I'm calling the meeting to order. First item of business is adoption of the agenda, alternate
councillor Wilson.
Moved by myself, seconded by councillor Peterson, resolved that the agenda be approved as amended
by changing the order of business by moving closed session and consideration of matters
arising from closed session, following item 5.3.
Is there any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? That is carried. Having adopted the agenda,
are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof? Councillor
Gilvaese.
Hi Deb Govacy declared canary interest related item 8.3.1 and 14.1 on the open agenda of October 8,
2025 because of the following reasons conflict of interest as my mother-in-law is a resident
of Whittingford Lodge and in closed session I declare a canary interest related to item
13.1.1 on the closed meeting agenda October 8, 2025 because of the following reasons
conflict of interest, as my mother-in-law, is a resident of Winningford Lodge.
Thank you. I was going to ask if you have that in writing for the clerk, but clearly you do.
Are there any other disclosures of Pecuniary interest in the general nature of Councillor Tate?
I, Councillor Debtate, declare Pecuniary interest-related item CP 22025-29 on the open agenda of October 825
because of the following reasons of relationship.
And you have that in writing for the clerk.
Thank you.
Are there any other disclosures of the hearing
interest in the general nature thereof?
Not seeing any more.
Adoption of the council minutes of the previous
meeting, Councillor Peterson.
Thank you, warden.
Moved by Peterson, seconded by Councillor Tate.
Resolved that the council minutes of September 24,
2025 be adopted.
Is there any discussion?
All those in favour?
Opposed?
That is carried.
And public meetings resolution to go into
public meeting pursuant to the Planning Act? Councillor Martin. Thank you, Warden Ryan.
Moved by myself and seconded by alternate Councillor Wilson. I resolved that council
rise and go into a public meeting pursuant to the Planning Act and that the warden share
the public meeting. Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried.
And Manager Gilbert, I'll turn it over to you for 5.1.1, application for Official
Plan Amendment OP 25-05-4, Sammy Holdings Limited.
This facility would be established
on the pit floor of the existing gravel pit, adjacent to the eastern pit face,
which is parallel to Mill Street in the city of Woodstock. The extraction, the
pit itself is an above-water pit, so no extraction goes into the
water table. The area where the energy storage system would be
located, 6.5 hectares or 16 acres, would consist of 117 pad mounted battery units, 39 power
converter systems, a portable office trailer, 8 portable storage units, a substation and
transmission lines and pools along the northeastern portion of the property to the Hydro-1 transmission
The application indicates that this facility
will have a capacity provide 125
megawatts of electricity for up to four
hours per day for an initial period of up
to 22 years.
They have been awarded a contract by IESO
to provide the battery energy storage
through the LT1 RFP process
to support Ontario's electrical needs
as the province is working.
refurbishes, a commercial operation pending approval is planned for late 2026, early 2027.
The applicants were awarded a 22-year contract at this time.
The subject property again is a portion of it is an existing gravel pit. However,
the whole property is essentially licensed for gravel extraction. Where the facility is going
in that area the extraction has already been achieved to the limit of to the
full depth so no no further extraction is proposed in that area but there is
significant aggregate resources remaining on the site. Surrounding land
uses include Woodingford Lodge, Woodstock Hospital and a number of high
to D and other residential uses within the City of Woodstock, within 800, as well, Highway
401 is located 800 meters to the south.
Given the proximity of these uses to the site, as part of a complete application, planning
staff did require a community risk assessment to be completed.
That risk assessment would look at the risk of the facility to the adjacent sensitive
uses would also look at the likelihood of a potential fire, likelihood of the
impact of the potential impact of the fire on surrounding uses. We did have
that study peer reviewed by a qualified consultant and the conclusion of the
peer review was that overall the facility, if it operated in
accordance with the proposed mitigation measures, would have a low risk to the
surrounding uses. Through the risk assessment they also looked at the
technology itself, testing of the technology as well as other battery
storage fires in the United States and looking at the air modeling and air
quality measurements resulting from those operations.
As part of the risk
assessment a detailed emergency response plan will be required to
be developed by third party fire professionals
in cooperation with the fire chief
of both the township of South of Oxford
and City of Woodstock,
as well as through the site plan approval process,
emergency response plans will also be developed
to provide potential notification for local residents
or shelter in place or evacuation orders
in the event of a fire.
Overall, the peer reviewer concluded
as to the original author of the study
that the potential risk to the local community are low in control through the design, location
and mitigation measures applied to the facility.
And these mitigation measures will be implemented through the site plan approval process.
Staff did receive a number of complaints and concerns expressed by naming residences,
primarily relating to noise and the risk of fire.
It is noted that the facility itself will be in the bottom of the extracted pit floor.
So there is quite a topographical distance before you get to Mill Street.
There was also a noise study completed and the noise study concluded that due to that
elevation difference as well there is also a berm at the edge of the surrounding pit
and given that the background level of noise in the area, no mitigation measures
were required and that the noise from the equipment would meet the
ministry environment noise requirements.
As this whole area is currently licensed by the
Ministry of Natural Resources under the ARA, staff and applicant did reach out to them to determine
what their requirements would be. The ministry did indicate that they would require that the
area license be surrendered or partial surrender for the area that encompasses the facility.
So the applicant would submit a request to surrender the license for this facility,
and the intent is once that facility, once the battery energy storage project is ceases to,
or the use is completed, the applicant would then re-license this area
and ensure that the rehab plan for the aggregate operation would be implemented.
In this case, as there's no below water extraction, the rehab rehabilitation plan is essentially a return to agriculture.
So as long as the interim use is required to be re-licensed,
staff for the opinion that the overall rehabilitation plan and the impact to the aggregate operation
is expected to be minimal.
Overall staffers satisfied the proposals consistent with the provincial policy statement, both
the policies respecting new non-egg uses in agricultural areas.
As essentially the site is already heavily disturbed through the presence of the
The studies submitted with the application have demonstrated that there will be minimal
impact to agriculture and the use won't preclude the rest of the site being operated for the
extraction of aggregate and won't preclude the overall site being rehabilitated at one
centrum use ceases.
As well, the PPS does have supportive policies for the development of energy supply, including
generating energy generation in storage facilities, so overall staff are satisfied the proposal
isn't keeping with the PPS policies for the site.
As well for the agricultural policies in the official plan, the new or the current official
plan policies do provide some policy framework for renewable energy facilities and they are
permitted within the ag reserve designation to support long-term energy supply to accommodate
current and long-term projected needs. Staff are satisfied that this use is an alternative
energy facility. The size will be limited so that it is secondary to the current extraction
use of the lands, but long-term agricultural use of the lands. And through the community
the risk assessment has been demonstrated to be compatible with surrounding land uses
in the area. It's also located on lower priority agricultural lands as the lands are currently
being used for aggregate extraction. Staff are recommending that a policy be included
in the Official Plan Amendment to clarify that no severance be permitted to allow
for this site to be separately owned from the aggregate operation. That way that
will ensure that this site will be overall remain with
aggregate operation and won't preclude the rehabilitation
that's required for the aggregate extraction.
Staff do note that there is an update to the Official Plan
Amendment that was right at the agenda.
