmed that we have the right size. Sewer and

[41:21] there is available capacity within that sewer and at the

[41:24] nearest pump station and or treatment. Plant to accommodate the

[41:27] excess sanitary. So it's a peer review of the one

[41:30] report, but. It gives a lot further information about the

[41:32] specifics, and it has been completed. If I may. And

[41:35] it has been completed and has confirmed. Yes. Thank you.

[41:40] Your worship. Thanks, madam chair. Just a follow up on

[41:48] Councilor Dubano's concerns about the drainage, which I think we

[41:51] all share. If we were to impose a condition that

[41:55] says you can't use mechanical. Means. To eliminate an accumulation

[42:00] of water, and it turns out that there are problems

[42:03] down the road. How do we counteract that? Would we

[42:06] have to then move to amend? Something. It would be

[42:12] an approved zoning amendment. How do we deal with that?

[42:16] Madam chair. That would, in my view, that would be

[42:21] a condition that we can include as plan of subdivision.

[42:24] But council can give the direction as of now, so

[42:27] staff would ensure that condition is included in the plan

[42:31] of subdivision. No, I get that. I'm concerned about. What

[42:35] if it turns out that. The engineering was overly optimistic

[42:40] about the water, and the drainage actually becomes a problem.

[42:44] So that at the bottom of the hill, we have

[42:46] an accumulation of water, and the only way to eliminate

[42:48] it is to use some type of mechanical means. How

[42:53] would we deal with that? And would we have the

[42:54] ability. After the units are constructed and sold. Who would

[42:59] we deal with? Through you, madam chair. So I suppose

[43:04] when you think about when an engineer is doing their

[43:06] report. And they're sealing the report and stamping it, and

[43:09] they're carrying some insurances. If we find that the analysis

[43:13] in the engineer's report is incorrect, then we would. Simply

[43:16] go back to say we're making a claim against that

[43:18] engineering firm. That we do not believe that the conditions

[43:24] were as per modeled or per designed in terms of

[43:27] the need for a mechanical system. I am opposed to

[43:31] mechanical systems for the same reasons council has provided. We

[43:34] do put them in. Certain locations, especially when you have.

[43:38] A big commercial or industrial site where you have storage

[43:41] and a lot different situations in a residential other options

[43:45] could exist, like putting in a catch basin at the

[43:48] rear yard with a drain through one of the neighboring

[43:51] properties to the street to the south. Not ideal, but

[43:54] costs could be recovered. For such work if we needed.

[43:58] To go in and do some quote unquote, emergency rectification

[44:01] of a problem and we would seek damages from the

[44:05] engineering firm and or the developer to cover that. If

[44:08] we found that the report was not as intended, so

[44:13] I don't want to make this too complicated. I agree.

[44:16] That no mechanical. Presence is ideal. But doesn't this report

[44:22] say that our staff worked with the developers engineer? With

[44:26] respect to the drainage issue. And if that's the case.

[44:32] Aren't we somehow implicated in the drainage solution? Through you,

[44:38] madam chair. Our staff met with the developer and their

[44:42] consultant who came in and ideas. Were put on the

[44:45] table for discussion and a recommended solution of diverting the

[44:49] drainage to the front through the downspouts and eavesdrops was

[44:52] proposed. Staff were in support of that as long as

[44:55] all of the engineering done. By the developer and their

[44:59] consultant still confirmed. And basically said that this would work.

[45:04] So while we're at the table for a review, agency,

[45:07] a commenting agency. We can have these discussions of what

[45:10] staff would entertain. As adequate to deal with the problem.

[45:14] We don't take the ownership or the responsibility or liability

[45:17] of the design work. Still. Okay. And if I might,

[45:20] madam chair. So, a development of seven. Units that requires

[45:26] a plan of subdivision. That's correct, madam chair. Yes. Okay,

[45:30] so then, I suppose. The details of the drainage is

[45:37] something that we can include in the subdivision. Application and

[45:40] agreement, if there is one. Okay, then the other question

[45:44] that I had was. Surrounding the density. And the low

[45:51] density. According to the chart in the report, indicates that.

[45:58] The lot. Coverage is 510. Square meters. By my calculation,

[46:05] That would permit six units on this property under the

[46:08] current zoning, is that correct? Madam chair. Yes, that's correct.

[46:16] And then we have what is being proposed as the

[46:20] new zoning. And then. How the developer is proposing that

[46:26] be utilized. So when we talk in the report about.

[46:34] There being 28 units per hectare. That's based on. The

[46:39] proposed zoning. Of 35 units per hectare. That's based on

[46:45] the new zoning that they are proposing, right? Okay, so

[46:49] there is, in fact, an increase in the density. From

[46:54] six. To 24, 26 or whatever it is. Correct. When

[47:04] we are talking about density. So there are two parts

[47:06] to it. The property is designated low. Density. And the

[47:10] proposal still complies with the density which is outlined in

[47:13] low density, which. Is 50 units, which is less than

[47:17] 50 units per hectare, and they are proposing. 2023.8 units

[47:22] per hectare. But the zoning says. The size of the

[47:27] lot? 510. Square meters. Minimum lot area, which means that

[47:36] whatever the density might be, This says for this current

[47:42] zoning. 510 m², which would work out to six units

[47:47] on the parcel. Is that not correct? Madam chair. When

[47:51] we are talking about six units, we are talking about

[47:53] the lot area and lot. Frontage, so sometimes there is.

[47:58] A difference, technical difference, between what can be accommodated on

[48:00] site and what can be the density on site, so

[48:03] that is. I think there is a technical difference of

[48:08] opinion there, but the property is designated low density. The

[48:11] proposal that the applicant has submitted complies with the density

[48:14] requirements of low density designation only. Thing that they are

[48:18] requesting is a change in build form, but the proposal

[48:21] complies with the density requirement of low density. Well,

[48:31] okay, that's fine. I'm just trying to process that. I

[48:36] did have one other question, and that is, is it

[48:39] possible in the future when we have a parcel like

[48:41] this where there's. A significant change in grade elevation that

[48:47] we could at least get some type of. Map or

[48:52] some type of. Indication as to what the property actually

[48:56] looks like from a side elevation so that we can

[48:59] see. Because this is a fairly large drop. In the

[49:05] elevation of this property from Repstock Road back to the

[49:08] houses on Elizabeth. Yes, thank you. Councilor Lewis. Thank you,

[49:14] madam Chair. Just going back to the drainage. Issue. And

[49:22] one of the resolutions which was moving all of the

[49:25] runoff forward, I've heard several times that we're moving it

[49:29] forward towards the road, and I'm having a bit. Of

[49:33] a hard time trying to visualize this because anyone that

[49:35] knows the area will know after a heavy rainfall. That

[49:39] section of road is covered in water to begin with.

[49:44] With narrow gutters and currently floods. So if we're moving.

[49:50] The water. That was a problem going south. To the

[49:54] properties below. And fixing it by moving it forward. Are

[50:00] there any comments from staff? If we're making the flooding

[50:03] potentially on Rebstock? Road, currently worse than. What it would

[50:10] be, because if we're taking extra water, currently going with

[50:15] gravity, downhill and moving it now north. If this is

[50:19] all going to the street, what does that do? Ross.

[50:23] Thank you, madam chair. When we drain the subject property,

[50:27] it will be going to catch basins. At the property

[50:29] line into leads to the storm sewer directly. So we're

[50:32] not putting the water directly onto the road. My understanding

[50:35] that the problem with that road right now is a

[50:37] bit. Twofold in that there could be more catch basins

[50:41] required. The. Grade of the road. Isn't conducive the way

[50:45] we design roads currently. To kind of manage the flows

[50:49] into these catch basins. So, yes, we're obviously adding more.

[50:52] Water to that area. But how it's not just overland

[50:56] flow on the roadway itself, with capital budget coming up,

[50:59] staff can always take back to look at a project

[51:01] on this section of road as well to look at

[51:03] drainage concerns. If they are currently a problem, it's something

[51:06] that could be considered in the. 2026 capital budget as

[51:09] well. Okay. And just if I'm following that, so then

[51:13] the cost to fixing that would be from. The general

[51:15] levy and taxpayer not out of the development from this

[51:20] proposal. Correct to you, madam Chair. From my understanding that

[51:23] there is a preexisting condition, regardless whether this development goes

[51:26] through or not. So it would be borne by the

[51:28] general levy and not this development specifically. Okay. Are there

[51:37] any other one last thing I wanted to throw in

[51:39] there. Further to the mayor's comment and some of the

[51:43] others with respect to the density, I'd like to move

[51:45] that we go from. Seven units to six units on

[51:50] this property. So my motion would be to amend. Seven

[51:56] units to six. Can I get a seconder? Councilor noise?

[52:02] Don't need one. Okay. All right, then. So. That is

[52:08] on the floor for discussion, Councilor Duverno. Yeah, I think

[52:13] you met up chair. Whether council decides to go this

[52:17] way or not. I'm just wondering. If we did pass

[52:21] this amendment. Maybe we can get some insight from Ms.

[52:26] Del Warrior. On if it's appealed. What would be our

[52:30] likelihood of being able to uphold this? Or are we

[52:32] just spinning in circles? And returning back to the original

[52:35] plan. That's fair. Councilor noise. Just a

[52:44] clarification on the motion. Are we looking at? Okay? Going

[52:50] from seven to six. What are we looking at, decreasing

[52:53] the lot coverage or just decreasing the lot number. I

[52:56] mean, they could make six and just make them just

[52:58] as big. Bigger. So what? The purpose of the amendment

[53:03] is to decrease the lot coverage or to just decrease

[53:07] the number. Councilor. Actually, you make a good point there.

[53:11] So maybe we should make an friendly amendment to the

[53:14] amendment where we talk specifically. To. The. Reducing the numbers

[53:23] from seven to six. I'm just trying to think how

[53:26] we'd word that, though. Mr. Warrior, do

[53:36] you have any suggestions? Would it be? Lake, for example?

[53:44] To the number of square meters. Of total or what?

[53:47] So if we are reducing the number of units. Each

[53:51] lot would have a greater frontage. And then the setbacks,

[53:55] because. The build form would be covered through the setbacks.

[54:01] So. It could be a bigger unit. But the lot

[54:04] coverage if council wants to do that. So I don't

[54:07] have what would. Be the perfect number there.

[54:22] Your worship. Well, wouldn't you simply divide 0.323 ha by

[54:26] six and that provides. Your lot coverage. Just wait

[54:35] for a minute.

[54:52] Would have some suggestions.

[55:05] Mr. Van dervine. Take the floor. To the chair.

[55:21] It's something we could look into. It's hard to calculate

[55:24] on the fly, but. It's something we could definitely look

[55:26] at. If council were to proceed with that. I suppose

[55:33] staff could prepare a memo. To accompany the amending bylaw.

