[0:00] Thanks.

[0:02] Okay, it's 5 o'clock. I'm going to call

[0:04] this meeting to order the village

[0:06] council on July the 8th, 2025.

[0:12] I'm going to read the land acknowledge

[0:18] order

[0:20] on July 8th.

[0:25] We acknowledge that this land on which

[0:27] we are gathered today is part of the

[0:29] ancestral land of the Chipoa, Ottawa and

[0:32] Padawataman peoples referred to

[0:34] collectively as the Nishnabag. It is

[0:36] through the connection of Munishna Bay

[0:38] with the spirit of the land, water and

[0:40] air that we recognize their unique

[0:42] cultures, traditions and values.

[0:44] Together as treaty people, we have a

[0:46] shared responsibility to act with

[0:48] respect for the environment that

[0:50] sustains all life, protecting the future

[0:52] for those generations to come. Is there

[0:55] anyone with peering interests?

[0:57] None. And as always, if it comes up, if

[1:00] you realize that later, just speak up.

[1:04] And we're going down to move down to

[1:06] planning meeting. Sorry, public meeting.

[1:10] Um Jim just went to get a new document.

[1:13] So just hold for a second.

[1:17] So we're going to be looking at the

[1:19] proposed zoning bylaw amendment Z12025.

[1:24] Thank you.

[1:29] So we are here tonight to discuss

[1:31] application Z12025

[1:34] for resoning and application 38T

[1:38] 25003

[1:39] for a draft plan of subdivision. This

[1:42] will be a combined meeting for both

[1:45] applications. With us tonight is Jared

[1:48] Preston. Sorry, sorry. Sorry. Jared

[1:51] Bkins. No,

[1:53] Jordan.

[1:55] I might have wrong. Sorry,

[1:57] Jared Preston and Jordan.

[2:01] Okay, Jordan Folkins.

[2:04] Sorry.

[2:05] And Jared Preston,

[2:06] right? Okay.

[2:08] But you

[2:09] um

[2:10] done this before.

[2:11] Yeah, I know we did. Um, so

[2:14] just Jordan

[2:16] is a planner with BM Ross hired by Lamp

[2:19] County and Jared Preston is a planner

[2:22] for Lamp County currently assigned to

[2:24] the belly pointer.

[2:26] I will call on the planners to present

[2:28] the applications as well as the

[2:30] recommendations.

[2:35] Would you um step into the bar, please?

[2:38] Um, could I have a motion to invite the

[2:40] planner for the bar? Also move seconder.

[2:43] Thank you. All in favor? Okay.

[2:57] Yeah, sure.

[3:00] I can

[3:02] find

[3:05] another chance.

[3:08] Okay.

[3:09] Are you sure? Oh, sure. Okay. You've

[3:11] done it before.

[3:12] All right. Thank you. So, um I am Doran

[3:14] Fulkins from Brian Rosson Associates.

[3:16] I've been hired as a PL consultant for

[3:19] the county of Lancing. He said I'm

[3:21] joined here by Jared Preston and we'll

[3:23] present the the two applications. We'll

[3:26] go over our recommendations, some

[3:27] important call or policy considerations

[3:30] and uh next steps in this process. So,

[3:32] if you go to go to the next slide, I'll

[3:34] just introduce exactly what we'll speak

[3:36] to you about. I will talk about the the

[3:39] site, Jared will get into more details

[3:42] of the subject lands as well as the

[3:43] surrounding area. I'll give council a

[3:46] bit of a history of exactly what was

[3:48] approved several years ago, a little bit

[3:50] more of the the background that's being

[3:51] proposed here today. Uh both the

[3:53] resoning and the subdivision. Jared will

[3:56] cover some important policies uh that we

[3:58] look at when we're framing our

[3:59] recommendation to council and uh I will

[4:02] go over our recommendation and Jared

[4:04] will tell you about next steps. So next

[4:06] slide please.

[4:07] Just pause for a second just to people

[4:10] want to be able to see maybe if we want

[4:11] to change where you're sitting instead

[4:14] of

[4:18] your chairs around.

[4:42] All right. So, the subject lands uh

[4:44] today that we're looking at is 1600

[4:46] Venetian Boulevard. And I've got my

[4:49] pointer right here. See? It's not

[4:52] showing up very well, Jared.

[4:57] It's not showing up. Oh, but anyways, so

[5:00] that um that's the area that's

[5:02] highlighted there um in the light blue

[5:05] color. Um it's around um like I said,

[5:09] it's located on the southwest side of

[5:11] Venetian Boulevard. It's adjacent to the

[5:14] Starlight Casino that you can see on the

[5:17] east. It's got a frontage of about 320 m

[5:20] and about 2.5 hectares around 6 acres

[5:23] and it's currently a vacant property.

[5:26] The site previously had a wood lot with

[5:27] an area of only one hector in size which

[5:31] has now currently been removed.

[5:34] [Music]

[5:36] So,

[5:39] yep. So, I'm just going to go over this

[5:41] surrounding area. So we got um lands

[5:43] that are designated mixed use which

[5:46] permit low destinity residential uses.

[5:48] The lands are zone residential marina

[5:50] 1.5. This allows a range of commercial

[5:53] uses, town homes and a maximum of six

[5:57] semi- detached dwellings.

[6:00] Subject plans are adjacent. The parking

[6:02] area for the gateway casino to the west,

[6:05] bluewater bridge offices to the north,

[6:08] and then the bridge marina buildings and

[6:09] open storage areas to the south.

[6:12] And there's also some apartment

[6:13] dwellings to the east right next to the

[6:17] Mariner Village.

[6:20] Thank you, Jared. Uh council may

[6:22] remember several years ago this uh

[6:24] property was subject to a couple of plan

[6:26] applications. The first one was an

[6:29] official plan amendment and that was to

[6:30] allow low density residential uses on

[6:33] this site. Now what with went with that

[6:35] was a reszoning application to allow

[6:38] town houses which were already allowed

[6:40] but to also allow semi- detached

[6:41] dwellings up to a maximum of six. Uh it

[6:44] did not include singly attached bones at

[6:46] all. So that resoning was uh specific to

[6:49] the 2021 concept plan that was brought

[6:51] to council back then. Uh plans have

[6:53] changed a little bit once they dug a

[6:55] little bit further into getting ready

[6:57] for the subdivision process. They found

[6:59] that there are some pretty serious

[7:01] constraints on the northwest and

[7:03] southeast section of the property. Now,

[7:05] I'll get into those constraints in a

[7:07] little bit. Uh, but that has essentially

[7:09] reduced this from what was approved in

[7:12] the official plan of zoning bylaw is 36

[7:14] units is was then down to 22 and today

[7:18] if we go to the next slide, it is

[7:20] actually brought down to 21 units. So

[7:23] instead of the original townhouse

[7:24] development, what's being proposed here

[7:26] today as shown in orange are

[7:27] semi-attached dwelling unit. So that's a

[7:29] dwelling that has one shared wall uh and

[7:32] no shared walls on the other side. The

[7:34] yellow part parcel is a singly attached

[7:37] dwelling and that's really a remnant

[7:39] because of the restrictions. I'm sure it

[7:40] would be a semi-touching, but there is

[7:42] enough room once again to the

[7:44] constraints of the site. Uh the purple

[7:46] area is currently a water lot. Uh the

[7:48] gray area is an an informal parking

[7:51] area. It's a gravel parking area. And

[7:54] what's brown is an area that's being

[7:56] proposed for uh it's an area where

[8:00] there's a species at risk. So this is

[8:02] going to be a habitat creation area. And

[8:05] the green area finally is what's being

[8:07] proposed as part.

