[0:12] Evening everyone, it's 706. I will call our Meaning Back
[0:17] to Order. For Landman County, or pardon me, Lambton Shores
[0:21] Council for August 11th. And our first item of business
[0:29] is Declaration of Pecuniary Interest, and I have declared for
[0:35] our Corner Lions sign. Item 10. 7 on the Agenda.
[0:42] We did have a closed session. And that's the clerk
[0:45] want to have an update on that. Thank you very
[0:51] much, your worship. We have two recommendations coming out of
[0:53] Closed Session. I'll read it out, mover and seconder for
[0:57] each of them. You mind if I do that for
[0:59] you? The first one that the following recipients be notified
[1:03] and invited to the volunteer awards banquet on September 2026.
[1:07] Doris Atchison, Civic Award, Melissa Van Wieren, Civic Award, Rick
[1:12] and Betty Jones, Heritage Award, Kelly Michaels, Michalis, Environment Award,
[1:19] Randy Shaw, Sports and Recreation Award, Maxine Soprina, Good Neighbor
[1:23] Award Ward 3. Jim and Grace Decker, Good Neighbor Award,
[1:27] Ward 3, Terry Pickles, Good Neighbor Award, Ward 3, LC
[1:31] Van Bree, Good Neighbor Award, Ward 4, Forest Firefighters Association
[1:36] 1888, Ward 5. Arcona 150 Celebrations Committee Outstanding Community Group,
[1:45] Grand Ben Can Day Committee Arts and Cultural Award, Grand
[1:48] Ben Community Health Center Wellness Team, Good Neighbor Award, North
[1:51] Lampton Community Health Center, Low Impact Exercise Team, Good Neighbor
[1:55] Award. Need to move for a seconder for that, thank
[2:03] you. Deputy Mayor Sageman Councilor Bailey. All in favor. Thank
[2:09] you. One other recommendation coming out of Closed Session that
[2:17] the Marin Clerk be authorized to execute the documents required
[2:20] to complete the purchase of approximately 1. 41 hectares from
[2:24] the property located at 8529 Townsend Line Arcona, and that
[2:29] the total purchase price for the property shall not exceed
[2:31] 100, 000 dollars be funded from the land improvements reserve.
[2:37] Nita Movern Sector for that as well. By Councillor Dodge.
[2:41] Second by Council MGR. Any questions, all in favor. Thank
[2:47] you. Next is Z - Pro of the Agenda. By
[2:55] Councillor Scott. 2 McConnell Ferguson. All in favor. Thank you.
[3:02] We have seven minutes from July 14th. I move her
[3:06] in a secondary, please. Councilor Dodge. Councillor Bailey. Any questions
[3:12] on those minutes. All in favor. Thank you. Councillor reports.
[3:21] Councillor Scott. I have three things to announce. We have
[3:27] a stitches class. With the Port Frank Sr., and it's
[3:32] basically the first Tuesday and today would have been the
[3:36] second Tuesday. And they're held from one to three. The
[3:41] idea is to bring seniors together and anybody that Knits
[3:45] crochets and has unfinished projects in a basket. In the
[3:50] basement that needs to be done and they can accomplish
[3:53] by getting them done. Our optimist club of a soluble
[3:57] port Franks has a 50 - 50 online raffle in
[4:01] the ensemble port Frank's Optimus. Has a Cornfest on Saturday,
[4:06] August the 22nd. Four to 7 p. m. There is
[4:09] no cost donations are gratefully acceptable. Councillor Wilcox. Thank you,
[4:17] your worship. Just wanted to give Council some follow -
[4:20] up on the Civic Holiday Weekend in Thetford. It was
[4:23] Thetford Lumberjack days. So there was outdoor dance on Friday
[4:28] evening, the car show and the ball Saturday. Unfortunately, the
[4:32] ball Sunday got rained out for the finals, but it
[4:35] was very well attended. It was a good weekend. It
[4:38] was extremely hot at the car show Saturday. I don't
[4:40] know why, it just was. And then August 7th, the
[4:44] steam thrashers and Forest had the opportunity to go there.
[4:48] And it was packed. I was really pleased with the
[4:52] size of the crowd how happy the crowd was, how
[4:54] mixed the crowd was. And it was a good show.
[4:56] So kudos to those two community events. This past weekend
[5:05] we had two businesses open that were both recipients of
[5:08] our community improvement program monies. And so it was the
[5:13] Dizzy Bird Breakfast Cafe and the third place, a bar.
[5:19] And these are two ventures run by the Karamuto's family.
[5:26] And so there's some welcome employment. And apparently even before
[5:30] they had our official opening, they were busy. So they're
[5:33] quite happy. It's a good sign. Our community improvement program
[5:36] is working. They're added employment, added investment. And an opportunity
[5:42] to upgrade some of our assets in the broader community.
[5:47] So Ferguson. Steam Thresher weekend in Forest on the Friday
[5:52] Night Tractor Pool. They said there was over 1, 200
[5:55] people to watch the tractor poll, which was amazing turnout.
[5:59] They had groups, I guess, very professional groups. I don't
[6:02] know what's about tractor bowling, but it was very good
[6:04] groups. And it was very well received. And people thought
[6:07] the event went very well considering we had four inches
[6:10] of rain that morning.
[6:20] Now, we have two statutory public meetings tonight. If I
[6:25] would ask counsel to expose the public meeting at 712
[6:30] and Republic meeting Councillor Scott, Councillor Dodge. All in favor.
[6:38] Thank you. First one is for zoning by - law.
[6:44] Amendment for Sifton Properties. I'll turn over to our director.
[6:50] Thank you very much, your worship. The purpose of this
[6:54] meeting is to give counsel in the public an opportunity
[6:57] to hear all interested persons with respect to his Zoning
[7:00] Byla Men application by Sift in Properties Limited. And for
[7:04] Council to consider the proposal. The applicant is requesting an
[7:08] amendment to the Zoning Bylaw as it affects 5188 Cedar
[7:12] Point line and 6188 Lakeshore Road. The Applicants proposed to
[7:17] rezone portions of the properties to open space - 1
[7:21] for stormwater management facilities and parklands, open space - 2
[7:26] for a wastewater treatment plant and future development. The applicant
[7:30] also proposes to rezone the Westerly portions of the properties
[7:34] to low and medium density residential zones. It is the
[7:37] intent of the applicant to develop a plan of subdivision
[7:40] with a mix of hosing options ranging from single detached
[7:43] dwellings to townhouses, multiple dwellings and retirement homes. An application
[7:49] for draft of pluvival level of a plan of subdivision
[7:51] has also been submitted, but there's no requirement for a
[7:54] public meeting. This public meeting is solely for the rezoning
[7:58] application. The order procedure for the public meeting will be
[8:02] as follows. The applicant or their agent will present their
[8:05] proposal. I will then provide any comments received from circulated
[8:09] agencies in the public that have not been included in
[8:12] the staff report. The public will be asked for their
[8:15] comments and questions. If you come to the microphone, please
[8:18] ensure that you state your name and address before you
[8:20] comment. And the applicant may respond to any questions. Then
[8:24] Council will have the opportunity to ask questions of the
[8:26] applicant. The public meeting for this application will then be
[8:30] closed. The planner will provide their staff report later in
[8:34] the meeting at Agenda Item 10. 4. The public is
[8:37] advised that comments expressed and written material presented are a
[8:41] matter of public record for full disclosure. Thank you, your
[8:44] workshop. Thank you. So is the Approgant or their agent
[8:49] here to speak to this proposal?
