[1:03] I'm calling the meeting to order. First item of business is adoption of the agenda, alternate

[1:07] councillor Wilson.

[1:11] Moved by myself, seconded by councillor Peterson, resolved that the agenda be approved as amended

[1:16] by changing the order of business by moving closed session and consideration of matters

[1:20] arising from closed session, following item 5.3.

[1:24] Is there any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? That is carried. Having adopted the agenda,

[1:30] are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof? Councillor

[1:33] Gilvaese.

[1:33] Hi Deb Govacy declared canary interest related item 8.3.1 and 14.1 on the open agenda of October 8,

[1:43] 2025 because of the following reasons conflict of interest as my mother-in-law is a resident

[1:47] of Whittingford Lodge and in closed session I declare a canary interest related to item

[1:52] 13.1.1 on the closed meeting agenda October 8, 2025 because of the following reasons

[1:59] conflict of interest, as my mother-in-law, is a resident of Winningford Lodge.

[2:04] Thank you. I was going to ask if you have that in writing for the clerk, but clearly you do.

[2:08] Are there any other disclosures of Pecuniary interest in the general nature of Councillor Tate?

[2:16] I, Councillor Debtate, declare Pecuniary interest-related item CP 22025-29 on the open agenda of October 825

[2:27] because of the following reasons of relationship.

[2:31] And you have that in writing for the clerk.

[2:33] Thank you.

[2:35] Are there any other disclosures of the hearing

[2:37] interest in the general nature thereof?

[2:40] Not seeing any more.

[2:42] Adoption of the council minutes of the previous

[2:44] meeting, Councillor Peterson.

[2:46] Thank you, warden.

[2:47] Moved by Peterson, seconded by Councillor Tate.

[2:49] Resolved that the council minutes of September 24,

[2:52] 2025 be adopted.

[2:54] Is there any discussion?

[2:57] All those in favour?

[2:58] Opposed?

[2:59] That is carried.

[3:00] And public meetings resolution to go into

[3:02] public meeting pursuant to the Planning Act? Councillor Martin. Thank you, Warden Ryan.

[3:05] Moved by myself and seconded by alternate Councillor Wilson. I resolved that council

[3:10] rise and go into a public meeting pursuant to the Planning Act and that the warden share

[3:13] the public meeting. Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried.

[3:22] And Manager Gilbert, I'll turn it over to you for 5.1.1, application for Official

[3:27] Plan Amendment OP 25-05-4, Sammy Holdings Limited.

[3:56] This facility would be established

[3:57] on the pit floor of the existing gravel pit, adjacent to the eastern pit face,

[4:04] which is parallel to Mill Street in the city of Woodstock. The extraction, the

[4:13] pit itself is an above-water pit, so no extraction goes into the

[4:18] water table. The area where the energy storage system would be

[4:22] located, 6.5 hectares or 16 acres, would consist of 117 pad mounted battery units, 39 power

[4:30] converter systems, a portable office trailer, 8 portable storage units, a substation and

[4:37] transmission lines and pools along the northeastern portion of the property to the Hydro-1 transmission

[4:49] The application indicates that this facility

[4:52] will have a capacity provide 125

[4:55] megawatts of electricity for up to four

[4:57] hours per day for an initial period of up

[4:59] to 22 years.

[5:01] They have been awarded a contract by IESO

[5:03] to provide the battery energy storage

[5:07] through the LT1 RFP process

[5:11] to support Ontario's electrical needs

[5:14] as the province is working.

[5:15] refurbishes, a commercial operation pending approval is planned for late 2026, early 2027.

[5:23] The applicants were awarded a 22-year contract at this time.

[5:29] The subject property again is a portion of it is an existing gravel pit. However,

[5:34] the whole property is essentially licensed for gravel extraction. Where the facility is going

[5:40] in that area the extraction has already been achieved to the limit of to the

[5:47] full depth so no no further extraction is proposed in that area but there is

[5:54] significant aggregate resources remaining on the site. Surrounding land

[6:00] uses include Woodingford Lodge, Woodstock Hospital and a number of high

[6:06] to D and other residential uses within the City of Woodstock, within 800, as well, Highway

[6:13] 401 is located 800 meters to the south.

[6:16] Given the proximity of these uses to the site, as part of a complete application, planning

[6:22] staff did require a community risk assessment to be completed.

[6:26] That risk assessment would look at the risk of the facility to the adjacent sensitive

[6:33] uses would also look at the likelihood of a potential fire, likelihood of the

[6:39] impact of the potential impact of the fire on surrounding uses. We did have

[6:45] that study peer reviewed by a qualified consultant and the conclusion of the

[6:50] peer review was that overall the facility, if it operated in

[6:57] accordance with the proposed mitigation measures, would have a low risk to the

[7:02] surrounding uses. Through the risk assessment they also looked at the

[7:10] technology itself, testing of the technology as well as other battery

[7:16] storage fires in the United States and looking at the air modeling and air

[7:21] quality measurements resulting from those operations.

[7:27] As part of the risk

[7:28] assessment a detailed emergency response plan will be required to

[7:31] be developed by third party fire professionals

[7:34] in cooperation with the fire chief

[7:36] of both the township of South of Oxford

[7:38] and City of Woodstock,

[7:39] as well as through the site plan approval process,

[7:43] emergency response plans will also be developed

[7:46] to provide potential notification for local residents

[7:49] or shelter in place or evacuation orders

[7:52] in the event of a fire.

[7:55] Overall, the peer reviewer concluded

[7:57] as to the original author of the study

[8:00] that the potential risk to the local community are low in control through the design, location

[8:06] and mitigation measures applied to the facility.

[8:09] And these mitigation measures will be implemented through the site plan approval process.

[8:14] Staff did receive a number of complaints and concerns expressed by naming residences,

[8:21] primarily relating to noise and the risk of fire.

[8:25] It is noted that the facility itself will be in the bottom of the extracted pit floor.

[8:31] So there is quite a topographical distance before you get to Mill Street.

[8:35] There was also a noise study completed and the noise study concluded that due to that

[8:41] elevation difference as well there is also a berm at the edge of the surrounding pit

[8:47] and given that the background level of noise in the area, no mitigation measures

[8:52] were required and that the noise from the equipment would meet the

[8:56] ministry environment noise requirements.

[9:01] As this whole area is currently licensed by the

[9:04] Ministry of Natural Resources under the ARA, staff and applicant did reach out to them to determine

[9:11] what their requirements would be. The ministry did indicate that they would require that the

[9:16] area license be surrendered or partial surrender for the area that encompasses the facility.

[9:23] So the applicant would submit a request to surrender the license for this facility,

[9:30] and the intent is once that facility, once the battery energy storage project is ceases to,

[9:37] or the use is completed, the applicant would then re-license this area

[9:42] and ensure that the rehab plan for the aggregate operation would be implemented.

[9:49] In this case, as there's no below water extraction, the rehab rehabilitation plan is essentially a return to agriculture.

[9:58] So as long as the interim use is required to be re-licensed,

[10:03] staff for the opinion that the overall rehabilitation plan and the impact to the aggregate operation

[10:12] is expected to be minimal.

[10:15] Overall staffers satisfied the proposals consistent with the provincial policy statement, both

[10:20] the policies respecting new non-egg uses in agricultural areas.

[10:26] As essentially the site is already heavily disturbed through the presence of the

[10:32] The studies submitted with the application have demonstrated that there will be minimal

[10:38] impact to agriculture and the use won't preclude the rest of the site being operated for the

[10:46] extraction of aggregate and won't preclude the overall site being rehabilitated at one

[10:53] centrum use ceases.

[10:55] As well, the PPS does have supportive policies for the development of energy supply, including

[11:01] generating energy generation in storage facilities, so overall staff are satisfied the proposal

[11:07] isn't keeping with the PPS policies for the site.

[11:13] As well for the agricultural policies in the official plan, the new or the current official

[11:20] plan policies do provide some policy framework for renewable energy facilities and they are

[11:26] permitted within the ag reserve designation to support long-term energy supply to accommodate

[11:32] current and long-term projected needs. Staff are satisfied that this use is an alternative

[11:38] energy facility. The size will be limited so that it is secondary to the current extraction

[11:47] use of the lands, but long-term agricultural use of the lands. And through the community

[11:52] the risk assessment has been demonstrated to be compatible with surrounding land uses

[11:57] in the area. It's also located on lower priority agricultural lands as the lands are currently

[12:02] being used for aggregate extraction. Staff are recommending that a policy be included

[12:09] in the Official Plan Amendment to clarify that no severance be permitted to allow

[12:14] for this site to be separately owned from the aggregate operation. That way that

[12:19] will ensure that this site will be overall remain with

[12:24] aggregate operation and won't preclude the rehabilitation

[12:29] that's required for the aggregate extraction.

[12:33] Staff do note that there is an update to the Official Plan

[12:37] Amendment that was right at the agenda.

[12:39] The only change in the amendment is the lot area.

[12:42] For the battery energy storage, the report included

[12:46] 5 hectares, but the area is 6.5 hectares.

[12:50] So through the detailed design of the proposal, as it's gone through the original submission

[12:58] date, the 6.5 hectares is the area that now encompasses the battery energy storage area

[13:04] in the transmission corridor.

[13:06] Overall staff are satisfied that the proposal complies with the provincial policy statement

[13:11] or provincial planning statement and the official plan policies for new non-egg uses in the

[13:18] primary culture areas and for renewable and alternative energy systems, and staff recommend

[13:23] the application be approved.

[13:27] Thank you.

[13:28] Questions from Council for the planner on the report?