The only change in the amendment is the lot area.
For the battery energy storage, the report included
5 hectares, but the area is 6.5 hectares.
So through the detailed design of the proposal, as it's gone through the original submission
date, the 6.5 hectares is the area that now encompasses the battery energy storage area
in the transmission corridor.
Overall staff are satisfied that the proposal complies with the provincial policy statement
or provincial planning statement and the official plan policies for new non-egg uses in the
primary culture areas and for renewable and alternative energy systems, and staff recommend
the application be approved.
Thank you.
Questions from Council for the planner on the report?
Councillor Accione.
Thank you.
Through you, warden, to Mr. Gilbert, thank you for the report.
I think it's a great use of sterile aggregate land,
but my question to you is how long is the aggregate expected to continue on?
Like, obviously we're looking at a 22-year contract for this.
It is safe to assume that we've got over 22 years of aggregate of pulling it out of that site, I assume.
Through the word, yes, it's expected that it will take longer
than what the battery storage facility will be there for.
The current extent of the aggregate operation, I believe that was licensed in the early 90s or late 80s.
So there's certainly, there's more than half of the site yet to be developed.
Any other questions from council for the player on the report?
Councillor Gervaisi.
Three, would the hospital have to be evacuated?
I know that you undiscussed and said it was low risk, but would that area have to be evacuated if there was a fire?
Through the Queenie risk assessment, they looked at the smoke from the battery storage units.
And maybe the applicant can provide greater detail.
But essentially the units are self-contained so that there wouldn't be a thermal runaway.
So the whole facility would go up at once.
Um, but
What the idea is that the smoke would potentially, if it did go that way, there would be a notification
and emergency response plan in the event that the hospital had to stop taking outside air
in for a brief period while the smoke went through the vicinity. But that would be developed
through the community emergency response plans that are required through this site plan approval
process.
And if I may continue through Warden, the city of Woodstock had identified like some concerns
regarding chemicals or something that could leach its close to the water supply. So how
would that be mitigated if there was some toxic chemicals that went into the Woodstock water
supply?
Through the Warden. So that would be done through the detailed design. Currently it's
at the bottom of a gravel pit.
So there is not impermeable, but a rather hard surface
that's there.
So all the runoff from the site would
go into a stormwater management pond, which
would be treated and sampled to ensure
if there was a sample of fire or a chemical leak,
it would be contained within that pond.
And then the applicant would deal with the initial environment
for spill's response to deal with that.
3-1, if I may continue just on that regard,
though, but still doesn't that create a risk, like regarding the water supply? Like would
it be completely contained? Like there's still leakage. Like even if the fire department went
there and was spraying water, that water is still going into the ground. Like is it not?
Like I mean how would that be possibly be avoided? Because there's a lot of chemicals
and batteries.
I think that the detailed design for the site would be that all the water would be directed
into a pond and there's no natural outlet in that area given it's been extracted.
So there's a relatively, I won't say simple, but there's an engineered solution to contain
the water on site and then they would be trucked off site and disposed of in accordance
the ministry requirements.
I have one final question.
What after the 22 years?
So how are the materials
disposed of?
It ceases to exist after
22 years, like it's out of
end of its life, I'm assuming.
So what happens then?
The current
contractor for 22 years,
there may be opportunity
through the ISO process to
re-power that after the 22 years
or extend that contract.
But at this time, once that contract is complete,
there'd be a decommissioning plan required
as part of the site plan approval process.
So the applicant will be required to recycle the batteries
or dispose of them in accordance with the regulations
and then rehabilitate that site to what it currently exists
so that the aggregate operation, once it's completed,
could be rehabbed as well.
Thank you.
Council Schaefer.
Thank you, Gordon, for you.
With regard to the decommissioning again,
is there a bond collected or something to be set aside to cover the cost of that
in case that decommissioning wasn't done to the proper way, for example?
Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
I believe that Township is working through those details,
whether or not they're going to collect the security deposit to ensure the works are done.
by now it's part of the process that will be a cost estimate to what decommissioning
looks like.
Thank you.
If I may continue.
With regard to potential fire risk, that seems to be a concern from a lot of people.
In the Borlux report, it said in the highly unlikely event of a fire, chemical emissions
to air will not impact the general public.
pretty bold statement.
But you mentioned today possibly evacuations required. I
might confuse is there no emissions that are going to be problematic or will
there may be emissions that are problematic? Can you answer that?
So the community risk assessment, they didn't do, they included rather than modeling what
the fire would look like, the peer reviewer and the original consultant agreed that it
wouldn't be a meaningful product, effective insights.
So instead what they did is they looked at existing or known battery fire
incidences primarily in the United States and they used the air sampling that
was set up in the response to those events and they got the qualitative and
quantitative research from that and it determined that essentially that the
smoke isn't any worse than any household fires then the smoke resulting
resulting from a typical house fire.
As such, there will
be updates to the community risk
assessment, more to detail the emergency response plan, the event of a fire, but both the peer
reviewer and the original consultant indicated that the smoke itself likely wouldn't be more
more harmful than a typical smoke resulting from a typical house fire.
Thank you for that. I'm sure one of the fires they examined was the Moss landing fire in
January of this year, which reignited in February. Now on that one, there was, I think, 1,300
people evacuated, and there is lingering health effects for many of those people
that were in that area, and there is chemical pollution all over the area from that fire.
Now, I understand this proposal is a little different.
It's a different type of battery, things like that.
I just find it a little odd that we're almost being given a guarantee
that their chemical emissions will not impact the general public.
I just find that a little over the top.
That's just a comment.
Thank you.
Any other questions from Council for the Planner on the report?
I think the report makes it clear, but I just want to be sure that I'm understanding correctly.
There is comments in the report from City of Woodstock Fire Department and Township of
Southwest Oxford Council.
Were the concerns expressed by City of Woodstock Fire Department, you know, in the context
of the previous few questions there, and the unrelated comments from the Township
of Southwest Oxford incorporated in the recommendation that's in front of council
here today?
Yes they are so throughout the whole process we had really close and the
applicants and the peer reviewer had close cooperation with both the the
fire chiefs as well as the county's emergency response coordinator as well
as staff from from the hospital and Woodingford Lodge to discuss
emergency response plans. So there was a there was a primary concern. Thank
Thank you.
Any other questions from Council for the planner on the report?
Not seeing any.
Thank you.
Is the applicant here?
We should speak to their application.
Good morning.
We do have a presentation as well if we could just bring that up.
Good morning, Council, staff, members of the public.
My name is Caitlin Port.
I'm a registered professional planner with MHBC Planning.
I'm joined this morning by Asir from Boralex as well as members from the project team
both in person and then we have a number of members of our project team online as well.
We have a short presentation and then we're happy to answer any questions that Council may have.
Do I do it or next slide please?
Perfect, thank you.
So the development we're discussing this morning is a Battery Energy Storage System, acronym BESS.
As Eric mentioned, it's proposed to be located on the pit floor of an existing gravel pit
that's licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act.
The area of that best facility is approximately four and a half hectares.
It's located wholly within the township of Southwest Oxford but adjacent to the township
of Woodstock.