[9:00] Spaden is it? Am I good? Alright. Thank you. And
[9:03] through your worship. Good evening, members of Council, staff, and
[9:07] members of the public. My name is Taylor Whitney. I'm
[9:10] a project manager with Sifton Properties Limited. Siftin is the
[9:13] applicant of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning by
[9:16] - law - amendment applications and makeup of the ownership
[9:19] group of the land subject to these applications. I'm joined
[9:22] today by Jeff Paul Managing Principal with Stantek. I would
[9:26] like to begin first by thinking Municipal and County staff,
[9:30] namely Ken and Will for their work on this file
[9:33] to date. As some of you may know, this application
[9:36] is many years in the making, so we're very pleased
[9:39] to be here tonight and are appreciative of staff's collaboration
[9:43] to date. I would like to take this opportunity to
[9:47] respond to some of the issues identified in the information
[9:50] report prepared by staff and included as item 10. 4
[9:54] on this evening's agenda. With regards to Zoning, staff have
[9:59] provided several recommendations for the proposed zoning regulations. We are
[10:03] satisfied with the majority of these recommendations and have provided
[10:07] our commentary in writing to staff directly. Regarding natural heritage,
[10:11] archaeology and traffic, we do agree with staff's recommendations at
[10:16] any further matters can be adjusted through the draft conditions
[10:18] of approval. Regarding Parkland, we do recognize staff's concerns with
[10:24] narrow strips of Parkland. We agree with their recommendation to
[10:28] eliminate blocks 48 to 51 and consolidate those areas with
[10:32] BOX 41 and 42. However, it is our opinion that
[10:35] the remaining Parkland, as proposed, is appropriate as there is
[10:39] a larger central area, as well as a 20 meter
[10:42] wide relative north - south block that can be programmed
[10:45] to meet community needs. I would also like to know
[10:49] that it is our intention to apply for a plan
[10:52] of condominium in the future, applying to the lands along
[10:55] the shoreline adjacent to the subject lens to accommodate a
[10:59] private beach area for residents in order to provide additional
[11:02] functional amenity space. Those beach lands are not subject to
[11:06] this application, so it's more of a side note, but
[11:09] we had received preliminary comments from staff regarding concerns for
[11:13] maintenance of the beach lands. So we just wanted to
[11:15] provide reassurance that we don't intend for staff to have
[11:19] to maintain those lands, and they can be utilized as
[11:22] additional recreational amenity space for future residents subject to a
[11:26] future planning application. With that being said, it is our
[11:30] opinion that the proposed park space is appropriate appropriate. We
[11:33] would suggest that a draft condition of approval be that
[11:36] a landscape plan which demonstrates how the parkland space can
[11:40] be functionally programmed be provided to the satisfaction of the
[11:43] municipality. Regarding stormwater management, we do recognize the municipalities'concerns, and
[11:49] we've passed those along to our engineering team. So we
[11:51] look forward to continue discussions prior to the September Council
[11:55] meeting to work through those issues. We have no concerns
[11:58] with establishing appropriate easements for stormwater infrastructure and addressing external
[12:02] drainage on the Easterly lands, which our own by Sifton.
[12:05] It's our opinion that these items can be addressed appropriately
[12:08] through draft conditions to the satisfaction of the municipality and
[12:11] the SCRCA. We have taken a preliminary review of the
[12:16] draft plan conditions proposed by the SCRCA and their correspondence
[12:20] dated August 10th, 2026 with regards to stormwater and erosion.
[12:24] And at this time, we're satisfied with their conditions as
[12:26] proposed, and we will provide a fullsome response to their
[12:28] comments prior to the Council Meeting Dayton. Regarding wastewater, we
[12:33] do respectfully disagree with the municipality's position that they have
[12:37] not been sufficiently involved in the evaluation process of a
[12:40] wastewater treatment solution. In partnership with Stantec, we've been held
[12:45] to an extensive consultation process during lead development of a
[12:49] privately initiated environmental assessment to evaluate potential wastewater strategies. The
[12:54] municipality was included on the study contact list and was
[12:57] notified of all project milestones and was invited to participate
[13:01] in consultation events. Notably, two in - person information sessions
[13:06] were held in the fall of 2024 and 2025, and
[13:10] no comments were received at or following these sessions. There
[13:14] have been many opportunities over the past two and a
[13:17] half years throughout the development of the Environmental Assessment for
[13:19] the municipality to comments and engage. We have diligently adhered
[13:23] to all consultation protocols as required by the province and
[13:26] the planning act. Jeff Paul from Standek is available to
[13:30] speak to the draft environmental assessment process and potentially wastewater
[13:33] strategies if there are specific questions from council. There are
[13:37] several potential wastewater solutions that are being explored. However, it
[13:41] is our ultimate opinion that it is not necessary to
[13:44] determine the final wastewater strategy prior to approval of the
[13:47] draft plan of subdivision. It's not reasonable to expect the
[13:51] applicant to continue to invest significant time and cost to
[13:56] develop a strategy prior to any assurance that development can
[13:59] actually occur. Agroph condition of approval can be included which
[14:03] addresses wastewater and ensures that the ultimate strategy is Julie
[14:06] Satisfaction of the municipality. We look forward to continue discussions
[14:10] with staff as we work collaboratively to prepare draft conditions
[14:14] of approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm
[14:17] happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[14:23] Is there any course. Thank you your worship. Just late
[14:30] this afternoon we received a final piece or one piece
[14:32] of correspondence from the St. Clair conservation authority with respect
[14:37] to the Zoning By - Law Amendment, which is the
[14:40] only thing I'll speak to. They have lots of comments.
[14:43] But with respect to the zoning by - law amendment,
[14:47] the St. Clair region has no concerns with the proposed
[14:50] zoning bylaw amendment provided the Environmental Protection EPH Zone remains
[14:54] on the subject property. The correspondence will be included in
[14:57] the staff report at the September Council meeting. Thank you.
[15:04] Is there any questions from Council.
[15:17] This is a public meeting. If you wish to speak
[15:19] at the application, please come to the microphone, state your
[15:23] name in your address. And ask your questions of the
[15:27] planner or their engineering technique.
[15:46] Good evening, Mayor. Members Council. These here today in the
[15:50] chamber. My name's Hanson, I'm from Proof Line. For years
[15:55] now, this project has been looking to go forward on
[15:59] the Cedar Point line and Lakeshore Road. But throughout those
[16:05] proximally 10 years, we've seen that Sifton continues to want
[16:10] to have a self - contained, self - contained package
[16:15] plant for sewage wastewater. Now these types of units are
[16:21] rare. You may find them in, you may find them
[16:26] in Work Camps in Northern Alberta. And the oil sand.
[16:30] You find them along Jane's Bay. Places like Anna Waschits
[16:35] and Coatin and Fort Albany. These places have had difficulty
[16:40] with these types of sequence batch, or SBR systems. I
[16:49] don't understand in today's planning justification report. The Planning Justification
[16:58] Report. I hope you had an opportunity read the entire
[17:02] thing. I didn't. Because in the justification for environment and
[17:10] the justification for fiscal. Both of those appendages are missing.
