Thanks.
Okay, it's 5 o'clock. I'm going to call
this meeting to order the village
council on July the 8th, 2025.
I'm going to read the land acknowledge
order
on July 8th.
We acknowledge that this land on which
we are gathered today is part of the
ancestral land of the Chipoa, Ottawa and
Padawataman peoples referred to
collectively as the Nishnabag. It is
through the connection of Munishna Bay
with the spirit of the land, water and
air that we recognize their unique
cultures, traditions and values.
Together as treaty people, we have a
shared responsibility to act with
respect for the environment that
sustains all life, protecting the future
for those generations to come. Is there
anyone with peering interests?
None. And as always, if it comes up, if
you realize that later, just speak up.
And we're going down to move down to
planning meeting. Sorry, public meeting.
Um Jim just went to get a new document.
So just hold for a second.
So we're going to be looking at the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment Z12025.
Thank you.
So we are here tonight to discuss
application Z12025
for resoning and application 38T
25003
for a draft plan of subdivision. This
will be a combined meeting for both
applications. With us tonight is Jared
Preston. Sorry, sorry. Sorry. Jared
Bkins. No,
Jordan.
I might have wrong. Sorry,
Jared Preston and Jordan.
Okay, Jordan Folkins.
Sorry.
And Jared Preston,
right? Okay.
But you
um
done this before.
Yeah, I know we did. Um, so
just Jordan
is a planner with BM Ross hired by Lamp
County and Jared Preston is a planner
for Lamp County currently assigned to
the belly pointer.
I will call on the planners to present
the applications as well as the
recommendations.
Would you um step into the bar, please?
Um, could I have a motion to invite the
planner for the bar? Also move seconder.
Thank you. All in favor? Okay.
Yeah, sure.
I can
find
another chance.
Okay.
Are you sure? Oh, sure. Okay. You've
done it before.
All right. Thank you. So, um I am Doran
Fulkins from Brian Rosson Associates.
I've been hired as a PL consultant for
the county of Lancing. He said I'm
joined here by Jared Preston and we'll
present the the two applications. We'll
go over our recommendations, some
important call or policy considerations
and uh next steps in this process. So,
if you go to go to the next slide, I'll
just introduce exactly what we'll speak
to you about. I will talk about the the
site, Jared will get into more details
of the subject lands as well as the
surrounding area. I'll give council a
bit of a history of exactly what was
approved several years ago, a little bit
more of the the background that's being
proposed here today. Uh both the
resoning and the subdivision. Jared will
cover some important policies uh that we
look at when we're framing our
recommendation to council and uh I will
go over our recommendation and Jared
will tell you about next steps. So next
slide please.
Just pause for a second just to people
want to be able to see maybe if we want
to change where you're sitting instead
of
your chairs around.
All right. So, the subject lands uh
today that we're looking at is 1600
Venetian Boulevard. And I've got my
pointer right here. See? It's not
showing up very well, Jared.
It's not showing up. Oh, but anyways, so
that um that's the area that's
highlighted there um in the light blue
color. Um it's around um like I said,
it's located on the southwest side of
Venetian Boulevard. It's adjacent to the
Starlight Casino that you can see on the
east. It's got a frontage of about 320 m
and about 2.5 hectares around 6 acres
and it's currently a vacant property.
The site previously had a wood lot with
an area of only one hector in size which
has now currently been removed.
[Music]
So,
yep. So, I'm just going to go over this
surrounding area. So we got um lands
that are designated mixed use which
permit low destinity residential uses.
The lands are zone residential marina
1.5. This allows a range of commercial
uses, town homes and a maximum of six
semi- detached dwellings.
Subject plans are adjacent. The parking
area for the gateway casino to the west,
bluewater bridge offices to the north,
and then the bridge marina buildings and
open storage areas to the south.
And there's also some apartment
dwellings to the east right next to the
Mariner Village.