[13:32] Councillor Accione.

[13:33] Thank you.

[13:34] Through you, warden, to Mr. Gilbert, thank you for the report.

[13:39] I think it's a great use of sterile aggregate land,

[13:43] but my question to you is how long is the aggregate expected to continue on?

[13:50] Like, obviously we're looking at a 22-year contract for this.

[13:54] It is safe to assume that we've got over 22 years of aggregate of pulling it out of that site, I assume.

[14:02] Through the word, yes, it's expected that it will take longer

[14:05] than what the battery storage facility will be there for.

[14:08] The current extent of the aggregate operation, I believe that was licensed in the early 90s or late 80s.

[14:15] So there's certainly, there's more than half of the site yet to be developed.

[14:21] Any other questions from council for the player on the report?

[14:26] Councillor Gervaisi.

[14:28] Three, would the hospital have to be evacuated?

[14:30] I know that you undiscussed and said it was low risk, but would that area have to be evacuated if there was a fire?

[14:38] Through the Queenie risk assessment, they looked at the smoke from the battery storage units.

[14:47] And maybe the applicant can provide greater detail.

[14:50] But essentially the units are self-contained so that there wouldn't be a thermal runaway.

[14:55] So the whole facility would go up at once.

[14:58] Um, but

[15:00] What the idea is that the smoke would potentially, if it did go that way, there would be a notification

[15:05] and emergency response plan in the event that the hospital had to stop taking outside air

[15:13] in for a brief period while the smoke went through the vicinity. But that would be developed

[15:19] through the community emergency response plans that are required through this site plan approval

[15:24] process.

[15:25] And if I may continue through Warden, the city of Woodstock had identified like some concerns

[15:33] regarding chemicals or something that could leach its close to the water supply. So how

[15:39] would that be mitigated if there was some toxic chemicals that went into the Woodstock water

[15:46] supply?

[15:47] Through the Warden. So that would be done through the detailed design. Currently it's

[15:52] at the bottom of a gravel pit.

[15:55] So there is not impermeable, but a rather hard surface

[16:01] that's there.

[16:02] So all the runoff from the site would

[16:04] go into a stormwater management pond, which

[16:07] would be treated and sampled to ensure

[16:09] if there was a sample of fire or a chemical leak,

[16:13] it would be contained within that pond.

[16:14] And then the applicant would deal with the initial environment

[16:17] for spill's response to deal with that.

[16:21] 3-1, if I may continue just on that regard,

[16:24] though, but still doesn't that create a risk, like regarding the water supply? Like would

[16:30] it be completely contained? Like there's still leakage. Like even if the fire department went

[16:36] there and was spraying water, that water is still going into the ground. Like is it not?

[16:42] Like I mean how would that be possibly be avoided? Because there's a lot of chemicals

[16:46] and batteries.

[16:49] I think that the detailed design for the site would be that all the water would be directed

[16:56] into a pond and there's no natural outlet in that area given it's been extracted.

[17:02] So there's a relatively, I won't say simple, but there's an engineered solution to contain

[17:09] the water on site and then they would be trucked off site and disposed of in accordance

[17:14] the ministry requirements.

[17:17] I have one final question.

[17:19] What after the 22 years?

[17:21] So how are the materials

[17:22] disposed of?

[17:25] It ceases to exist after

[17:27] 22 years, like it's out of

[17:28] end of its life, I'm assuming.

[17:30] So what happens then?

[17:35] The current

[17:36] contractor for 22 years,

[17:38] there may be opportunity

[17:39] through the ISO process to

[17:40] re-power that after the 22 years

[17:42] or extend that contract.

[17:44] But at this time, once that contract is complete,

[17:49] there'd be a decommissioning plan required

[17:51] as part of the site plan approval process.

[17:53] So the applicant will be required to recycle the batteries

[17:57] or dispose of them in accordance with the regulations

[18:00] and then rehabilitate that site to what it currently exists

[18:04] so that the aggregate operation, once it's completed,

[18:08] could be rehabbed as well.

[18:10] Thank you.

[18:14] Council Schaefer.

[18:15] Thank you, Gordon, for you.

[18:17] With regard to the decommissioning again,

[18:19] is there a bond collected or something to be set aside to cover the cost of that

[18:24] in case that decommissioning wasn't done to the proper way, for example?

[18:31] Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

[18:33] I believe that Township is working through those details,

[18:35] whether or not they're going to collect the security deposit to ensure the works are done.

[18:41] by now it's part of the process that will be a cost estimate to what decommissioning

[18:46] looks like.

[18:48] Thank you.

[18:48] If I may continue.

[18:50] With regard to potential fire risk, that seems to be a concern from a lot of people.

[18:57] In the Borlux report, it said in the highly unlikely event of a fire, chemical emissions

[19:03] to air will not impact the general public.

[19:07] pretty bold statement.

[19:10] But you mentioned today possibly evacuations required. I

[19:15] might confuse is there no emissions that are going to be problematic or will

[19:20] there may be emissions that are problematic? Can you answer that?

[19:27] So the community risk assessment, they didn't do, they included rather than modeling what

[19:39] the fire would look like, the peer reviewer and the original consultant agreed that it

[19:45] wouldn't be a meaningful product, effective insights.

[19:51] So instead what they did is they looked at existing or known battery fire

[19:56] incidences primarily in the United States and they used the air sampling that

[20:02] was set up in the response to those events and they got the qualitative and

[20:08] quantitative research from that and it determined that essentially that the

[20:12] smoke isn't any worse than any household fires then the smoke resulting

[20:16] resulting from a typical house fire.

[20:20] As such, there will

[20:31] be updates to the community risk

[20:33] assessment, more to detail the emergency response plan, the event of a fire, but both the peer

[20:40] reviewer and the original consultant indicated that the smoke itself likely wouldn't be more

[20:46] more harmful than a typical smoke resulting from a typical house fire.

[20:53] Thank you for that. I'm sure one of the fires they examined was the Moss landing fire in

[20:58] January of this year, which reignited in February. Now on that one, there was, I think, 1,300

[21:04] people evacuated, and there is lingering health effects for many of those people

[21:08] that were in that area, and there is chemical pollution all over the area from that fire.

[21:15] Now, I understand this proposal is a little different.

[21:19] It's a different type of battery, things like that.

[21:22] I just find it a little odd that we're almost being given a guarantee

[21:27] that their chemical emissions will not impact the general public.

[21:31] I just find that a little over the top.

[21:36] That's just a comment.

[21:37] Thank you.

[21:40] Any other questions from Council for the Planner on the report?

[21:49] I think the report makes it clear, but I just want to be sure that I'm understanding correctly.

[21:53] There is comments in the report from City of Woodstock Fire Department and Township of

[21:56] Southwest Oxford Council.

[21:59] Were the concerns expressed by City of Woodstock Fire Department, you know, in the context

[22:03] of the previous few questions there, and the unrelated comments from the Township

[22:09] of Southwest Oxford incorporated in the recommendation that's in front of council

[22:13] here today?

[22:16] Yes they are so throughout the whole process we had really close and the

[22:21] applicants and the peer reviewer had close cooperation with both the the

[22:28] fire chiefs as well as the county's emergency response coordinator as well

[22:34] as staff from from the hospital and Woodingford Lodge to discuss

[22:39] emergency response plans. So there was a there was a primary concern. Thank

[22:43] Thank you.

[22:44] Any other questions from Council for the planner on the report?

[22:47] Not seeing any.

[22:48] Thank you.

[22:49] Is the applicant here?

[22:50] We should speak to their application.

[23:05] Good morning.

[23:06] We do have a presentation as well if we could just bring that up.

[23:16] Good morning, Council, staff, members of the public.

[23:19] My name is Caitlin Port.

[23:21] I'm a registered professional planner with MHBC Planning.

[23:24] I'm joined this morning by Asir from Boralex as well as members from the project team

[23:30] both in person and then we have a number of members of our project team online as well.

[23:36] We have a short presentation and then we're happy to answer any questions that Council may have.

[23:43] Do I do it or next slide please?

[23:49] Perfect, thank you.

[23:51] So the development we're discussing this morning is a Battery Energy Storage System, acronym BESS.

[23:57] As Eric mentioned, it's proposed to be located on the pit floor of an existing gravel pit

[24:03] that's licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act.

[24:07] The area of that best facility is approximately four and a half hectares.

[24:12] It's located wholly within the township of Southwest Oxford but adjacent to the township

[24:17] of Woodstock.

[24:19] This facility will include energy storage components and infrastructure, a transformer

[24:25] station and three stormwater management ponds.

[24:28] Extraction activities will continue within the licensed area, both to the west.

[24:34] There are additional aggregate resources to the east,

[24:37] and then there is a pit extension that's already licensed to the north.

[24:41] So the area the best is that green blob,

[24:45] and the red outline there is the existing ARA license.

[24:49] The yellow dashed line is the city of Woodstock Boundary,

[24:53] and then you'll see a black dashed line.

[24:55] that's the transmission line that connects the best facility

[24:58] to the existing hydro one station on Carn Road.

[25:01] Next slide please.

[25:05] So there's three planning act approvals that are required.

[25:09] An official plan amendment, a zoning bylaw amendment,

[25:12] as well as municipal site plan approvals

[25:14] and a municipal site plan agreement.

[25:17] These planning approvals are required

[25:18] to permit the land use

[25:21] and will be subject to site specific zoning regulations

[25:24] and provisions.

[25:26] the ME that's the aggregate extraction zone will remain on the subject lands and the zoning by

[25:32] law amendment will permit the best facility as an additional permitted land use within the ME zone.