[55:38] Assuming it gets approved. That would explain how the densities

[55:41] calculated. In coverage based on six units. Based on what

[55:47] they're proposing currently. If council is concerned. Madam chair, if

[55:51] council is concerned about the lot coverage, they could say

[55:53] that. They maintain the same footprint of the building. And

[56:01] reduce it by six by one unit, so it will

[56:04] be six units with the same footprint. Council slide.

[56:15] There's currently a design that shows. One four unit and

[56:21] one three unit. So I think what we're trying to

[56:24] do is just duplicate the three unit, the two three

[56:27] on that. Council, Lewis. Thank you. And just clarity on

[56:33] that, would it not be maintaining the same as six?

[56:36] Students, not seven. Because if we're painting the same units

[56:42] as seven, we're not really changing. That makes any.

[56:53] The footprint that shows three units would be duplicated. Yes.

[57:03] So, in other words, There would be. Less. Actual

[57:13] coverage, hard coverage. About what you're proposing. It would be

[57:20] moved to go from seven to six. Maintaining the same

[57:25] lot coverage as six units. And duplicating the footprint of

[57:32] the block. Of.

[57:42] Your worship. Let me get my ore in the water

[57:45] here. The motion to amend is to reduce the number

[57:50] of units from seven to six. I don't know what

[57:56] the best way to do that is. We're asking staff.

[57:58] To do this on the fly. We've got. Mr. Vandervine

[58:01] up here. We've got the director, so. Why don't we

[58:06] simply pass the amendment to reduce the number of units?

[58:10] It's our intention to at least keep the side yard

[58:11] setbacks. And have staff then have. If this passes, have

[58:17] staff have further dialogue with. The developer to determine what

[58:21] those units are going to look like, whether it's going

[58:23] to be two blocks of three or three blocks of

[58:26] two, or who knows? That's my suggestion. You're all right

[58:32] with that? Yes. All right, then. Councilor Dubano? Yeah? Thank

[58:37] you. Madam Chair, I appreciate where the mayor was going

[58:40] with my previous question. About needing to do that in

[58:44] camera. What I will say with respect to the amendment.

[58:47] This isn't my first rodeo, and I've seen lots of

[58:49] development applications and how they get appealed. I think it's

[58:53] important. To point out that the applicant did reduce this

[58:56] originally from eight to seven. I think by rights. And

[58:59] in my opinion, and I am a layman and I

[59:00] am a member of council, but. I do think that

[59:03] if they did appeal a request to go from eight

[59:05] to seven and. They wanted to stick to eight. In

[59:07] my opinion, I think they would have been justified to

[59:09] appeal. And they may have been successful. Again, my opinion,

[59:13] I'm not sure if the applicant. Were to appeal this

[59:17] if we would be successful. And. This community is changing.

[59:24] We've dealt with a lot of appeals we've dealt with.

[59:28] Situations that personally have frustrated me. I get it. But

[59:31] when I look at what these appeals cost, when I

[59:34] look at the hills that we have to die on,

[59:36] if you will. I know this is a very important

[59:39] issue for the residents in the neighborhood. I said before

[59:42] I'm not convinced that this is going to significantly alter

[59:45] the neighborhood the way they claim. I have a very

[59:50] different opinion on that. So I'm not supportive of this.

[59:54] I think they already went down from eight to seven.

[59:56] I think that was a compromise in of itself. If

[59:59] council decides to take it down to six, that's fine.

[1:00:01] I think we're going to be in a closed session,

[1:00:02] though, if that happens, so I'm not supporting this. Thank

[1:00:06] you. Councilor Lewis. Thank you, and I'll be brief. And

[1:00:09] just further to Councilor Duverno. That is. Eight to seven,

[1:00:15] but that's with the new zoning. Low density being the

[1:00:19] six. There really has been. If I may, madam chair,

[1:00:28] could we get clarification from Miss de Laure? Because my.

[1:00:31] Understanding is that if these were semi detached units, they

[1:00:33] would qualify as. Under our official plan as low density.

[1:00:38] And it's not a question of the density here. It's

[1:00:41] a question of the built form. So we were to

[1:00:43] do two units of three. Those are considered townhomes. It

[1:00:46] would still require an amendment to go to medium density.

[1:00:50] Perhaps Ms. De Warrior can clarify that. Madam Sham. Councilor

[1:00:55] juvenile's understanding is correct. Yes. And if I may, madam

[1:01:00] Chair so. Are we proposing then? Three semis to maintain.

[1:01:04] The low density designation. That's where I'm getting confused here.

[1:01:07] And where I think. We. 'll refrain from speaking further,

[1:01:12] but this is where I'm getting confused, because if the

[1:01:15] intent is to maintain the low density designation. It can't

[1:01:18] have townhomes at all. So just reducing this from one.

[1:01:22] From seven units to six. Unless it's three blocks of

[1:01:26] semis, we're still. Going up to a medium density designation,

[1:01:31] regardless of the fact that the actual density of the

[1:01:33] units meets the low density target. So again. I'm not

[1:01:40] sure what councilor lewis's intent was there. Maybe he can

[1:01:42] clarify. Councilor lewis, could you clarify? No. I beat him.

[1:01:46] Crow on that one. Thank you. You worshiped. Yeah. So

[1:01:50] just for clarification, this is a request to rezone the

[1:01:54] property and the rezoning permits the townhouse use. So that

[1:01:57] isn't going to change so it can be townhouses. The

[1:02:03] developer agrees with the six units, he could put in

[1:02:06] something of a low density nature, but there's no question

[1:02:09] that that's the purpose of the application. Okay. No fighting,

[1:02:13] boys, okay? Are there any other comments or questions?

[1:02:24] Yes. To the amendment? Yes. So I will ask for

[1:02:32] a vote on the amendment. All those in favor of.

[1:02:39] Reducing the number of units on the site. Under the

[1:02:43] current application. To change the zoning designation. To be very

[1:02:49] clear. All those in favor? All those opposed? That

[1:02:59] is carried. Now. We go. To. The recommendation as amended,

[1:03:07] the report as an ended. All those in favor? All

[1:03:15] those opposed? Carried. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

[1:03:24] We now go. To consideration of pbbs 58 2025. The

[1:03:32] official plan recommendation report and for all of those people

[1:03:36] who are out there on YouTube. Whom I hope there

[1:03:40] are many. This is one of the, if not the

[1:03:45] most important. Now it is the most important. Policy document

[1:03:49] that a local municipality can engage in because. This directs

[1:03:55] the formation of the community. For decades to come. So.

[1:04:02] It's been a huge amount of work by staff. And.

[1:04:08] Its implementation will guide us in the future. So. That

[1:04:14] report of Councilor Dubano seconds. So that report is on

[1:04:18] the floor for questions and. Comments. He's moving it. Oh,

[1:04:22] he's moving it. Okay. So counselor Dubano is moved, okay?

[1:04:29] Councilor Dubano. Thank you very much, madam chair. And I

[1:04:34] want to extend my appreciation to. Staff that this has

[1:04:36] been. A long. For good reason. It's been a long,

[1:04:42] drawn out effort, and I have been very privileged. During

[1:04:46] that time to have been the chair and the vice

[1:04:49] chair of what was the planning and development services subcommittee

[1:04:54] and now the planning, building and bylaw subcommittee. So I've

[1:04:59] had a part in this. I've had eyes on it.

[1:05:02] It's. Very important to me, and there's a lot of

[1:05:04] aspects to this that I feel are going to. Not

[1:05:08] just. Make our community a better place, but also. Give

[1:05:13] guidance to where the compatibility and where things make sense

[1:05:17] to grow. And I think that's. Really important. When I

[1:05:21] got elected to council in 2018, it was one of

[1:05:23] the things I said is that we got to get

[1:05:25] an official plan updated, and we were waiting for the

[1:05:29] region's official plan moving through at that time. Because these

[1:05:32] are important. The community is changing. There is unprecedented growth

[1:05:37] around this entire country, particularly here in the Niagara region,

[1:05:40] in Ford area, and a few other communities across the

[1:05:43] region, so. We need to get a groundwork put in

[1:05:46] place to direct where we're going to. Be for the

[1:05:48] next ten years, plus. Maybe even 1520, depending on when

[1:05:53] the next official plan comes around. And I think it's.

[1:05:56] Also very important to point out that this is our

[1:05:59] own official plan. Now that the region. Has had planning

[1:06:04] authority removed by the province. This now falls directly upon

[1:06:07] us. So we're no longer subservient to another municipal level

[1:06:11] of government that is dictating policies. To us. It's basically

[1:06:14] between us and the province now, which I think is

[1:06:16] good for our community because it allows us to grow

[1:06:20] and for us to put. Our own. Stamp on it,

[1:06:24] if you will, without. Necessarily the input from other municipalities

[1:06:29] that have different priorities and different objectives. I do plan

[1:06:34] on moving an amendment to this. In a moment. I'll

[1:06:38] wait for other counselors to have an opportunity to speak

[1:06:40] before. I do that. But again, I want to extend

[1:06:43] my appreciation that this is a very councilor. Christensen. You

[1:06:48] said it best when it started. This is probably the

[1:06:51] one most. Significant document that a council has to craft

[1:06:55] during their time here. And it's an honor and a

[1:06:59] privilege to be here, to be a part of this.

[1:07:01] It's an honor and privilege that I was part of

[1:07:04] planning and development services and pbbs for it as well.

[1:07:07] I'm looking forward to this, moving forward. And I'll bring

[1:07:10] the amendment up. After others have an opportunity to speak.

[1:07:14] Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, Councilor Duvano. I think.

[1:07:19] The staff. Deserve and I think appreciate the recognition because

[1:07:25] it is a huge amount of work. Do other counselors

[1:07:28] have comments? Counselor Noise. Thank you, councilor Christensen. I just

[1:07:32] wanted some clarification. Mr. Harring, I had an opportunity of.

[1:07:37] We've been playing phone tag. So we haven't had a

[1:07:43] really opportunity to discuss this, but. In one of the

[1:07:48] emails that he sent recently. And. It's on the Netherby.

[1:07:54] Planning nethery planting on behalf of Dunshire. Development. And. In

[1:08:01] that response. You talked about the policy a three five.

[1:08:10] I just want some clarification. I know a lot of

[1:08:12] people always bring this up, okay? What about the secondary

[1:08:14] plan? What about this? It talks about when there's inconsistencies

[1:08:17] that exist between the plan and the secondary plans or

[1:08:20] site specific policies that the latter take present. And I'm

[1:08:24] just wondering if that could be explained a little bit

[1:08:26] more.

[1:08:38] Time. My apologies. Good evening, council. My name is Rob

[1:08:41] Rappel. I'm with WSP, the consultant has been retained by

[1:08:43] the town to undertake the official plan review process and

[1:08:47] on the consultant project manager for the official plan review.