[8:10] Now I was talking about the constraints

[8:12] of this site. Um actually that's the

[8:14] next slide. This one will be the

[8:15] resoning. So, as I said, right now the

[8:17] site is approved for a maximum of six

[8:20] semi-attached dwellings. What the

[8:22] applicant would like to do is have

[8:23] semi-attached dwellings throughout the

[8:25] site. Now, the framework for this was

[8:28] approved by council several years ago.

[8:29] Low density residential uses are allowed

[8:31] on the property. And when we're

[8:33] considering the zoning by amendment,

[8:34] adding singly dash provide more housing

[8:37] diversity uh and that sort of thing to

[8:39] the neighborhood. So, we're supportive

[8:40] of that. Also what's being proposed is a

[8:44] reduction in side yard setbacks both

[8:45] from the street and from the abodied

[8:47] properties and a lot coverage of 45%.

[8:50] Now the lot coverage of 45% is currently

[8:53] what's allowed for town houses on the

[8:55] site already. Uh so the semi- detached

[8:57] and the singly attached regulations

[8:58] would mirror exactly what's already in

[9:01] the zoning by. Next slide please.

[9:05] So for the constraints at the northwest

[9:07] section of the site back when the

[9:10] applicant was doing the previous

[9:11] subdivision they had an archaeological

[9:14] assessment up. So practically everywhere

[9:16] in the village has potential for

[9:18] archaeological resources as I'm sure

[9:20] you're aware. Uh they end up finding

[9:22] some some artifacts. Uh so there's a

[9:25] process for that. What can be done is

[9:26] you do an assessment on a siteby-sight

[9:28] basis and you go and you dig and you

[9:30] extract all of those is one option. The

[9:32] other option is to leave them in the

[9:34] ground and and don't touch them. So

[9:36] they've opted for the ladder and that's

[9:38] why it's shown as an archaeological

[9:40] protected area. Now part of that would

[9:42] be what's being proposed on the as

[9:44] parkland. Um so the village would be the

[9:46] future owner of this property. But

[9:48] looking outside the red area you can see

[9:50] that there is sizable area for if there

[9:52] is maybe a future park land some swings

[9:56] sit down area that sort of. Now the

[9:59] green area uh they found again common in

[10:01] this well rare but common it seems in

[10:04] this area is Butler's garden state um it

[10:06] is habitat for them they've been through

[10:08] a extensive uh process with the ministry

[10:11] they have received the the required

[10:13] permits um but as part of that that

[10:16] permit requirement is to one do a

[10:18] salvage of the area they have to have

[10:19] experts out on the site maybe you've

[10:21] seen them uh and they look for snakes

[10:23] they they gather them up and they put

[10:25] them in a safe area. Another thing

[10:27] that's in the permit is if you go to the

[10:29] next slide please. So the salvage area

[10:32] is for the whole site shown in blue on

[10:34] the on the screen. The purple is what

[10:36] was called a habitat enhancement area.

[10:39] Uh so this would be to add different

[10:41] things to add to the uh public gar

[10:43] habitat. Could be boxes. It could be

[10:46] there's a number of of things. And green

[10:48] is a habitat creation area. So that's

[10:50] where the there is an existing habitat

[10:52] but it would and next slide I believe

[10:57] I'm still yeah so as I said there's a

[10:59] lot of constraints with that comes a lot

[11:01] of special life studies um this

[11:03] subdivision has more studies required

[11:05] than most like I said there's

[11:06] archaeological and consideration uh

[11:09] there are a lot of trees on the property

[11:11] uh so there's arburous reports there

[11:14] were noise studies because highway 4 is

[11:16] not too far and there's recommendations

[11:18] of that uh There are also like I said a

[11:21] permit from the endangered species act

[11:23] and a a traffic study. Now the traffic

[11:26] study and the servicing capacity study

[11:28] were actually submitted as previous

[11:31] applications. So they are a little bit

[11:32] old. Um correspondence that we got from

[11:35] the county of lampton. They do require

[11:36] an update to that study. Now like I said

[11:39] before it was 36 units. We're going to

[11:41] 21. They didn't have any concerns

[11:43] necessarily. There are no

[11:45] recommendations for additional lanes of

[11:47] traffic or danger lanes or anything like

[11:49] that. But what would be required as a

[11:51] condition of approval. What we're

[11:52] recommending at least is a supplemental

[11:54] memo. So they would look at the traffic

[11:57] for the next however many years based on

[12:00] on what's taking place. So I'll let

[12:03] Jared talk about the policies in the

[12:05] next slides and some of those

[12:07] considerations. So the applications in

[12:09] front of us today are for a reszoning to

[12:13] allow as Jordan mentioned to allow up to

[12:16] 20 semi- detached dwellings and then

[12:18] allow singles uh detach one single

[12:21] detached dwelling unit as of right. Um

[12:23] the reasonzoning needs to be consistent

[12:25] with the provincial polic statement, the

[12:28] County of Lamp official plan and our

[12:30] village official plan and zoning bylaws.

[12:33] And there's also a requirement for a

[12:35] draft plan of subdivision um which the

[12:38] county of Lamp is the approval authority

[12:40] for that. Council can make a

[12:42] recommendation um to the county of Lamp

[12:45] to approve with conditions or refuse the

[12:47] subdivision application if they want to.

[12:50] today. Um if the if the resoning in the

[12:54] plan subdivision is approved today, the

[12:57] owner would need to satisfy all

[12:58] conditions of the pool within 3 years,

[13:00] although an extension can be utilized.

[13:08] So this next slide. So for the

[13:11] provincial policy statement, this

[13:13] supports development in our settlement

[13:16] areas, which is the area where this

[13:18] development is located, which is

[13:20] developments that provide a range of

[13:22] housing options and density that can be

[13:24] supported um by existing infrastructure.

[13:27] The site is nearby highway 402

[13:31] and there are land use compacity

[13:33] policies that apply. The applicant did

[13:35] complete a noise study with

[13:38] recommendations of how the proposal

[13:39] would meet noise deadlines from the

[13:41] province. There were natural heritage

[13:43] policies that would have that were

[13:45] required that for habitat of species at

[13:48] risk to be conserved as well as the for

[13:50] the development to conserve

[13:51] archaeological resources and be directed

[13:53] away from natural hazards.

[13:56] There was an arborist report and um tree

[13:59] preservation plans that have been

[14:00] submitted but the trees have been

[14:02] removed and the studies did not include

[14:04] a replacement or restoration plan for

[14:06] those trees.

[14:10] Um the archaeological area would not be

[14:13] developed at all but a storm sewer would

[14:15] be located in the area and a future w

[14:17] road widening may be located in the

[14:20] area. Um and that came from our county

[14:22] lamp public work comments.