[25:39] Next slide please.

[25:43] So there's been quite a bit of discussion because this is a bit of a unique

[25:45] project in that it's located within an existing aggregate resources act license.

[25:51] ARA licenses are regulated by the province of Ontario. So we've had quite a lot of discussion

[25:57] with the Ministry of Natural Resources

[26:00] as well as County and Township staff

[26:02] on how this is gonna work from a regulatory perspective.

[26:06] So the plan is that the green area

[26:09] which will support the best facility

[26:11] will be surrendered from the ARA license

[26:14] and that will allow that area to be subject

[26:17] and regulated by municipal site plan control

[26:20] and a municipal site plan agreement.

[26:22] So the plan is to surrender that area

[26:25] via surrender application to submit it to the Ministry of Natural Resources and subsequent

[26:30] ARA site plan amendments to facilitate that license surrender.

[26:35] This will also allow the aggregate extraction activities, processing activities to continue

[26:40] on the balance of the property.

[26:42] And again, the North property is licensed as well.

[26:45] That's the pit extension.

[26:46] So extraction will continue North as well.

[26:53] Eric spoke about this, but there are ongoing rehabilitation requirements for the aggregate

[26:58] license, including the area that's planned to be surrendered to allow for the temporary

[27:03] best facility.

[27:06] Next slide, please.

[27:08] I'm going to turn it over to ask you to provide a little bit more information on the facility

[27:11] itself.

[27:12] Thank you.

[27:15] Thank you, Caitlin.

[27:17] Thank you, Councillors, warden, staff and public for allowing us to speak today.

[27:22] I think there was a good overview from Eric in terms of the facility itself.

[27:27] I'm not going to repeat a lot of it here.

[27:29] But the 125 megawatt facility, just to give you an idea, it is for grid reliability.

[27:34] The purpose of it is to help keep the lights on on a really hot summer's day.

[27:38] If you recall in June, there was a lot of heat waves happening,

[27:41] and the grid operator needs this type of project to help supply enough power.

[27:45] It's equivalent to at least a minimum of 20,000 homes that it could power in terms of equivalency to give you an idea how big the project is.

[27:54] We talked about the transmission line. It's cited in a way that's optimized with respect to Ministry of Natural Resources and the project as a whole.

[28:02] There was a discussion Eric brought up in terms of the sound assessment report that we did for the project.

[28:08] And there is a mitigation already built in naturally to the site with respect to the berm itself.

[28:13] So just east of the project, we have about a hundred foot

[28:16] berm between the site and Mill Street and the residences,

[28:19] which are called receptors, and then in the sound study.

[28:22] And that provides a natural sound mitigation.

[28:25] And the facility access would be from the existing

[28:28] access road off of Clark Road.

[28:35] I won't spend too much time on this.

[28:36] Happy to elaborate as needed.

[28:38] But we did, as Eric mentioned, perform a

[28:40] community risk assessment.

[28:41] We were happy to do so.

[28:43] We designed the community risk assessment in tandem with

[28:47] With the municipality in terms of how we would be approaching it, we also shared how we would

[28:51] be approaching it with the fire departments as we meet with them on a regular basis both

[28:55] the city of Woodstock, fire department and township south of Oxford.

[29:01] And the idea here is to understand any potential impacts for health and safety of the community

[29:07] and develop mitigation plans that can minimize or avoid these potential impacts.

[29:10] impacts, and we talked about the low probability of event of a fire and impact to air or water

[29:17] including groundwater is not expected. Other pieces of the community risk assessment looked

[29:22] at during construction with respect to how we mitigate any potential impacts through

[29:27] the implementation of a construction environmental and management plan, which is a typical plan

[29:33] that we do when we construct these facilities. From an operational perspective, one of

[29:38] of the things that we have to account for is sound emissions.

[29:42] And as Eric mentioned, we meet the stringent requirements

[29:45] for the Ministry of Environment and Conservation of Parks

[29:47] on sound.

[29:49] It was independently peer reviewed,

[29:50] as Eric mentioned, approved by the county.

[29:52] And overall, the site is appropriately cited

[29:54] and does not pose any significant risk to the health

[29:57] and safety of the surrounding community.

[30:01] There's a lot to talk about fire safety and we understand that concern. There's three big

[30:06] buckets that we look at and lots of layers in between. One is prevention in terms of picking

[30:14] batteries that are safe, first and foremost. Whenever we build a project, we've been in

[30:18] Ontario for a number of years with different projects. We want to make sure that we're

[30:21] building a safe project for the personnel that are there, for any potential first

[30:26] responders and also for the community because we're there for the long term. And that

[30:30] starts with picking batteries that are as per the latest codes

[30:34] and standards.

[30:35] And there is an alphabet soup of acronyms and numbers

[30:38] that I can share with you.

[30:40] But I think that is not as effective as just essentially

[30:43] saying that in the last five to 10 years,

[30:46] the industry has grown significantly.

[30:48] The need for these type of projects or batteries,

[30:50] whether it's in your phones or laptops

[30:52] or stationary storage like this one, has increased.

[30:54] And we've learned a lot.

[30:56] And the learnings from the industry in the last five

[30:59] 10 years has actually fed back into codes and standards with respect to us now choosing

[31:04] suppliers that meet these codes and standards. And they do destructive testing to make sure

[31:09] that things fail safely if they would in the future.

[31:13] Monitoring detection is a big component of that. So we have thermal management systems

[31:17] to make sure that the units are managed in an appropriate way. In addition to that,

[31:24] there's 24-7 monitoring. So we have two control centers, one control center on the borough

[31:28] X side, another control center on the battery supplier side, which basically monitors the

[31:34] project continuously with respect to ensuring that any thresholds that are exceeded are

[31:42] dealt with, whether automatic shutoffs or through corrective actions.

[31:46] We also, we can do a lot, and I can expand on the different layers in terms of mitigation,

[31:52] but we also have to plan for any scenario where there is an emergency response.

[31:56] And we do this not just ourselves, but we leverage our third party consultants.

[32:02] So here with us remotely is Nick Petrakis from Energy Safety Resources Group,

[32:07] which are third party fire experts.

[32:09] They're also ex-fire department firefighters employees that help actually do testing

[32:15] and incorporate the latest standards into the updates with respect to battery safety.

[32:21] And so through them and importantly in collaboration with the fire department,

[32:24] plan. No emergency response plan will be final without the fire department giving us the

[32:28] thumbs up. So we develop that in collaboration with them and meet with them regularly. We

[32:33] have the emergency response plan that is right now in draft form and will continue to be

[32:37] updated and finalized as we get close to the project that outlines any emergency response.

[32:43] One of the big pieces of that emergency response is the way the units are designed

[32:48] is that the units are, if there is an event, the unit that's affected is designed

[32:52] to not propagate and a defensive firefighting technique is deployed whereby you don't put

[32:59] water directly on the unit itself because it's not going to not help that much.

[33:04] It'll prolong the incident and it'll also, by not putting water, it would eliminate

[33:09] water runoff.

[33:10] You would dose maybe adjacent containers with water as well.

[33:14] So that's a defensive technique that is best practice and we've been discussing

[33:17] that with the fire departments.

[33:19] So there's a lot on fire safety.

[33:21] I'll conclude the presentation, and if I may, I'll pass it to Dick to clarify some of the Q&A that happened earlier with respect to fire.

[33:32] Studies and regulatory approvals, obviously we are here for an official plan amendment, but there's a lot of other steps that are needed for us to actually put shovels on the ground to start the project.

[33:41] And so the project successfully was screened with respect to the Classier transmission facility screening process,

[33:48] which basically means we had to look at the project from a lot of different lenses

[33:52] to make sure that we understand any potential impacts, have plans to mitigate those impacts,

[33:58] whether it's environmental impact study, phase one environmental site assessment,

[34:03] where we found no confirmed contamination on site, stage one and two archeological assessment,

[34:08] where there was no concern in terms of finding any artifacts on the site.

[34:12] Similarly, cultural heritage assessment.

[34:15] We have no impact to cultural heritage sites with respect to this project.

[34:18] We already talked about the sound assessment and the hydrological and water balance assessment.

[34:23] That's also being reviewed by the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks,

[34:28] which is related to our submission of environmental compliance approval,

[34:33] which is the necessary step and approval that we get from the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks

[34:37] with respect to our stormwater management system.

[34:43] So in conclusion to this presentation,

[34:46] as Kate Lynn started off with respect to the need here

[34:50] that we're discussing is we're looking for an approval

[34:52] of the official plan amendment

[34:54] and associated the zoning bylaw amendment

[34:56] to allow the establishment of the best facility

[34:59] but that doesn't allow everything to go forward.

[35:01] There's lots of steps like site plan approval

[35:03] that has to happen as well

[35:04] in order for us to begin construction.

[35:08] The project is a temporary project as was mentioned in the previous Q&A.

[35:13] We have a contract up to 22 years.

[35:15] I think our contract ends if I'm not mistaken, April 1st, 2048.

[35:20] And these approvals are meant to get approved for the project up to that date.

[35:24] And we would decommission at that time.

[35:26] And then extraction would continue well into the future beyond our project.

[35:30] So we're temporary with respect to the existing aggregate licenses.

[35:33] which means that also the land where the project sits at

[35:37] will also be rehabilitated as per the rehabilitation plan for the license as a whole

[35:42] once the battery project is complete.

[35:46] That concludes the presentation, but if I may warden through you,

[35:49] ask Nick Petrakas to clarify some Q&A that happened earlier

[35:52] in terms of fire and evacuation.