This facility will include energy storage components and infrastructure, a transformer
station and three stormwater management ponds.
Extraction activities will continue within the licensed area, both to the west.
There are additional aggregate resources to the east,
and then there is a pit extension that's already licensed to the north.
So the area the best is that green blob,
and the red outline there is the existing ARA license.
The yellow dashed line is the city of Woodstock Boundary,
and then you'll see a black dashed line.
that's the transmission line that connects the best facility
to the existing hydro one station on Carn Road.
Next slide please.
So there's three planning act approvals that are required.
An official plan amendment, a zoning bylaw amendment,
as well as municipal site plan approvals
and a municipal site plan agreement.
These planning approvals are required
to permit the land use
and will be subject to site specific zoning regulations
and provisions.
the ME that's the aggregate extraction zone will remain on the subject lands and the zoning by
law amendment will permit the best facility as an additional permitted land use within the ME zone.
Next slide please.
So there's been quite a bit of discussion because this is a bit of a unique
project in that it's located within an existing aggregate resources act license.
ARA licenses are regulated by the province of Ontario. So we've had quite a lot of discussion
with the Ministry of Natural Resources
as well as County and Township staff
on how this is gonna work from a regulatory perspective.
So the plan is that the green area
which will support the best facility
will be surrendered from the ARA license
and that will allow that area to be subject
and regulated by municipal site plan control
and a municipal site plan agreement.
So the plan is to surrender that area
via surrender application to submit it to the Ministry of Natural Resources and subsequent
ARA site plan amendments to facilitate that license surrender.
This will also allow the aggregate extraction activities, processing activities to continue
on the balance of the property.
And again, the North property is licensed as well.
That's the pit extension.
So extraction will continue North as well.
Eric spoke about this, but there are ongoing rehabilitation requirements for the aggregate
license, including the area that's planned to be surrendered to allow for the temporary
best facility.
Next slide, please.
I'm going to turn it over to ask you to provide a little bit more information on the facility
itself.
Thank you.
Thank you, Caitlin.
Thank you, Councillors, warden, staff and public for allowing us to speak today.
I think there was a good overview from Eric in terms of the facility itself.
I'm not going to repeat a lot of it here.
But the 125 megawatt facility, just to give you an idea, it is for grid reliability.
The purpose of it is to help keep the lights on on a really hot summer's day.
If you recall in June, there was a lot of heat waves happening,
and the grid operator needs this type of project to help supply enough power.
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.
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.
There was a discussion Eric brought up in terms of the sound assessment report that we did for the project.
And there is a mitigation already built in naturally to the site with respect to the berm itself.
So just east of the project, we have about a hundred foot
berm between the site and Mill Street and the residences,
which are called receptors, and then in the sound study.
And that provides a natural sound mitigation.
And the facility access would be from the existing
access road off of Clark Road.
I won't spend too much time on this.
Happy to elaborate as needed.
But we did, as Eric mentioned, perform a
community risk assessment.
We were happy to do so.
We designed the community risk assessment in tandem with
With the municipality in terms of how we would be approaching it, we also shared how we would
be approaching it with the fire departments as we meet with them on a regular basis both
the city of Woodstock, fire department and township south of Oxford.
And the idea here is to understand any potential impacts for health and safety of the community
and develop mitigation plans that can minimize or avoid these potential impacts.
impacts, and we talked about the low probability of event of a fire and impact to air or water
including groundwater is not expected. Other pieces of the community risk assessment looked
at during construction with respect to how we mitigate any potential impacts through
the implementation of a construction environmental and management plan, which is a typical plan
that we do when we construct these facilities. From an operational perspective, one of
of the things that we have to account for is sound emissions.
And as Eric mentioned, we meet the stringent requirements
for the Ministry of Environment and Conservation of Parks
on sound.
It was independently peer reviewed,
as Eric mentioned, approved by the county.
And overall, the site is appropriately cited
and does not pose any significant risk to the health
and safety of the surrounding community.
There's a lot to talk about fire safety and we understand that concern. There's three big
buckets that we look at and lots of layers in between. One is prevention in terms of picking
batteries that are safe, first and foremost. Whenever we build a project, we've been in
Ontario for a number of years with different projects. We want to make sure that we're
building a safe project for the personnel that are there, for any potential first
responders and also for the community because we're there for the long term. And that
starts with picking batteries that are as per the latest codes
and standards.
And there is an alphabet soup of acronyms and numbers
that I can share with you.
But I think that is not as effective as just essentially
saying that in the last five to 10 years,
the industry has grown significantly.
The need for these type of projects or batteries,
whether it's in your phones or laptops
or stationary storage like this one, has increased.
And we've learned a lot.
And the learnings from the industry in the last five
10 years has actually fed back into codes and standards with respect to us now choosing
suppliers that meet these codes and standards. And they do destructive testing to make sure
that things fail safely if they would in the future.
Monitoring detection is a big component of that. So we have thermal management systems
to make sure that the units are managed in an appropriate way. In addition to that,
there's 24-7 monitoring. So we have two control centers, one control center on the borough
X side, another control center on the battery supplier side, which basically monitors the
project continuously with respect to ensuring that any thresholds that are exceeded are
dealt with, whether automatic shutoffs or through corrective actions.
We also, we can do a lot, and I can expand on the different layers in terms of mitigation,
but we also have to plan for any scenario where there is an emergency response.
And we do this not just ourselves, but we leverage our third party consultants.
So here with us remotely is Nick Petrakis from Energy Safety Resources Group,
which are third party fire experts.
They're also ex-fire department firefighters employees that help actually do testing
and incorporate the latest standards into the updates with respect to battery safety.
And so through them and importantly in collaboration with the fire department,
plan. No emergency response plan will be final without the fire department giving us the
thumbs up. So we develop that in collaboration with them and meet with them regularly. We
have the emergency response plan that is right now in draft form and will continue to be
updated and finalized as we get close to the project that outlines any emergency response.
One of the big pieces of that emergency response is the way the units are designed
is that the units are, if there is an event, the unit that's affected is designed
to not propagate and a defensive firefighting technique is deployed whereby you don't put
water directly on the unit itself because it's not going to not help that much.
It'll prolong the incident and it'll also, by not putting water, it would eliminate
water runoff.
You would dose maybe adjacent containers with water as well.
So that's a defensive technique that is best practice and we've been discussing
that with the fire departments.
So there's a lot on fire safety.
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.
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.
And so the project successfully was screened with respect to the Classier transmission facility screening process,
which basically means we had to look at the project from a lot of different lenses
to make sure that we understand any potential impacts, have plans to mitigate those impacts,
whether it's environmental impact study, phase one environmental site assessment,
where we found no confirmed contamination on site, stage one and two archeological assessment,
where there was no concern in terms of finding any artifacts on the site.
Similarly, cultural heritage assessment.
We have no impact to cultural heritage sites with respect to this project.
We already talked about the sound assessment and the hydrological and water balance assessment.
That's also being reviewed by the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks,
which is related to our submission of environmental compliance approval,
which is the necessary step and approval that we get from the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks
with respect to our stormwater management system.