[17:15] They're not there. The two things I want to know
[17:17] about is how at harms the environment and how it's
[17:21] fiscally responsible. Now just the why I'm asking about sitting
[17:29] on this plant. If a pipeline, if a pipeline went
[17:34] through, jump sat at home. He had the power of
[17:38] AI to help a Wine OSTANTEC and Dylan. You know,
[17:41] they do it all. But I could put in that
[17:44] pipeline with all the connecting, bedding and that for under
[17:47] 10 million dollars for the pipeline. But to put in
[17:51] a new era batch plant, it's over 12 million dollars.
[17:57] Also the area that they have for the sewage treatment
[18:03] plant. It's an opportunity for them to have more places
[18:07] to build. I'm so in favor of this development. I'd
[18:12] like to see it go through. But I'd like to
[18:14] see that certain Dylan Stantac get their acts together and
[18:19] put the pipeline into the sewage treatment plant and forest.
[18:23] Because as I say, they're going to dribble it into
[18:26] Lake Urin through James Creek. I think our friends down
[18:29] in Plimpton and Down River, they're not going to like
[18:32] that. I get confused with my nitrites and my night
[18:37] trait. 15 years ago in Grand Bandar area. It was
[18:41] a big dilemma. It caused lots of problems. And I
[18:46] don't want to see that again. So I really want
[18:51] them to consider just put the pipeline in. Forget about
[18:55] this batch plant. And let's get it done. Thank you.
[19:08] What else.
[19:23] There we go. You speak to. It. Speak? Yeah. Okay.
[19:26] Thank you. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. Thank you. I'm Jeff Paul
[19:30] with Stantek. I thought I just give a little bit
[19:32] of context for the wastewater surfacing solution. And some of
[19:35] the comments that were made there. So, um, you know,
[19:38] I guess to give some framework for, uh, for the
[19:43] comments is that the proposed development has suffers from the
[19:49] fact that it is quite some distance from the Forest
[19:52] treatment plant. So when we looked at the, when we
[19:56] completed the Class EA process and we went through the
[19:59] analysis of alternatives, we had to look at, is it
[20:03] more cost effective and what are the impacts of providing
[20:06] an on - site wastewater treatment solution. Austin impact that
[20:11] versus. See this in many places throughout Southwestern Ontario where
[20:18] we study these sorts of things. And usually, as you
[20:20] can appreciate when a development area, when a community is
[20:24] close to an existing treatment plan is much more cost
[20:27] effective to send those flows to that existing treatment, you
[20:30] have an existing treatment facility much more effective, a much
[20:34] more cost effective to use that facility. And as you
[20:36] get more distance, that equation, that economic start to make
[20:41] less sense. We're sort of on the cusp here. We're
[20:45] about 10 kilometers away from the Forest treatment plant. And
[20:48] that's about the tipping point that we see with, uh,
[20:50] with facilities of this nature where it becomes less cost
[20:54] effective to send those flows to the existing treatment plant.
[20:58] This particular development, uh, also suffers from the fact that
[21:02] it will probably have a very low growth rate. So
[21:05] some of the considerations that we put forward in the
[21:07] Class EA was looking at, can the solution be phased?
[21:12] And can the cost be spread over time? Unfortunately, looking
[21:15] at a pipeline, you have to put all the costs
[21:18] in up front. So you have to put all the
[21:20] capital in on day one versus a wastewater solution, which
[21:24] you can phase. So the Class EA is still being
[21:27] completed. That will be given to the municipality for comment.
[21:30] But I just want to give a little bit of
[21:31] context for how we came to the conclusion that we
[21:35] did, which was to recommend an onsite wastewater treatment facility.
[21:40] And I'm here for any questions. If the Council has
[21:42] any. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions on that. Could
[21:50] Councillor Woodcocks? Uh, just through you, your worship. We're not
[21:54] making any decisions on the wastewater tonight anyways. We're only
[21:57] doing a zoning. Bylaw. So the wastewater question comes back
[22:02] to council. Thank you. Mr. Scott. I'm curious. To subdivision
[22:12] here. And going down to the sewage treatment plan. How
[22:17] many more acres of land are there that are up
[22:20] for development in the future? Do we have a rough
[22:22] idea. Like, if, if there's none, then I can understand
[22:27] the length. But if the five or six more developments
[22:31] going in there, building the houses up, it doesn't make
[22:35] sense to me to put in a separate system when
[22:38] we have an existing system that would end up agreeing
[22:42] to have more. I just curious. So through you, your
[22:50] worship. The land around the area that's slated for the
[22:59] proposed for the draft plan of subdivision. Are predominantly agricultural
[23:04] land. So at the moment, the only area that's designated
[23:07] residential, uh, in the official plan is the area that
[23:12] is being proposed for the draft plan. So to answer
[23:15] your question, no, there isn't any other. Residential land in
[23:18] the area. We'll move on.
[23:30] To me. Okay. Thank you, your worship. Moving on to
[23:35] the second public meeting for the evening. The purpose of
[23:38] this meeting is to give counsel in the public an
[23:40] opportunity to hear all interested persons with respect to both
[23:44] an official plan and zoning by law amendment application by
[23:47] the municipality of Lampton Shores. The applicant is requesting amendments
[23:52] to the Zoning and OP designation as it affects 7914
[23:56] Rawlings Road. The applicants proposed to redesignate. I'm sorry. Redesignate
[24:04] a portion of the property at 7947914 Rawlings Road from
[24:09] Industrial to mix commercial industrial. The Municipality is also seeking
[24:14] an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw on the lands. The
[24:18] property is currently zoned industrial M1, which permits industrial uses.
[24:23] The Municipalities proposing to rezone part of block 1 to
[24:27] a site - specific mixed commercial industrial 1, CM -
[24:31] 1 zone to allow commercial uses along the Western portion
[24:36] of the property of Budding Rawlings Road. The effect of
[24:40] the amendment is to facilitate the development and servicing of
[24:44] the property for a Planned Industrial Park, permitting a range
[24:47] of employment and manufacturing uses while ensuring adequate municipal infrastructure
[24:51] is in place. As with the last application, there's also
[24:55] an application for draft approval plan of subdivision for this
[24:59] property, and the requirement for public meeting. This public meeting
[25:03] is solely for the rezoning and official Plan Amendment applications.
[25:07] Same order of procedures last time. We'll present our proposal.
[25:11] I'll provide any comments received after this staff report that
[25:17] have not been included in the staff report. The public,
[25:19] it will be asked for their comments and questions. Once
[25:22] again, please state your name and address before you comment.
[25:25] Council can then ask any questions. Then the public meeting
[25:28] will be closed. The planner will provide their staff report
[25:31] and recommendation later in the meeting at agenda item 10.
[25:34] 3. And once again, the public is advised that comments
[25:38] expressed and written material presented are matter public record for
[25:41] full disclosure. Thank you, your worship. Okay, thank you. So
[25:46] is the applicant or the planner. Available? But you speak
[25:49] to this. Thank you. Go right ahead. Thank you, your
[25:54] worship. So in this case, the municipality is the applicant.