Thank you, Jared. Uh council may
remember several years ago this uh
property was subject to a couple of plan
applications. The first one was an
official plan amendment and that was to
allow low density residential uses on
this site. Now what with went with that
was a reszoning application to allow
town houses which were already allowed
but to also allow semi- detached
dwellings up to a maximum of six. Uh it
did not include singly attached bones at
all. So that resoning was uh specific to
the 2021 concept plan that was brought
to council back then. Uh plans have
changed a little bit once they dug a
little bit further into getting ready
for the subdivision process. They found
that there are some pretty serious
constraints on the northwest and
southeast section of the property. Now,
I'll get into those constraints in a
little bit. Uh, but that has essentially
reduced this from what was approved in
the official plan of zoning bylaw is 36
units is was then down to 22 and today
if we go to the next slide, it is
actually brought down to 21 units. So
instead of the original townhouse
development, what's being proposed here
today as shown in orange are
semi-attached dwelling unit. So that's a
dwelling that has one shared wall uh and
no shared walls on the other side. The
yellow part parcel is a singly attached
dwelling and that's really a remnant
because of the restrictions. I'm sure it
would be a semi-touching, but there is
enough room once again to the
constraints of the site. Uh the purple
area is currently a water lot. Uh the
gray area is an an informal parking
area. It's a gravel parking area. And
what's brown is an area that's being
proposed for uh it's an area where
there's a species at risk. So this is
going to be a habitat creation area. And
the green area finally is what's being
proposed as part.
Now I was talking about the constraints
of this site. Um actually that's the
next slide. This one will be the
resoning. So, as I said, right now the
site is approved for a maximum of six
semi-attached dwellings. What the
applicant would like to do is have
semi-attached dwellings throughout the
site. Now, the framework for this was
approved by council several years ago.
Low density residential uses are allowed
on the property. And when we're
considering the zoning by amendment,
adding singly dash provide more housing
diversity uh and that sort of thing to
the neighborhood. So, we're supportive
of that. Also what's being proposed is a
reduction in side yard setbacks both
from the street and from the abodied
properties and a lot coverage of 45%.
Now the lot coverage of 45% is currently
what's allowed for town houses on the
site already. Uh so the semi- detached
and the singly attached regulations
would mirror exactly what's already in
the zoning by. Next slide please.
So for the constraints at the northwest
section of the site back when the
applicant was doing the previous
subdivision they had an archaeological
assessment up. So practically everywhere
in the village has potential for
archaeological resources as I'm sure
you're aware. Uh they end up finding
some some artifacts. Uh so there's a
process for that. What can be done is
you do an assessment on a siteby-sight
basis and you go and you dig and you
extract all of those is one option. The
other option is to leave them in the
ground and and don't touch them. So
they've opted for the ladder and that's
why it's shown as an archaeological
protected area. Now part of that would
be what's being proposed on the as
parkland. Um so the village would be the
future owner of this property. But
looking outside the red area you can see
that there is sizable area for if there
is maybe a future park land some swings
sit down area that sort of. Now the
green area uh they found again common in
this well rare but common it seems in
this area is Butler's garden state um it
is habitat for them they've been through
a extensive uh process with the ministry
they have received the the required
permits um but as part of that that
permit requirement is to one do a
salvage of the area they have to have
experts out on the site maybe you've
seen them uh and they look for snakes
they they gather them up and they put
them in a safe area. Another thing
that's in the permit is if you go to the
next slide please. So the salvage area
is for the whole site shown in blue on
the on the screen. The purple is what
was called a habitat enhancement area.