So in conclusion to this presentation,
as Kate Lynn started off with respect to the need here
that we're discussing is we're looking for an approval
of the official plan amendment
and associated the zoning bylaw amendment
to allow the establishment of the best facility
but that doesn't allow everything to go forward.
There's lots of steps like site plan approval
that has to happen as well
in order for us to begin construction.
The project is a temporary project as was mentioned in the previous Q&A.
We have a contract up to 22 years.
I think our contract ends if I'm not mistaken, April 1st, 2048.
And these approvals are meant to get approved for the project up to that date.
And we would decommission at that time.
And then extraction would continue well into the future beyond our project.
So we're temporary with respect to the existing aggregate licenses.
which means that also the land where the project sits at
will also be rehabilitated as per the rehabilitation plan for the license as a whole
once the battery project is complete.
That concludes the presentation, but if I may warden through you,
ask Nick Petrakas to clarify some Q&A that happened earlier
in terms of fire and evacuation.
Nick, are you on the line?
Hey, thank you, ACR. Can everyone hear me?
We can.
Perfect.
Thank you, ACR.
And yes, awarding through you.
I appreciate it.
And as ACR mentioned, very succinctly.
My name is Nick Petrakis.
I work for a company called ESRG, Energy Safety Response Group.
I am a fire protection engineer down here in the States.
We consult Orelx on the Oxford project as far as fire safety.
We developed the emergency response plan and have done the outreach to the fire
departments of Southwest Oxford and Woodstock regarding fire department
and standard operating procedures, as mentioned in an unlikely event of a
battery energy storage system fire. And there was a number of questions that I'd
like to address or at least provide some additional context and clarification on,
especially around the impact of smoke and the potential need for evacuations.
ESRG does not believe that evacuations are warranted for battery
energy storage system fires. In this situation, especially because of the
distance, the physical separation that's provided from the battery energy
storage system containers. And also the nature and the design of these containers themselves
like Asier had mentioned, they're compartmentalized, individual, non-enterable enclosures.
In the unlikely event of a fire, the system is designed to consume itself.
And it's designed not to propagate. And it's also limiting the fuel load. And as mentioned
before, as mentioned in the third-party peer report and in the community risk assessment
by Dr. Olson. Yes, the toxic off-gassing or any of the smoke off-gassing from a
battery energy storage system fire is no different from any other structure fire,
from a compartment fire, even from a residential type fire, because it's
really just the components that are inside that energy storage system that
are very similarly found in other similar uses or even in residential
buildings with foams and plastics. So all fire has toxic components of it.
Energy storage systems are no different.
There are also no unique or not exotic
from any other type of fire.
That being said, why do I say it's a very unlikely event?
As Mr. Asir mentioned,
these systems are required to go
through very strenuous testing
and listing and standards and fire safety testing.
They're also required to do destructive fire testing
and the manufacturer has done
what we call additional destructive testing
where they intentionally burn a system
to gather information on what the smoke looks like,
how hot the fire is,
and the potential for that fire to propagate.
And it's been very successful in that testing.
Our emergency response plan
takes into consideration assessing the impact
in the event of a fire.
The fire department has the tools
and the knowledge that they would need
to make a determination on that smoke
using handheld gas meters.
Like what we've seen with all of the events
that have happened,
especially some of the events that have happened here
in New York State and also in California,
We have not seen the impact of that plume extending
past the boundary of the facility
and causing any sort of negative effects.
But again, it's information that we've obtained ourselves
through large scale fire testing at our lab.
It's information that we've obtained from actual fire
events and publicly available knowledge
and root cause analyses that have happened afterwards.
There was one more about moss landing.
And I think it was already stated in the comment
that yes, that's different.
Moss landing was a large dedicated use
building that was not compartmentalized. These are very different in the fact that
they're lithium-iron phosphate batteries in smaller, you know, non-entherible
enclosures. So we're limiting the fire load. It's not going to be an entire
building. It's not going to spread throughout the facility. A fire is
going to be isolated to one individual enclosure. So I think for the most
part, I hope I answered a majority of those questions and those concerns.
Like Asir had mentioned, the use of water is very defensive.
If we do end up using water or direct the fire department to use water,
it's going to be in very short durations and it's going to be on the adjacent enclosures,
not the enclosure that's experiencing the failure.
So the ones that are unaffected next to it and that water is sprayed defensively
as far as like just on the exterior, very similar to what you would do with cooling operations.
So that water is not penetrating inside the enclosure.
So we're not expecting that water to have direct contact
with any of the battery cells inside of the enclosure that's burning.
So akin to water runoff, that water is not going to be coming into any direct contact
with any of the burning components within the enclosure.
So the limited use of water and also the direction that we give
with our emergency response plan is, you know, a favorable way to approach any concerns
about water runoff.
On top of that, the applicant is providing stormwater retention,
which is sort of an additional line of protection if there ever was a concern.
Thank you, Nick.
Thank you.
Questions from Council for the applicant?
Councillor Gilvaese.
Thank you, through your warden.
Would the local fire departments,
would they require any specialized equipment,
apparatus or chemicals that they may not have
available to them now?
Great question, through you warden.
Thank you, Councillor.
These are some of the discussions
that we're having in terms if they require adapters
to connect to for the firewater tank
or any measuring instruments.
These discussions that we're making sure that they'll have
access to what they need for a responding to a potential event,
even with low probability.
I'll pass it to Nick as well if there's any additional information
you want to share on that.
Yeah, thank you, Ossiara, and through your word,
and I think the most important tool that the Fire Department
can have is the emergency response plan, familiarity
with the emergency response plan and also on-site training.
They don't require any sort of unique tools,
but like Asir mentioned, we are continuing to have those discussions with the fire departments
to make sure that they are comfortable.
With this installation being in their jurisdiction, the most important tool that they can have
at their disposal is understanding the emergency response procedures and being familiar with
the emergency response planning in the unlikely event of a fire.
And I would just echo what Nick said about training.
I neglected to mention that, but that's exactly what we'll do with respect to
fire departments, making sure that they're trained and their personnel are trained in
terms of what a response would be with ESRG and whoever else we need to bring in as well.
Thank you.
I may continue through, Warden.
I think fire departments are just learning how to put out EV vehicles.
Like they're a challenge, so when I envision this whole facility, it is from a firefighting
perspective, maybe a little daunting.
I do have a couple other questions for you, Warden.
One is the 115KV line that you said that this Hydra would be placed upon.
Does that line need upgrading?
Will it be able to handle the load?
Thank you, through you, Warden.
Thank you, Councillor, for the question.
The 115KV line, you mean the one, I'm assuming you're talking about the one that we're connecting to
that is owned by Hydra 1 existing.
It does not need upgrading.
operating, it can handle the load. One of the processes of going through the RFP process
with the grid operators doing a deliverability study to understand that that line does have
enough space for the battery project. So we look at that early on in the process to
make sure that we're not proposing something that requires an upgrade of the line or
additional line. And that's solidified through a lengthy interconnection process with
Hydro-1 that talks about system impact assessment,
customer impact assessment as well,
that covers all the details of that.
So no need for upgrades on that line.