[25:57] So I'll speak as the applicant later on. Our planner
[25:59] will speak as the planner. So, um, the zoning application
[26:03] in front of council is to simply zone the front
[26:05] portion of our industrial lands to a CM one zone
[26:09] that would allow that mixed commercial up front. We think
[26:14] it makes sense at a staff level to allow that
[26:17] type of development right along Rawlings Road, as we've discussed
[26:24] at our last meeting when we got authorization to submit
[26:27] the application. We think businesses such as a lumberyard, a
[26:33] car a lot, things like that would be a suitable
[26:36] use in the front of that industrial land. And then
[26:41] obviously the draft plan approval will allow us to create
[26:46] the lots and ultimately sell industrial land enforced. So happy
[26:51] to answer any questions, your worship. Thank you. Any correspondence.
[26:57] Thank you, worship. Yes, I have two pieces of correspondence.
[27:01] First one from St. Clair Region Conservation Authority. They have
[27:04] reviewed the subject property and has no concerns with the
[27:08] proposed application. And then the second one received. I'm going
[27:13] to summarize the headings on this. Um, it was received
[27:17] from Jason Sutherland SIBO on behalf of the owner, Pat
[27:22] Sebo at 7972 Rawlings Road. They vote line concerns related
[27:27] to travel and access on Rawlings Road. Stormwater and draining
[27:32] impacts. Land use compatibility and buffering. Servicing an infrastructure, environmental
[27:38] considerations and construction impacts. That's all. Thank you, your worship.
[27:45] Thank you. Are there any questions about Council regarding this
[27:50] application?
[28:02] All right. So we will close the, pardon. Yes. Sorry.
[28:08] This, say public meeting in certain company member of the
[28:10] public. You were supposed to speak to this application. Please
[28:13] do so by coming to the microphone, saving your name
[28:16] and your address and asking a question.
[28:40] Here with me. So I just wasn't sure as being
[28:42] my first time the submission that was on there with
[28:45] the questions that were submitted. Those are the questions I
[28:47] have. So if it's just time, Artie Smooth, but, uh.
[28:52] The one where I can read through it high level
[28:53] a little more in depth on those. If that is
[28:57] of assistance or if it's just a matter of those
[28:59] will be formally responded to, then that book's from you
[29:01] as well. So speaking on behalf of Patsy Bill, the
[29:06] owner, as I was saying, um, for the land. So
[29:10] several concerns that were hoping that you can consider an
[29:12] address. So first is the traffic. So because the combination
[29:16] of that commercial frontage for the industrial park, will there
[29:19] be significant increase volumes on Rollins Road. So looking for
[29:25] Claire down what those access points will be. They're going
[29:27] to be different truck routes. Are there any road upgrades
[29:30] are going to be required? Bidening of the Road Run
[29:32] Rollings or anything else. It's kind of the first section
[29:34] of it in general is around. Do you want them
[29:38] answered one at a time. We can do it all
[29:41] at once if that's. How would you prefer to do
[29:44] that one time. Yep. Through you, your worship. So the
[29:52] first point about traffic, um, as it's outlined in the
[29:55] Planner's Report. So part of the, so when we do
[29:58] the draft plan, the conditions attached. The conditions tell, this
[30:02] is what the applicant, again, in this case, it's the
[30:04] municipality, but this is what you have to do. So,
[30:06] uh, one of the conditions that we'll be attached will
[30:08] be, we do a traffic study. So we'll have an
[30:11] engineer look at that intersection, what the projected traffic volumes
[30:17] will be. And then from there, they'll recommend, uh, whether
[30:21] we need slip lanes turning lanes, traffic lights, that type
[30:25] of thing. So that will be, that'll be part of
[30:29] the next step. So second, I will assume it'll be
[30:35] along the same lines, but last question is regarding drainage.
[30:39] So the stormwater report integrating plans, any runoff or anything
[30:44] else is going to be targeting, it would be not
[30:45] be directed toward any of the existing properties or any
[30:48] that a proper erosion controls and everything in place. So
[30:50] that it won't impact any of our existing. Sure. So
[30:54] through, so yeah, so absolutely. So in this property, we've
[30:59] actually done the stormwater management plan already. And they're actually
[31:02] in the process of creating the stormwater management pawn. So
[31:06] all the stormwater from the property will be taken off
[31:09] site, uh, down enterprise. And we'll land in the pond
[31:13] at the corner of enterprise and telecom. So there won't
[31:18] even be on site storage of stormwater. There was a
[31:26] compatibility. So around details on any buffering building heights, lighting
[31:30] controls, noise mitigation, that's going to be a long, our
[31:34] property is now. So, so through your ship. So those
[31:38] types of things will be dealt with at the time
[31:40] of, so we don't know what the, you know, we're
[31:43] going to try and sell these. And hopefully we're successful.
[31:46] Um, but there's some, there'll be requirements in the zoning.
[31:51] Um, for setbacks and those types of things. And then
[31:54] where it's adjacent to residential properties, there's some requirements. All
[31:58] of these properties when they're sold will require a site
[32:01] plan to be completed with, uh, whoever's buying the property.
[32:05] So they'll buy it purchase a piece of land to
[32:07] build a widget factory. And we'll get the, we'll, they'll
[32:12] have to go through a site plan approval process. Um,
[32:15] that will lay out setbacks any buffering required and that
[32:19] type of thing. So that, that would be the process
[32:23] that we would go through. Fourth one that we have
[32:30] was sort of in construction. So. This thing upgrade activities.
[32:37] And access our access and that additionally then, uh, no
[32:42] additional charges fees, levees be applied to our property. So
[32:45] those being along the lines of municipal water is now
[32:48] in the area. Don't want to, we've already got municipal
[32:51] water. So don't want to have any additional improvement fees
[32:54] to the property along those lines. Sure. I don't blame
[32:57] you. Um, so, so the entire property is already planned
[33:02] to be serviced right from, uh, enterprise. So water mains
[33:07] there, uh, sewer, uh, sanitary sewers there and storm is
[33:12] there. So Council just approved the upgrade to enterprise drive.
[33:18] So enterprise drive all of those pipes will be put
[33:21] in and punched across Rawlings and Enterprise will be paved.
[33:27] The next step will be to actually serve us on
[33:29] to the industrial lands. But we need to get the
[33:32] draft plan done before we can do that. Uh, and
[33:36] then, and then at that point, we'll, an engineer will
[33:38] be hired to undertake all the servicing. So, uh, there
[33:42] won't be any, we don't foresee any construction work on
[33:47] Rawlings other than that crossing. That would be it unless
[33:51] we have to do traffic mitigation, slip, you know, turning
[33:55] lanes or whatever.
[34:13] To the. Rocket. And your worship, if I can just
[34:18] add a little bit. As council is aware, but public
[34:22] may not be. So we went through quite a process
[34:24] with this property some time ago to have it, uh,
[34:26] registered. As an industrial site with the province. So we've
[34:32] done industrial, or sorry, we've done environmental testing on the
[34:36] site. So it's been cleared of any environmental issues. We've
[34:39] done our archaeological assessment. So it's been cleared of the
[34:42] archaeological. We've done title searches and those types of things.
[34:48] Um, so we've done a lot of due diligence on
[34:50] that, that normally wouldn't happen till later, but we did
[34:53] it in front. So, so those, those, uh, those documents
[34:57] have all been done. Those reports have all been done
[34:59] and submitted to the province. Very much appreciate you.