[1:08:51] So I will offer a response to Councilor Noy's question

[1:08:55] and available to answer. Questions this evening as well. Through

[1:08:58] you, madame chair. In certain cases. There may be differences

[1:09:04] or some discrepancies between the parent official plan and the

[1:09:08] secondary plan policies or those policies of the site specific

[1:09:10] policy areas under section G of the official plan. A

[1:09:15] 35. Is a policy that's intended to aid with interpretation

[1:09:20] where those discrepancies exist. I believe in this specific example,

[1:09:24] there was a previous official plan amendment that was adopted

[1:09:26] by council. That changed the land use designations on those

[1:09:29] subject lands. The schedule of the secondary plan has not

[1:09:34] been updated to reflect that. So I think in actuality.

[1:09:38] There is no discrepancy between. The designations. That apply, and

[1:09:43] I believe Mr. Hare outlined that in his response to

[1:09:47] the comments via the email. I brought that as an

[1:09:51] example because I know we have a lot of questions

[1:09:52] about secondary plans. And things and the public. Was. And

[1:09:58] they participated in the open house and the official plan

[1:10:01] too. So where that occurs. The official plan, basically. Is

[1:10:08] the final document that should be absorbing the secondary plan

[1:10:11] or considering it when they come up. Through the official

[1:10:14] plan process, I think. There's two considerations there. The details

[1:10:21] of the secondary plans are the site specific policies would

[1:10:24] take precedence over the parent official plan unless the official

[1:10:27] plan expressly. Notes otherwise, such as the built form policies

[1:10:34] where the crystal beach secondary plan is exempted from that

[1:10:37] policy framework. And then secondly. Where there is a discrepancy

[1:10:42] or a note of discrepancy. That policy is intended to

[1:10:46] support with interpretation and provide some guidance to staff and

[1:10:49] landowners in those cases. Thank you. Other comments and questions,

[1:10:56] your worship. Thank you very much, madam Chair. I have

[1:11:03] a couple of questions. I wonder for Mr. Rapul. Come

[1:11:05] back up. The first has to do with the provision.

[1:11:12] In. Relative to housing at c .4.4. And sub five,

[1:11:22] which talks about encouraging the development of affordable housing. It's

[1:11:27] on page 14 of your. Yes, I have it in

[1:11:29] front of me. Thank you. Is there any way that

[1:11:31] we can compel affordable housing? Through Madame Chair in response

[1:11:38] to the mayor's comment. There are opportunities to encourage or

[1:11:44] incentivize affordable housing available to the town under the Planning

[1:11:47] act, such as through community improvement planning. I also believe

[1:11:52] that the community planning permit system can be a tool

[1:11:55] that can be used by newspapers again forwarded to municipalities

[1:11:59] under the Planning act. To compel. At the very least,

[1:12:03] require encourage landowners or developers to include affordable housing within

[1:12:09] their development applications. So. Encourage. Is a lot different than

[1:12:16] compel. Yeah, I would appreciate some clarification here, perhaps. From

[1:12:21] under Terry, but I do believe that they can require

[1:12:24] affordable housing. But I will stand to be corrected. One.

[1:12:32] Year worship. We are proportion to include a community planning

[1:12:37] appointment system is because we can. Require affordable housing within

[1:12:42] those areas. So we want to focus it on our

[1:12:44] strategic growth areas. But it's an opportunity to require it

[1:12:46] in those areas. If I could, madam chair. So that

[1:12:50] would be for larger type developments. Is there some thought

[1:12:54] as to how large the development would be before we

[1:12:57] would take that type? Of action. To require some affordable

[1:13:02] housing unit. The next step after the official plan is

[1:13:06] adopted and approved by the province would be to do

[1:13:09] a more comprehensive study for the cpps, and in that

[1:13:13] process, we can kind of create the guidelines as far

[1:13:16] as how far we want to go for affordable housing.

[1:13:18] Thank you. So in terms of the natural environment system

[1:13:24] mapping, how confident are we that. Is very accurate mapping.

[1:13:30] We've three Madame chairman, sponsor, mayor. I think as a

[1:13:33] project team, we've worked very closely with the province, with

[1:13:37] Niagara Peninsula Conservation authority, and with the region and to.

[1:13:43] The extent possible with landowners to refine that mapping. It's

[1:13:45] gone under multiple iterations. Through the various draft official plans

[1:13:50] that have been presented to council. So I think in

[1:13:54] direct response to your question, we're putting our best foot

[1:13:56] forward with the information that we have available to us

[1:13:59] through this process. Thanks. I raised that Madam chair because

[1:14:02] when I was speaking with Ms. Dewaria earlier today, I

[1:14:04] pointed out that there's a drainage channel. On farmland behind

[1:14:09] my property. It doesn't show up on any of these

[1:14:11] maps, but it does appear on some conservation authority mapping

[1:14:16] of some sort, so I would hope we can make

[1:14:18] sure that that's accurate. More specifically, Schedule a two, which

[1:14:24] I think is page 255. Of. This plan. Is. Yes.

[1:14:38] It shows. A strategic growth area. In. Just lost it

[1:14:43] in Ridgeway. But that map includes properties on the east

[1:14:49] side of Prospect Point Road, north of Dominion Road, some

[1:14:52] of which. Shows that it has environmental. Concerns. Why would

[1:14:59] that be included as part of the strategic growth area?

[1:15:02] Through you, madame chair. In response to the mayor. The

[1:15:06] strategic area looks at those areas as a whole. Presumably

[1:15:10] those lands that have been identified as part of the

[1:15:11] natural environment system. Would be protected or conserved through future

[1:15:15] development applications and not contemplated for development based on the

[1:15:19] policies of the official plan. You may not know this,

[1:15:23] but even to my knowledge, That each side of Prospect

[1:15:29] Point Road is almost. Fully. Covered by housing, and so.

[1:15:38] There's a daycare facility that used to be a scout

[1:15:41] hall that's there. I get that that could possibly be

[1:15:44] intensified. But there isn't much else along there. Do you

[1:15:50] know specifically why that would have been included? I do

[1:15:54] understand that. I believe it's again. I may have to

[1:15:58] call on Mr. Harri there. Support this response, but Prospect

[1:16:02] Point Road is contemplated for improvement. Yeah, that's correct. Through

[1:16:07] future improvement capital works projects, I believe over the next

[1:16:11] several years, if I'm not mistaken. So sometime out. But

[1:16:15] that word is contemplated for upgrade improvements over the longer

[1:16:18] term, and there are also active development applications, as I

[1:16:22] understand it, in the vicinity of those lands east of

[1:16:24] Prospect Point. Road. That's right. Okay, so I'm a little

[1:16:28] nervous about that. Thank you for your answer, but you're

[1:16:33] making me nervous. Didn't do a very good job answering

[1:16:36] your question. You did a good job. It just didn't

[1:16:40] give me the answer that I was looking. For. There's

[1:16:49] a growth area. I think it's g 36, which is

[1:16:53] at 42 39 Erie Road, correct? What's the deal with

[1:16:59] that? Yes, three. Indenture. There was one specific landowner. And

[1:17:06] through the representative, we had the discussion regarding that specific

[1:17:10] property. I believe it's g 36 policy 15 if I'm

[1:17:12] not mistaken. Very specific nuance with regards to that property

[1:17:17] whereby there are two existing dwellings on a single lot

[1:17:22] that were merged on title historically. The lending simply has

[1:17:26] an interest in severing the lot. To have those two

[1:17:30] existing dwellings. On. Legally separate parcels of land. That would

[1:17:35] not be permitted as the policy was originally presented to

[1:17:39] you through the statutory public process. And through his consultation

[1:17:43] with the landlord and the representative, we've proposed this policy.

[1:17:47] To enable for that seconds process to occur with the

[1:17:50] sunset class to the end of this year. Being December

[1:17:52] 31, 2025. To try to take a more collaborative approach

[1:17:57] to finding a resolution to this specific circumstance. Great. Thank

[1:18:00] you, madam Chair. One other question. I understand that the

[1:18:06] official plan removes the rigamarola boat densities and low density

[1:18:11] high. Density, medium density, what have you. If that's the

[1:18:14] case, what's the purpose of that. I think it's a

[1:18:17] two part response. Firstly, short answer is yes, with the

[1:18:21] exception of the crystal beach secondary plan, which will remain

[1:18:23] in full force in effect, as it's currently adopted by

[1:18:26] council, so those density policies will still continue to apply.

[1:18:34] For the balance of the secondary plan areas and the

[1:18:36] rest of the areas within the town. The new bill

[1:18:38] form policies under c four, and the plan as a

[1:18:40] whole will continue to apply. Policy direction under guard really

[1:18:44] well in place to manage. That density. Consideration and focus

[1:18:51] now on bell floor, which we heard a little bit

[1:18:53] about in terms of the discussion on the previous file

[1:18:55] that was before council, specifically with regards to section eight

[1:18:59] of the official plan, which establishes community design policies and

[1:19:03] expectationists for different types of development. Typologies including infill and

[1:19:08] intensification. So, having regard for the building height, mass and

[1:19:13] scale, as well as complementary belt form to surrounding land

[1:19:16] uses, for example. So in the absence of anything in

[1:19:21] the official plan, then we'd be looking at the. Zoning

[1:19:23] requirements. So with regards to specific. For example, some of

[1:19:29] the test rally and some of the tax rallies or

[1:19:31] townhouses. Those specific topologies would presumably. Be defined and permitted

[1:19:38] expressly through the implementing zoning bylaw as well as a

[1:19:42] community planning permit system. If that is a tool that

[1:19:45] council chooses to use. Thank you very much, Mr. Rapolt.

[1:19:50] I just had some comments that I want to make

[1:19:52] with respect to this. You may sit down. So for

[1:19:56] the last little while, We've heard as we've gone through

[1:20:00] a transition of. Planning leadership, planning staff. We've received. Applications.

[1:20:09] We've had to process applications we've been advised. That. Sometimes

[1:20:15] it was the pre consultation process. That bound staff to

[1:20:19] make certain recommendations to us. Then we were told that

[1:20:23] that gets complicated because of the provincial policy statements, which

[1:20:26] have changed because of the Planning act because of the

[1:20:30] regional official plan, which is no longer going to be

[1:20:32] in existence. Because of our official plan, because of our

[1:20:37] zoning bylaw. So. One of the expectations that I would

[1:20:44] have is that this new official plan is going to

[1:20:47] allow us. To provide for the growth that we see

[1:20:52] and that it will be aligned with the vision of

[1:20:55] counsel for the growth of the community. That's important because

[1:20:58] the council is the reflection of the population. We have

[1:21:02] professional staff, which are giving us advice as to. What

[1:21:06] we should be doing or what we should be contemplating.

[1:21:09] And they're the professionals. We're the elected officials. We're the

[1:21:14] ones who are among the populations, so we're the ones

[1:21:17] who have to explain to the population why this is

[1:21:20] happening, and sometimes that's easy, and sometimes it's difficult. But

[1:21:26] nonetheless. That's our responsibility. So first and foremost, I would

[1:21:32] hope that this new official plan will align with our

[1:21:35] vision for the growth of this community. Second. And important,

[1:21:40] but not as significant as that, is that I would

[1:21:43] hope that the references to history. And culture are accurate.