Where does that line run?
The line runs from,
maybe if I can pull up an image here.
So I'm going back to one of the slide images here.
So if you look at the,
there's a really clear yellow line,
which depicts the boundary
between City of Woodstock and Southwest Oxford.
And next to it is a black dashed line.
I think it's easier to see the line
to see the black dashed line.
So it runs from the bottom of the pit
to sort of the northeast corner
where a substation would be.
It runs overhead to get out of the pit
and then we go underground,
underground through the parcel
which is now shown as an agricultural field
although it's licensed as an aggregate pit
and will become so in the future.
along the eastern boundary and curves towards Carn Street and then crosses
Carn Road near the Hydro-1 stop station where we then connect to Hydro-1 and
the existing Hydro-1 transmission line. Okay, through you, Warden. If I may
continue. So that's quite a significant amount of Hydro. I think you said
Was it 525 megawatts?
It's 125 megawatts for four hours, which is equivalent.
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.
when maybe there's excess electricity and then store that energy so that we are able to
discharge during the day when everyone is actually using the electricity. Whether it's
in the morning peak or more importantly in the evening peak, everyone gets home. It's
a hot day. You turn your air conditioning on, your stove is on, maybe some are using
hair dryer, et cetera. So we're just basically shifting energy from when it's not needed
to when it is needed. And it's right. And to answer your question, when we are
charging, whenever we're charging at night, we
would be charging from energy that's generated
from a variety of sources in Ontario.
So, you know, half of the electricity generation is
approximately nuclear.
There could be wind resources that are operating
as well, and other generating resources.
So it depends on the day and the time in terms
of where the energy would come from.
But it would be a mix depending on what's
actually being generated at that time.
Thank you and one final question to you, Warden.
You made a comment that impact to water and fire is not expected, but it is not guaranteed
though, correct?
Like I know that we can put every safety plan in place, but it's not something that can
be guaranteed.
Through you, Warden, and I can appreciate the concern.
I think that safety is always something that's paramount.
As I mentioned, we're very cognizant of safety, whether it's on-site personnel,
first responders or the community.
And we just similarly, we can't guarantee
that there would never be an accident on the road
with people driving, people get into accidents all the time.
It's not something that we can guarantee all the time,
but we've taken the steps.
We've listened to the community,
we understand where we are,
and we've done many different steps
in terms of understanding how to design a system
that mitigates this potential concern.
One of the examples that was brought up earlier,
or maybe I can provide a little bit more context on that is that if I can put all this, wrap
it up into the layers of mitigation that we have here.
One of them is the first one is choosing batteries that are safe.
The second one is designing a project in a safe way.
The third one is preventative maintenance with respect to robust preventative maintenance
program.
Each unit, battery unit will be looked at every single year for the life of the
project.
So we find any issue before it happens.
The fourth one is the monitoring that I mentioned,
which with respect to 24-7 monitoring,
there's redundancy in a lot of these systems
with multiple heat sensors, multiple smoke sensors,
multiple gas sensors.
We even have an additional layer
that's not required or necessary,
but we choose to incorporate that as thermal imaging cameras.
So another layer of sensing
gives us a signal of something that might go wrong.
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.
The emergency response plan is sort of number seven in terms of reacting.
And then the next one is, even if there is an event,
a low probability there is an event,
even if we say best practice is not to put water on the affected unit,
but there is water runoff.
Our stormwater management system, we've designed it such that
we have catch basins that sit above an impermeable layer under the battery
so we can contain all the water during a fire event
and prevent it from going into the infiltration pond.
And then in that catch basin, the valves will close, we contain all the water and we're able to test it.
And if there's any issue, we can pump it off.
And these are all the layers with respect to us mitigating any potential issue from water going into the environment that may be contaminated.
And as here, if I might, it might be helpful to give through you Warden, sorry, it's Dr.
Chris Olson here. I was the one who did the community risk assessment that you folks have
been speaking to. Counselor, one of the things that we have seen when we look at some of
the fires that Mr. Petrakas was talking to about just earlier, New York State. There's
been a couple in California as well over the last few years. There's been an
extensive water testing done after. So with some of those fires they actually did apply water
directly to the containers themselves for many days. Department of Environmental Quality as well
as the Department of Health in New York State did extensive water testing, both surface water run
off from those facilities as well as the groundwater in the area in the vicinity after.
And quite simply we did not find contaminated or elevated levels of chemicals in that water.
And, similarly, in the California fires as well, as Mr. Petrak has said, you're going
to not be applying water directly to the on-fire container.
It's going to consume itself over four to eight hours at most.
And then the water that you would be using, the fire department would be using, would
be spread or adjacent containers.
So there's nothing that would be impacting the water itself on just spreading, like
trying to cool those adjacent containers.
even more recently at home here right nearby. There was a battery fire in
Bradford last year and and the Ministry of the Environment here in
Ontario also did testing of water that was used and again that one was fire
water directly on the container for I believe it was at least a day and there
were no impacts to the runoff of that water into the local creek.
Councilor Hatch only. Thank you through you warden. First up I just want to
I want to thank you and Mr. Petrach as everybody for, I don't know, we have probably talked
at least a dozen times.
We've sat down, we've gone over a lot of concerns that I certainly have, but also staff.
I can safely say that you and your team have gone through.
You've answered every single question, what you didn't know.
you've always sent back in, responded, and make sure we are satisfied with those
answers. I think when all this started my fear was, you know, is this another four
on one risk we have, you know, with the four on one being so close and we just
imagine the thousands of transport trucks and everything else that go down
that road and that's one of our biggest fears is a fire department and
and everything else with our community partners next door.
I feel, and I feel very safe to say as long as well as our fire department says that we
won't fear this site because of all the safeties and everything else you've put in place that
we feel comfortable.
It isn't going to be like a major concern as what we thought a year and a half ago
let's call it when all has started.
And I just sincerely want to say thank you, because a project of this size and all the
steps you've had to do, you've gone way over and above to make sure that I certainly can't
speak on SWAC's behalf.
But as far as Woodstock Fire Department, you've certainly satisfied everything that they have
concerns and through site plan process realizing that we got to figure out the details of
equipment and everything else, but really, really been happy with everything you and
your team have done.
So I just really wanted to say thank you.
And that water, the drinkable water table was probably one of our biggest concerns
for those watching at home right now, and you've satisfied those with all the safety
checks and the membranes and everything else, the different stormwater managements.
And again, thank you for that.
three warden thank you for those comments anyone else questions for the
applicant not seeing any thank you are there any members of the public either
here in person or attending virtually wish to speak to the application not
seeing any councilor Atchione moved
by myself second by Councilor Palmer
resolved that council adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as Oxford
County Council with a warden in the chair is there any discussion all in
favour? Opposed? That is carried. And consideration of report CP2025-2910P25-05-4, Sammy Holdings
Ltd. Councillor Mayberry.
Thank you. I will move on myself. Seconded by Councillor Pearson. Result of the recommendations
container report CP2025 and 291 title application for official plan amendment OP2505 for Sammy
Holdings Ltd. be adopted. Councillor Mayberry is the mover. Do you wish to speak to
that?