[14:24] Archaeologists have been contacted and

[14:26] is reviewing the requirements, including

[14:28] a further study is required for that

[14:30] road winding. The owner has a permit

[14:33] under the endangered species act for

[14:35] development on this site, which includes

[14:38] a habitat creation area and an

[14:40] enhancement area. Natural hazards also

[14:43] have been identified and studies have

[14:45] been approved by the St. Clair Region

[14:46] Conservation Authority.

[14:48] uh staff found that this is consistent

[14:50] with the provincial planning statement

[14:52] provide conditions include a tree

[14:55] replacement study and includes all

[14:57] recommendation and requirements in the

[14:58] archaeological assessment and the

[15:00] endangered species permit. So next I'm

[15:03] going to go over the plan considerations

[15:05] for the county official plan. So this is

[15:08] located in what we call in the county

[15:11] growth map the urban center and

[15:12] settlement area.

[15:15] This permits a wide range of uses as

[15:18] well for residential and it permits a

[15:21] wide range of mix of lot sizes and

[15:22] dwelling types are encouraged.

[15:25] There are similar policies that this

[15:27] official plan contains as the PBS

[15:29] regarding cultural heritage and natural

[15:31] heritage as well as natural hazards.

[15:34] Uh these policies um encourage a built

[15:37] form that is welld designigned and

[15:39] encourages a sense of place and provides

[15:42] for public spaces that are high quality,

[15:44] safe, accessible, and attractive and

[15:47] vibrant. Um as we know, Venetian

[15:49] Boulevard is a tourist area and an

[15:52] arterial road. So we feel that is

[15:54] important to have a well-designed

[15:56] frontage that includes landscaping and

[15:57] adequate footing fencing. The county

[16:00] plan has policies for conditions of

[16:02] approval, including linkages and

[16:04] walkways and appropriate urban design

[16:06] standards. And both of us planners

[16:09] recommend that a walkway be provided at

[16:11] the west end of the site to connect to

[16:13] the Phoenician Boulevard sidewalk.

[16:19] So, I'm going to go into the plan

[16:20] considerations for the um village of

[16:23] Point Ever official plan. So, the

[16:25] designation um for this site is mixed

[16:28] use. It permits low density residential

[16:31] uses and no amendment is required.

[16:36] This um the village op does require

[16:38] sidewalks to be provided along one side

[16:40] of the road. Other culde-sacs in the

[16:43] village have generally contain sidewalks

[16:46] that are on one side of the road. The

[16:48] village also in terms of parkland will

[16:51] generally not accept parkland that is

[16:52] not suitable for development.

[16:55] park contains an agreed archaeological

[16:58] protected area that should not be

[17:00] included in the 5% parkland dedication.

[17:04] Uh tree preservation plans in any

[17:06] removal shall be replaced of a similar

[17:09] species.

[17:11] Urban design policies um in the official

[17:15] plan promote attractive streetscaping

[17:18] and require landscape plan for Venetian

[17:20] boulevard frontage.

[17:23] The policies do not permit landlock

[17:24] parcels and do not support the creation

[17:27] of blocks behind lots 7 to 14.

[17:30] It is the opinion of plans that the

[17:32] development conforms to the village

[17:33] official plan and subject to the

[17:35] recommended conditions.

[17:38] So um I'm going to go over the

[17:40] circulation uh correspondence. So the

[17:43] application was circulated to agencies

[17:45] departments as well as the general

[17:47] public.

[17:48] Um planning staff um received responses

[17:52] from the St. Clair Region Conservation

[17:53] Authority, Lamp Public Works, Ministry

[17:57] of Transportation, Point Edward Fire and

[17:59] Rescue and Hydro 1. The St. Clair Region

[18:02] Conservation Authority and Lamp Public

[18:04] Works had recommend recommended

[18:06] conditions of approval and MTO Fire and

[18:10] Hydro 1 did not have any concerns.

[18:13] Just gonna Jordan for the next slides.

[18:16] Thank you, D.

[18:18] So considering all these policies um

[18:21] reviewing the site um we do feel uh that

[18:25] we can support the resoning as

[18:27] submitted. Uh like we said the the

[18:29] official plan policies do allow for

[18:31] this. We feel that it is uh consistent

[18:33] with provincial planning state in terms

[18:35] of adding a mixture of land uses. Um the

[18:38] reduced setbacks would also allow for a

[18:40] more compact development maybe 20 lots

[18:43] if you didn't have some of these

[18:44] variances. Uh we also support the draft

[18:47] plan and subdivision. However, we do

[18:50] have some modifications. If you go to

[18:51] the next slide, I'll just talk about

[18:52] what that is. The first one is to merge

[18:56] the storm ement. Um if you remember back

[18:58] to the original plan, there is a storm

[18:59] ement right beside the park. Really

[19:01] makes sense to merge those two together.

[19:03] Uh since they would both be used by the

[19:05] village point ever in the future. Uh,

[19:08] with that, we also recommend and

[19:10] actually if you can go back to the

[19:11] screen that has the plan, please

[19:15] go back just so as council can see

[19:17] exactly what the second uh proposed

[19:20] amendment is. Go back a couple more

[19:22] slides, please.

[19:24] And one more right there. So, here is

[19:27] the drop subdivision that was submitted.

[19:28] As you can see, there's an area in

[19:30] brown, uh, purple, and gray. As I said,

[19:33] this area is for habitat creation and

[19:36] enhancement. Um, so Jared touched on the

[19:39] landlocked issue and I share those

[19:42] concerns as well. Now, the applicants

[19:43] agent did provide a legal opinion on how

[19:46] they could be merged. Uh, we've

[19:48] discussed that with the senior plan

[19:49] official. We have a difference of

[19:50] opinion, but really our primary concern

[19:52] with that is it's supposed to be a

[19:54] habitat area or other gar. And when you

[19:58] merge that together with the residential

[20:00] lot, people cut their grass. they they

[20:02] typically don't like snakes. So when you

[20:04] have this, it's no longer a habitat for

[20:06] the bothers snakes. So that was really

[20:08] our concern. Now just getting more

[20:11] details into the permit, that area does

[20:13] have to be monitored for 5 years. Um if

[20:15] later on down the road they do want to

[20:16] merge that with the residential lots.

[20:18] There is a process for that. You could

[20:20] deem a lot the lots not to be a plan of

[20:23] subdivision and and evaluate a consent

[20:24] application for each one. So that that

[20:27] ability is there for in the future. Um,

[20:29] personally we cannot support having

[20:31] those as separate blocks or added to the

[20:33] residential blocks. And if you go back

[20:36] to the next slides, I can briefly

[20:38] discuss some of the recommended

[20:39] conditions of approval. And Jared has

[20:41] touched on a lot of these already. If

[20:43] you go back two slides, yep, perfect.

[20:46] Um, just there's some typical conditions

[20:48] that are for a subdivision. So, the

[20:49] owner will be required to enter into a

[20:52] subdivision agreement with the village.

[20:53] That's where you uh quite controlled on

[20:56] exactly the servicing, parkland

[20:57] dedication and a lot of other uh details

[21:00] of the proposal. Um we're also

[21:02] recommending that there be parkland

[21:04] dedication. As I said, there will be

[21:06] parkland as part of this development.