[1:21:50] I'll give one example. The very beginning. Of the draft

[1:21:54] official plan is a reference to how 43 came into

[1:21:58] existence, and it talks about there being a number of

[1:22:02] communities in Ford, Erie and. That's surely correct. And it

[1:22:08] talks about. Just let me go to that page, if

[1:22:11] I can find it. So it says. Footage composed of

[1:22:20] several smaller communities, which each have a distinct identity in

[1:22:23] history, which is true. They include Bridgeburg, Bridgeworth, Thunder Bay,

[1:22:28] Stevensville, Douglas Town and Crystal beach, coming together as one

[1:22:31] community through the amalgamation of Britain Township and the village

[1:22:34] of Crystal beach, with Fortiere in 1970. That's correct. Except

[1:22:39] in 1970, there was no budget. There was Ford Erie,

[1:22:42] and Ferdinary was inclusive of Bridgeburg and Amiguri, which amalgamated

[1:22:47] in 1931. So that needs to be clarified. Also, when

[1:22:53] you're talking about it's more than just bigger township because

[1:22:57] Douglas time. Was in Worby Township, so I think we

[1:23:01] need to make sure that that's accurate. And if you're

[1:23:03] going to start talking about large urban areas, There could

[1:23:07] be a reference to Crescent park because Crescent park in

[1:23:10] 1970 probably had as many people as ridgeway. Or crystal

[1:23:15] beach. So I think we need to be somewhat sensitive

[1:23:18] because this is the guiding document. And. This is the

[1:23:22] platform upon which this document is built, so I think

[1:23:25] those things need to be historically and culturally accurate, and

[1:23:29] we still have two weeks to get that sorted out

[1:23:31] before this comes. Back to us. But my other concerns

[1:23:35] relate to protection of natural heritage. We would have accurate

[1:23:40] mapping. We need to make sure that we provide for

[1:23:42] wildlife corridors. This is something we've talked about in this

[1:23:45] community for over 20 years, wildlife quarters that provide. For.

[1:23:52] Development of subdivisions where there's still free movement. For land

[1:23:57] wildlife and bird wildlife, and we have to have high

[1:24:02] expectations when we receive. Consultants reports regarding environmental matters. We

[1:24:09] need to make sure that those are well scrutinized. And

[1:24:12] highly accurate so that we can retain what we value

[1:24:16] here. What the people afford to be value about our

[1:24:18] community and what the people who are moving here are

[1:24:21] moving here because they value. Make sure that. We maintain,

[1:24:29] as this official plan is being interpreted in the future,

[1:24:32] that we're maintaining regents to the public consultations that we

[1:24:35] engage in, whether it's a secondary planning or a neighborhood

[1:24:37] plan or a proposal for community improvement program or some

[1:24:42] other planning and growth strategy. That we're working on. We

[1:24:47] need to make sure that we maintain that allegiance and.

[1:24:51] It could run right down to the neighborhood parks or

[1:24:53] the climate. Adaptation climate change program. We need to focus

[1:25:00] on, in my view, the lands that we already have

[1:25:04] within our urban area. Boundary, with one exception. And serviced

[1:25:12] because they're there and they're the easiest. And I know

[1:25:15] that we're working on that. We've got the proposal for

[1:25:18] reconsultation so that we can focus on how do we

[1:25:21] move forward to build more housing units. And the best

[1:25:24] way to do that is with land that's already serviced.

[1:25:28] Or easily serviced. I hope that. The official plan covers.

[1:25:34] That. The affordable housing units, I believe, need to be

[1:25:38] a priority, and I hope that. The provisions of this

[1:25:43] official plan will make sure that we've got emphasis on

[1:25:47] that and that small and medium sized single family and

[1:25:51] semi detached homes aren't lost in the shuffle. We're not

[1:25:55] getting a lot of small houses. Nobody's building 1000 or

[1:26:00] 1100 square foot homes. We may have some exception. We

[1:26:03] may have a developer who's prepared to do that type

[1:26:05] of thing. The smaller lots. That's not something that's new

[1:26:09] in town. If you go throughout this community, you will

[1:26:12] see areas where. At various periods of time. Smaller lots

[1:26:17] were what houses were built on. Just go to the

[1:26:19] west. End of Fort area, what we used to call

[1:26:22] the west end, with the wartime houses, small lots. Small

[1:26:27] houses, but a great opportunity for people to get into

[1:26:29] the housing market. So we need to encourage that, and

[1:26:32] we need to emphasize that. The other thing that's extremely

[1:26:37] important to me is whatever the vulnerabilities were. That existed

[1:26:41] in our previous official plan and made. Us susceptible to

[1:26:47] doing things that we didn't really want to do and

[1:26:51] didn't. Really fulfill our vision. We need to make sure

[1:26:54] that the vulnerabilities are removed so that this official plan

[1:26:57] is. As solid and is as tight to our vision

[1:27:01] for growth as possible. And then finally. My expectation is

[1:27:08] that when this is done, We will be able to

[1:27:13] ask developers and, in fact, insist that they build what

[1:27:17] we need and what we want. Not what they want

[1:27:22] because. That doesn't help us. And it does provide. I

[1:27:27] think we've got a good balance here. I'm very optimistic

[1:27:31] and pleased about the planning staff. I think our director

[1:27:35] of planning is top notch. I think that she's got

[1:27:38] a wonderful team working with her. I like all the

[1:27:42] planners. I think they do an excellent job. They're tuned

[1:27:48] in. And I know that it's hard for them to

[1:27:51] follow necessarily what it is that we want. They have

[1:27:53] to get into our heads, which is, believe me, scary

[1:27:56] to begin with. I'm. In my head and I find

[1:27:58] that scary. But these are expectations. This is our community.

[1:28:03] This is what the people of 40 are expecting, that

[1:28:06] we're going to be, as I like to say now,

[1:28:08] paying attention. We're paying attention to what's going down because.

[1:28:13] When the board is done, when the developer is done

[1:28:15] with a project, they're gone. Unless. They're one of the

[1:28:18] ones who have stayed in town, and we've got some

[1:28:20] excellent developers and builders, but some of them come in

[1:28:24] here. They're trying to make as much money as they

[1:28:28] possibly can, and I want to make sure that we're

[1:28:30] protected from that. So those are my expectations. And if

[1:28:34] there's anything that I've said this evening that staff is

[1:28:38] concerned about, that we don't. Have it covered. You've got

[1:28:42] two weeks to get it covered. Because when I vote

[1:28:45] to pass this official plan into bylaw, I want to

[1:28:48] make sure that my concerns have been addressed, and I'm

[1:28:51] confident that all of us feel the same way. Thank

[1:28:54] you, madam chair. Ms. Delaria, did you capture that? Okay.

[1:29:04] I think you can probably multiply that by seven. Are

[1:29:08] there? Any other counselors who want to ask questions or

[1:29:14] make comments. Okay? Councilor juvenile, are

[1:29:23] you okay? If no one else wanted to speak first.

[1:29:28] Just one quick comment. The Maricette. With reference to the

[1:29:33] great thing about having this new official plan in place

[1:29:35] is going to be defensible. No one can make the

[1:29:37] excuse that this was put into place so many years.

[1:29:40] Ago, before the population growth had changed or the provincial

[1:29:44] policy or planning statement had changed that's. The most exciting

[1:29:47] thing about this is that we finally have something to

[1:29:50] stand behind and say, we just passed this. We just

[1:29:52] did consult. Consultation. We have something to defend, and I

[1:29:56] think the mayor. Is very on point when he says,

[1:30:00] now we can't refer back to something that was existence

[1:30:03] 15 years ago and they could say it was different

[1:30:05] and it's changed. This is defensible, and that's why. It's

[1:30:09] privileged to be here. Knowing that this is going to

[1:30:12] guide the community. But I would like to move an

[1:30:15] amendment. More kind of a reference to the one exception.

[1:30:20] And I'll move it forward now. Whereas it is the

[1:30:23] intention of counsel to refrain from adding any lands for

[1:30:25] residential development into the urban area boundary, or UaB, through

[1:30:30] the adoption of the town of Ford area official plan

[1:30:34] and whereas there is one parcel of land identified as

[1:30:36] 1589 Nigh road adjacent to the existing UAb south of

[1:30:41] Nairo. Nairoad between Buffalo Road and Rose Hill Road, for

[1:30:45] which a plan of subdivision has been approved for rural

[1:30:48] residential lots without sanitary sewer service. And whereas development on

[1:30:52] these lands can be intensified and fully serviced and shall

[1:30:56] be developed in coordination in collaboration with the lands to

[1:30:59] the east at front on Buffalo Road. Now, therefore, be.

[1:31:03] It resolved that the lands identified as 1589 Nigh road

[1:31:07] shall be added to the urban area boundary of the

[1:31:10] new town of Ford area official plan. As designated growth

[1:31:13] area, provided that the land shall be developed in coordination

[1:31:17] in collaboration with the lands to the east that front

[1:31:19] on Buffalo Road and are identified as 059849 road and

[1:31:25] that both parcels will undergo a secondary plan process prior

[1:31:29] to development. Do I have a seconder, Councilor Lewis. Okay.

[1:31:37] So the amendment is on the floor for any further

[1:31:41] discussion or questions. There being no questions.

[1:31:54] I will call the motion. All those in favor? Opposed.

[1:32:01] That amendment to the motion carries. Thank you. Are there?

[1:32:08] Any other comments with respect to the report, as amended?

[1:32:13] Well. I just want to say very quickly, whether it's

[1:32:18] allowed or not again, Very much. This has been a

[1:32:21] privilege. And to come in at the tail end of

[1:32:25] it for much of it. And. It does speak to

[1:32:32] staff and the capacity of staff that. They have attempted

[1:32:38] to fully reflect. Council's direction and vision and to put

[1:32:44] themselves into our heads, which, as mayor said yes. Can

[1:32:48] be somewhat scary at times, particularly mine. So, that being

[1:32:53] said, I will call the motion as amended. All those

[1:33:00] in favor? And I'm going to put my hand up.

[1:33:05] Opposed. That is carried. Congratulations.

[1:33:15] I'm just excited about this. It's sort of nerd. Is

[1:33:21] pBbS 59 2025. The tree Planting initiative.

[1:33:32] Pardon? Councilor Dubano. Sorry, Councilor mcdermott. Sorry about that. I

[1:33:40] get over excited sometimes, councillor. McDermott moves. So that report.

[1:33:48] Is on the floor for discussion and questions. Councilor noise.

[1:33:54] Thank you, Council Christensen. First. I do want to appreciate

[1:33:59] that staff. Have started this tree planting program and stuff.