Just a brief, I would probably reiterate quite a bit of what country actually only just said
from the very beginning of this process, which was I'm guessing four or five years ago, when
we first met with Borlach's, the issues we brought forward were the same issues that
came up here today.
And in fact, we made a list of those issues, there were six or seven sort of major issues,
issues. And they were exactly the same issues that came up at the public meetings that the
two public meetings were held in the previous. So I think the issues are well-known. The
answers are the deciding factor here. And as Councillor Atgeroni mentioned, the emergency
services people, the fire department a lot, have had very close contact. And like he
I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this.
The community risk assessment was a big issue for us.
And our council has been relatively satisfied
with all of the steps forward so far.
I think the big issue now is,
while the fish plan amendment is important,
the real issue is going to be all the details
and the satisfaction with fire departments,
emergency services everyone else on the site plan and that's going to be a long
slow process and of course you can't get a building permit without the site plan.
So in my mind that's kind of the next step and probably one of the most
important to nail down every detail. Thank you.
Councillor Peterson is the seconder? No I'm good thank you. Any other
discussion.
The only comment I have is I think this is sort of new technology, new land use
in Oxford County. And I think it's entirely appropriate that we raise these concerns on
behalf of residents. But I think also in the report it makes clear that our relevant
subject matter experts at our area municipal partners and at Oxford County have reviewed
those concerns as outlined by members of council here today and they've been addressed.
I think I would also point out that a lot of these things because it's a new technology and new land use here
And specifically called out because the nature of the application
You know are kind of every bit as relevant but
Opaque to us when it comes to approving any other industrial land use
We approve an industrial land use and there's a big huge building that goes up
And we don't we don't know you know quite rightly because we don't regulate it
What goes in that building what pieces of equipment go in that building and what chemicals and what fire risks there are because
Because in those industrial applications, our experts and provincial partners in environmental
regulation regulate those things, which is not up to us to do, whether we agree or not
with how they do it is another matter.
So I think to me, I'm very satisfied that, as several council members have said, that
we've raised, our residents have raised the right questions, our staff, our area
municipal staff, partners have raised the right questions, and that we've got the
answers.
And I'm happy to support this application today.
Anyone else before I call the question?
All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried.
And closed session, Councillor Martin.
Move by myself and second by Councillor
Schaefer. Sorry. That council rise and go into closed session to consider report WDFL
closed session 2025-06 and a verbal report from the Chief Administrative Officer regarding a
position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any, any negotiations carried
out by the municipality or local board and the security of the property of the county
or local board.
Is there any discussion?
All those in favour?
Opposed?
That is carried.
Thank you.
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.
Thank you. Moved by myself. Second by Councillor Mayberry. Resolved that recommendations contained report WDFL 2025-06 be adopted.
Is there any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? That is carried.
And 14.2 verbal report from the Chief Administrative Officer, Councillor Tate.
Moved by myself, seconded by Councillor Peterson, resolved that the verbal report from the Chief
Administration Officer be received as information.
Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried.
And item 7, last item before we take a break for lunch.
Consideration of correspondence, Councillor Schaefer.
I just have a quick question, Warden, before we do the resolution.
It's just addressed to CIO Adley.
Some of the concerns raised in the correspondence from the Township of Norwich,
I know we're looking at doing a climate action plan.
That's upcoming, I think, in a few months.
Will some of those concerns, questions, and everything be addressed in the climate action plan?
So through you, Warren, some of these questions are answered by the fact that we are doing
climate action plan.
I think that is one of the comments or questions in there.
Some of the other ones that are simply yes, no answers probably will not be included
in the climate action plan itself.
But like I said, the fact that we're doing a climate action plan itself is an answer to one of these questions.
The other questions with specifics to greenhouse gas targets reporting on our action today, those will not be part of the climate action plan.
I would say that the action plan itself.
So, I would say those would be still outstanding.
Thank you.
Sorry, just did you read the motion? No, I haven't read it. Oh, sorry. Any other
questions then before? Councillor Schaefer. Thank you, warden, move by myself. Seconded
by Councillor Palmer. Resolved the correspondence item 7.1 to 7.3, inclusive on the open meeting
agenda of October 8th 2025 be received. Is there any discussion? Councillor Galvezzi. I'd like to put
forth an amendment to the motion moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Tate
that for the sake of transfer so receiving it for information and then adding on for
sake of transparency and clarification a report be prepared and brought back to County Council
that answers the question outlined in the in item 7.1 correspondence received by the
Township of Norwich.
Do you have that for her?
Thank you.
Councilor Giovese, as the mover, do you wish to speak to that?
I do.
I think that the council has already
received a report on greenhouse gas reduction targets.
So I think that that should be fairly easy.
I think as a municipal partner and for transparency,
I think it would be good to have this open out
in the open for clarification to the public.
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.
Councillor Tate is the seconder.
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.
Any other discussion?
Excuse
me, can I have a recorded vote on the amendment?
Any other discussion?
So I will not be supporting that, and two main reasons.
One is, I think we received, this council received a delegation from residents asking us to do this,
and we did not take action on it.
And I think it is sending a wrong message, in my opinion, to disregard residents when they directly engage with this council
in favour of another council that does not have the jurisdiction to ask this council to do a thing.
So I think that's disrespectful of the delegation they received before to say no to you,
but we will say yes to some other elected body.
I think secondly, this potentially sets a dangerous precedent
for councils to call on each other, demand that each other do things.
I spoke in my inauguration here three years ago almost exactly three years ago
about councils respecting each other's jurisdiction
and staying out of each other's way,
that in almost every case where people perceive
that there's overlapping jurisdiction or conflict,
that there is not.
I think this council set an extremely constructive example
of that for this entire term of collaboration
between the area municipalities in the county,
collaboration between area municipality
and area municipality to get things done.
Examples of what I think this could go wrong,
this council regularly receives OLC debenturing
applications from area municipal partners.
It is an absolute matter of practice as long as I have sat here that we do not question
those.
We do not scrutinize those.
We do not say actually I would like to see an audited financial statement of your municipality
before we apply for this loan on your behalf.
Because we respect that municipality's jurisdiction, their decision making and they have decided
they want this loan to finance this project and we say we will help you to do that.
I don't want to head down a path where we are tit for tatting each other and saying
I want to oversight you.
No, I want to oversight you.
I want to oversight this, who's going to
oversight that?
Likewise, some area municipalities make
decisions on zone changes that are
against the official plan,
the advice of our planning staff on the
official plan, and we generally do not
appeal those because we say that's up to
that area municipality, that's their zoning
bylaw, that's their zone change to
consider, and we respect that and we
generally do not appeal it. I do not
want to go down a path where we're
then saying, oh, so this is the game
we're going to play where we're all going to look over each other's shoulders and duplicate
oversight over each other. I think this council has a sphere of jurisdiction that is separate
from the area municipalities. I think we've worked really hard to respect that sphere of
jurisdiction in the interests of getting the right things done for our residents within
those respective spheres of jurisdiction. For that reason, I will not be supporting
this amendment. Is there any other discussion? Councillor Tate.