[35:11] Seeing no questions from Council and is there anyone else
[35:14] from the public. Wishing to speak. Going once, twice. Okay.
[35:22] We'll close the public meeting at 741. Council Scott. Ferguson.
[35:30] All in favor. Kind of stutter on that one. Scott,
[35:34] Scott. Yeah. Okay. We have no presentations tonight. We have
[35:39] no delegations. We have two items of correspondence. First one
[35:46] regarding parking at Yarn Court. Yarn Park Court in Grand
[35:52] Bend. And how does Council wish to handle that. Councilor
[35:56] Bailey. Um. I'd like to have staff review the rest
[36:05] for parking to get returned. We put it to no
[36:08] parking. There's people aggrieve that there's no parking. There were
[36:12] people aggrieved that there were safety issues. When we allowed
[36:15] wholesale parking along Harbour Park Court. And, uh, when these
[36:22] folks wrote their letter, I'm wondering if the middle ground
[36:25] can we make no parking on one side to alleviate
[36:27] safety concerns. If there are possibilities in that direction on
[36:33] a staff report. So your worship. Parking is always an
[36:41] issue, uh, for us to decide on. In this case,
[36:44] we decided it based on an input from public works,
[36:49] emergency services, um, and our bylaw. Having said that, we
[36:54] are getting similar requests for streets in forest. What I
[37:00] would suggest is that staff go back and we bring
[37:03] back some type of a policy. That council agrees to
[37:08] that we can work with. That other municipalities, other cities
[37:14] that have these types of things. And it kind of
[37:16] lays it out where it's this type of road, this
[37:19] width, this thing. You'll have parking on both sides here.
[37:23] If it's narrower, you might have parked on one side.
[37:25] If it's this, you won't have any parking. At least
[37:28] something for us to fall back on. And as opposed
[37:31] to trying to do it piecemeal. And if council's, what
[37:36] I was suggest is we leave it the way it
[37:38] is right now. And we bring that policy back, something
[37:42] that we can kind of apply. I think that'd be
[37:50] great. I'll second that. Glenn's moving that. I'll second it.
[37:58] And then just have one question. Um, how long ago
[38:02] did this. Particular street change. Was that the one that
[38:08] we discussed in the spring then? Okay. I just, I
[38:11] thought it was the same street. No, it's not the
[38:15] same street. It's not the same one that we had
[38:17] the discussion about. It did not change. That did not
[38:20] have changed. But the policy could make it clear for
[38:25] council and staff. Okay. I'm good with that. Then Deputy
[38:30] Mayor Sageman. So when we designated this no parking, does
[38:34] this go into our parking by laws and no parking
[38:38] street. You're your worship. No, we did not update the
[38:42] parking by - law, but there is a provision in
[38:45] the parking by - law wherever signs are posted. So
[38:48] no parking, people can't park wherever signs are posted. So
[38:51] we're not so that we don't have to update those
[38:54] schedules. We're in a, we're functioning in accordance with the
[38:58] park hebbalah. In the By - Law, it also parking
[39:04] by, it also states one - way streets. And river
[39:06] road's not in there. Should we have river road in
[39:09] there? But it's not listed as the one - way
[39:15] street. Two bottles, three. Blocks. Got. Changed. We can add
[39:22] that in, certainly. Probably. Changed it to a one. Did
[39:30] so. Pretty much seizement. Through you to our CO. When
[39:37] the policy is created, then we start looking at all
[39:41] streets, or can this one be reviewed once our policy
[39:44] is created? Like with that being automatic review of this.
[39:48] A verbourg park, that way. If it fits into the
[39:51] policy, they can go one way there, then have a
[39:53] justification for it. Thank you. Okay. We do have a.
[40:02] F Report. All in favor. Okay, thank you. Second, I'm
[40:10] correspondence. Is the beach tent restrictions. And again, receive. You
[40:19] want to see receive file? Just receive. File. Up. I'll
[40:22] second. Okay. Receive now all in favor. I will speak
[40:28] to it because it's the person who sent the note.
[40:33] Was on the beach being told to take her tent
[40:35] down by Bylaw. And she found my phone number in
[40:38] a hurry. God help me. And as I explained, the
[40:42] policy and the reasons for it, it became more and
[40:45] more and more apparent. Longer I talk to her. That
[40:49] facts didn't matter. To her. And their policy is fully
[40:53] supportable. It is an absolute requirement when you're dealing with
[40:57] thousands of people on the beach. Moving on to planning
[41:05] 10. 3 regarding the industrial park.
[41:15] Yeah. So we've had a fine word, Ken. You want
[41:22] to take it away. Thank you. You worship through you.
[41:24] So as we heard this report relates to applications initiated
[41:28] by the Municipality for a draft plan of subdivision, an
[41:31] official amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment. For the lands
[41:36] at 7914 Rawlings Road in Forest for the purpose of
[41:39] establishing an industrial park. The proposed subdivision would create five
[41:47] blocks. Four blocks would be available for future development. Um,
[41:53] the majority of which would be industrial uses. Um, portions
[41:58] of blocks one and two, which front Rawlings Road are
[42:03] proposed to allow a mix of commercial and industrial uses.
[42:07] The fifth and final block would provide for future road
[42:10] access to the property to the east. To facilitate this,
[42:15] the municipality is proposing to redesignate the Rawlings Road French
[42:19] from Industrial to mixed commercial industrial. And rezone that same
[42:23] portion from the existing industrial zone to a site -
[42:27] specific commercial, industrial one site exception two zone. The intent
[42:36] is to permit commercial uses that are complementary to and
[42:40] compatible with the industrial park. Staff are not recommending unrestricted
[42:44] commercial development in this area. Uses such as grocery stores
[42:50] and other retail - oriented uses are not considered appropriate.
[42:54] Within or adjacent to the industrial area because of their
[42:58] broader community serving function and the additional pedestrian and traffic
[43:02] activity. They can generate. The site itself is approximately 22
[43:07] and a half hectares is located within the Forest Urban
[43:10] Center. And is currently designated industrial and zoned industrial 1.
[43:16] The surrounding area is characterized by commercial, a mixed commercial
[43:19] industrial industrial and straight commercial uses with agricultural lands to
[43:26] the north, east and south. From a technical perspective, uh,
[43:32] a number of matters remained to be addressed through conditions
[43:35] of draft approval. These include detailed servicing and stored water
[43:41] plans. A traffic impact study. And a comprehensive servicing report
[43:48] addressing water sanitary sewage, stormwater and required infrastructure improvements. Staff
[43:55] have also reviewed the archaeological and environmental assessment, site assessment
[43:59] investigations completed for the property. The phase two environmental site
[44:04] assessment found. That sampled soil and groundwater concentrations to be
[44:09] below applicable regulatory standards with no further investigation required similar
[44:14] to that, uh, the archeological stage to recommended that no
[44:22] further, uh, assessment was required. At the time, MIS report
[44:27] was required. There was no public or agency comments that
[44:30] had been received, however, as we just heard, we did
[44:34] receive comments from Mr. Sutherland SI - BO. And I
[44:37] think the CAO for addressing those questions, because I was
[44:40] going to attempt to do that now. Um, overall staffer
[44:45] of the opinion that the proposed official plan and zoning
[44:48] Bylaw Amendments are consistent with the planning AC and the
[44:51] official plan and our compatible with the surrounding land uses.