[1:34:06] But the problem didn't start in 2008. And. I'm not

[1:34:13] sure. What the plan is for the monies that were

[1:34:16] collected before 2008. There was in 2009. 2009, there was

[1:34:25] $119,000. In the tree bank. And I'm sure we did

[1:34:32] not get $119,000. In consent applications in 2008, so I'm

[1:34:39] not sure how we're going to do that. Because there's

[1:34:45] a lot of trees. A lot of payments that were

[1:34:47] received. I can tell you from my perspective, I know

[1:34:51] I paid $375 in 2007. When. I did a severance,

[1:34:58] and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who did

[1:35:00] a severance. I'm sure that I did not pay the

[1:35:01] $119,000. For the tree. So my one question is. Okay,

[1:35:08] we have work to do. To go before 2008. And

[1:35:12] I understand this. 2008. This is captured the consent. Applications

[1:35:16] and the fees paid from 2008 forward, and I can

[1:35:19] appreciate that. But we still have the problem of the

[1:35:22] $119,000 that was deposited for trees. The other thing, too.

[1:35:30] And I'm going to say this, make this really clear.

[1:35:35] One of my concerns is reimbursement. To the 14 people.

[1:35:42] Actually 13. I'm going to make it 13 at this

[1:35:43] point because I'm taking myself out of the equation. I

[1:35:47] will not accept any reimbursement for planting my tree. So

[1:35:50] I'm taking myself out of that. But I think I'm

[1:35:52] probably the only one who can really argue the point

[1:35:54] for that. So I will not accept any reimbursement. If

[1:35:57] council decides. To help the people plant their trees. So

[1:36:03] my concern is that, okay. We got a price list

[1:36:06] here, and I appreciate that. The prices are $500 and

[1:36:10] up. I can appreciate that, but I don't think the

[1:36:14] trees in 2008 were $500. I'm thinking that. We

[1:36:24] know from our staff. We're told that for the town

[1:36:27] to plant a tree, Or to have a tree planted.

[1:36:31] It's going to be $1,000. So. We have $1,000. For

[1:36:39] a tree to be planted by, and I know it's,

[1:36:42] I guess, Steven's. A lawn service is doing it. So

[1:36:46] when we drop off a tree at Mr. Smith's house,

[1:36:50] For him to plant. I think in all fairness, We

[1:36:55] should help Mr. Smith plant a tree. And I understand

[1:36:58] the liability. I'm not saying that we plant the tree.

[1:37:01] I'm not saying we hire a contractor to plant a

[1:37:03] tree. I'm saying we help Mr. Smith with a reimbursement.

[1:37:07] So if Mr. Smith plants a tree and he hires

[1:37:10] somebody to do it, and he gets a bill of

[1:37:13] let's. Say $50 or $100, whatever. That we reimburse Mr.

[1:37:17] Smith for that $100. The other thing is, not only

[1:37:20] should we be providing Mr. Smith with the tree? We

[1:37:24] should also be providing Mr. Smith with some mulch to

[1:37:27] plant the tree, which you need when you plant a

[1:37:29] tree. I think in all fairness, we need to do

[1:37:32] that. This problem has gone on for decades, and I

[1:37:39] really appreciate. We're trying to clean it. Up, but we're

[1:37:41] not there yet. And I'm also concerned that the people

[1:37:47] who, the 14 people. Oh, no. Okay, other responses oh,

[1:37:52] I have it all written down now. Or where did

[1:37:54] I put all my numbers. Of course. Now I can't

[1:37:57] find it. I counted them all too, so I can't

[1:38:02] find where I put them. I think there was. What

[1:38:07] about. 62 or something. People who were contacted that didn't.

[1:38:12] Oh, here it is. Found the numbers. There are 79

[1:38:17] people that the town contracted regard consent. That. No response.

[1:38:25] 34. The town is planted on the boulevard that we're

[1:38:28] also doing consent and there's. 14 on this list. That

[1:38:33] are being provided a tree and nothing else. So my

[1:38:37] understand is the only thing we did was send a

[1:38:41] letter to those 79 properties. To say if you wanted

[1:38:45] to let us know. And if you want a tree,

[1:38:48] you can plan. It. You plant it on your property.

[1:38:50] Good luck. Thank you. And we're all for greenery. I

[1:38:56] don't think we tried hard enough. Since it's taken us.

[1:39:02] In this occasion since 2008 to 2025. I think we

[1:39:07] do a little bit better than a letter. To the

[1:39:11] homeowner. To say, let us know. I think we need

[1:39:15] to work a little harder at getting a response than

[1:39:18] just a letter. The other thing, too, is that. Well,

[1:39:22] I did get this letter. Let's say if Mr. Smith

[1:39:24] got this letter, And he doesn't have the means to

[1:39:29] plant it. He's just unluck. Again. Mr. Smith paid for

[1:39:39] this tree. He paid for the tree to be planted.

[1:39:43] So I'm just thinking out of fairness, we should, number

[1:39:45] one, go back to these 79. People and say, okay.

[1:39:51] We're going to ask you one more time or a

[1:39:53] telephone call. We know the addresses. We know who owns

[1:39:57] these properties. Call them up and say, hey, we sent

[1:40:00] you a letter. You haven't responded. You're sure you don't

[1:40:03] want a tree? I mean, it's taken us, what, 20

[1:40:07] years? We can't put a little bit more effort into

[1:40:12] it, so I'm going to wait for others to comment

[1:40:15] on this, but I will be asking that we do

[1:40:18] look at reimbursing. The. 13 properties who are going to

[1:40:23] be planting a tree on their own property. We can

[1:40:26] set a ceiling on it. And the fact that now

[1:40:29] the trees are costing five hundred. Dollars to six hundred

[1:40:31] dollars. That's not the point. They didn't cost that in

[1:40:33] 2008. So that shouldn't be the determining factor. Thank you.

[1:40:40] Other comments, your worship? Yeah. Just to follow up on

[1:40:44] that, do we have some knowledge as to. The history

[1:40:49] of the funds that were being held for these trees.

[1:40:53] If there was $118,000 in 2009. Can we verify that?

[1:40:59] And b, would we? Know how that accumulated prior to

[1:41:05] then. Mr. Warrior. Probably Mr. Janssen or Mr. Jensen. May

[1:41:14] be able to confirm more directly on the records and

[1:41:18] the timing back from that time. That amount was the

[1:41:24] earliest thing that I could find in our systems. It

[1:41:27] doesn't relate. To any report or such. There could have

[1:41:31] been other. Factors where, depending on communication between departments, we

[1:41:39] could have had. Of collections that were being drawn from

[1:41:44] some operating accounts and not drawing down that deferred revenue.

[1:41:48] Not to bore you with accounting terminology, but. We were

[1:41:52] collecting, clearly. For some program before that. In terms of

[1:41:55] what we recognize in accounting as tree collections. But that

[1:42:01] could be part of the offset. Of course, at this

[1:42:03] point, that time frame does predate some of our records

[1:42:06] retention and so on. So I don't have a lot

[1:42:09] of information to go by. Madam chair. I'm just wondering.

[1:42:14] There would have been a policy. That. Required. A person

[1:42:21] getting a severance to pay money. There might have been

[1:42:24] other policies with respect to other things, so that there

[1:42:27] should be some record. That we would have of how

[1:42:29] this money, first of all, was required to be paid

[1:42:33] and then maybe we can figure out how much there

[1:42:35] was. We now know that there's 190,000. And that's got

[1:42:40] to be expended. I tend to disagree with. Councilor noise

[1:42:45] about. Sending a letter and then saying, hoham, we don't

[1:42:49] know if the letters were received. We just don't know

[1:42:52] that. So I agree that we could take a second

[1:42:56] run at some of. These letters that were sent out

[1:43:00] and asking for a response. And see whether that generates

[1:43:05] anything. I'm a little. Curious about. What the refund would

[1:43:13] be. On. A $500 payment. I understand what Councilor Manz

[1:43:21] is saying. That if the tree had been planted in

[1:43:23] 2000. And nine or ten or whenever. It wouldn't have

[1:43:28] cost $500. Understand that, but how do we calculate? What

[1:43:34] wouldn't be a refund. But how do we calculate how

[1:43:36] much we should compensate? The property owner, and perhaps she

[1:43:41] can clarify that, and then we can decide whether we

[1:43:44] want to do that. This is an information report, and

[1:43:47] so. What we're going to be doing is seeking additional

[1:43:50] information from staff. Thank you, council annoys. Thank you for

[1:43:56] that. And I know it's about as clear as mud.

[1:43:59] The way I'm looking at it is that we hear

[1:44:01] from staff. It's. Going to cost us $1,000 if we

[1:44:04] hire a contracted planetary. That's what we've been told. It's

[1:44:09] $1,000. So when you're looking at the prices you're looking

[1:44:11] at anywhere from. 489 to 602. That includes delivery charge

[1:44:18] in HST. So you have a window there. You have

[1:44:21] some money between, let's say, for the sake of argument,

[1:44:23] 650 to 1000. You have a window there. And I'm

[1:44:27] not saying you give people 300. Dollars or whatever, however

[1:44:31] that works. But I'm saying because I know who's going.

[1:44:35] To plant my tree, and I had two estimates. One

[1:44:38] was $100 and one was $30. So we're not talking

[1:44:42] about. And one was a landscaper and the other one

[1:44:47] used to be a landscaper, I guess. You could pick

[1:44:49] out which one is which. So we're not looking at

[1:44:52] the. I don't think the individuals would be looking at

[1:44:56] a huge amount, and we can set a ceiling on

[1:44:57] it. We can say, okay. $100 and you have to

[1:45:01] 100. We'll reimburse for someone to plant a tree up

[1:45:04] to $100 with a receipt. It's not like brother Johnny

[1:45:08] or my grandson's going to plan it. Have a receipt

[1:45:12] that it be planted. You, worship, okay? If somebody's paid

[1:45:20] $1,000 and they're being told that the town can't plant

[1:45:23] the tree. That $1,000 included the cost of the tree.

[1:45:27] The cost of living in the tree, the cost of

[1:45:29] planting the tree, and the cost of watering and maintaining

[1:45:32] the tree, so I don't have a problem if it's

[1:45:35] $500 for the replacement. Tree, including the delivery. I have

[1:45:41] a problem in refunding the excess up to whatever the

[1:45:45] person paid. If it was $1,000 and it's a $500

[1:45:48] cost, they should get the $500 back because they're going

[1:45:50] to be the ones who are responsible. They're planting it

[1:45:54] and they're the ones who are maintaining it, so I

[1:45:56] don't have a problem with that. The $500. To me.

[1:46:01] I'm not supportive of giving people money at this stage

[1:46:06] of the game. Where we are. If that's counter noises

[1:46:11] direction, I won't support that. But I would support a

[1:46:14] refund of any excess money for anybody, no matter how

[1:46:18] much they paid. If they paid 500. And they're giving

[1:46:20] a little treatment. It's only worth 200. They should get

[1:46:22] a refund. That's my view. Councilor noise. Okay, now I'm

[1:46:28] somewhat confused. Because these are the trees that the town

[1:46:33] is delivering. Okay, so the town has purchased a tree.

[1:46:37] They purchased the red maple. They delivered it to Mr.