[35:55] Nick, are you on the line?

[35:58] Hey, thank you, ACR. Can everyone hear me?

[36:01] We can.

[36:02] Perfect.

[36:03] Thank you, ACR.

[36:04] And yes, awarding through you.

[36:05] I appreciate it.

[36:06] And as ACR mentioned, very succinctly.

[36:09] My name is Nick Petrakis.

[36:10] I work for a company called ESRG, Energy Safety Response Group.

[36:14] I am a fire protection engineer down here in the States.

[36:17] We consult Orelx on the Oxford project as far as fire safety.

[36:23] We developed the emergency response plan and have done the outreach to the fire

[36:26] departments of Southwest Oxford and Woodstock regarding fire department

[36:31] and standard operating procedures, as mentioned in an unlikely event of a

[36:34] battery energy storage system fire. And there was a number of questions that I'd

[36:38] like to address or at least provide some additional context and clarification on,

[36:41] especially around the impact of smoke and the potential need for evacuations.

[36:46] ESRG does not believe that evacuations are warranted for battery

[36:50] energy storage system fires. In this situation, especially because of the

[36:53] distance, the physical separation that's provided from the battery energy

[36:57] storage system containers. And also the nature and the design of these containers themselves

[37:03] like Asier had mentioned, they're compartmentalized, individual, non-enterable enclosures.

[37:09] In the unlikely event of a fire, the system is designed to consume itself.

[37:13] And it's designed not to propagate. And it's also limiting the fuel load. And as mentioned

[37:18] before, as mentioned in the third-party peer report and in the community risk assessment

[37:23] by Dr. Olson. Yes, the toxic off-gassing or any of the smoke off-gassing from a

[37:32] battery energy storage system fire is no different from any other structure fire,

[37:36] from a compartment fire, even from a residential type fire, because it's

[37:40] really just the components that are inside that energy storage system that

[37:43] are very similarly found in other similar uses or even in residential

[37:46] buildings with foams and plastics. So all fire has toxic components of it.

[37:51] Energy storage systems are no different.

[37:53] There are also no unique or not exotic

[37:55] from any other type of fire.

[37:57] That being said, why do I say it's a very unlikely event?

[38:01] As Mr. Asir mentioned,

[38:03] these systems are required to go

[38:04] through very strenuous testing

[38:06] and listing and standards and fire safety testing.

[38:09] They're also required to do destructive fire testing

[38:12] and the manufacturer has done

[38:14] what we call additional destructive testing

[38:17] where they intentionally burn a system

[38:19] to gather information on what the smoke looks like,

[38:22] how hot the fire is,

[38:24] and the potential for that fire to propagate.

[38:26] And it's been very successful in that testing.

[38:29] Our emergency response plan

[38:31] takes into consideration assessing the impact

[38:34] in the event of a fire.

[38:35] The fire department has the tools

[38:37] and the knowledge that they would need

[38:38] to make a determination on that smoke

[38:40] using handheld gas meters.

[38:42] Like what we've seen with all of the events

[38:44] that have happened,

[38:45] especially some of the events that have happened here

[38:46] in New York State and also in California,

[38:49] We have not seen the impact of that plume extending

[38:53] past the boundary of the facility

[38:55] and causing any sort of negative effects.

[38:57] But again, it's information that we've obtained ourselves

[39:01] through large scale fire testing at our lab.

[39:04] It's information that we've obtained from actual fire

[39:06] events and publicly available knowledge

[39:08] and root cause analyses that have happened afterwards.

[39:11] There was one more about moss landing.

[39:13] And I think it was already stated in the comment

[39:15] that yes, that's different.

[39:16] Moss landing was a large dedicated use

[39:18] building that was not compartmentalized. These are very different in the fact that

[39:22] they're lithium-iron phosphate batteries in smaller, you know, non-entherible

[39:28] enclosures. So we're limiting the fire load. It's not going to be an entire

[39:32] building. It's not going to spread throughout the facility. A fire is

[39:35] going to be isolated to one individual enclosure. So I think for the most

[39:39] part, I hope I answered a majority of those questions and those concerns.

[39:44] Like Asir had mentioned, the use of water is very defensive.

[39:47] If we do end up using water or direct the fire department to use water,

[39:50] it's going to be in very short durations and it's going to be on the adjacent enclosures,

[39:55] not the enclosure that's experiencing the failure.

[39:57] So the ones that are unaffected next to it and that water is sprayed defensively

[40:02] as far as like just on the exterior, very similar to what you would do with cooling operations.

[40:07] So that water is not penetrating inside the enclosure.

[40:10] So we're not expecting that water to have direct contact

[40:13] with any of the battery cells inside of the enclosure that's burning.

[40:17] So akin to water runoff, that water is not going to be coming into any direct contact

[40:22] with any of the burning components within the enclosure.

[40:25] So the limited use of water and also the direction that we give

[40:29] with our emergency response plan is, you know, a favorable way to approach any concerns

[40:34] about water runoff.

[40:35] On top of that, the applicant is providing stormwater retention,

[40:38] which is sort of an additional line of protection if there ever was a concern.

[40:45] Thank you, Nick.

[40:47] Thank you.

[40:48] Questions from Council for the applicant?

[40:50] Councillor Gilvaese.

[40:51] Thank you, through your warden.

[40:53] Would the local fire departments,

[40:56] would they require any specialized equipment,

[40:58] apparatus or chemicals that they may not have

[41:01] available to them now?

[41:04] Great question, through you warden.

[41:06] Thank you, Councillor.

[41:07] These are some of the discussions

[41:08] that we're having in terms if they require adapters

[41:11] to connect to for the firewater tank

[41:13] or any measuring instruments.

[41:16] These discussions that we're making sure that they'll have

[41:18] access to what they need for a responding to a potential event,

[41:22] even with low probability.

[41:24] I'll pass it to Nick as well if there's any additional information

[41:27] you want to share on that.

[41:29] Yeah, thank you, Ossiara, and through your word,

[41:31] and I think the most important tool that the Fire Department

[41:33] can have is the emergency response plan, familiarity

[41:36] with the emergency response plan and also on-site training.

[41:41] They don't require any sort of unique tools,

[41:42] but like Asir mentioned, we are continuing to have those discussions with the fire departments

[41:47] to make sure that they are comfortable.

[41:49] With this installation being in their jurisdiction, the most important tool that they can have

[41:54] at their disposal is understanding the emergency response procedures and being familiar with

[41:59] the emergency response planning in the unlikely event of a fire.

[42:03] And I would just echo what Nick said about training.

[42:05] I neglected to mention that, but that's exactly what we'll do with respect to

[42:10] fire departments, making sure that they're trained and their personnel are trained in

[42:13] terms of what a response would be with ESRG and whoever else we need to bring in as well.

[42:18] Thank you.

[42:20] I may continue through, Warden.

[42:22] I think fire departments are just learning how to put out EV vehicles.

[42:29] Like they're a challenge, so when I envision this whole facility, it is from a firefighting

[42:35] perspective, maybe a little daunting.

[42:38] I do have a couple other questions for you, Warden.

[42:41] One is the 115KV line that you said that this Hydra would be placed upon.

[42:48] Does that line need upgrading?

[42:50] Will it be able to handle the load?

[42:53] Thank you, through you, Warden.

[42:55] Thank you, Councillor, for the question.

[42:56] The 115KV line, you mean the one, I'm assuming you're talking about the one that we're connecting to

[43:02] that is owned by Hydra 1 existing.

[43:04] It does not need upgrading.

[43:06] operating, it can handle the load. One of the processes of going through the RFP process

[43:13] with the grid operators doing a deliverability study to understand that that line does have

[43:17] enough space for the battery project. So we look at that early on in the process to

[43:22] make sure that we're not proposing something that requires an upgrade of the line or

[43:26] additional line. And that's solidified through a lengthy interconnection process with

[43:31] Hydro-1 that talks about system impact assessment,

[43:34] customer impact assessment as well,

[43:36] that covers all the details of that.

[43:38] So no need for upgrades on that line.

[43:41] Where does that line run?

[43:45] The line runs from,

[43:48] maybe if I can pull up an image here.

[43:55] So I'm going back to one of the slide images here.

[43:57] So if you look at the,

[44:00] there's a really clear yellow line,

[44:02] which depicts the boundary

[44:04] between City of Woodstock and Southwest Oxford.

[44:07] And next to it is a black dashed line.

[44:10] I think it's easier to see the line

[44:11] to see the black dashed line.

[44:13] So it runs from the bottom of the pit

[44:15] to sort of the northeast corner

[44:17] where a substation would be.

[44:19] It runs overhead to get out of the pit

[44:20] and then we go underground,

[44:23] underground through the parcel

[44:25] which is now shown as an agricultural field

[44:27] although it's licensed as an aggregate pit

[44:29] and will become so in the future.

[44:31] along the eastern boundary and curves towards Carn Street and then crosses

[44:35] Carn Road near the Hydro-1 stop station where we then connect to Hydro-1 and

[44:43] the existing Hydro-1 transmission line. Okay, through you, Warden. If I may

[44:48] continue. So that's quite a significant amount of Hydro. I think you said

[44:53] Was it 525 megawatts?

[44:57] It's 125 megawatts for four hours, which is equivalent.

[45:16] Thank you again to you, warden, and thanks councilor for the question. We were basically a reliability battery for the grid, and so we would charge, for example, during the night when people aren't using electricity.