[21:08] Now, it really comes down to a

[21:10] calculation how much of that is 5% that

[21:12] is outside of that archaeological area

[21:14] and the applicants engineer or surveyor

[21:17] will be able to give that that

[21:19] information later on.

[21:21] Also, a tree replacement plan. There

[21:23] were arborous reports submitted with

[21:24] this application as some you can see if

[21:27] you visited the site there aren't very

[21:29] many trees on there that there were

[21:31] about five six years ago. Uh so as part

[21:34] of that and Jared touched on this in the

[21:35] policies there are policies in the

[21:37] village key that encourage uh trees to

[21:40] be preserved. If they're not then a

[21:42] replacement of a similar species will be

[21:44] required. Now we have had follow-up

[21:46] conversations with the St. region

[21:47] conservation authority and to establish

[21:50] a woodland they estimate it's about

[21:52] $5,000 per acre. So, uh for anything

[21:55] that can't be provided on site, we do

[21:57] recommend that that be provided as a

[21:59] condition.

[22:00] Aside from that, other standard

[22:02] conditions of approval are taken right

[22:04] from the applicant specialized reports.

[22:06] Each one of them did have

[22:07] recommendations and we recommend that

[22:09] they be included in the the conditions

[22:11] of approval as well as comments back

[22:14] that were received from the St. Region

[22:16] Conservation Authority and the County of

[22:17] Lamp. As Jared said, that involves a

[22:19] road winding um near Gateway Casino.

[22:22] There's be a future roundabout

[22:24] potentially. So, it's have enough land

[22:25] to to accommodate all of that. And uh

[22:28] the conservation authority has reviewed

[22:30] all the hazard studies and they have

[22:32] some recommendations in there such as

[22:35] minimum elevation of openings of the

[22:37] buildings and similar flood proof.

[22:42] and Jared will finish some.

[22:45] Yep. So, um the council is the approval

[22:48] authority tonight for the resoning and

[22:50] can approve the resoning application

[22:52] tonight and the county land um as I

[22:55] mentioned before is the approval

[22:56] authority for the draft plan

[22:57] subdivision. Um whenever village council

[23:01] does have the ability to make

[23:02] recommendation the county to approve or

[23:04] refuse the application or provide

[23:07] recommendations for conditions of

[23:08] approval as well

[23:11] and thank you for your time and we're h

[23:13] both Jordan and myself are happy to

[23:15] answer any questions council or the

[23:16] public may have.

[23:18] Yes. Hi. May I ask a question?

[23:20] So so just first of all it's council

[23:23] first.

[23:24] So then we'll open it up.

[23:25] Are there any questions of council?

[23:27] Yeah. Let everybody change their chairs

[23:29] around while we wait.

[23:30] Pardon?

[23:31] Want everybody turn their chairs around?

[23:32] Oh, sure. Just

[23:35] unless one.

[23:36] Okay. Okay.

[23:37] Okay. So, um I just have two quick

[23:39] questions. The original plan had a

[23:44] access at the back for fire department

[23:46] in case the only access was blocked. Is

[23:49] that that's been removed? Has it?

[23:51] Uh through the chair to the the council.

[23:53] There is one access off of Venation

[23:54] Boulevard. Um I don't remember a second

[23:56] access at all. Usually for lots that are

[24:00] 21 lots. Um I'm not aware of any

[24:02] policies in the village of Bishop plant.

[24:05] Usually a second access is more when you

[24:06] have 50 60 70 lots. Usually something

[24:09] 21. You wouldn't require that second but

[24:12] um

[24:12] okay

[24:13] with that said and we can speak to the

[24:15] applicant after and they are here to

[24:17] present.

[24:18] Uh but there would be a feature walkway

[24:20] potentially. There's area between the

[24:21] archeological resource and the singly

[24:23] attached dwelling.

[24:24] Okay. There should be access there for

[24:26] like an emergency like a gated emergency

[24:28] access potentially.

[24:29] And I think it may have just been talked

[24:31] about at the time and access from the

[24:32] casino's parking lot, but it maybe never

[24:35] got to the plane. Okay. And then in the

[24:38] map where the um there's the species at

[24:41] risk protected area in people's

[24:43] backyards

[24:45] um that the brown along the bottom. How

[24:48] will that be divided from someone's

[24:49] backyard? Will there be a fence or is it

[24:52] just please don't go there?

[24:54] uh through the chair. The

[24:55] recommendations are in the endangered

[24:56] species act permit that was received,

[24:58] but generally speaking, yes, there would

[24:59] be fencing requirements.

[25:00] Okay. I get on their side of that.

[25:03] That's my understanding. Um I don't have

[25:05] the permit in front of me. I know

[25:07] there's temporary measures for for

[25:08] fencing,

[25:09] right?

[25:09] Long-term measures. I I'd have to review

[25:11] the permit together.

[25:12] Okay. Thank you.

[25:15] Anybody else?

[25:18] Through the mayor. Um

[25:21] to

[25:23] was is there any consideration for a

[25:25] crosswalk from this

[25:28] uh side of the nation across? We have

[25:30] one similar down further down with their

[25:34] you know provision to put in the plan

[25:35] that we put a crosswalk in there for the

[25:38] residents because they either have to go

[25:41] one way or the other to legally or to

[25:43] safely cross the street. Uh we'll see

[25:46] you on that chair through the chair to

[25:48] your account for your your question. Uh

[25:50] great point. There was a traffic impact

[25:52] study that was submitted. It's my

[25:54] understanding that's something that they

[25:55] looked at. As you said, there is a

[25:57] pedestrian crossing to the east a little

[25:58] bit. It is a bit of a way to walk, but

[26:00] they they run their numbers and they do

[26:02] their analysis. From what I understand

[26:04] from that report, it's not warranted

[26:06] here. And maybe that's something when

[26:08] there's improvements to the intersection

[26:10] just to the west of the site. Maybe

[26:11] there's a more pedestrian friendly

[26:13] opportunity there where you could just

[26:15] have more like shorter uh trips for

[26:17] pedestrians. Could be an option, but as

[26:19] I said, that report will have to be

[26:20] updated um as part of the scope of that.

[26:23] We can get them to look at that again if

[26:25] council chooses.

[26:26] Thank you.

[26:29] So I I have a question about the trees.

[26:32] So the trees don't have to be like or

[26:35] like we can look at or someone looks at

[26:38] what it would be the best variety

[26:41] to be built because some of it was scrub

[26:43] certainly through the chair yourself.

[26:45] There were our risk reports already. We

[26:48] can look at that a bit more detail and

[26:49] what we're not talking about is one tree

[26:52] advice for everyone. It's more of an

[26:54] area. Um so it could be a site loss

[26:57] maturity and it would be pin towards

[27:00] exactly what's required and the

[27:02] condition would be to the satisfaction

[27:03] of the county of lamp as well as to the

[27:05] the town or the village when you have

[27:07] that submission.

[27:09] Thank you.

[27:12] Um no more questions off council. Has

[27:15] there been any new correspondence

[27:17] submitted after the submission of this

[27:19] report?

[27:20] I haven't received any.

[27:22] Okay. Would the applicant or

[27:24] representative wish to speak to the

[27:26] application?

[27:28] Yes, your motion.

[27:49] My name is Eda from George Murray

[27:52] Shipley Bell. I am

[27:55] assisting on the development. Um I won't

[27:59] uh I won't keep you too long. I hope um

[28:04] the long road we get here.