[44:56] Staff, have no objection. To the proposed amendments and recommend
[45:00] that Council approve the draft plan of subdivision subject to
[45:03] the conditions outlined in the report. The approval at this
[45:08] stage would establish the Planning Framework for the industrial park.
[45:11] While the detailed technical requirements would continue to be addressed
[45:14] through the draft plan conditions before final approval and development
[45:18] occur. Any questions, or any of the report. Councilor Dodge.
[45:27] Yes, just clarifications on your commercial industrial. Lumberyard. I would
[45:36] have grocery store. So a lumber yard would be acceptable.
[45:45] That's, that's what we're recommending in permitted uses. However, a
[45:49] grocery store, it's not. It's not really compatible with an
[45:54] industrial area. So we are, that is not, uh, included
[45:59] as a permitted use. Just because of the higher, um,
[46:04] higher, it's more, it's more related to a downtown area
[46:10] versus a fringe industrial park area. However. If
[46:20] you look at the downtown area of forest. There is
[46:25] no land to accommodate a grocery store. None whatsoever.
[46:36] So I'm just asking, when negotiator wants to come divorced,
[46:43] do we automatically shape right there. Closed on, just looked
[46:49] after. Or do we put them on the street and
[46:52] tell them like the last time go somewhere else. We
[46:56] don't need you. That's what happened. And the Council failed
[47:04] to zone in favor of. And there was reasons for
[47:10] that. Which weren't good reason. Just a question. Through you
[47:19] your worship. We do have one grocery store in for
[47:25] us. So we, we do have some representation there. Um,
[47:29] in terms of these lens, they were designated industrial for
[47:33] the purpose of industrial use. Um, I know the municipality
[47:41] has gone through some measures with the province to that
[47:44] effect as well. Um, again. If we are out of
[47:50] commercial lands, uh, there is always, uh. The ability to.
[47:57] Expand settlement boundaries. Whereby future commercial lands could be incorporated
[48:02] into those lands. But at the moment, uh, I think
[48:06] we're, we're sufficient in the space that we have in
[48:09] forest. For you, your worship. I'd like to speak to
[48:15] that a little bit too. So part of the process
[48:18] of developing this land has led us to work with
[48:25] slap, uh, fair bit, uh, on what industry wants, what
[48:30] they, what they need. Uh, one of the things that,
[48:33] uh, came up when we talked to them, when we
[48:36] spoke to them about changing this, uh, zoning at the
[48:38] front to a CM - 1. They were supportive, but
[48:42] I'll tell you cautiously supportive. And the reason I say
[48:46] that is because they were, uh. Industry don't want to
[48:51] come and build if they think there could be issues
[48:56] in the future. So, um, we, we've heard that from
[49:00] some of our local, even our local, uh, industry, um,
[49:04] as it relates to the school. So I would, I,
[49:08] you know, I agree with the planner on, on what
[49:10] he said about compatibility. And I would suggest that expanding
[49:15] that to include those types of commercials could impact the
[49:19] industry that we could attract to that piece of property.
[49:22] So. The recommendation there are, I guess,
[49:32] all done recommendations are there. You move all recommendations. Okay.
[49:39] Move my Councillor Ferguson psycho my Councillor Scott. All in
[49:44] favor. Okay. Thank you. Report 10. 4.
[49:54] Is the draft line of subdivision. And Zoning By Law
[49:58] for 518 senior point. Sifton Property. Go ahead. Ken. All
[50:07] right. Through you, uh, your worship. This report relates to
[50:12] applications of draft plan of subdivision. And zoning by law
[50:16] amendment submitted by Sift and Properties for lands at 5188
[50:21] Cedar Point line, 6188 Lakeshore wrote. The Provost subdivision applies
[50:26] to approximately 30. 5 hectares of the overall 70 Hectar
[50:31] property. And would create a mix of low and medium
[50:35] density residential development open space blocks, a wastewater treatment block.
[50:41] Together with eight new public roads. The proposal includes approximately
[50:46] 10 blocks for low density residential development. And 24 blocks
[50:51] for medium density residential, low medium density residential development. Providing
[50:59] an opportunities for single detached, semi - detached townhouse. Uh,
[51:03] and potentially multiple dwellings, which are low - rise apartments.
[51:08] Uh, retirement home development. The proposal also includes a series
[51:12] of open space blocks intended for Parkland, walkways and stormwater
[51:17] management. As well as a block for wastewater treatment facility.
[51:21] The applications would require site - specific amendments to a
[51:25] number of zones to allow the proposed developments, those being
[51:28] the R - 1 zone, the R3 zone, OS -
[51:32] 1 and OS2 zones. From a planning perspective, the development
[51:36] area is designated residential in our official plan. And is
[51:41] located outside of the agricultural portion of the property. The
[51:45] land's adjacent to Lake Huron contains significant natural heritage and
[51:50] hazard considerations being erosion. Uh, including Lakeshore areas one and
[51:56] two. Regulated areas. And environmentally significant area and significant woodland.
[52:02] The development limit has been reviewed by the St. Clair
[52:06] Region Conservation Authority. With the proposal generally maintaining development outside
[52:13] of that identified hazard and natural heritage area. Uh, though
[52:18] the SCRCA comments, uh, that they did provide, they've indicated
[52:21] they would like to see that hazard limit indicated on
[52:26] the draft plan of subdivision as a condition, just so
[52:31] we can be sure that things are being maintained as
[52:34] they should outside of that area. Um, there are, however,
[52:39] several matters that are applicant did allude to that we're
[52:44] in the, um, Planning report. That do require further review
[52:49] and resolution before staff can recommend approval, uh, in particular,
[52:54] public works identified outstanding concerns regarding stormwater management, including the
[53:00] need for a single outlet solution, emergency overland flows, easements,
[53:05] et cetera. Now the applicant has indicated that they will
[53:08] be providing that. Uh, in the next little bit. Uh,
[53:13] so we are looking forward to that. Wastewater servicing. Also
[53:19] remains unresolved with the municipality. Just we'd like to see
[53:25] more information on what they're proposing long term. With that
[53:30] solution. Saffer also recommending revisions to the proposed parkland configuration
[53:36] to provide larger and more functional consolidated park. Area rather
[53:43] than relying primarily on narrow areas. A traffic impact
[53:52] assessment has been submitted. Just recently and will require staff
[53:57] review. While there also appears to be stage three archaeological
[54:03] assessment requirements and natural heritage mitigation measures that will be,
[54:09] would need to be addressed through conditions of draft approval.
[54:12] Overall, the proposal is located within an area intended for
[54:17] residential development. However, a number of technical and planning matters
[54:21] remain outstanding. This report is therefore being presented for informational
[54:25] purposes at the moment. Together with the statutory public meeting,
[54:29] it will provide, uh, staff with additional public and agency
[54:33] input and the time necessary to complete a comprehensive review
[54:38] staff anticipate returning to council to next council, um, with
[54:44] recommendations regarding both the draft plan of subdivision and zoning
[54:48] bylaw amendment applications. There are any questions of council at
[54:55] this point. Council MGR. Just a question of the planner.