Uh so this would be to add different
things to add to the uh public gar
habitat. Could be boxes. It could be
there's a number of of things. And green
is a habitat creation area. So that's
where the there is an existing habitat
but it would and next slide I believe
I'm still yeah so as I said there's a
lot of constraints with that comes a lot
of special life studies um this
subdivision has more studies required
than most like I said there's
archaeological and consideration uh
there are a lot of trees on the property
uh so there's arburous reports there
were noise studies because highway 4 is
not too far and there's recommendations
of that uh There are also like I said a
permit from the endangered species act
and a a traffic study. Now the traffic
study and the servicing capacity study
were actually submitted as previous
applications. So they are a little bit
old. Um correspondence that we got from
the county of lampton. They do require
an update to that study. Now like I said
before it was 36 units. We're going to
21. They didn't have any concerns
necessarily. There are no
recommendations for additional lanes of
traffic or danger lanes or anything like
that. But what would be required as a
condition of approval. What we're
recommending at least is a supplemental
memo. So they would look at the traffic
for the next however many years based on
on what's taking place. So I'll let
Jared talk about the policies in the
next slides and some of those
considerations. So the applications in
front of us today are for a reszoning to
allow as Jordan mentioned to allow up to
20 semi- detached dwellings and then
allow singles uh detach one single
detached dwelling unit as of right. Um
the reasonzoning needs to be consistent
with the provincial polic statement, the
County of Lamp official plan and our
village official plan and zoning bylaws.
And there's also a requirement for a
draft plan of subdivision um which the
county of Lamp is the approval authority
for that. Council can make a
recommendation um to the county of Lamp
to approve with conditions or refuse the
subdivision application if they want to.
today. Um if the if the resoning in the
plan subdivision is approved today, the
owner would need to satisfy all
conditions of the pool within 3 years,
although an extension can be utilized.
So this next slide. So for the
provincial policy statement, this
supports development in our settlement
areas, which is the area where this
development is located, which is
developments that provide a range of
housing options and density that can be
supported um by existing infrastructure.
The site is nearby highway 402
and there are land use compacity
policies that apply. The applicant did
complete a noise study with
recommendations of how the proposal
would meet noise deadlines from the
province. There were natural heritage
policies that would have that were
required that for habitat of species at
risk to be conserved as well as the for
the development to conserve
archaeological resources and be directed
away from natural hazards.
There was an arborist report and um tree
preservation plans that have been
submitted but the trees have been
removed and the studies did not include
a replacement or restoration plan for
those trees.
Um the archaeological area would not be
developed at all but a storm sewer would
be located in the area and a future w
road widening may be located in the
area. Um and that came from our county
lamp public work comments.
Archaeologists have been contacted and
is reviewing the requirements, including
a further study is required for that
road winding. The owner has a permit
under the endangered species act for
development on this site, which includes
a habitat creation area and an
enhancement area. Natural hazards also
have been identified and studies have
been approved by the St. Clair Region
Conservation Authority.
uh staff found that this is consistent
with the provincial planning statement
provide conditions include a tree
replacement study and includes all
recommendation and requirements in the
archaeological assessment and the
endangered species permit. So next I'm
going to go over the plan considerations
for the county official plan. So this is
located in what we call in the county
growth map the urban center and
settlement area.
This permits a wide range of uses as
well for residential and it permits a
wide range of mix of lot sizes and
dwelling types are encouraged.
There are similar policies that this
official plan contains as the PBS
regarding cultural heritage and natural
heritage as well as natural hazards.
Uh these policies um encourage a built
form that is welld designigned and
encourages a sense of place and provides
for public spaces that are high quality,
safe, accessible, and attractive and
vibrant. Um as we know, Venetian
Boulevard is a tourist area and an
arterial road. So we feel that is
important to have a well-designed
frontage that includes landscaping and
adequate footing fencing. The county
plan has policies for conditions of
approval, including linkages and
walkways and appropriate urban design
standards. And both of us planners
recommend that a walkway be provided at
the west end of the site to connect to
the Phoenician Boulevard sidewalk.
So, I'm going to go into the plan
considerations for the um village of
Point Ever official plan. So, the
designation um for this site is mixed
use. It permits low density residential
uses and no amendment is required.
This um the village op does require
sidewalks to be provided along one side
of the road. Other culde-sacs in the
village have generally contain sidewalks
that are on one side of the road. The
village also in terms of parkland will
generally not accept parkland that is
not suitable for development.
park contains an agreed archaeological
protected area that should not be
included in the 5% parkland dedication.
Uh tree preservation plans in any
removal shall be replaced of a similar
species.
Urban design policies um in the official
plan promote attractive streetscaping
and require landscape plan for Venetian
boulevard frontage.