[28:06] um couple of the points that uh Jordan

[28:10] brought up with and the one of the

[28:13] counselors brought up about these

[28:15] blocks. I really just want to focus on

[28:17] those. The balance of the report is not

[28:20] an issue. Um

[28:23] it's the if we look at the blocks uh

[28:26] first I'll start um in the corner where

[28:30] the park land is is proposed. um there's

[28:34] really no issue there um in terms of

[28:38] merging the blocks uh together because

[28:40] if they're both conveyed to the village

[28:43] then it really it doesn't matter the

[28:45] common ownership is fine.

[28:48] The next section that deals with the

[28:51] blocks at the back of the residential

[28:53] lots

[28:55] I think you hit it right on the head in

[28:57] terms of the practical issues there. Um

[29:00] it's this situation not exactly the same

[29:05] but the situation with blocks

[29:07] um that are uh joining to a residential

[29:12] lot does exist in other subdivisions in

[29:15] Sarnia and it was handled

[29:19] essentially the way we're proposing is

[29:21] that these blocks didn't get conveyed

[29:25] with the lot together. The concern that

[29:29] uh I think the planners are raising is

[29:31] that they don't want these things

[29:33] conveyed to somebody and then the

[29:36] landlord but not sure who would ever buy

[29:39] them. But um

[29:41] it can be it that can be regulated by um

[29:46] the subdivision agreement can state

[29:48] specifically that these have to go with

[29:51] the adjoining lot in any conveyance. Um

[29:55] legally we can uh we can create one pin

[29:58] which is a property identifier number

[30:00] under the uh land title system and so

[30:04] when anybody searches the title they see

[30:06] that these two are together. um the

[30:10] issue of um species at risk. It

[30:16] um maybe I'll just jump to the to the

[30:19] big piece for a second and then I'll

[30:21] come back.

[30:23] At this point,

[30:25] the the applicant's not certain as to

[30:28] how that's going to be dealt with um in

[30:32] terms of future ownership.

[30:36] We believe that likely the best scenario

[30:39] is that that piece will be uh owned by

[30:45] all the uh people in the subdivision and

[30:49] so they will have a 121 interest in that

[30:54] and that way they can control it. They

[30:57] get um access to it at all times. Um

[31:03] but now if you if you include those

[31:06] blocks at the bottom in that then it

[31:11] becomes somewhat difficult because if

[31:12] you have a fence there and then there's

[31:14] another fence that um what's I can't

[31:17] remember what the depth of the block is

[31:19] 10T so it's going to be a strange

[31:23] situation where you got fence and then

[31:24] another fence potentially and a 10-ft

[31:26] strip

[31:28] I see that as being something that

[31:30] they're not maintained. It would likely

[31:32] be

[31:35] that place where probably garbage will

[31:37] end up. Um

[31:40] I believe again that you can put in the

[31:42] agreement and we can do it through

[31:44] restrictions uh on a title that the

[31:48] owners have to maintain it and and and

[31:52] you can put warnings in there that they

[31:53] have to maintain it, they can't build on

[31:55] it, they can't do anything to it. Um,

[31:58] and that, uh, we believe is a better way

[32:01] to, uh, regulate the use of the property

[32:04] as opposed to having this one strip that

[32:08] just runs along the back with two

[32:10] fences. We

[32:13] don't think that's going to be very

[32:14] attractive. In my experience, in the

[32:17] city, whenever you have laneways or or

[32:19] anything of that sort, people just

[32:22] eventually treat it like their own

[32:23] anyway, and the fences come down and

[32:27] Nobody's going to monitor it. There is

[32:29] monitoring for I believe it's about five

[32:32] years, but after that there won't be

[32:34] anything nowhere. So, we just believe

[32:37] it's more practical and and there's not

[32:40] a whole lot to gain by keeping these

[32:42] separate.

[32:45] In terms of the of the water lot,

[32:50] um again, at this point, we would like

[32:53] to keep that separate. Um,

[32:57] we believe the village can regulate that

[32:59] again through a subdivision agreement.

[33:03] It it may turn out that that's going to

[33:05] be dealt with exactly like the peace

[33:08] beside it, the species at risk area. Um,

[33:13] and it will be for use by the by the

[33:16] owner. So, if there's owners that want

[33:18] the boat well bells there, then then

[33:20] they can do it. Um

[33:24] so at this point I guess what what we're

[33:27] asking is that

[33:29] those conditions for merging all these

[33:33] blocks be um not included and can be

[33:37] handled through the um subdivision

[33:40] agreement process. And again, it may

[33:44] turn out that eventually these will be

[33:46] uh can be merged together um if u if if

[33:51] it's going to be common ownership by all

[33:53] the owners in the subdivision. So that's

[33:55] really I think the only difference. We

[33:57] would like to keep the blocks separate,

[34:00] not for purposes of transferring them to

[34:03] somebody because that's that's like not

[34:05] going to happen, but really just so that

[34:08] we can then decide which way we're going

[34:10] to go with it.

[34:13] I think those were really just the

[34:17] blocks I think were the only points of a

[34:19] difference.

[34:23] I'm happy to answer your question.

[34:24] Thank you, Mayor Grimes.

[34:25] Thank you, Mayor Hand through you. Um,

[34:29] so not all neighbors get along.

[34:32] So you're saying these 21 homeowners

[34:36] would decide where they're putting boat

[34:38] wells and sharing the property. Will

[34:40] there be a condo board to oversee this

[34:42] or will they just all get along and

[34:45] decide who gets to tie their boat up

[34:46] where? How will that be managed?

[34:49] Um, this is not a condo,

[34:50] right?

[34:51] So, it's that that process isn't there,

[34:54] but essentially it will work in in the

[34:58] same way. What we've been discussing is

[35:01] setting up um an association which can

[35:05] be an incorporated

[35:07] uh entity that's not a forprofit

[35:10] corporation. It's just it's it's it's

[35:12] run like um it's it's a nonprofit

[35:15] organization,

[35:17] but each landowner is a member of that

[35:22] association. And so that association has

[35:26] a board, has officers, and they're the

[35:29] ones that get together and they'll make

[35:32] the decisions. But whether they get

[35:35] along um or not, um there'll have to be

[35:39] decisions made presumably as long as

[35:41] there's a majority that can make the

[35:43] decision.

[35:45] Just to follow up with my three, like I

[35:48] I'm not sure 21 boat slips and boats

[35:51] would even fit in the water lot. So, how

[35:53] like who who gets how would they decide

[35:55] who gets turned down? Who gets it?

[35:57] Sorry, I I didn't mean to make the

[36:00] implication that there would be 21

[36:01] there. There may there may never be any

[36:04] there, right? I mean, it may be just uh

[36:06] one of the discussions we had was it

[36:08] would just be um a walkway and like a

[36:12] boardwalk there and people can just go

[36:16] there and sit there, put chairs or

[36:17] whatever, whatever. Um

[36:20] yeah, the boat wells

[36:22] If they again if they want to decide to

[36:25] do it, it would be the association that

[36:27] would be uh would be controlling them

[36:30] and then whatever whatever rules they

[36:32] want to set down as far as how they

[36:34] lease them or I don't it would not be a

[36:38] case of people owning

[36:39] right not.