[45:29] when maybe there's excess electricity and then store that energy so that we are able to

[45:34] discharge during the day when everyone is actually using the electricity. Whether it's

[45:38] in the morning peak or more importantly in the evening peak, everyone gets home. It's

[45:42] a hot day. You turn your air conditioning on, your stove is on, maybe some are using

[45:46] hair dryer, et cetera. So we're just basically shifting energy from when it's not needed

[45:51] to when it is needed. And it's right. And to answer your question, when we are

[45:57] charging, whenever we're charging at night, we

[46:00] would be charging from energy that's generated

[46:03] from a variety of sources in Ontario.

[46:06] So, you know, half of the electricity generation is

[46:09] approximately nuclear.

[46:10] There could be wind resources that are operating

[46:12] as well, and other generating resources.

[46:14] So it depends on the day and the time in terms

[46:17] of where the energy would come from.

[46:20] But it would be a mix depending on what's

[46:22] actually being generated at that time.

[46:24] Thank you and one final question to you, Warden.

[46:27] You made a comment that impact to water and fire is not expected, but it is not guaranteed

[46:32] though, correct?

[46:34] Like I know that we can put every safety plan in place, but it's not something that can

[46:38] be guaranteed.

[46:40] Through you, Warden, and I can appreciate the concern.

[46:43] I think that safety is always something that's paramount.

[46:46] As I mentioned, we're very cognizant of safety, whether it's on-site personnel,

[46:52] first responders or the community.

[46:55] And we just similarly, we can't guarantee

[46:57] that there would never be an accident on the road

[47:00] with people driving, people get into accidents all the time.

[47:03] It's not something that we can guarantee all the time,

[47:05] but we've taken the steps.

[47:07] We've listened to the community,

[47:08] we understand where we are,

[47:09] and we've done many different steps

[47:12] in terms of understanding how to design a system

[47:15] that mitigates this potential concern.

[47:19] One of the examples that was brought up earlier,

[47:21] or maybe I can provide a little bit more context on that is that if I can put all this, wrap

[47:27] it up into the layers of mitigation that we have here.

[47:32] One of them is the first one is choosing batteries that are safe.

[47:36] The second one is designing a project in a safe way.

[47:39] The third one is preventative maintenance with respect to robust preventative maintenance

[47:43] program.

[47:44] Each unit, battery unit will be looked at every single year for the life of the

[47:47] project.

[47:48] So we find any issue before it happens.

[47:52] The fourth one is the monitoring that I mentioned,

[47:54] which with respect to 24-7 monitoring,

[47:56] there's redundancy in a lot of these systems

[47:59] with multiple heat sensors, multiple smoke sensors,

[48:01] multiple gas sensors.

[48:03] We even have an additional layer

[48:06] that's not required or necessary,

[48:08] but we choose to incorporate that as thermal imaging cameras.

[48:11] So another layer of sensing

[48:13] gives us a signal of something that might go wrong.

[48:15] And that's monitoring, the fifth layer is corrective actions, so whether it's automatic actions that shut things off or manual corrections to repair things or replace things, that's an important factor to make sure that we actually are operating a safe system.

[48:32] The emergency response plan is sort of number seven in terms of reacting.

[48:35] And then the next one is, even if there is an event,

[48:41] a low probability there is an event,

[48:43] even if we say best practice is not to put water on the affected unit,

[48:48] but there is water runoff.

[48:50] Our stormwater management system, we've designed it such that

[48:52] we have catch basins that sit above an impermeable layer under the battery

[48:58] so we can contain all the water during a fire event

[49:01] and prevent it from going into the infiltration pond.

[49:04] And then in that catch basin, the valves will close, we contain all the water and we're able to test it.

[49:11] And if there's any issue, we can pump it off.

[49:14] And these are all the layers with respect to us mitigating any potential issue from water going into the environment that may be contaminated.

[49:25] And as here, if I might, it might be helpful to give through you Warden, sorry, it's Dr.

[49:32] Chris Olson here. I was the one who did the community risk assessment that you folks have

[49:36] been speaking to. Counselor, one of the things that we have seen when we look at some of

[49:42] the fires that Mr. Petrakas was talking to about just earlier, New York State. There's

[49:46] been a couple in California as well over the last few years. There's been an

[49:51] extensive water testing done after. So with some of those fires they actually did apply water

[49:56] directly to the containers themselves for many days. Department of Environmental Quality as well

[50:01] as the Department of Health in New York State did extensive water testing, both surface water run

[50:07] off from those facilities as well as the groundwater in the area in the vicinity after.

[50:11] And quite simply we did not find contaminated or elevated levels of chemicals in that water.

[50:17] And, similarly, in the California fires as well, as Mr. Petrak has said, you're going

[50:23] to not be applying water directly to the on-fire container.

[50:28] It's going to consume itself over four to eight hours at most.

[50:31] And then the water that you would be using, the fire department would be using, would

[50:36] be spread or adjacent containers.

[50:38] So there's nothing that would be impacting the water itself on just spreading, like

[50:43] trying to cool those adjacent containers.

[50:44] even more recently at home here right nearby. There was a battery fire in

[50:50] Bradford last year and and the Ministry of the Environment here in

[50:56] Ontario also did testing of water that was used and again that one was fire

[51:01] water directly on the container for I believe it was at least a day and there

[51:05] were no impacts to the runoff of that water into the local creek.

[51:11] Councilor Hatch only. Thank you through you warden. First up I just want to

[51:15] I want to thank you and Mr. Petrach as everybody for, I don't know, we have probably talked

[51:24] at least a dozen times.

[51:25] We've sat down, we've gone over a lot of concerns that I certainly have, but also staff.

[51:34] I can safely say that you and your team have gone through.

[51:37] You've answered every single question, what you didn't know.

[51:40] you've always sent back in, responded, and make sure we are satisfied with those

[51:47] answers. I think when all this started my fear was, you know, is this another four

[51:56] on one risk we have, you know, with the four on one being so close and we just

[52:01] imagine the thousands of transport trucks and everything else that go down

[52:05] that road and that's one of our biggest fears is a fire department and

[52:09] and everything else with our community partners next door.

[52:14] I feel, and I feel very safe to say as long as well as our fire department says that we

[52:22] won't fear this site because of all the safeties and everything else you've put in place that

[52:28] we feel comfortable.

[52:29] It isn't going to be like a major concern as what we thought a year and a half ago

[52:34] let's call it when all has started.

[52:37] And I just sincerely want to say thank you, because a project of this size and all the

[52:43] steps you've had to do, you've gone way over and above to make sure that I certainly can't

[52:51] speak on SWAC's behalf.

[52:53] But as far as Woodstock Fire Department, you've certainly satisfied everything that they have

[52:59] concerns and through site plan process realizing that we got to figure out the details of

[53:06] equipment and everything else, but really, really been happy with everything you and

[53:11] your team have done.

[53:12] So I just really wanted to say thank you.

[53:15] And that water, the drinkable water table was probably one of our biggest concerns

[53:22] for those watching at home right now, and you've satisfied those with all the safety

[53:28] checks and the membranes and everything else, the different stormwater managements.

[53:32] And again, thank you for that.

[53:34] three warden thank you for those comments anyone else questions for the

[53:38] applicant not seeing any thank you are there any members of the public either

[53:46] here in person or attending virtually wish to speak to the application not

[53:54] seeing any councilor Atchione moved

[54:02] by myself second by Councilor Palmer

[54:04] resolved that council adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as Oxford

[54:07] County Council with a warden in the chair is there any discussion all in

[54:11] favour? Opposed? That is carried. And consideration of report CP2025-2910P25-05-4, Sammy Holdings

[54:21] Ltd. Councillor Mayberry.

[54:23] Thank you. I will move on myself. Seconded by Councillor Pearson. Result of the recommendations

[54:27] container report CP2025 and 291 title application for official plan amendment OP2505 for Sammy

[54:34] Holdings Ltd. be adopted. Councillor Mayberry is the mover. Do you wish to speak to

[54:38] that?

[54:38] Just a brief, I would probably reiterate quite a bit of what country actually only just said

[54:45] from the very beginning of this process, which was I'm guessing four or five years ago, when

[54:51] we first met with Borlach's, the issues we brought forward were the same issues that

[54:57] came up here today.

[54:59] And in fact, we made a list of those issues, there were six or seven sort of major issues,

[55:03] issues. And they were exactly the same issues that came up at the public meetings that the

[55:10] two public meetings were held in the previous. So I think the issues are well-known. The

[55:15] answers are the deciding factor here. And as Councillor Atgeroni mentioned, the emergency

[55:24] services people, the fire department a lot, have had very close contact. And like he

[55:30] I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this.

[55:34] The community risk assessment was a big issue for us.

[55:39] And our council has been relatively satisfied

[55:42] with all of the steps forward so far.

[55:46] I think the big issue now is,

[55:49] while the fish plan amendment is important,

[55:51] the real issue is going to be all the details

[55:55] and the satisfaction with fire departments,

[55:58] emergency services everyone else on the site plan and that's going to be a long

[56:04] slow process and of course you can't get a building permit without the site plan.

[56:07] So in my mind that's kind of the next step and probably one of the most

[56:13] important to nail down every detail. Thank you.

[56:18] Councillor Peterson is the seconder? No I'm good thank you. Any other

[56:22] discussion.

[56:27] The only comment I have is I think this is sort of new technology, new land use

[56:33] in Oxford County. And I think it's entirely appropriate that we raise these concerns on

[56:39] behalf of residents. But I think also in the report it makes clear that our relevant

[56:44] subject matter experts at our area municipal partners and at Oxford County have reviewed

[56:48] those concerns as outlined by members of council here today and they've been addressed.