The policies do not permit landlock
parcels and do not support the creation
of blocks behind lots 7 to 14.
It is the opinion of plans that the
development conforms to the village
official plan and subject to the
recommended conditions.
So um I'm going to go over the
circulation uh correspondence. So the
application was circulated to agencies
departments as well as the general
public.
Um planning staff um received responses
from the St. Clair Region Conservation
Authority, Lamp Public Works, Ministry
of Transportation, Point Edward Fire and
Rescue and Hydro 1. The St. Clair Region
Conservation Authority and Lamp Public
Works had recommend recommended
conditions of approval and MTO Fire and
Hydro 1 did not have any concerns.
Just gonna Jordan for the next slides.
Thank you, D.
So considering all these policies um
reviewing the site um we do feel uh that
we can support the resoning as
submitted. Uh like we said the the
official plan policies do allow for
this. We feel that it is uh consistent
with provincial planning state in terms
of adding a mixture of land uses. Um the
reduced setbacks would also allow for a
more compact development maybe 20 lots
if you didn't have some of these
variances. Uh we also support the draft
plan and subdivision. However, we do
have some modifications. If you go to
the next slide, I'll just talk about
what that is. The first one is to merge
the storm ement. Um if you remember back
to the original plan, there is a storm
ement right beside the park. Really
makes sense to merge those two together.
Uh since they would both be used by the
village point ever in the future. Uh,
with that, we also recommend and
actually if you can go back to the
screen that has the plan, please
go back just so as council can see
exactly what the second uh proposed
amendment is. Go back a couple more
slides, please.
And one more right there. So, here is
the drop subdivision that was submitted.
As you can see, there's an area in
brown, uh, purple, and gray. As I said,
this area is for habitat creation and
enhancement. Um, so Jared touched on the
landlocked issue and I share those
concerns as well. Now, the applicants
agent did provide a legal opinion on how
they could be merged. Uh, we've
discussed that with the senior plan
official. We have a difference of
opinion, but really our primary concern
with that is it's supposed to be a
habitat area or other gar. And when you
merge that together with the residential
lot, people cut their grass. they they
typically don't like snakes. So when you
have this, it's no longer a habitat for
the bothers snakes. So that was really
our concern. Now just getting more
details into the permit, that area does
have to be monitored for 5 years. Um if
later on down the road they do want to
merge that with the residential lots.
There is a process for that. You could
deem a lot the lots not to be a plan of
subdivision and and evaluate a consent
application for each one. So that that
ability is there for in the future. Um,
personally we cannot support having
those as separate blocks or added to the
residential blocks. And if you go back
to the next slides, I can briefly
discuss some of the recommended
conditions of approval. And Jared has
touched on a lot of these already. If
you go back two slides, yep, perfect.
Um, just there's some typical conditions
that are for a subdivision. So, the
owner will be required to enter into a
subdivision agreement with the village.
That's where you uh quite controlled on
exactly the servicing, parkland
dedication and a lot of other uh details
of the proposal. Um we're also
recommending that there be parkland
dedication. As I said, there will be
parkland as part of this development.
Now, it really comes down to a
calculation how much of that is 5% that
is outside of that archaeological area
and the applicants engineer or surveyor
will be able to give that that
information later on.
Also, a tree replacement plan. There
were arborous reports submitted with
this application as some you can see if
you visited the site there aren't very
many trees on there that there were
about five six years ago. Uh so as part
of that and Jared touched on this in the
policies there are policies in the
village key that encourage uh trees to
be preserved. If they're not then a
replacement of a similar species will be
required. Now we have had follow-up
conversations with the St. region
conservation authority and to establish
a woodland they estimate it's about
$5,000 per acre. So, uh for anything
that can't be provided on site, we do
recommend that that be provided as a
condition.
Aside from that, other standard
conditions of approval are taken right
from the applicant specialized reports.
Each one of them did have
recommendations and we recommend that
they be included in the the conditions
of approval as well as comments back
that were received from the St. Region
Conservation Authority and the County of
Lamp. As Jared said, that involves a
road winding um near Gateway Casino.