[54:59] When we're talking stormwater management, we're talking 100 year storm
[55:03] events. If you had St. Catharines Finle Waterloo, Ottawa numerous
[55:09] municipalities as summer have already had 100 year storms, three
[55:12] or four times in a row. Should we not be
[55:15] looking at maybe a higher standard than the 100 year
[55:18] storm. Because obviously this is becoming way more infrequent than
[55:23] what. The past is predicted. Through your worship. Yeah. Like
[55:30] you look everywhere and things are changing fast. And I
[55:34] mean, we don't know what that hundred year mark is.
[55:39] I mean, they based 100 year, the conservation authority bases
[55:43] 100 year mark on hurricane hazel. Uh, I. It's, yeah,
[55:52] it's, it's, it's difficult. We, we, um. You do it
[56:00] to the standard that we are required to do it
[56:04] too. And until that changes, that's the only, uh, guideline
[56:10] we have for, for how to determine those. What we
[56:16] need to do to maintain proper drainage levels.
[56:27] Three, I'll just add to what the planner said there.
[56:29] The one thing that this property has going for it
[56:31] is its proximity to the lake, which means that in
[56:34] terms of a stormwater management plan, Overland flow routes are
[56:37] fairly easy to get to get them to the lake.
[56:40] So hopefully when we look at it, we'll see some
[56:43] defined overland flow routes that would take, you know, greater
[56:47] than 100 year and send it overland to the lake.
[56:51] Um, and there's, there's lots of area there to do
[56:54] that. Some of these other places like Bingle, you mentioned
[56:57] that. They're just, there aren't any. You can't, you can't
[56:59] get any overland roots. So. The recommendation is to just
[57:06] receive the report. For a future, just again. My apologies
[57:11] through your worship. We did receive one set of comments
[57:15] that, uh, came in after the report was submitted. And
[57:19] they were submitted by Linda Squires from 5163 Cedar View
[57:24] Drive and Lamped Insures. She just had some concerns about,
[57:29] um, wastewater treatment. Natural heritage. Stormwater runoff. All of which
[57:38] we will be addressing in our future discussions with the
[57:42] applicant and going forward at the next meeting. As I
[57:51] said, this is, uh, for receive tonight for information. And
[57:58] we dealt with the feature. Councillor Dunch moving Councillor Scott.
[58:02] Second. Only Fever. Okay. Thank you. Our third point in
[58:08] report is for 17 Pine Street in Grand Bend, MFL
[58:13] Properties. Uh, draft plan of condominium. And Ken, take it
[58:20] away. Uh, this report is before Council for consideration of
[58:27] an application of draft approval of Plan of condominium. At
[58:31] 17 Pine Street and Grand Bend. The application was submitted
[58:35] by Monteeth Brown Planning Consultants on behalf of MFL Properties
[58:39] Incorporated. And is essentially a condominium conversion of an existing
[58:45] stack triplex dwelling. Um, many of you may recall this
[58:52] property back from 2021. Where it came before Council for
[58:59] Zoning Amendment to allow a triplex in that area. Which
[59:03] was not a permitted use at the time. Uh, did
[59:06] go to OLT and Council's Decision was overturned. And the
[59:11] triplex was allowed to be developed. Um, so the existing
[59:16] building was constructed in 2023 and contains three residential units.
[59:20] With one unit on each floor. The proposed condominium would
[59:24] establish each unit as a separate condominium unit with associated
[59:28] exclusive use areas, including balconies or patio and awning, as
[59:34] well as two parking spaces per unit. The remainder of
[59:38] the property and building would remain as common elements. From
[59:42] a planning perspective, the property is located with a grand,
[59:46] within the grand bend urban settlement boundary, uh, is designated
[59:50] residential in the Lampton Shores official plan and is zoned
[59:53] to permit the existing triplex use. Due to the OLT
[59:58] decision. There are no changes proposed to the building, the
[1:00:03] number of residential units servicing, parking, or the existing use
[1:00:07] of the property as a result of this application. Staff
[1:00:10] of reviewed the Planning Justification letter submitted with the application
[1:00:14] and our generally in agreement, uh, with its conclusions. Given
[1:00:20] that this is an application dealing with an existing development
[1:00:24] staff, do not anticipate any additional land use impacts on
[1:00:27] the surrounding residential properties. The proposal also provides. Two parking
[1:00:34] spaces, uh, per residential unit, which I indicated earlier. It's
[1:00:40] important to note that under the current planning act requirements,
[1:00:44] a public meeting and formal circulation are not required for
[1:00:47] a standard condominium application. Uh, the application materials were nonetheless
[1:00:54] made available to the public on the municipalities website. Overall
[1:00:59] staff are satisfied that the proposed condominium conversion is consistent
[1:01:04] with applicable planning policies and represents an appropriate use of
[1:01:08] the existing development. Staff have no planning concerns with the
[1:01:12] application and are recommending that council grant draft approval. To
[1:01:17] the plan of condominium subject to four conditions. These conditions
[1:01:21] require the approved condominium drawings to be finalized. A fire
[1:01:25] safety plan to be completed to the satisfaction of the
[1:01:28] fire chief or the municipality, the final condominium declaration to
[1:01:33] be provided to the municipality for review. And establish a
[1:01:37] three year lapsing date of August 11, 2029. Accordingly, staff
[1:01:42] are recommending that Council approve the draft plan of condominium
[1:01:44] applications subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Thank
[1:01:51] you. There are questions. About Billy. So it appears that
[1:01:58] it qualifies to get past as a condominium. And so
[1:02:02] the next step was alluded to as a potential rental
[1:02:07] unit investment. And I'm wondering if anyone in the room
[1:02:11] can tell me about the parking differences between what is
[1:02:15] required for a residential versus what would be required for,
[1:02:20] these are large individual residences, right? We're talking about a
[1:02:26] four bedroom each. 3, 600 cubic yard, square yards. It's
[1:02:31] big. So what's, I've got two rate pairs who have
[1:02:35] had people block, not just blocking their driveway, but in
[1:02:38] their driveway. Um, this summer so far in that immediate
[1:02:43] neighborhood. So it's already congested. And so the question is
[1:02:47] how do we deal with the parking requirements that are
[1:02:51] different on short term rentals. Than they are through this?
[1:02:56] I don't know whether we are in a position answered
[1:02:58] here with regard to this. But it's a concern in
[1:03:02] the community. For you, your worship, I believe, um, parking
[1:03:07] requirements for the short term. If it was to become
[1:03:10] short term rental, um, they are based on the number
[1:03:13] of bedrooms. So, uh, in that case, like if there
[1:03:20] were, they wouldn't be able to, they'd only be able
[1:03:22] to rent out. Two room, two bedrooms. Because I believe
[1:03:28] it's one parking space per bedroom. I can correct me
[1:03:31] if I'm wrong on that. For you, your worship. But
[1:03:38] the application today is for, to change the condominium. If
[1:03:42] the future owners of those condominiums want to have a
[1:03:45] short - term rental, they'll have to apply for a
[1:03:47] license. And they'll be subject to the conditions of the
[1:03:50] license. So. Um. Yeah, at this point, that's, I mean,
[1:03:55] whether it is or isn't a short term rental, we
[1:03:57] don't, we don't know. Can't predict the future.
[1:04:07] Okay. Are there any other questions. Okay. So the recommendations
[1:04:14] are there. How does Council wish to handle it. Conditions
[1:04:21] atte. What Cox. All in favor. Okay.