[56:52] I think I would also point out that a lot of these things because it's a new technology and new land use here

[56:58] And specifically called out because the nature of the application

[57:01] You know are kind of every bit as relevant but

[57:04] Opaque to us when it comes to approving any other industrial land use

[57:07] We approve an industrial land use and there's a big huge building that goes up

[57:10] And we don't we don't know you know quite rightly because we don't regulate it

[57:14] What goes in that building what pieces of equipment go in that building and what chemicals and what fire risks there are because

[57:19] Because in those industrial applications, our experts and provincial partners in environmental

[57:25] regulation regulate those things, which is not up to us to do, whether we agree or not

[57:31] with how they do it is another matter.

[57:34] So I think to me, I'm very satisfied that, as several council members have said, that

[57:38] we've raised, our residents have raised the right questions, our staff, our area

[57:42] municipal staff, partners have raised the right questions, and that we've got the

[57:45] answers.

[57:46] And I'm happy to support this application today.

[57:48] Anyone else before I call the question?

[57:51] All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried.

[57:57] And closed session, Councillor Martin.

[58:05] Move by myself and second by Councillor

[58:06] Schaefer. Sorry. That council rise and go into closed session to consider report WDFL

[58:14] closed session 2025-06 and a verbal report from the Chief Administrative Officer regarding a

[58:18] position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any, any negotiations carried

[58:25] out by the municipality or local board and the security of the property of the county

[58:29] or local board.

[58:30] Is there any discussion?

[58:32] All those in favour?

[58:33] Opposed?

[58:34] That is carried.

[58:34] Thank you.

[2:27:52] 1156, I'll call the meeting back to order from closed session and consideration of matters arising from closed session, 14.1, WDFL CS 202506, Councillor Accione.

[2:28:04] Thank you. Moved by myself. Second by Councillor Mayberry. Resolved that recommendations contained report WDFL 2025-06 be adopted.

[2:28:15] Is there any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? That is carried.

[2:28:20] And 14.2 verbal report from the Chief Administrative Officer, Councillor Tate.

[2:28:27] Moved by myself, seconded by Councillor Peterson, resolved that the verbal report from the Chief

[2:28:31] Administration Officer be received as information.

[2:28:34] Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried.

[2:28:39] And item 7, last item before we take a break for lunch.

[2:28:43] Consideration of correspondence, Councillor Schaefer.

[2:28:47] I just have a quick question, Warden, before we do the resolution.

[2:28:52] It's just addressed to CIO Adley.

[2:28:55] Some of the concerns raised in the correspondence from the Township of Norwich,

[2:28:58] I know we're looking at doing a climate action plan.

[2:29:01] That's upcoming, I think, in a few months.

[2:29:03] Will some of those concerns, questions, and everything be addressed in the climate action plan?

[2:29:12] So through you, Warren, some of these questions are answered by the fact that we are doing

[2:29:19] climate action plan.

[2:29:20] I think that is one of the comments or questions in there.

[2:29:26] Some of the other ones that are simply yes, no answers probably will not be included

[2:29:34] in the climate action plan itself.

[2:29:37] But like I said, the fact that we're doing a climate action plan itself is an answer to one of these questions.

[2:29:47] The other questions with specifics to greenhouse gas targets reporting on our action today, those will not be part of the climate action plan.

[2:30:00] I would say that the action plan itself.

[2:30:03] So, I would say those would be still outstanding.

[2:30:10] Thank you.

[2:30:16] Sorry, just did you read the motion? No, I haven't read it. Oh, sorry. Any other

[2:30:20] questions then before? Councillor Schaefer. Thank you, warden, move by myself. Seconded

[2:30:26] by Councillor Palmer. Resolved the correspondence item 7.1 to 7.3, inclusive on the open meeting

[2:30:32] agenda of October 8th 2025 be received. Is there any discussion? Councillor Galvezzi. I'd like to put

[2:30:39] forth an amendment to the motion moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Tate

[2:30:45] that for the sake of transfer so receiving it for information and then adding on for

[2:30:49] sake of transparency and clarification a report be prepared and brought back to County Council

[2:30:54] that answers the question outlined in the in item 7.1 correspondence received by the

[2:31:00] Township of Norwich.

[2:31:03] Do you have that for her?

[2:31:05] Thank you.

[2:31:12] Councilor Giovese, as the mover, do you wish to speak to that?

[2:31:14] I do.

[2:31:15] I think that the council has already

[2:31:17] received a report on greenhouse gas reduction targets.

[2:31:23] So I think that that should be fairly easy.

[2:31:26] I think as a municipal partner and for transparency,

[2:31:30] I think it would be good to have this open out

[2:31:33] in the open for clarification to the public.

[2:31:35] So maybe this provides the county with an opportunity to maybe put some things to bed and address the concerns that a member township has brought forward. Thank you.

[2:31:50] Councillor Tate is the seconder.

[2:31:52] Just with Jerry, I completely agree. I think we should be completely transparent on these questions. And I think it's extremely important to the public.

[2:32:02] Any other discussion?

[2:32:03] Excuse

[2:32:06] me, can I have a recorded vote on the amendment?

[2:32:09] Any other discussion?

[2:32:12] So I will not be supporting that, and two main reasons.

[2:32:17] One is, I think we received, this council received a delegation from residents asking us to do this,

[2:32:22] and we did not take action on it.

[2:32:24] And I think it is sending a wrong message, in my opinion, to disregard residents when they directly engage with this council

[2:32:30] in favour of another council that does not have the jurisdiction to ask this council to do a thing.

[2:32:35] So I think that's disrespectful of the delegation they received before to say no to you,

[2:32:39] but we will say yes to some other elected body.

[2:32:42] I think secondly, this potentially sets a dangerous precedent

[2:32:48] for councils to call on each other, demand that each other do things.

[2:32:53] I spoke in my inauguration here three years ago almost exactly three years ago

[2:32:57] about councils respecting each other's jurisdiction

[2:33:00] and staying out of each other's way,

[2:33:02] that in almost every case where people perceive

[2:33:04] that there's overlapping jurisdiction or conflict,

[2:33:07] that there is not.

[2:33:08] I think this council set an extremely constructive example

[2:33:11] of that for this entire term of collaboration

[2:33:14] between the area municipalities in the county,

[2:33:16] collaboration between area municipality

[2:33:17] and area municipality to get things done.

[2:33:20] Examples of what I think this could go wrong,

[2:33:23] this council regularly receives OLC debenturing

[2:33:27] applications from area municipal partners.

[2:33:30] It is an absolute matter of practice as long as I have sat here that we do not question

[2:33:33] those.

[2:33:33] We do not scrutinize those.

[2:33:34] We do not say actually I would like to see an audited financial statement of your municipality

[2:33:38] before we apply for this loan on your behalf.

[2:33:40] Because we respect that municipality's jurisdiction, their decision making and they have decided

[2:33:44] they want this loan to finance this project and we say we will help you to do that.

[2:33:49] I don't want to head down a path where we are tit for tatting each other and saying

[2:33:53] I want to oversight you.

[2:33:54] No, I want to oversight you.

[2:33:55] I want to oversight this, who's going to

[2:33:57] oversight that?

[2:33:59] Likewise, some area municipalities make

[2:34:01] decisions on zone changes that are

[2:34:03] against the official plan,

[2:34:06] the advice of our planning staff on the

[2:34:07] official plan, and we generally do not

[2:34:09] appeal those because we say that's up to

[2:34:11] that area municipality, that's their zoning

[2:34:13] bylaw, that's their zone change to

[2:34:14] consider, and we respect that and we

[2:34:16] generally do not appeal it. I do not

[2:34:18] want to go down a path where we're

[2:34:19] then saying, oh, so this is the game

[2:34:20] we're going to play where we're all going to look over each other's shoulders and duplicate

[2:34:23] oversight over each other. I think this council has a sphere of jurisdiction that is separate

[2:34:28] from the area municipalities. I think we've worked really hard to respect that sphere of

[2:34:32] jurisdiction in the interests of getting the right things done for our residents within

[2:34:37] those respective spheres of jurisdiction. For that reason, I will not be supporting

[2:34:40] this amendment. Is there any other discussion? Councillor Tate.

[2:34:44] Yeah, just through the chair, I think that was a little extreme, your comments.

[2:34:47] And I'd just like to point out quite often that the upper hasn't always respected the

[2:34:53] lower and this is nothing to do basically to some of the examples you gave.

[2:34:57] This is information and there's dollar amounts attached.

[2:35:01] And if it's already public, we're not asking something extreme.

[2:35:06] That was a little over the top.

[2:35:14] Councillor Accioni.

[2:35:15] Thank you.

[2:35:16] I am going to respectfully disagree with you.

[2:35:19] I think this is the chance that each of us lower-tier municipalities do have if

[2:35:25] it is a major concern bring it here to the table and ask for any kind of

[2:35:29] discussions and for those reasons I will support the amended motion.

[2:35:35] Any other

[2:35:36] discussion? I'll turn over the clerk for the recorded vote. I'm

[2:35:48] going to read the

[2:35:48] amendment back and that for the sake of transparency and

[2:35:54] clarification a report be prepared and brought back to County Council that

[2:35:58] answers the questions outlined in item 7.1, correspondence received by the township of

[2:36:03] Norwich.

[2:36:08] Warden Ryan?

[2:36:09] No.

[2:36:12] Councillor Accioni?

[2:36:14] Yes.

[2:36:16] Councillor Peterson?

[2:36:19] No.

[2:36:22] Councillor Mayberry?

[2:36:24] No.