Yeah, just through the chair, I think that was a little extreme, your comments.
And I'd just like to point out quite often that the upper hasn't always respected the
lower and this is nothing to do basically to some of the examples you gave.
This is information and there's dollar amounts attached.
And if it's already public, we're not asking something extreme.
That was a little over the top.
Councillor Accioni.
Thank you.
I am going to respectfully disagree with you.
I think this is the chance that each of us lower-tier municipalities do have if
it is a major concern bring it here to the table and ask for any kind of
discussions and for those reasons I will support the amended motion.
Any other
discussion? I'll turn over the clerk for the recorded vote. I'm
going to read the
amendment back and that for the sake of transparency and
clarification a report be prepared and brought back to County Council that
answers the questions outlined in item 7.1, correspondence received by the township of
Norwich.
Warden Ryan?
No.
Councillor Accioni?
Yes.
Councillor Peterson?
No.
Councillor Mayberry?
No.
Councillor Martin?
No.
Councillor Tate?
Yes.
Councillor Gilveysi. Yes.
Councillor Schaefer. Yes. Alternate Councillor Wilson. No.
Councillor
Palmer. No.
That is not carried 6-4.
So then we return to the, the motion is defeated.
So we return to the original motion, which was,
is there any further discussion?
I'm going to call the meeting back to order from lunch, and we are at section eight, reports
from departments, item 8.1.2, CP 2025-298, proposed boundary adjustment township of Norwich and
City of Woodstock. Director Michaels, is there anything you'd like to highlight for
council before I ask them for questions?
Yeah, given that this is the first time, I think during this term of council we've
had a boundary adjustment proposal come forward, I'll just maybe highlight a couple of things
from the report. One is that the counties roll in these types of proposals, which
really an agreement between both lower tier miss Pallies is more of a confirmatory role on the
agreement. So the agreement itself really that negotiation has occurred between both the city
Woodstock and the Township of Norwich and they've come to an agreement on how that boundary
adjustment will be executed and what the terms of the agreement will be. From the original
proposal that went to the public meetings which was you know closer to a thousand acres the
resulting agreement between the two parties was for the 97 acres a much smaller or minimalist
approach to the boundary adjustment, and really that's just to facilitate the
realignment of Chuloav further to the south. So it would run kind of from the
northeast corner of the area to be annexed down to the southwest corner of
the area to be annexed, so kind of bisecting the property, the main
property that's coming in. And that will allow for the industrial lands
that are already located within the city to be kind of opened up for
industrial development. So right now they're kind of identified and
designated for industrial purposes, but the development of them will only
be facilitated by the realignment of that road. So the agreement itself is based on previous
agreements that all three parties assigned, the county, the township, and the city with some
minor adjustments to that wording. So it's something that we've entertained before,
and again, the county's role is really just confirmatory. And both the city and the township
have passed their by-law to authorize signatory of that agreement, and that we're seeking
the same thing from county council.
Once all parties have signed that agreement,
it will be forwarded to the province with the full
complete package, which includes the public
consultation record, which is attached to the
report for council's information.
And the hoped for effective date for the
actual boundary adjustment is going to be
January 1st of 2026, if all things go
smoothly with the province.
The only other piece I'd add is that
the boundary adjustment itself is only the
corporate boundary that's changing.
So any change in land use within that area
still requires a secondary planning and official plan amendment process. So it would remain
in agriculture for the farm property and then commercial and industrial for the four properties
along 59 until such time as there's official plan amendment to redesignate those lands.
So that would come forward to County Council at such time as it's been submitted in the
background studies have been prepared. Any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
questions from Council on the report.
Not seeing any. Council Palmer. Yes move by
myself. Seconded Councilor Etcione. Result that the recommendations contained in
report CP 2025-298 titled proposed boundary adjustment township of
Norwich and city of Woodstock be adopted. Is there any discussion?
All
those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. 8.2 public works 8.2.1 PW
W-2025-54 water and wastewater capacity allocation policy.
Director Abercrombie, is there anything
that you would like to highlight for Council
before I ask them for question?
Thank you, Warden Ryan.
So before you today is the update
to the water and wastewater allocation,
capacity allocation policy, sorry.
And this is done to provide consistent
and a transparent approach to how servicing capacity
is allocated and managed across Oxford County.
This policy ensures that available water
and wastewater capacity is distributed in a fair logical and sustainable manner and it supports
reasonable growth and optimizes infrastructure investments. As part of this policy development,
staff met with each area municipality to review the draft policy, discuss each specific community
and any concerns about that community and receive feedback. All that feedback was incorporated
into the draft policy, was reshared with all area municipalities. No further comments were
provided on the final draft that is in front of you today.
So this policy also does not use the use it or lose it
provision that has been introduced by the province.
It is using established planning act tools to
ensure that any developments that are stalled,
if capacity is needed to be relocated,
it is done through that process.
So in adopting this policy council will formalize
the framework in managing the water wastewater
capacity and ensure that there is transparencies
for both the developers and area minister partners, as well as better aligns with the
provincial legislation that encourages efficient use to reallocation of municipal services.
And with me today, I have Dawn Ford, manager of water wastewater service, who was able
to attend all those area municipality meetings if there's any questions from council.
Questions from council on the report.
Councillor Gilvaese.
Moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Tate, resolve that the recommendation container
report pw 2025-5 for titled water and wastewater capacity allocation policy
be updated be adopted sorry. Councillor Govacy is the mover do you wish to speak
that I do thank you number one I think this is a great policy I know that
there's been a lot of subdivisions and things approved but this is a good for
the public to know that there is a process in place that were you know
So maybe everything that has approved there might not be enough water or wastewater capacity
and that the county is continually reviewing it through this policy.
So I think that this is a great report.
Thank you.
Councillor Tate is the seconder.
I'll just echo those.
I think it was a great job.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
In addition to that, I think it's a great thing for residents to know.
I think it's also a great thing for the province to know because as so often is the case
we have heard from the province all about water and wastewater infrastructure and how
people should be doing it and doing it better and making more land available for development.
I frankly think that this report and the way that Oxford County is allocating this
in partnership with all the area municipalities that were consulted and able to comment
on it speaks to how well we are doing this compared to frankly some of our municipal
partners.
I say that openly because I have had the conversations with some of them about
how why why they deserve to get millions of dollars in money when our
residents just pay the cost of actually allocating and delivering the services
and then it's not fair and I think this this this updated policy now really
makes it or should make it clear to respective ministers that there is a
way to do this and do it properly that facilitates your responsible growth
and and not handouts of millions of dollars.
I'll be pointing that out to
appropriate ministers. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried.
8.2.2 PWA 2025-55 amendments to county forests and county lands, recreation,
bylaw. Director Abercrombry, is there anything you want to highlight for
council there? Thank you, Warden Ryan. So through this report we are looking to
amend the bylaw, specifically schedules BND. The main emphasis for us bringing
this in front of council is the removal of the Holbrook landfill. It came up
during a recent ministry inspection and to be in compliance with our ECA it needs to not
have public access.
So unfortunately this is not a new restriction it was just something that we had not connected
over the years.