[1:46:40] Smith's house. Now, Mr. Smith has to plant that red

[1:46:43] maple. I'm saying. The cost is incurred to Mr. Smith

[1:46:48] to plant it. So it's just the cost to plant

[1:46:50] the tree. Not to purchase the tree, but to plant

[1:46:53] the tree that I'm looking. That Mr. Smith should be

[1:46:55] reimbursed up to a certain ceiling. Now, I will say

[1:47:00] that all these trees. Regardless of whether the town plants

[1:47:04] them or not. Usually have a two year guarantee if

[1:47:08] we're paying full price. It's a two year guarantee. I've

[1:47:12] bought enough trees, and I know enough trees over the

[1:47:14] years that usually you have. A two year as long

[1:47:17] as you don't buy it on sale and as long

[1:47:19] as it's not a damaged tree. Usually it's reimbursed for

[1:47:22] $200. For two years. Council annoys. I think you're basically

[1:47:26] saying the same thing as the mayor. Did I thought

[1:47:29] he was talking about buying a tree. No. The trees.

[1:47:38] There's a reimbursement. Of the funding because there is. The

[1:47:44] installation. And then watering and mulching and everything else, but

[1:47:49] the tree is, say, $200 and. Anything above that. So

[1:47:55] they can go away and get their own contractor using

[1:47:58] their refund. Is that. Am I. Correct. Yeah, but I

[1:48:02] think the difference is that there won't be a refund

[1:48:04] except for the one property for the $500 deposits. But

[1:48:08] there are many people that have paid 1000 that are

[1:48:10] in this list and they would get a refund. Okay,

[1:48:14] so if I'm understanding you, for those people who have

[1:48:16] been waiting, For 15 years to get their tree and

[1:48:22] then only paid $500. They get nothing. The fact that

[1:48:26] they waited 15 years and that the town has taken

[1:48:29] their money and invested it and got credit for it,

[1:48:34] then they don't get it. That's not your position. That's

[1:48:38] my position. Okay. I think that terribly unfair we'll put

[1:48:41] it on the floor. I'm wondering if other councilors have

[1:48:44] any comments. Okay, so I'm going to. Put as an

[1:48:53] amendment. I guess at this point. Yeah. This is an

[1:48:58] information report. Okay when I amnd the report. To include

[1:49:04] reimbursement. For those people who. Are. Where the town is

[1:49:11] providing the tree but not providing the planting. That those

[1:49:16] individuals be reimbursed up to $100. To plant the tree

[1:49:22] upon receipt of money expended. If I could understand it,

[1:49:27] I could vote on it. Okay? So.

[1:49:39] The problem is this. There is no reimbursement if the

[1:49:42] money that was paid. Is less than the cost of

[1:49:46] the tree. There is no reimbursement number one. Number two

[1:49:50] if I paid far more than $100 or whatever the

[1:49:54] number is. I should get the full refund for any

[1:49:58] monies that I've paid in excess. Of the cost of

[1:50:00] that tree, so. I won't support. The amendment because. I

[1:50:07] think people should be completely reimbursed. Reimbursed, that is, money

[1:50:11] comes back to them that they've paid out. If there

[1:50:13] is no money to be reimbursed there's no reimbursement. Councilor

[1:50:20] dubano. Okay. Yes, councilor noise. Okay, I think the definition

[1:50:29] of reimbursement. Has to be my definition of reimbursement is

[1:50:35] that money that you've expended. I think the mayor's reimbursement

[1:50:39] is what money you've paid the town. I'm asking for

[1:50:42] reimbursement for the planning of the tree, not for the.

[1:50:45] Reimbursement of the tree. So again. It doesn't make.

[1:50:56] I'm thinking that. So this is an information report. Perhaps

[1:51:00] what we should do is give direction to staff. To

[1:51:04] actually. Take a look at. What? The option of addressing

[1:51:10] the problem where people. Have paid whatever amount. And. What

[1:51:18] the current cost of. Installing or purchasing a tree would

[1:51:23] be. And then what the. If they're going to put

[1:51:29] it. If the situation is that it's going on their

[1:51:33] property. We can't do it because of liability issues that.

[1:51:38] They get reimbursed the amount they've already paid to use

[1:51:42] against. Their installation of the tree and maintenance of the

[1:51:46] tree. Is that what you're speaking about, your worship? Well,

[1:51:54] I like your idea. I think it makes sense. Then

[1:51:57] we can get some clarity. The staff. Has been sitting

[1:51:59] here. They've heard councilor noise, they've heard me. So I

[1:52:03] think we could give them some direction to provide us

[1:52:06] with some recommendations as to how we would deal with

[1:52:09] this, and then when it comes back, If any of

[1:52:13] us don't agree with the recommendations, we can move at

[1:52:15] that point to be an amendment, so that would. Require

[1:52:19] councilor Noyz to agree to withdraw at this point in

[1:52:22] time or have someone move to defer it until staff

[1:52:25] can come back with some recommendations. Yeah. I'll withdraw it

[1:52:30] at this point. All right, then. I would add. The

[1:52:35] issue that you raised that sort of got lost as

[1:52:38] well was the re notification. Again. There may be either

[1:52:43] a phone call. And I don't know whether I would

[1:52:47] have to defer to staff about whether this is permissible,

[1:52:51] but having a notice on our website and in the

[1:52:55] Fort Erie observer that says we're doing this. For outstanding

[1:53:00] properties. We're actually wanting to provide trees to those who

[1:53:05] in the past. Paid for. And. You can get a

[1:53:10] list of addresses. I don't know whether that's permissible. Under

[1:53:15] FIPA, but whatever. MFPA. Yes. Counselor. Just one question. Was

[1:53:23] the notice sent to the home or the homeowner? If

[1:53:27] I receive in the mail. Something that was sent to

[1:53:30] the homeowner from ten years ago. It's going in the

[1:53:33] recycle pretty quick. So that may be one of our

[1:53:37] issues as well, that it's going to Mrs. Smith. At

[1:53:40] this address rather than the current homeowner who may still

[1:53:43] be entitled to that tree. Thank you. Yes. Council annoys.

[1:53:48] I think that we do need to reach out again.

[1:53:54] I know you can't put down people's addresses, but I

[1:53:57] do think we have to reach out. We do know

[1:53:59] who's living at that address. So the consent application, I

[1:54:03] understand, is geared to a property. It's not necessarily geared

[1:54:06] to an individual. And the mayor can correct me. If

[1:54:08] I'm wrong on that. So we know who's living at.

[1:54:12] Whatever. Avenue. So we can contact him. And I'm sure

[1:54:17] that because of the time that has passed, they may

[1:54:20] say. Oh, thank you. I didn't know. They may have

[1:54:24] no idea what that letter actually means. I know that

[1:54:27] I was sent a letter and it had nothing. Somebody

[1:54:32] else owns the property. But I was sent the letter.

[1:54:36] But anyway, I can clarify that. I'm going to talk

[1:54:39] to them. I agree that they're going to be looking

[1:54:43] into it more, but the other thing. What? Are we

[1:54:45] going to do about the before 2008? The money that

[1:54:50] was accepted and promised. A tree was promised to be

[1:54:55] planted, et cetera, before 2008. What I would like to

[1:55:00] know with the plan to capture that is going to

[1:55:03] be. So we can hopefully accept the information report, but

[1:55:08] give direction to staff. To provide some information with respect

[1:55:13] to that, always assuming that. There are records available. That

[1:55:21] would make it. A clearly accountable allocation of any funds,

[1:55:27] because I think that would be the piece. If the

[1:55:32] records. Have been. If there are no records remaining beyond

[1:55:38] a certain point. That may be difficult, but staff. We

[1:55:42] ask that staff do the best they can to provide

[1:55:46] us. With information and a plan. Something totally on this

[1:55:50] topic, but nothing that we discussed already. I think part

[1:55:53] of the problem I don't think anybody purposely took the

[1:55:56] money, put it in a tree bank? I don't. Think

[1:55:59] anybody did that on purpose and then forget about it.

[1:56:02] Oh, goody. We're not going to provide the tree. But

[1:56:03] look at all we have. $119,000 isn't? That wonderful? I

[1:56:07] think the problem was with the process. That when you

[1:56:11] created a lot when you do it, a consent application

[1:56:15] or. When you severed a piece of property, that's when

[1:56:19] the payment was received. And usually, I would think most

[1:56:25] people may not be wanting to plant the tree at

[1:56:28] that point. They understand they have to pay for it.

[1:56:32] But they may not want to plant the tree at

[1:56:34] that point. Because. The house is going to go. They

[1:56:39] don't know what the landscaping is going to go. So.

[1:56:43] They don't know. Again, this tree is supposed to be

[1:56:44] on the boulevard anyway, and I. Don't think the town

[1:56:46] wants to plant a tree in the boulevard. It's going

[1:56:48] to be torn down when they put the water and

[1:56:50] sewer in or the basement in. So I'm wondering if

[1:56:54] that process. Could be changed. Not that you don't collect

[1:56:58] the money upon consent, but somehow, because we have these

[1:57:01] wonderful it programs now that somehow. Something upon occupancy that.

[1:57:09] When the house is actually. Somebody's actually moving into the

[1:57:12] house. Knocking on their door? Not really. And saying, okay.

[1:57:19] We're going to plant a tree on the boulevard or

[1:57:20] we can't plant the tree on the boulevard, but you're

[1:57:23] entitled to. A tree. Here you go. But something that

[1:57:29] I know there's going to look at consent applications every

[1:57:31] two years, but. When somebody doesn't want to, it doesn't

[1:57:34] make sense to plant the tree at that time that

[1:57:36] there'd be some way that they can circle around and

[1:57:39] get it so. We're not here again in 15 years

[1:57:42] saying, well, I pay my fee in 2025, and I

[1:57:46] still don't have a tree. Yeah, and I think improvements

[1:57:51] to all of our systems. Are moving in that direction.

[1:57:57] So I think that would be. But that's something. Where

[1:58:00] again? We can sort of have these key points. You've

[1:58:05] got all the points, director. Yes, Madam Sher. I got

[1:58:07] all the information and. I'll speak with Mr. Jensen about

[1:58:10] the actual money that was collected. It's my guess, and

[1:58:14] I'm just speculating at this point, that that money could

[1:58:17] have been of the subdivisions when we would collect the

[1:58:20] money as part of the subdivision because consent. We have

[1:58:23] done our research. All the backlaws prior to 2008 was

[1:58:27] taken care of. And I'm just saying what the information

[1:58:31] we found, but we can definitely look back into. It.

[1:58:36] And get the information back to council. And if I

[1:58:39] can just one more point. The way the condition is

[1:58:41] worded. It says that it has to be planted within

[1:58:45] the municipal road alliance. If it cannot be. Then it

[1:58:47] will be planted somewhere else in the property. So that's

[1:58:51] the direction in our consent condition. But maybe if council

[1:58:54] wants to give a treat for the private property, then

[1:58:57] we may have to revise a condition as well. If

[1:59:00] I can just respond to that. I have no problem

[1:59:03] with it being a boulevard tree. If the town complaint.