[1:04:31] Moving on. We have one report from Fire. We have
[1:04:37] a change order. Move the recommendation. I just want to
[1:04:42] have the chiefs. I'll save the chief from putting any
[1:04:44] pressure on them right now. I read the report. She's
[1:04:47] good. Let's see once the talk. I'll do it. We'll
[1:04:56] welcome the chief first official report. Thank you, Mayor. Thank
[1:04:58] you, Council. Hold on. Second of that. Uh, this report
[1:05:05] provides an update on the new Fire Truck being built
[1:05:07] for station two and Forest and asked Council to approve
[1:05:10] the changes identified in the construction. In July, Fire Department
[1:05:14] staff inspected the truck while it was being built. Uh,
[1:05:17] this is the first opportunity to physically review the truck
[1:05:20] and how it will work in day to day emergency
[1:05:22] operations. The inspection identified several changes needed to make sure
[1:05:27] the truck is safe, functional and properly equipped for frontline
[1:05:30] service. Uh, the changes include additional storage systems for securing
[1:05:36] equipment, uh, firefighter, um, access electrical and lighting improvements, uh,
[1:05:41] and staff cancer, these changes operational requirements. Not optional upgrades.
[1:05:49] The proposed changes will cost approximately 36, 800 plus taxes,
[1:05:54] uh, and the cost of the truck, um, after those
[1:05:56] changes will be approximately 1. 12 million, including net cost
[1:06:00] of HST. These changes will help ensure firefighters can safely
[1:06:06] and efficiently access equipment when responding to emergencies. Um, and
[1:06:12] ensures that the project will remain within, uh, original approved
[1:06:15] budget of one point. Daff are asking council to approve
[1:06:21] the change order and authorize the Fire Chief to sign
[1:06:23] the agreement so the truck can be completed as planned
[1:06:26] and delivered on time. Great. Good. Thank you, Chief. Next
[1:06:34] time I'll get you to speak just a little more
[1:06:36] directly than my girl. Apologies. No, it's quite right. We're
[1:06:39] good. Okay. Move by Councillor Wilcox. Second by Councillor Maguire.
[1:06:46] All in favor. Okay. Thank you. Beyond community services. Deputy
[1:06:54] Mayor, you want to take this one? Uh, yes. Item
[1:06:57] 10. 7. We have a report before us for the
[1:06:59] Arcona Lions Electronic Sion Request. Um. How does Council wish
[1:07:05] to proceed. Move the request Councillor Dodge and Councillor Marsh.
[1:07:12] Any discussion or questions. Seeing none, I call the vote,
[1:07:16] all in favor. And that's going back to you, sir.
[1:07:22] 10 pointy regarding the Tennessee. Tender award. For the legacy
[1:07:28] recreation center of each vacuum. For 121, 288 44. Net
[1:07:35] up plus interesting. Moved by Councillor Wilcox. Second, my Councillor
[1:07:41] Ferguson. All in favor. Thank you. Next report. For the
[1:07:50] Forest Fire Hall and 6276 Townsend Line Parking Lots. For
[1:08:00] 242, 192 dollars. Ferguson, Tech of my Councilor Dodge. I
[1:08:09] like your glasses. Cool. All in favor.
[1:08:19] And last but not least, Forest Skating Request. This is
[1:08:25] an attachment. But at the shores arena for helping skaters.
[1:08:31] Looks good. Amazing. Councillor Scott, Councillor Maguire. All in favor.
[1:08:38] Thank you. Moving on to public works. What we have
[1:08:45] report back regarding the Legion crosswalks. So moved. Okay. We
[1:08:53] will buy Councillor Wilcox. Second by Councillor Dodge. All in
[1:08:58] favor. Thank you. Good for the community. Forest Legion
[1:09:08] parking area change. Ferguson, Councillor Dodge. All in favor. Thank
[1:09:16] you. Report 2026 asphalters. On
[1:09:26] Westpaper Wash Road. Council Scott move. Councillor Marsh second. All
[1:09:35] in favor. Thank you. And, uh, regard in the
[1:09:45] Outer Drive, Resurfacing Project. Big bucks. Okay. Councillor Scott moved.
[1:09:52] Councillor Dodd second. All in favor. Yeah, exactly. Initial services.
[1:10:02] Moving on. Uh. We've got the agency agreement for Fire
[1:10:09] Mark, the Presentation saw last time. Councillor. We'll cuss moves.
[1:10:15] Councillord second. All in favor. Secondly, we have the Trulley
[1:10:24] and Foundation Agreement. We got another grant. Awesome for awesome.
[1:10:31] Councillor McGuire. Councillor Scott. All in favor. Good work.
[1:10:44] Count. Pardon me. Uh, we have a class five separate
[1:10:48] system. In Locator at 7604 Biddolf Street, Port Franks.
[1:10:59] How does Council wish to handle that? Move by deputy
[1:11:03] mayor Sageman. Second by Councillor Ferguson. All in favor. And
[1:11:13] we have one notice of motion that will be referred
[1:11:15] to our September meeting. And then we do have some
[1:11:20] bylaws. Am I going to. None. Like no
[1:11:30] emergent issues none there. Then I moved. Again. So we
[1:11:34] have six bylaws this evening. The first one being Bylaw
[1:11:37] 46 of 2026, the agreement with Fire Mark Marque incorporated
[1:11:43] Byla 47, the joint compliance audit committee appointments. That's a
[1:11:48] Joint Committee with all Lampton County Municipalities. By the 48
[1:11:53] of 2026, OPA official plan amendment for 7914 Rawlings Road
[1:11:58] for the Municipal Property there. Also a Zoni Balamment for
[1:12:03] that same property. By - la - 50 of 2026,
[1:12:06] authorization to sign the agreement with the Ontario Trillium Foundation.
[1:12:10] And finally, the confirming Byla for this evening. Boy -
[1:12:16] analysed. Got a question. Go, just please. The joint compliance
[1:12:20] audit committee. What do we jointly complying to audit. Mr.
[1:12:30] You, you worship. Let's say a counselor didn't spend money
[1:12:38] appropriately for the election. And somebody put in a complaint.
[1:12:43] It would go to the joint compliance audit committee. They
[1:12:46] would assess the complaint whether or not they're needed to
[1:12:48] be review of the accounts. It's a requirement. Jointly seeing
[1:12:55] if we're complying and auditing us. Oh, yes. So it's
[1:12:58] required under the municipal elections act. Yeah. We have one
[1:13:02] every election. They have to be re - or we
[1:13:04] have to have a new committee each election. We have
[1:13:07] a very hard time getting applicants for the committee. We
[1:13:10] had to reopen them this time and tap people on
[1:13:13] the shoulder to ask them to apply for the committee,
[1:13:15] which is why we do a joint one with all
[1:13:17] of Lampton County. Thank you. You're welcome. Good description. So
[1:13:24] move by Councillor Dodge. You got this mover secondary. Or
[1:13:29] not? Okay. Second that. Second bye. Deputy Mayor Sageman. Moving
[1:13:36] model is all in favor. Okay. Thank you. And last
[1:13:42] but not least, that 20 Motion New Jern, Councillor Ferguson.
[1:13:47] And Councillor Scott. All in favor. Thank you. Thank you,
[1:13:54] Bruin.