So we are also being proactive in removing a number of other former landfills from the
bylaw as well as select wastewater treatment sites which do restrict public access as
part of our ECA's as well as a former rail corridor that the county no longer owns.
so all these are just doing to ensure we are keeping up with our administrative
updates and happy to answer any questions Council might have. Questions for
Council on the report?
Council Schaefer. Thank you Board and through you move by
myself seconded by Councilor Mayberry resolve the recommendations containing
report PW 2025-55 title amendments to county forests and county lands
recreation bylaw be adopted. Is there any discussion? All is in favor? Opposed?
That is carried. 8.3 Woodingford Lodge, 8.3.1 WDFL 2025-05, Long-Term Care
Committee of Management quarterly report, October 2025. Director Dagger, is there
anything you want to highlight for Council? Thank you, Warden. Ryan, through
yourself to members of Council. The Committee of Management reports that
we bring to you on a quarterly basis, again, is a requirement through the
Fixing Long-Term Care Act indicating our quality metrics as well as our
strategic initiatives and program and instance. One of the things I'll
your attention to within the contents of the
report is on page 5 of the report.
Really illustrating the level of detail that
long-term care is from a requirement standpoint
publicly to the members of public through the
Ministry of Long-term Care.
We have to be as transparent as possible in all
aspects of the care we provide on a public
registry, but also to members of council,
which is the Committee on Management.
I also want to draw your attention in that
as well to the situations in which
required resident to resident
incidences.
Certainly what we are seeing right
now in trends in long-term care is
a demographic of individuals with a
higher threshold of dementia and
mental health concerns.
We are trying to equip our staff as
best as possible through education,
through non-pharmacological
interventions and techniques to
help support these individuals
because certainly the demand and the
right now is not as readily available to us
as we were hopeful for,
which is often resulting in our staff
being the people to help mitigate those
risks.
So I just want to draw the attention to you
and that is because what we are seeing right
now, 84 to 85% of our individuals
in long-term care do have a diagnosis
of dementia.
55% of those with dementia have a
mixed mental health condition as well.
So I just draw your attention to those
numbers.
Also, too, when I think about the
When I look at drawing your attention to the
grass, when we look at outbreaks, when we
look at outbreak standards, that is measured
on a 30-day factor.
Very proud to say that Whittingford
Lodge is hitting under those 30-day
periods for outbreak standards.
That also is in credit to the dedicated
embedded IPAC resource team that we have
within the home.
So it also speaks to the why we have
that position.
They are certainly mitigating the risks
of viruses carrying on beyond a 30-day
I also draw your attention as well to the
antisecotic medication reviews or numbers.
This number is very important to see that
we are trending certainly on the downward pattern
and below provincial standards.
We are certainly using our medical team to its
fullest with our nurse practitioners
dedicating to look at the appropriate use of
antisecotic medications.
We want to make sure that when prescribed these
medications that they are being prescribed for
or have not been in the past
but certainly we want to make sure
that all medical interventions have been
done non-pharmacologically before
prescription of these medications.
When I also look at the trends
from a worsening of depression standpoint,
again, this goes part and parcel
to the dementia diagnosis.
When we start seeing individuals,
85% of our residents with a diagnosis
of dementia, we start to
see those numbers of depression
becoming higher and higher and higher
And again, that becomes that need why we've
educated our staff in those non-pharmacological
interventions as a goal to reduce those
numbers so that we're providing meaningful
purpose to our residents in the absence of
medication.
I also draw your attention as well too that we
see our pain scores trending downwards.
This has certainly been a great support from
our medical team as well as the frontline
staff, really evaluating routinely when
people are being prescribed medication or
or using pain medication.
We are frequently and constantly asking
our staff member or our residents
their threshold for pain, pre and post.
So we are certainly seeing through
evaluation that what we are doing
in supporting those needs
from a pain reduction
is noted.
The one thing I will also draw your
attention to as well through
transparency lens is falls.
So certainly we are trending higher
than the provincial average in falls.
I can assure council and members of the
committee of management that we are
dedicated to providing increased
resources towards falls management.
What does that look like?
We are looking at individuals having
frequent weekly huddles with their
frontline staffs, looking at patterns
and trends as to what time of day people
might be falling, what days of the
week might be falling, is there a
precipitant to why they are falling?
Trying to stay ahead of the curve
of those things.
are the things that are the variables.
The variables being changes in cognitive
status, changes in mobility status,
changing in age and medications.
So we are trying to parcel the variables
with the things that we can control
to stay ahead of those things.
So certainly what we are seeing and hope
to report back at the next committee
of management is at least a 10-15%
reduction in those fall scores.
Given the fact that we have increased
our falls reduction program and our
from a quality improvement standpoint.
With that, Ward and Ryan, I will turn her back to you
and members of council if there's any questions on the report.
Thank you.
Questions from council on the report?
Councillor Tate.
Move by myself, seconded by Councillor Wilson. Result of the recommendations
containing report WDFL 2025-5, title long-term care committee of management
quarterly report, October 2025 be adopted.
Is there any discussion? Councillor Tate.
Yeah, I just want to comment that I wanted to thank the director for the
invitation that I had for the workshop that was held at Woodingford.
both myself and Councillor Atger only went and it was very informative. I think it was
mentioned before that most people in the public don't pay any attention until they absolutely
need it and I think one of the big takeaways was that more public awareness of what goes on
and attention and you know maybe volunteers and it was a real eye-opener from hearing because
there were staff and residents, the wants and the needs. And I, well, public
acknowledge and I've always said it's a really difficult job because you are
working with people that you know do not going to be a resident for a long
period of time so it's very stressful. And I don't think that, you know, I know
all jobs are stressful but when you're dealing with that it's extremely
stressful. I don't think enough people are aware of what goes on. So thank you
for the report and I think if anybody hasn't been to that workshop before, it was really
helpful. Thank you.
Officer, Councillor Wilson is the seconder. Any other discussion? All those in favour?
Opposed? That is carried. No unfinished business or motions or notice motions. Any inquiries
from Council of Staff?
Not seeing any bylaws. Councillor Gilvaizzi.
moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Martin resolved that by-law number 6764-2025 as amended be given the first and second reading.
Is there any discussion? All is in favour? Opposed? That is carried. Councillor Gilbezzi?
Moved by myself seconded by Councillor Martin resolved that by-law number 6764-2025 as amended be given a third and final reading.
Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried. And Councillor Mayberry.
Thank you. Thank you. I move by myself, seconded by Councillor Martin, resolved that the following
by-laws be read at first and second time, 6765-2025 to 6769-2025 inclusive.
Is there any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That is carried. And Councillor Mayberry.
Thank you, Your Honor. Move by myself, seconded by Councillor Martin, resolved the following
by-laws be given a third and final reading, 6-7-6-5, 20-25 to 6-7-6-9, 20-25 inclusive.
Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. And Councillor Peterson?
Thank you, Your Honor. Move by myself, seconded by alternate Councillor Wilson,
resolved that the Council meeting of October 8, 2025 be adjourned to the next meeting
scheduled for October 22, 2025.
Is there any discussion?
All in favor?
Opposed?
That is carried.
We are adjourned.