[2:36:25] Councillor Martin?

[2:36:26] No.

[2:36:29] Councillor Tate?

[2:36:31] Yes.

[2:36:31] Councillor Gilveysi. Yes.

[2:36:38] Councillor Schaefer. Yes. Alternate Councillor Wilson. No.

[2:36:47] Councillor

[2:36:47] Palmer. No.

[2:36:53] That is not carried 6-4.

[2:36:59] So then we return to the, the motion is defeated.

[2:37:01] So we return to the original motion, which was,

[2:37:18] is there any further discussion?

[3:15:58] I'm going to call the meeting back to order from lunch, and we are at section eight, reports

[3:16:02] from departments, item 8.1.2, CP 2025-298, proposed boundary adjustment township of Norwich and

[3:16:08] City of Woodstock. Director Michaels, is there anything you'd like to highlight for

[3:16:10] council before I ask them for questions?

[3:16:13] Yeah, given that this is the first time, I think during this term of council we've

[3:16:17] had a boundary adjustment proposal come forward, I'll just maybe highlight a couple of things

[3:16:21] from the report. One is that the counties roll in these types of proposals, which

[3:16:25] really an agreement between both lower tier miss Pallies is more of a confirmatory role on the

[3:16:30] agreement. So the agreement itself really that negotiation has occurred between both the city

[3:16:35] Woodstock and the Township of Norwich and they've come to an agreement on how that boundary

[3:16:40] adjustment will be executed and what the terms of the agreement will be. From the original

[3:16:45] proposal that went to the public meetings which was you know closer to a thousand acres the

[3:16:49] resulting agreement between the two parties was for the 97 acres a much smaller or minimalist

[3:16:55] approach to the boundary adjustment, and really that's just to facilitate the

[3:16:58] realignment of Chuloav further to the south. So it would run kind of from the

[3:17:03] northeast corner of the area to be annexed down to the southwest corner of

[3:17:07] the area to be annexed, so kind of bisecting the property, the main

[3:17:10] property that's coming in. And that will allow for the industrial lands

[3:17:14] that are already located within the city to be kind of opened up for

[3:17:17] industrial development. So right now they're kind of identified and

[3:17:20] designated for industrial purposes, but the development of them will only

[3:17:23] be facilitated by the realignment of that road. So the agreement itself is based on previous

[3:17:30] agreements that all three parties assigned, the county, the township, and the city with some

[3:17:35] minor adjustments to that wording. So it's something that we've entertained before,

[3:17:40] and again, the county's role is really just confirmatory. And both the city and the township

[3:17:45] have passed their by-law to authorize signatory of that agreement, and that we're seeking

[3:17:50] the same thing from county council.

[3:17:52] Once all parties have signed that agreement,

[3:17:54] it will be forwarded to the province with the full

[3:17:56] complete package, which includes the public

[3:17:58] consultation record, which is attached to the

[3:18:00] report for council's information.

[3:18:02] And the hoped for effective date for the

[3:18:05] actual boundary adjustment is going to be

[3:18:06] January 1st of 2026, if all things go

[3:18:09] smoothly with the province.

[3:18:10] The only other piece I'd add is that

[3:18:12] the boundary adjustment itself is only the

[3:18:14] corporate boundary that's changing.

[3:18:16] So any change in land use within that area

[3:18:18] still requires a secondary planning and official plan amendment process. So it would remain

[3:18:22] in agriculture for the farm property and then commercial and industrial for the four properties

[3:18:28] along 59 until such time as there's official plan amendment to redesignate those lands.

[3:18:33] So that would come forward to County Council at such time as it's been submitted in the

[3:18:38] background studies have been prepared. Any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

[3:18:42] questions from Council on the report.

[3:18:49] Not seeing any. Council Palmer. Yes move by

[3:18:54] myself. Seconded Councilor Etcione. Result that the recommendations contained in

[3:18:58] report CP 2025-298 titled proposed boundary adjustment township of

[3:19:05] Norwich and city of Woodstock be adopted. Is there any discussion?

[3:19:12] All

[3:19:12] those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. 8.2 public works 8.2.1 PW

[3:19:17] W-2025-54 water and wastewater capacity allocation policy.

[3:19:22] Director Abercrombie, is there anything

[3:19:24] that you would like to highlight for Council

[3:19:26] before I ask them for question?

[3:19:28] Thank you, Warden Ryan.

[3:19:29] So before you today is the update

[3:19:30] to the water and wastewater allocation,

[3:19:33] capacity allocation policy, sorry.

[3:19:35] And this is done to provide consistent

[3:19:37] and a transparent approach to how servicing capacity

[3:19:39] is allocated and managed across Oxford County.

[3:19:42] This policy ensures that available water

[3:19:45] and wastewater capacity is distributed in a fair logical and sustainable manner and it supports

[3:19:50] reasonable growth and optimizes infrastructure investments. As part of this policy development,

[3:19:56] staff met with each area municipality to review the draft policy, discuss each specific community

[3:20:02] and any concerns about that community and receive feedback. All that feedback was incorporated

[3:20:07] into the draft policy, was reshared with all area municipalities. No further comments were

[3:20:13] provided on the final draft that is in front of you today.

[3:20:16] So this policy also does not use the use it or lose it

[3:20:21] provision that has been introduced by the province.

[3:20:23] It is using established planning act tools to

[3:20:27] ensure that any developments that are stalled,

[3:20:29] if capacity is needed to be relocated,

[3:20:31] it is done through that process.

[3:20:33] So in adopting this policy council will formalize

[3:20:36] the framework in managing the water wastewater

[3:20:38] capacity and ensure that there is transparencies

[3:20:41] for both the developers and area minister partners, as well as better aligns with the

[3:20:45] provincial legislation that encourages efficient use to reallocation of municipal services.

[3:20:51] And with me today, I have Dawn Ford, manager of water wastewater service, who was able

[3:20:55] to attend all those area municipality meetings if there's any questions from council.

[3:21:00] Questions from council on the report.

[3:21:07] Councillor Gilvaese.

[3:21:11] Moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Tate, resolve that the recommendation container

[3:21:15] report pw 2025-5 for titled water and wastewater capacity allocation policy

[3:21:21] be updated be adopted sorry. Councillor Govacy is the mover do you wish to speak

[3:21:26] that I do thank you number one I think this is a great policy I know that

[3:21:32] there's been a lot of subdivisions and things approved but this is a good for

[3:21:37] the public to know that there is a process in place that were you know

[3:21:41] So maybe everything that has approved there might not be enough water or wastewater capacity

[3:21:46] and that the county is continually reviewing it through this policy.

[3:21:50] So I think that this is a great report.

[3:21:52] Thank you.

[3:21:53] Councillor Tate is the seconder.

[3:21:55] I'll just echo those.

[3:21:56] I think it was a great job.

[3:21:58] Thank you.

[3:21:59] Anyone else?

[3:22:02] In addition to that, I think it's a great thing for residents to know.

[3:22:05] I think it's also a great thing for the province to know because as so often is the case

[3:22:09] we have heard from the province all about water and wastewater infrastructure and how

[3:22:12] people should be doing it and doing it better and making more land available for development.

[3:22:16] I frankly think that this report and the way that Oxford County is allocating this

[3:22:22] in partnership with all the area municipalities that were consulted and able to comment

[3:22:26] on it speaks to how well we are doing this compared to frankly some of our municipal

[3:22:31] partners.

[3:22:32] I say that openly because I have had the conversations with some of them about

[3:22:35] how why why they deserve to get millions of dollars in money when our

[3:22:39] residents just pay the cost of actually allocating and delivering the services

[3:22:42] and then it's not fair and I think this this this updated policy now really

[3:22:48] makes it or should make it clear to respective ministers that there is a

[3:22:52] way to do this and do it properly that facilitates your responsible growth

[3:22:57] and and not handouts of millions of dollars.

[3:23:02] I'll be pointing that out to

[3:23:04] appropriate ministers. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried.

[3:23:11] 8.2.2 PWA 2025-55 amendments to county forests and county lands, recreation,

[3:23:16] bylaw. Director Abercrombry, is there anything you want to highlight for

[3:23:19] council there? Thank you, Warden Ryan. So through this report we are looking to

[3:23:24] amend the bylaw, specifically schedules BND. The main emphasis for us bringing

[3:23:30] this in front of council is the removal of the Holbrook landfill. It came up

[3:23:33] during a recent ministry inspection and to be in compliance with our ECA it needs to not

[3:23:39] have public access.

[3:23:41] So unfortunately this is not a new restriction it was just something that we had not connected

[3:23:45] over the years.

[3:23:46] So we are also being proactive in removing a number of other former landfills from the

[3:23:50] bylaw as well as select wastewater treatment sites which do restrict public access as

[3:23:56] part of our ECA's as well as a former rail corridor that the county no longer owns.

[3:24:00] so all these are just doing to ensure we are keeping up with our administrative

[3:24:04] updates and happy to answer any questions Council might have. Questions for

[3:24:08] Council on the report?

[3:24:12] Council Schaefer. Thank you Board and through you move by

[3:24:16] myself seconded by Councilor Mayberry resolve the recommendations containing

[3:24:19] report PW 2025-55 title amendments to county forests and county lands

[3:24:24] recreation bylaw be adopted. Is there any discussion? All is in favor? Opposed?