[36:41] Yeah. And then follow up on the species

[36:44] at risk area again owned by 21 people.

[36:48] Um, will they be required to pay for the

[36:52] landscaping or the I know it's not going

[36:54] to be cut like a a grass field, but that

[36:58] part of it will be that association that

[36:59] will cover the any work on that.

[37:02] Yeah. What what I've seen in in other in

[37:05] other developments um in not in Sarna

[37:09] but mostly in other areas is that um the

[37:16] land owners will basically like a

[37:18] condominium. They're going to pay

[37:20] whether it's 100 bucks a year or 200

[37:22] bucks a year and that's going to cover

[37:24] the maintenance of this.

[37:26] Um,

[37:29] presumably this is an asset to them, not

[37:31] not a liability because there really

[37:34] isn't going to be much to do with it.

[37:37] There there may be some cutting grass

[37:41] there's no grass to be grass. This is a

[37:43] special grass and I'm responsible for

[37:45] the first five years. Okay. Um there's

[37:48] pretty special grass and it grows to a

[37:50] certain height. There's no grass on it.

[37:52] There should be very little

[37:54] maintenance at all unless they want to

[37:57] unless something happens to the ball

[37:59] only.

[37:59] Right. Okay. Thank you.

[38:03] So it's interesting when you talked

[38:04] about the two fences. I actually lived

[38:07] in a house in Buford where that

[38:10] situation existed. I was a lot a long

[38:13] time ago. I was young, but we had about

[38:16] 5 ft between the fence and the neighbor

[38:19] fence and it was stuff got thrown in

[38:22] there and there was a lot of scrub trees

[38:24] like zumac and whatnot and eventually we

[38:27] came to I don't remember all that

[38:29] happened. It came to an agreement where

[38:31] one fence was torn down and an agreement

[38:34] was made over that piece of land but it

[38:36] can never make any sense to have a piece

[38:38] blocked off like that to him good use.

[38:42] Well,

[38:42] that's how we feel. Yeah.

[38:46] Any other questions?

[38:55] Okay. So, are there any questions or

[38:57] comments from the public? I'm in favor

[39:00] or opposed to the application. Anyone

[39:02] that chooses to speak will need to

[39:03] identify themselves and provide their

[39:06] address, please.

[39:07] Is it okay, your honor? I'm sorry I

[39:09] didn't pull the proper

[39:10] That's okay.

[39:10] It's okay. Yeah. You got rained in.

[39:12] My name is Glenn Carson.

[39:14] Y

[39:14] I'm the president of LCC 53

[39:17] and I'm al also representing So that's

[39:19] 1550 Venetian Boulevard, the property

[39:22] adjacent to this this this proposed and

[39:26] we fully agree with what's happening

[39:28] here. And then I also I'm representative

[39:31] of 1540 which is the new building there.

[39:34] and Nick uh Nick's allowed me to be a

[39:36] representative from

[39:38] when 1540 was built it was given a

[39:41] variation so it had less parking than

[39:45] the province required okay and there's a

[39:48] I think if you guys look back you'll

[39:50] find a variation was giving in their

[39:52] short 15 parking spots okay or something

[39:55] like that I don't know if you guys are

[39:57] aware of that or

[39:59] okay so uh we've been uh looking for a

[40:02] way to solve that problem because we

[40:05] lost a lot of our parking spots when

[40:07] they uh took they appropriated their

[40:10] property and we were looking at section

[40:12] living up here is block 25 which is

[40:16] already a parking uh a gravel parking

[40:18] area. So, uh, we had approached Al on

[40:22] the possibility of in the future if it's

[40:24] all agreed and the subdivision was

[40:26] passed and things of acquiring that

[40:28] property between our our two properties

[40:31] and getting increased parking slots as

[40:35] it is at a parking area right now. And

[40:37] that would fulfill the provincial

[40:40] requirements, the variance, go beyond

[40:42] the variance for 1540 and allow us some

[40:45] uh parking for 1550 that we've lost. So,

[40:49] we were hoping as it is now still an

[40:52] existing parking lot and there's very

[40:56] little movement of animals and things on

[40:58] that area that this could be approved as

[41:01] it stands. Uh, if we go back to section

[41:05] 16 or 25 there, we go back to that one.

[41:08] Sure. and uh we have it could be a u a

[41:12] parking area that would bring 1540 up to

[41:16] the the provincial standards and allow

[41:18] us for the parking area we lost at 1550.

[41:23] So that's what I was here to talk about

[41:26] today. I I don't know if uh you know

[41:29] parking is always a challenge. The three

[41:31] Ps are parking, pets, and plants. So

[41:34] that's one of the big the big P is the

[41:36] parking. So, I wanted to bring that

[41:38] before you and and ask you uh I don't

[41:41] want to interfere with El's project

[41:43] here, but he's been kind enough to talk

[41:44] to us about this. And uh I wondered if

[41:47] you'd consider that because we're going

[41:49] to have a very big parking problem

[41:50] there. You can't park on the street

[41:52] there. So, there's no visitor parking to

[41:54] speak of at all. Not even enough to meet

[41:56] the provincial requirements at this

[41:57] moment.

[42:00] Would

[42:03] you like to speak? I'm Mary on Hillress

[42:07] on the owner of the property. I have

[42:09] been had discussions with Glenn and he's

[42:11] been very good and we he is on the right

[42:14] lines there. Um but I think I've been

[42:17] fair to Glenn and he realizes we have to

[42:20] walk before we can run.

[42:21] Yeah.

[42:22] There's no agreement actually in place

[42:24] for what they'd like to do. Uh firstly

[42:28] after five years I just want to get over

[42:30] I just want to move on this

[42:33] and then we probably would have to come

[42:35] back. There's some legal stuff but I

[42:37] think I think we've been pretty frank

[42:41] and consistent. Um as I said we we have

[42:44] to get this development approved first

[42:48] and then and we have to see how this uh

[42:52] whole area is going to work including a

[42:53] water lot. That's why, you know, we

[42:56] can't really deal with that parking

[42:57] until we have that resolved as to how

[43:00] it's going to work.

[43:00] We don't know what we're going to do

[43:01] with that block. It's it's a bit of a

[43:03] dead block now. It's it's hard pan. Um,

[43:07] so I I just wanted to address if if it

[43:10] was if it was passed the way it's drawn,

[43:13] but that's a green area. uh then it

[43:15] would be impossible for us to go forward

[43:18] and and uh solve the parking problem we

[43:21] have that sort of was generated when

[43:23] they were allowed to build 1540. So

[43:26] we're hoping that you guys in your

[43:28] hearts could see the problems we're

[43:30] facing with parking in those two

[43:32] buildings and uh that green area right

[43:35] now is a parking lot already and we're

[43:37] not planning on building on it or or

[43:39] doing anything if we're able to acquire

[43:41] it. Like we don't know if we're going to

[43:42] acquire it or not. We hope we can

[43:45] I don't think that's gray confusion gray

[43:48] area. So in the other drawing it's a

[43:51] green area. If we go back to the one

[43:52] where it shows green

[43:53] right here not green as planted.

[43:56] No let's go to the one where it shows

[43:58] the

[44:01] spot. Let's go for another species.