[1:59:07] I have no problem with that. But if you can't

[1:59:09] plant the tree in the boulevard. You plant it someplace

[1:59:11] else in the urban area. I understand all that. But

[1:59:16] I will tell you that I paid $375 in 2007,

[1:59:20] and that wasn't part of a development. And I'm sure

[1:59:24] I'm not the only one who paid. So we are

[1:59:27] missing a number of them. It was a severance. So

[1:59:32] you are missing some. And you got to find them.

[1:59:39] Common question. Okay, yes. So with respect to the information

[1:59:46] report and taking note of the discussion and asking staff

[1:59:49] to come. Back with further information. Can. I get all

[1:59:59] those in favor of the recommendation? Opposed that is carried.

[2:00:06] The final planning report is pBBS 62,025. And this is

[2:00:15] the proposed climate change action plan. Do I have a

[2:00:22] mover, your worship? That report. Is now on the floor

[2:00:28] for discussion and comment. Councilor jubano.

[2:00:38] Yeah. Thank you very much, madam chair. I want to

[2:00:40] thank staff for bringing this forward. I think it's very

[2:00:43] important not just from the perspective of climate change, which

[2:00:46] obviously is a concern. Of most individuals, but also just

[2:00:51] from the perspective of good stewardship and environmentalism in our

[2:00:54] community. And our natural resources and ensuring. Ensuring that the

[2:01:00] infrastructure we put in place is going to be resilient

[2:01:02] and it's. Going to be last and that we're not

[2:01:05] going to be replacing it constantly. I think these are

[2:01:08] important conversations to have regardless of. Anything else that goes

[2:01:13] on. I did have one comment. And. I'd be in

[2:01:23] this if I didn't bring this up because I have

[2:01:24] a lot of concerns about this in general and where

[2:01:27] it has led. But. The actual action plan mentions. Exploring

[2:01:34] declaring a climate emergency for the town of Ford area

[2:01:37] and. I get the intent to bring awareness to the

[2:01:43] issue, but. I'm very concerned. Well, first of all, I

[2:01:49] don't think it belongs in a policy. I think this

[2:01:52] is something that needs to be discussed at a council

[2:01:54] level needs to be brought forward during the presentation. Earlier,

[2:01:57] there was discussion that this was a living document. So

[2:01:59] if it's a living document. It's something that's intended to

[2:02:02] be changed. This is something that can be put in

[2:02:04] there later if council decides. I'm a little concerned that

[2:02:07] it kind of binds. Us to a certain way without

[2:02:10] having a fulsome discussion first. But regardless of that, And

[2:02:16] maybe others feel differently, but. I'm personally concerned about what

[2:02:23] we define as an emergency. And the individuals who, when

[2:02:27] they hear that word. What happens now? I've always been

[2:02:32] of the opinion that if you hear the word emergency,

[2:02:36] Whether you're ducking and covering, whether you're getting in the

[2:02:39] house because the storm is coming. It means something that

[2:02:42] you have to do right away, because if you don't.

[2:02:44] You could get severely hurt or your property could be

[2:02:47] damaged or whatever else. And so when you hear about

[2:02:51] climate emergencies, you hear about homeless emergencies, you hear about

[2:02:55] eclipse emergencies. As well intended as they are. I think

[2:03:00] it misses the mark on what the actual need for

[2:03:03] what that term is. And I'm concerned that when we

[2:03:07] do this, when we have an actual life and death,

[2:03:10] situation. Like the Christmas blizzard or the Halloween storm. When

[2:03:17] people are constantly bombarded with everything as an emergency. Everything

[2:03:20] is an emergency. Everything is an emergency when an actual

[2:03:23] emergency comes up, something that could harm you if you

[2:03:26] are caught out on the road when it hits. It

[2:03:29] may lead to individuals tuning it out. And I know

[2:03:33] that there are a lot of good people, good, well

[2:03:35] intentioned individuals out there. Who care about these issues, who

[2:03:38] want to make them the forefront of the discussion, and

[2:03:42] they do. Warrant discussion? Absolutely. But. 650 other municipalities may

[2:03:48] have done it. I disagree with those 650 municipalities because.

[2:03:53] I don't think that that's the appropriate way to go

[2:03:56] to bring awareness to this issue. So I'm not in

[2:04:01] favor of having that in there. If council wants to

[2:04:03] have a debate and a discussion on declaring that emergency.

[2:04:05] That's fine. I think it'll be. A good debate, and

[2:04:08] we'll move forward with whatever that is. But I don't

[2:04:11] think any mention of this should be included in the

[2:04:13] policy until we've had that debate, and we've made a

[2:04:16] decision on whether we want to do this. So I'll

[2:04:20] leave my comments otherwise aside. I may come back after,

[2:04:26] but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks. Thank

[2:04:28] you. Madam chair. City wants to hear what I think,

[2:04:32] so I'll tell them. I think this is an excellent

[2:04:37] report. I know that a lot of work has been

[2:04:38] put into this, and I want to commend staff for

[2:04:40] all of the reports this evening. When we were talking

[2:04:44] about, I had a conversation earlier today with Ms. De

[2:04:47] Warri and mentioned to her that. Community services should be

[2:04:53] involved in some of these goals because they engage with

[2:04:56] the public. And so there's, I think, something that can

[2:04:59] be added to. The adaptation goals. Part of the report.

[2:05:06] I also gave her some grammar advice with respect to

[2:05:09] this, which I'm sure she'll pass on. I've got a

[2:05:15] couple of concerns. One has to do with. The evs.

[2:05:21] I know. We're doing a pilot project. I've got real

[2:05:24] concerns. About. Electric vehicles right now because we don't have

[2:05:28] the infrastructure in order. To really go whole hog on

[2:05:34] that. The other problem, and I would have thought, and

[2:05:37] it's, fascinat. Fascinated me. That. Governments and large manufacturers have

[2:05:44] committed to evs. Without the infrastructure, and I would have

[2:05:49] thought hybrids would have been something that they would have

[2:05:51] gone. To. While this transition has taken place, particularly since.

[2:05:56] There's so much pushback from the oil and gas industry

[2:06:00] that they're not going to make it easy. If they

[2:06:03] can avoid that. That was just an observation, and I

[2:06:06] think we should be alive to that. And also the

[2:06:09] fact that these technologies are changing. It could be hydrogen

[2:06:13] by the time we get around to that, so. I

[2:06:15] think we need to keep our eye on that. Think

[2:06:18] the pages. On the plan itself should be numbered. To

[2:06:27] get. To. And I think that there's some other things

[2:06:31] for shoreline resiliency. That would include more than. Creation of

[2:06:41] healthy fish habitats. I think. The number of claim. Claims

[2:06:48] for damage as a result of storms would be. It

[2:06:51] would be an example of another KPI but to get

[2:06:55] to what, councilor? Dubano was referencing in terms of. The.

[2:07:04] Climate emergency. It does say. In the table that we

[2:07:12] should explore declaring a climate emergency. The text of the

[2:07:16] report says the town of Fortiri should join this effort.

[2:07:21] And I'm concerned about that because. I'm not quite as

[2:07:25] strident as Councilor Dubanile on this, but. This has gone

[2:07:29] through the region, and the region has, I believe the

[2:07:32] region has declared a climate emergency. My big issue with

[2:07:36] that is that. There's no understanding of what the cost

[2:07:41] would be if we were to declare a climate. Emergency.

[2:07:44] And what does it mean? Is it really an emergency?

[2:07:47] If it's an emergency, then. We should be putting a

[2:07:50] lot of money into that. And the region has no

[2:07:53] idea of what it would cost. They've committed. To some

[2:07:58] level of. Carbon whatever by a certain year with no

[2:08:04] understanding of what that could cost. So I'm concerned about

[2:08:08] that. I'm thinking that it's a little extreme, and so

[2:08:11] I would probably support having that removed from the climate

[2:08:15] action plan. Although I think we need to appreciate the

[2:08:22] seriousness. Of what's happening with our climate and in a

[2:08:26] community like Fortiere, which is on a lake shore at

[2:08:31] the end of a lake, at the east end of

[2:08:33] a lake that suffers. A lot of southwest winds. We

[2:08:37] should be fully aware of this, so I don't want

[2:08:39] to downplay that and. I don't want to take away

[2:08:42] from this report whatsoever, because, by and large, I'm entirely

[2:08:47] in agreement with the comments and the work that's been

[2:08:49] done on this, but I would support having that portion

[2:08:53] removed if it comes forward. Councilor Lewis. Thank you, madam

[2:08:57] Chair. And I won't rehash some of the concerns raised

[2:09:01] by councilor Dubino and the mayor. But I do agree

[2:09:04] with the comments that have been made. One question I

[2:09:06] wanted to just ask is. Obviously with this plan, then

[2:09:12] there's the action that goes with it and. I remember

[2:09:17] maybe about a year before the election and taking the

[2:09:20] seat here, I think the mayor and I both had

[2:09:23] a conversation. With the EAC chair at a community event,

[2:09:27] and she had made a suggestion to us and that

[2:09:30] was why, when reports come before us for counsel, is

[2:09:34] there not a line item that talks? About the climate

[2:09:37] impact. And maybe some reports that come there is no

[2:09:43] impact to climate. But on the infrastructure side, I could

[2:09:46] see how that would certainly be a notable line item

[2:09:50] on many things, but also on the planning side too.

[2:09:55] With subdivisions and other things that come through the planning

[2:09:58] process. So I guess my question is, has there been

[2:10:01] any consideration to taking this one step further? And actually

[2:10:05] adding an additional line item to our reports that just

[2:10:08] shows how this report relates to climate change and does

[2:10:12] it have a negative, positive, or no impact on climate

[2:10:16] change? Yes, that's a great idea. We could definitely do

[2:10:21] that. Okay? And I'm not taking credit for it because

[2:10:26] I've already said where it came from, but I thought

[2:10:27] it was a good idea at the time, and months

[2:10:30] have turned into years. But I think now is maybe

[2:10:32] the time to take that and put that into action,

[2:10:35] but. Those were my only. Comments. Counselor. Councillor

[2:10:45] flag you had? Yeah, just a quick question. Maybe through

[2:10:48] you, madam chair to Mr. Frost. This references. Our vehicle

[2:10:55] program for battery, but are we still running two stroke

[2:10:57] and four stroke? Small engines in the parks and so

[2:11:02] forth. And is there movement afoot to replace those with

[2:11:06] battery operated. Madam chair Permeyer saying we're still just running

[2:11:10] the two stroke and four stroke. We can definitely look

[2:11:14] into replacing as things come up for renewal. If the

[2:11:16] battery is an option the problem when you start to

[2:11:19] run battery powered handheld devices, small. Maintenance devices like the

[2:11:24] leaf blowers, the weed whackers, string trimmers, whatever you may.