[3:24:30] That is carried. 8.3 Woodingford Lodge, 8.3.1 WDFL 2025-05, Long-Term Care

[3:24:38] Committee of Management quarterly report, October 2025. Director Dagger, is there

[3:24:41] anything you want to highlight for Council? Thank you, Warden. Ryan, through

[3:24:44] yourself to members of Council. The Committee of Management reports that

[3:24:48] we bring to you on a quarterly basis, again, is a requirement through the

[3:24:51] Fixing Long-Term Care Act indicating our quality metrics as well as our

[3:24:55] strategic initiatives and program and instance. One of the things I'll

[3:24:59] your attention to within the contents of the

[3:25:01] report is on page 5 of the report.

[3:25:04] Really illustrating the level of detail that

[3:25:07] long-term care is from a requirement standpoint

[3:25:11] publicly to the members of public through the

[3:25:14] Ministry of Long-term Care.

[3:25:16] We have to be as transparent as possible in all

[3:25:18] aspects of the care we provide on a public

[3:25:20] registry, but also to members of council,

[3:25:23] which is the Committee on Management.

[3:25:25] I also want to draw your attention in that

[3:25:27] as well to the situations in which

[3:25:31] required resident to resident

[3:25:34] incidences.

[3:25:35] Certainly what we are seeing right

[3:25:36] now in trends in long-term care is

[3:25:38] a demographic of individuals with a

[3:25:41] higher threshold of dementia and

[3:25:43] mental health concerns.

[3:25:44] We are trying to equip our staff as

[3:25:46] best as possible through education,

[3:25:48] through non-pharmacological

[3:25:49] interventions and techniques to

[3:25:51] help support these individuals

[3:25:53] because certainly the demand and the

[3:25:55] right now is not as readily available to us

[3:25:58] as we were hopeful for,

[3:26:00] which is often resulting in our staff

[3:26:02] being the people to help mitigate those

[3:26:04] risks.

[3:26:05] So I just want to draw the attention to you

[3:26:07] and that is because what we are seeing right

[3:26:08] now, 84 to 85% of our individuals

[3:26:12] in long-term care do have a diagnosis

[3:26:14] of dementia.

[3:26:16] 55% of those with dementia have a

[3:26:18] mixed mental health condition as well.

[3:26:20] So I just draw your attention to those

[3:26:22] numbers.

[3:26:23] Also, too, when I think about the

[3:26:24] When I look at drawing your attention to the

[3:26:27] grass, when we look at outbreaks, when we

[3:26:29] look at outbreak standards, that is measured

[3:26:30] on a 30-day factor.

[3:26:33] Very proud to say that Whittingford

[3:26:35] Lodge is hitting under those 30-day

[3:26:36] periods for outbreak standards.

[3:26:39] That also is in credit to the dedicated

[3:26:43] embedded IPAC resource team that we have

[3:26:45] within the home.

[3:26:46] So it also speaks to the why we have

[3:26:48] that position.

[3:26:48] They are certainly mitigating the risks

[3:26:49] of viruses carrying on beyond a 30-day

[3:26:54] I also draw your attention as well to the

[3:26:56] antisecotic medication reviews or numbers.

[3:27:00] This number is very important to see that

[3:27:02] we are trending certainly on the downward pattern

[3:27:04] and below provincial standards.

[3:27:06] We are certainly using our medical team to its

[3:27:08] fullest with our nurse practitioners

[3:27:10] dedicating to look at the appropriate use of

[3:27:13] antisecotic medications.

[3:27:15] We want to make sure that when prescribed these

[3:27:17] medications that they are being prescribed for

[3:27:22] or have not been in the past

[3:27:23] but certainly we want to make sure

[3:27:25] that all medical interventions have been

[3:27:27] done non-pharmacologically before

[3:27:29] prescription of these medications.

[3:27:31] When I also look at the trends

[3:27:33] from a worsening of depression standpoint,

[3:27:36] again, this goes part and parcel

[3:27:37] to the dementia diagnosis.

[3:27:39] When we start seeing individuals,

[3:27:41] 85% of our residents with a diagnosis

[3:27:43] of dementia, we start to

[3:27:46] see those numbers of depression

[3:27:47] becoming higher and higher and higher

[3:27:48] And again, that becomes that need why we've

[3:27:52] educated our staff in those non-pharmacological

[3:27:54] interventions as a goal to reduce those

[3:27:57] numbers so that we're providing meaningful

[3:27:59] purpose to our residents in the absence of

[3:28:01] medication.

[3:28:03] I also draw your attention as well too that we

[3:28:06] see our pain scores trending downwards.

[3:28:08] This has certainly been a great support from

[3:28:11] our medical team as well as the frontline

[3:28:12] staff, really evaluating routinely when

[3:28:15] people are being prescribed medication or

[3:28:18] or using pain medication.

[3:28:20] We are frequently and constantly asking

[3:28:22] our staff member or our residents

[3:28:24] their threshold for pain, pre and post.

[3:28:27] So we are certainly seeing through

[3:28:28] evaluation that what we are doing

[3:28:29] in supporting those needs

[3:28:32] from a pain reduction

[3:28:34] is noted.

[3:28:36] The one thing I will also draw your

[3:28:38] attention to as well through

[3:28:39] transparency lens is falls.

[3:28:42] So certainly we are trending higher

[3:28:43] than the provincial average in falls.

[3:28:45] I can assure council and members of the

[3:28:47] committee of management that we are

[3:28:48] dedicated to providing increased

[3:28:51] resources towards falls management.

[3:28:53] What does that look like?

[3:28:54] We are looking at individuals having

[3:28:57] frequent weekly huddles with their

[3:28:59] frontline staffs, looking at patterns

[3:29:01] and trends as to what time of day people

[3:29:03] might be falling, what days of the

[3:29:05] week might be falling, is there a

[3:29:07] precipitant to why they are falling?

[3:29:09] Trying to stay ahead of the curve

[3:29:10] of those things.

[3:29:13] are the things that are the variables.

[3:29:15] The variables being changes in cognitive

[3:29:18] status, changes in mobility status,

[3:29:22] changing in age and medications.

[3:29:24] So we are trying to parcel the variables

[3:29:27] with the things that we can control

[3:29:29] to stay ahead of those things.

[3:29:31] So certainly what we are seeing and hope

[3:29:33] to report back at the next committee

[3:29:34] of management is at least a 10-15%

[3:29:36] reduction in those fall scores.

[3:29:38] Given the fact that we have increased

[3:29:40] our falls reduction program and our

[3:29:42] from a quality improvement standpoint.

[3:29:45] With that, Ward and Ryan, I will turn her back to you

[3:29:48] and members of council if there's any questions on the report.

[3:29:52] Thank you.

[3:29:53] Questions from council on the report?

[3:29:58] Councillor Tate.

[3:30:02] Move by myself, seconded by Councillor Wilson. Result of the recommendations

[3:30:07] containing report WDFL 2025-5, title long-term care committee of management

[3:30:12] quarterly report, October 2025 be adopted.

[3:30:16] Is there any discussion? Councillor Tate.

[3:30:19] Yeah, I just want to comment that I wanted to thank the director for the

[3:30:24] invitation that I had for the workshop that was held at Woodingford.

[3:30:28] both myself and Councillor Atger only went and it was very informative. I think it was

[3:30:34] mentioned before that most people in the public don't pay any attention until they absolutely

[3:30:38] need it and I think one of the big takeaways was that more public awareness of what goes on

[3:30:44] and attention and you know maybe volunteers and it was a real eye-opener from hearing because

[3:30:52] there were staff and residents, the wants and the needs. And I, well, public

[3:30:58] acknowledge and I've always said it's a really difficult job because you are

[3:31:02] working with people that you know do not going to be a resident for a long

[3:31:07] period of time so it's very stressful. And I don't think that, you know, I know

[3:31:12] all jobs are stressful but when you're dealing with that it's extremely

[3:31:15] stressful. I don't think enough people are aware of what goes on. So thank you

[3:31:20] for the report and I think if anybody hasn't been to that workshop before, it was really

[3:31:26] helpful. Thank you.

[3:31:30] Officer, Councillor Wilson is the seconder. Any other discussion? All those in favour?

[3:31:36] Opposed? That is carried. No unfinished business or motions or notice motions. Any inquiries

[3:31:42] from Council of Staff?

[3:31:46] Not seeing any bylaws. Councillor Gilvaizzi.

[3:31:52] moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Martin resolved that by-law number 6764-2025 as amended be given the first and second reading.

[3:32:05] Is there any discussion? All is in favour? Opposed? That is carried. Councillor Gilbezzi?

[3:32:10] Moved by myself seconded by Councillor Martin resolved that by-law number 6764-2025 as amended be given a third and final reading.

[3:32:19] Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried. And Councillor Mayberry.

[3:32:29] Thank you. Thank you. I move by myself, seconded by Councillor Martin, resolved that the following

[3:32:33] by-laws be read at first and second time, 6765-2025 to 6769-2025 inclusive.

[3:32:40] Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried. And Councillor Mayberry.

[3:32:47] Thank you, Your Honor. Move by myself, seconded by Councillor Martin, resolved the following

[3:32:51] by-laws be given a third and final reading, 6-7-6-5, 20-25 to 6-7-6-9, 20-25 inclusive.

[3:32:57] Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. And Councillor Peterson?

[3:33:03] Thank you, Your Honor. Move by myself, seconded by alternate Councillor Wilson,

[3:33:09] resolved that the Council meeting of October 8, 2025 be adjourned to the next meeting

[3:33:13] scheduled for October 22, 2025.

[3:33:15] Is there any discussion?

[3:33:17] All in favor?

[3:33:18] Opposed?

[3:33:18] That is carried.

[3:33:19] We are adjourned.

Council Meeting - Oxford County

Transcript