[44:05] Next one there is that's covered by the

[44:08] green area.

[44:09] Well I think that's

[44:11] that's species of risk. speech is a

[44:13] grip.

[44:14] That's but tell I'm telling you there's

[44:17] there's no snakes on that hot pan. In

[44:19] fact, I'll tell you now after spending

[44:22] $22,000 to have a biologist there

[44:24] morning, noon, and night didn't find any

[44:26] snakes. And it was species at risk that

[44:30] made me cut the grass after the salvage

[44:32] time within 48 hours and remove all

[44:35] vegetation.

[44:36] That's why it's been too hard to clear

[44:38] now. Mhm.

[44:40] So, so I was I'm just here to solve a

[44:43] problem that we have existing in the in

[44:45] the in the village right now and it's

[44:47] going to increase as that building's

[44:48] completely full. We'll be struggling for

[44:51] parking on those two buildings.

[44:56] Um the mayor,

[44:58] yeah,

[44:58] I have Josie Parker 1741 Lakeshore Road

[45:03] as a potential um owner of one of Mr.

[45:07] Bington's um lots. Um I would just like

[45:11] to say that

[45:13] or the question first is how many cars

[45:16] can you park in the driveway? Um like I

[45:19] don't know how long the driveways are.

[45:21] How many cars could you park in the

[45:22] driveway before um out of consideration

[45:25] for Mr. Carson that we essentially give

[45:28] up parking lot that is part of the part

[45:31] of the area now? Like

[45:34] two on the driveway, two in the garage.

[45:38] two in the driveway, two in the garage.

[45:40] Okay. Okay. So, that will help people

[45:42] make a decision, too, because um 20 21

[45:46] lots, you know, company, one thing and

[45:48] another, large families, you need a

[45:50] place to to park. Um Okay. And thank

[45:54] you.

[45:58] Any other questions?

[46:08] Is there anything else that the

[46:10] applicant would like to address?

[46:12] Lots.

[46:13] Yeah. Well,

[46:14] no, I think again really the the only

[46:17] issue we really blocks, right? We'd like

[46:21] to keep it the way that we proposed it.

[46:23] I do have one question. I think that

[46:25] maybe Jordan could have Jared. and the

[46:28] green area which is archological.

[46:31] Mhm.

[46:32] Um

[46:33] personally I'd like that all to be green

[46:36] area.

[46:37] Um obviously I'd like to plant trees

[46:40] where the archologicus and the sinclair

[46:43] allow me which is probably around the

[46:44] outer edge and like Jordan said put some

[46:47] benches or something in there. But are

[46:50] you telling me nobody can walk over the

[46:53] archeological land if it's a green area?

[46:58] Is it going to walk over it?

[47:01] The chair can answer for my same

[47:06] question. M

[47:08] um what it says in the the stage three

[47:12] assessment. Yeah. And the letter from

[47:14] the middle screen is um tree removals

[47:17] not allowed. uh sight disturbance

[47:20] digging into the ground. Yeah. Not

[47:21] allowed. And generally speaking in

[47:23] parks, you're not allowed to do that

[47:25] anyways.

[47:26] Um walking over the land I don't think

[47:29] would be an issue.

[47:31] All right. So

[47:31] necessarily it's once you get extensive

[47:34] disturbance of that soil damage the

[47:36] artifact and everything that's really

[47:38] nice I see a nice green area everybody

[47:39] point everyone can get some benefit

[47:41] from.

[47:48] Um, just I don't know how you want to

[47:51] address the issue with the parking. To

[47:52] me, it sounds like it's something that

[47:54] you're going to park and go in good

[47:55] faith and see what you can do in the

[47:57] future.

[47:58] Yeah. I I I just think you can't really

[48:00] address that. I mean, that's a and

[48:01] that's really just a private issue

[48:03] between two land owners anyway.

[48:06] We just wanted to make sure that it

[48:07] wasn't zoned as a exclusive green area.

[48:10] Then that would take away the ability

[48:11] for us to make a a deal on the parking.

[48:14] So, that was our only concern.

[48:17] Dr. Kog,

[48:20] is there any any issue with what they're

[48:22] saying

[48:23] on the Z?

[48:24] Yeah. Yeah. Through the chair, these are

[48:25] some things that are maybe better in the

[48:28] future to discuss rather than really at

[48:30] this time.

[48:31] Um, from my understanding of the whole

[48:32] endangered species act and the permit

[48:34] that was required for that, that is a

[48:36] habitat creation area if I'm uh correct.

[48:39] So, they will have to establish some

[48:41] sort of habitat. How that works together

[48:43] with a future parking lot, I think would

[48:45] need further study. They'd have to get

[48:46] biologists out there, evaluate

[48:49] everything and then make a decision at

[48:50] that time.

[48:54] Well, I'm working with them right now.

[48:56] So, I'll try and answer those questions

[48:58] ahead of

[48:59] Well, you we've you've opened up to the

[49:01] opportunity to have a discussion in the

[49:03] future. So, there's nothing that we can

[49:04] do about that today. So, I just

[49:08] Yeah.

[49:09] So, does is what we're going to do

[49:11] tonight will will that block them making

[49:14] that a parking lot or will they have to

[49:16] come back and start all over if they

[49:17] want to make it a parking lot?

[49:20] And through the chair today, really what

[49:22] council is doing is they're deciding on

[49:24] the reszoning application to allow the

[49:27] the 20 semi- detached owners in one

[49:29] single. The lot creation or the

[49:31] subdivision approval is actually up to

[49:33] the county of Atlanta. So, they will

[49:35] review the minutes, they'll review the

[49:36] report, they'll review all the the

[49:38] studies and reports that were submitted

[49:40] and they'll make a decision. Now,

[49:42] council, if they do support the

[49:43] subdivision, uh they could send to the

[49:45] county, let them know that you do

[49:47] support the subdivision. If there's some

[49:49] issues with some of the conditions or

[49:51] what's being proposed for some of the

[49:52] lots to merge together that can be

[49:54] identified in the minutes or even in a

[49:56] resolution and or sorry, as a in a

[49:59] motion and that can be sent to the

[50:00] county for their consideration. Uh but

[50:02] what you're deciding today has no impact

[50:05] on the park. You're not changing the

[50:06] zoning on that whatsoever.

[50:07] Okay. Thank you.

[50:09] Thanks, Jordan.

[50:11] There any more questions from council?

[50:15] Is there anyone um wish to make a motion

[50:18] regarding the resing application? Oh, I

[50:20] got to close I'm going to close the

[50:22] public

[50:27] so there no more questions. We're going

[50:29] to close the public part of the meeting.

[50:32] I thank you all for your input.

[50:34] Thank you, council. Thank you.

[50:35] Thank you.

[50:39] There's two motions, right?

[50:42] I can move one.

[50:45] So, I'll move the council approve

[50:47] reszoning application Z1-2025.

[50:53] Second that.

[50:55] Nick, you want to do it? Can we do it as

[50:57] Jonah or do it separate?

[50:59] Separate.

[50:59] Okay. All in favor of that motion.

[51:02] Thank you.

[51:04] Okay. Move on. And is there a little

[51:08] I'll move the second.

[51:09] Thank you.

[51:11] You have it.