[2:11:27] The runtime of those is typically 30, 40, 60 minutes,

[2:11:32] and we'd have to be constantly having batteries. Charging, having

[2:11:36] places to charge them, swapping them out. So we'll look

[2:11:39] into it, but. Maybe a matter of efficiency in the

[2:11:41] work we do when people are using them for their

[2:11:44] eight hour shifts at a time, but we can definitely

[2:11:47] look into it. I understand there's certainly large. Companies that

[2:11:52] have found efficiencies with those, and they've been able to

[2:11:56] utilize. The outlets in the trucks and so forth to

[2:12:00] charge the battery. So just something for us to look

[2:12:02] at. Councillor Dubano. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am

[2:12:11] going to move an amendment related to section seven on

[2:12:15] exploring the climate emergency, but I just want to make

[2:12:16] one quick comment first. Council rows raised a really good

[2:12:20] point about climate impact. And the reports. And I remember,

[2:12:23] I think it was during my first term, we actually

[2:12:25] added accessibility. For Ontario with disabilities impacts to our reports,

[2:12:29] which I think was a really good idea at the

[2:12:31] time. To see whether. Exactly like councilor Lewis said, whether

[2:12:33] it's a positive impact. Negative impact. Whether it has any

[2:12:36] impact at all, and I would be fully supportive of

[2:12:39] that. Because. It's important to have that information. Same as

[2:12:44] the Aoda impact, climate impact, I think that's a great

[2:12:46] idea. I'm glad to hear. Second time tonight. Ms. De

[2:12:52] la actually is in favor of that, putting that forward.

[2:12:58] So I think that's good. But, madam Chair, I am

[2:13:00] going to move that. We remove item seven. Explore declaring

[2:13:05] a climate emergency for the town of Fort Erie and

[2:13:07] references to it. And if I may speak to that

[2:13:10] very briefly. I think we should bring it forward to

[2:13:13] council and have a debate and a discussion about it.

[2:13:16] I just don't think it should be in here at

[2:13:18] this time until we have done. That. And I've made

[2:13:21] my feelings clear, but I think it's something worthy of

[2:13:24] a debate. And that discussion to see where we land.

[2:13:29] I just think if this is a living document, it's

[2:13:31] something we can add back later. If we make that

[2:13:33] decision. So that's why I'm moving this. Are there any

[2:13:37] comments? Right, then I will call the question with respect

[2:13:43] to the amendment councilor Dubano just made. All those in

[2:13:47] favor? All those opposed, that is carried. Are there any

[2:13:54] further comments on this item? Then I will call the

[2:13:59] question. All those in favor of the report, as amended.

[2:14:05] All those opposed? Harry. So that brings the number of

[2:14:10] reports under discussion tonight to an end. Now, are there

[2:14:14] any new business inquiries. Councilor Lewis. Thank you, madam chair.

[2:14:20] Just have one question, and I just want to preface

[2:14:23] it. With saying crystal beach has experienced tremendous growth, both

[2:14:28] in the business district as well as. In the surrounding

[2:14:32] neighborhoods. And we've had the completion of the Crystal beach

[2:14:35] neighborhood plan number one. The secondary plan, the design charts.

[2:14:41] The Bay beach master plan, the cause study report. I

[2:14:43] mean, there's no doubt that crystal beach has been well

[2:14:46] studied, but I'm just wondering if the director of planning

[2:14:49] can maybe. Tell us what works being done to look

[2:14:52] into establishing a cip. Within the crystal beach area and

[2:14:57] maybe what else is being done on the Cips throughout

[2:15:00] town. Because in Crystal beach, we do have a secondary

[2:15:04] neighborhood plan now, as well as a full fledged Bia,

[2:15:08] and I hope Jonathan's listening. But it is my hope

[2:15:11] that. This budget we do look at. Putting in place

[2:15:16] a Cip for Crystal beach. There's been a tremendous amount

[2:15:19] of work. Done. Phil Smith is someone who comes to

[2:15:22] mind. Who? The mayor and I have spoke quite a

[2:15:24] bit about the amount of work that he has done

[2:15:26] without a cip. But I think we've reached the point

[2:15:30] personally. I think we're ready for it, but maybe the

[2:15:34] director can provide some clarity. Madam Shea. Currently, we are

[2:15:39] reviewing all the cips as the town currently has, and

[2:15:42] then once we have done that, completed that review, then

[2:15:46] we would be looking into adding more cips that is

[2:15:50] for crystal beach. But right now we are not there

[2:15:53] yet. We are reviewing it, but definitely we would be

[2:15:55] looking that in future. And just follow up, would we

[2:16:00] be looking at information coming back to council maybe in

[2:16:02] the fall? With some options or where we're currently at.

[2:16:08] Madam JB can definitely bring a report and provide an

[2:16:11] update. What has been done with the current review and

[2:16:14] then take guidance from council about the future ones. Perfect.

[2:16:17] Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other new business?

[2:16:22] So we are now at the business status report. Are

[2:16:25] there any questions about business status report? There being none.

[2:16:32] I declare that this meeting of the planning business. Plan.

[2:16:36] Planning, building and bylaw services subcommittee is adjourned. And I

[2:16:44] turn the chair back to you, your worship. It was

[2:16:47] a long meeting. That takes us to infrastructure services. And

[2:16:51] Councilor Lewis, I presume that you can move this. Along.

[2:16:54] Yeah. We have a full agenda tonight. Under infrastructure services,

[2:16:58] which is now in session, we have no presentations or

[2:17:01] delegations. There are no reports on the agenda tonight. Are

[2:17:06] there any new business? Or inquiries from members. Your worship.

[2:17:10] Yeah, sure. I just had an inquiry with respect to

[2:17:13] how we're making out. With. The work. At Erie Beach,

[2:17:19] Waverley beach, the promenade. We'd given some guidelines and timelines

[2:17:25] with respect to that. And I think we've had some

[2:17:28] trees fall down. Trees recently, too, so, acting director Frost.

[2:17:32] The design is underway with our consultant. They are working

[2:17:35] towards it. There was a few hiccups. I think they

[2:17:38] had to sort out with some of the past archaeological

[2:17:40] studies that were done. For it, but they are well

[2:17:42] advancing through the design, and we have weekly check ins

[2:17:44] with them. So it is moving, albeit not as fast

[2:17:47] as hoped. But we are definitely. Pushing it forward, and

[2:17:51] our consultant has advised they have a bit of extra

[2:17:53] capacity now to dedicate. More time to it as well.

[2:17:57] Good because time is marching on. Anything further? No. Councilor

[2:18:03] noise. Yes. I just want an update on the Black

[2:18:06] Creek road, culvert. That was supposed to happen. It was

[2:18:12] kind of, like, red flagged, I think, four or five

[2:18:14] years ago that it had to be done soon. And

[2:18:18] we tried and. We had the wrong design and it

[2:18:22] was going to go back to the design. And it's

[2:18:25] been crickets ever since. So I'm just wondering. Where that

[2:18:30] Lock Creek Road culvert replacement is. Acting director Frost through

[2:18:34] you, chair. From my understanding, this culvert was previously not

[2:18:38] identified as a navigable waterway, but it currently is. So

[2:18:41] our consultant had gone back to the drawing board to

[2:18:43] switch from their dual barrel culvert design back to a

[2:18:47] single culvert design. We have been pushing the consultant, albeit

[2:18:50] we haven't seen as much response as we'd hope we

[2:18:53] have. A bit of staffing resourcing issues, just in terms

[2:18:56] of availability of staff as well. To push it forward,

[2:18:58] but it is moving, albeit again, slower than needed. But

[2:19:02] we will follow up. The consultant and say we need

[2:19:04] a push to get this one finished off, and you

[2:19:07] could provide. An update to council on where that's at.

[2:19:11] An update can be provided. Yes. Anything further, council? Yeah.

[2:19:16] Again. It's a safety issue. It's one of these things,

[2:19:19] four or five years. Ago was looking like if we

[2:19:21] didn't replace it. The road was going to collapse in

[2:19:24] it. That seems to no longer. Be a concern. It's

[2:19:28] been four or five years, so I'm just wanting to.

[2:19:30] Make sure that we don't lose this. Thank you. Thank

[2:19:33] you. Any other questions or comments? From council seeing none.

[2:19:39] The business status report is attached. Any questions or comments

[2:19:43] with that document? Come on, somebody. Seeing none. I'll turn

[2:19:51] the chair back over to you. Your worship. Get paid

[2:19:54] by the minute or. What's the deal? Thanks very much,

[2:19:57] Councilor Lewis. That takes us to corporating community services. Councilor

[2:20:00] flag. Thank you, worship. Corporate community services in session. We

[2:20:04] don't have any presentation or delegations. Tonight. But we do

[2:20:07] have one report. On the agenda seven. 2025. Thank you,

[2:20:15] your worship. Any questions on that? Council. It's just about

[2:20:24] the land committee minutes that talks about. Zero. Townline Road.

[2:20:31] Zero Townline Road and the private pumping station and the

[2:20:34] encroachment. I know my understanding. We're accepting this for information

[2:20:38] purposes only. We're not. There's an annotation in the minutes

[2:20:45] of following the meetings that were advised that the encroachment

[2:20:48] agreement is no longer required as the owners are seeking

[2:20:51] an alternative method. Of water servicing approval, so. They are

[2:20:56] just receiving this report for information. Okay. I don't think

[2:21:00] I got that yet. Okay, that's fine. It's in the

[2:21:05] actual minutes. Of. The. At the bottom of. Number one

[2:21:12] on page two. Any other questions? No. Perfect. Saying? None.

[2:21:22] All those in favor? Anything underneath this? Business. Business status

[2:21:31] report. Will close this. Your worship, back to you. Thank

[2:21:35] you very much, Councilor flag. And that's how it's done.

[2:21:41] Okay. There's nothing to really close section about, nothing to

[2:21:47] go back into open session about scheduling. Meetings. Councilor Lewis.

[2:21:53] Wednesday of this week, there is a crystal beach bia

[2:21:57] meeting at the Crystal Ridge Library at 06:00 p.m. And

[2:22:03] that would be. On the 13th. That would be the

[2:22:07] 13th. Any others, councilor? Dubai? Yes, you, worship the museum.

[2:22:11] And cultural heritage advisory committee has a meeting on Wednesday.

[2:22:17] August 20 at 01:00 p.m. looks like it'll be here

[2:22:20] in town hall and conference room one. Thank you. Any

[2:22:23] others? Councilor noise? The SPCA meeting is on Thursday, August

[2:22:29] 28 at 515, and it's going to be at beach

[2:22:33] Comers. Any other meetings. I should say that councilor Lewis

[2:22:37] and I will be at the association municipalities. Of Ontario

[2:22:40] conference next week. The festivities there start on the Sunday

[2:22:46] and they go through until the Wednesday. We have six

[2:22:49] or seven meetings with ministers or parliamentary assistants and other

[2:22:54] organizations, so it should be a very busy few. Days.

[2:22:59] Councilor Duba. Now, would you like to move an adjournment?

[2:23:01] I would. You? Worship. I'd like to move that council

[2:23:03] and committee adjourn at 08:19 p.m. this evening. All those

[2:23:06] in favor? That is unanimous. Thank you.

PBBS-58-2025 - Council-in-Committee

Agenda

Transcript