[51:12] Yeah.

[51:16] You want to read it? Oh, sorry. Do you

[51:18] want me to read?

[51:18] I can read it. that the report and

[51:20] comments from the public be received and

[51:22] that council re recommends to the county

[51:25] of LAN they approve the application

[51:27] subject to the draft conditions of the

[51:29] approval

[51:31] seconded by council doctor. All in

[51:34] favor?

[51:39] So, just as a reminder, there is a

[51:41] 20-day appeal period.

[51:51] Have you just mandated the conditions in

[51:54] that you agree with all the those

[51:56] conditions?

[51:58] We've recommended um

[52:02] the county approve and basically

[52:04] consider all those conditions like it's

[52:06] up to the county to make the final

[52:08] decision on the recommen

[52:09] Yeah. Yeah. Am I correct Jordan? Like

[52:12] it's not

[52:14] Thank you.

[52:14] We we just moved it forward, right? Now

[52:17] the county does their due diligence and

[52:19] it comes back to us.

[52:20] So we'll give them minutes of the

[52:21] meeting. They'll have access to the

[52:23] video. This is all being recorded. So

[52:25] they'll have access to all the public

[52:26] input and then they will make the

[52:28] decision on what what the actual

[52:31] conditions of the final approval will

[52:33] be.

[52:35] Okay. So thank you everyone for

[52:37] attending. Um we appreciate your input

[52:42] and the bylaw to reszone properly will

[52:45] be dealt with at a later um later in

[52:48] this meeting.

[53:03] Now we are moving on to

[53:12] the camera.

[53:32] Okay. Yeah, you're right.

[53:34] Sorry. Let's stop there.

[53:36] Okay. So, moving on to number 10, the

[53:39] new building and environmental services.

[53:42] For several years, council has be been

[53:44] reviewing the need for a new building at

[53:46] the Environmental Services Department

[53:48] pollution control plant. The design and

[53:50] location of the building has been

[53:51] determined and in 2024, the decision was

[53:55] made to go to tenders on the building.

[53:57] Upon closing of the tenders, the

[53:59] engineer we were working with indicated

[54:01] that they could no longer support us

[54:03] with the completion of the project.

[54:05] Council subsequently directed staff to

[54:08] approach and a new engineer to review

[54:10] the design work and tenor the building

[54:13] of the building. The engineer has now

[54:15] identified indicated that they have not

[54:17] identified any substantial changes in

[54:20] the design of the building. Staff would

[54:22] like to obtain final approval to proceed

[54:24] with the construction of the new

[54:25] building subject to the contractor with

[54:28] the low tender amount agreeing to the

[54:30] price

[54:31] to the bill for that price at that time.

[54:34] At this time, documentation

[54:36] from all past meetings of the

[54:38] environmental services building

[54:39] committee has been circulated for

[54:41] council's information.

[54:43] Construction of the new environmental

[54:44] services building has been discussed for

[54:46] approximately seven years. Staff is

[54:48] asking council to approve approve moving

[54:50] forward with awarding the center of this

[54:53] project.

[54:59] So we circulated documentation

[55:02] um everything we recirculated

[55:06] open that door recirculated everything

[55:09] that um ever was sent to the

[55:14] uh

[55:16] the building committee and then also

[55:18] there was the document circulated to a

[55:20] council meeting in I believe it was

[55:22] April that broke down all the costs for

[55:26] you know all the not just the building

[55:28] but all the additional like um there's

[55:32] work that needs to be done around

[55:33] removing removing soil and there's uh

[55:37] fiber optic work and like a few of those

[55:39] types of things. Um, so I recirculated

[55:41] that as well and then uh prepared a bit

[55:45] of a memo explaining where we've, you

[55:47] know, where we've been over the last few

[55:49] years with the project. And we have a

[55:52] recommendation

[55:54] um that

[55:57] council would like to discuss.

[56:09] Where did we discuss we discuss without

[56:11] a motion that when we're done?

[56:15] Um,

[56:16] typically there's a motion on the floor

[56:18] to before you discuss

[56:20] open it up.

[56:24] Well, I'll move the recommendation.

[56:26] Second.

[56:28] All in favor?

[56:29] Wait, no, sorry. To open it for

[56:32] construction. I didn't mean I meant for

[56:36] discussion questions.

[56:43] answer the mayor. Uh the new

[56:45] environmental services building is far

[56:47] more than a building upgrade. It it will

[56:50] provide a safe work environment for our

[56:52] employees and it's a commitment to

[56:54] sustainable and efficient municipal

[56:56] services at both environmental services

[56:59] and public works.

[57:02] Uh because it will allow more space for

[57:04] public works. Uh it'll position the

[57:06] village of Point Ever to move forward

[57:08] with immediate and future population

[57:10] growth as we spoke about here earlier

[57:12] this evening.

[57:14] I support this

[57:17] building.

[57:20] Other questions, comments?

[57:23] Depay

[57:24] and Jim for putting together the

[57:27] comprehensive package. I know I

[57:28] requested it and it really helps us

[57:32] to make sure we're um we have all the

[57:35] information in front of us and not have

[57:36] to search it down. So, I do appreciate

[57:37] that.

[57:44] Any other questions?

[57:45] We recorded vote though.

[57:50] No, leave doors got to stay open.

[57:52] Recorded vote, please.

[58:06] Councelor Mondu

[58:07] in favor.

[58:08] Councelor Noctturn

[58:09] in favor.

[58:10] Councelor Burgess

[58:11] in favor.

[58:12] Deputy Mayor Grimes

[58:13] opposed. And Mayor Hand

[58:15] in favor.

[58:17] Motion carries four to one. So Jay and I

[58:21] and the treasurer will work over the

[58:23] next two weeks to have a report on

[58:25] financing and I I feel the St. Clair

[58:28] Street project and this are very

[58:30] intertwined as as you alluded to in your

[58:32] email. Um so we'll we'll have that

[58:35] report back for you in two weeks from

[58:36] tonight.

[58:37] Thank you.

[58:38] Okay.

[58:43] There might be other new business.

[58:45] Is there any other new business?

[58:54] Moving on to community events and public

[58:55] announcements. So, as a reminder, Machin

[58:59] Point ever is Saturday, July the 12th,

[59:01] and looking for people to support the

[59:03] Rotary Breakfast.

[59:05] It's an annual event. Um, the car show

[59:09] vintage in the vintage in the park is

[59:12] July 25th.

[59:15] And that's all that that I know about in

[59:18] the next few weeks. Anybody have any

[59:21] other events that they know of?

[59:27] And no new business.

[59:32] We'll move on to bylaws.

[59:34] I'll move the bylaw that bylaw number 19

[59:38] being a bylaw to amend the zoning bylaw

[59:40] 25 of 2012 be read a first, second and

[59:44] third time and finally passed on this

[59:46] 8th day of July 2025.

[59:50] Thank you. Um

[59:52] second

[59:54] doctor.

[59:56] All in favor that's carried. Um I needed

[1:00:00] resolution to move in camera. I'll move

[1:00:02] that.

[1:00:05] Thank you.

[1:00:08] Now we can shut the door.

[1:00:14] Now I'm going to stop the live stream.

Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment Z-01-2025 - Regular Council Meeting

Transcript