There's be a future roundabout
potentially. So, it's have enough land
to to accommodate all of that. And uh
the conservation authority has reviewed
all the hazard studies and they have
some recommendations in there such as
minimum elevation of openings of the
buildings and similar flood proof.
and Jared will finish some.
Yep. So, um the council is the approval
authority tonight for the resoning and
can approve the resoning application
tonight and the county land um as I
mentioned before is the approval
authority for the draft plan
subdivision. Um whenever village council
does have the ability to make
recommendation the county to approve or
refuse the application or provide
recommendations for conditions of
approval as well
and thank you for your time and we're h
both Jordan and myself are happy to
answer any questions council or the
public may have.
Yes. Hi. May I ask a question?
So so just first of all it's council
first.
So then we'll open it up.
Are there any questions of council?
Yeah. Let everybody change their chairs
around while we wait.
Pardon?
Want everybody turn their chairs around?
Oh, sure. Just
unless one.
Okay. Okay.
Okay. So, um I just have two quick
questions. The original plan had a
access at the back for fire department
in case the only access was blocked. Is
that that's been removed? Has it?
Uh through the chair to the the council.
There is one access off of Venation
Boulevard. Um I don't remember a second
access at all. Usually for lots that are
21 lots. Um I'm not aware of any
policies in the village of Bishop plant.
Usually a second access is more when you
have 50 60 70 lots. Usually something
21. You wouldn't require that second but
um
okay
with that said and we can speak to the
applicant after and they are here to
present.
Uh but there would be a feature walkway
potentially. There's area between the
archeological resource and the singly
attached dwelling.
Okay. There should be access there for
like an emergency like a gated emergency
access potentially.
And I think it may have just been talked
about at the time and access from the
casino's parking lot, but it maybe never
got to the plane. Okay. And then in the
map where the um there's the species at
risk protected area in people's
backyards
um that the brown along the bottom. How
will that be divided from someone's
backyard? Will there be a fence or is it
just please don't go there?
uh through the chair. The
recommendations are in the endangered
species act permit that was received,
but generally speaking, yes, there would
be fencing requirements.
Okay. I get on their side of that.
That's my understanding. Um I don't have
the permit in front of me. I know
there's temporary measures for for
fencing,
right?
Long-term measures. I I'd have to review
the permit together.
Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Through the mayor. Um
to
was is there any consideration for a
crosswalk from this
uh side of the nation across? We have
one similar down further down with their
you know provision to put in the plan
that we put a crosswalk in there for the
residents because they either have to go
one way or the other to legally or to
safely cross the street. Uh we'll see
you on that chair through the chair to
your account for your your question. Uh
great point. There was a traffic impact
study that was submitted. It's my
understanding that's something that they
looked at. As you said, there is a
pedestrian crossing to the east a little
bit. It is a bit of a way to walk, but
they they run their numbers and they do
their analysis. From what I understand
from that report, it's not warranted
here. And maybe that's something when
there's improvements to the intersection
just to the west of the site. Maybe
there's a more pedestrian friendly
opportunity there where you could just
have more like shorter uh trips for
pedestrians. Could be an option, but as
I said, that report will have to be
updated um as part of the scope of that.
We can get them to look at that again if
council chooses.
Thank you.
So I I have a question about the trees.
So the trees don't have to be like or
like we can look at or someone looks at
what it would be the best variety
to be built because some of it was scrub
certainly through the chair yourself.
There were our risk reports already. We
can look at that a bit more detail and
what we're not talking about is one tree
advice for everyone. It's more of an
area. Um so it could be a site loss
maturity and it would be pin towards
exactly what's required and the
condition would be to the satisfaction
of the county of lamp as well as to the
the town or the village when you have
that submission.
Thank you.
Um no more questions off council. Has
there been any new correspondence
submitted after the submission of this
report?
I haven't received any.
Okay. Would the applicant or
representative wish to speak to the
application?
Yes, your motion.
My name is Eda from George Murray
Shipley Bell. I am
assisting on the development. Um I won't
uh I won't keep you too long. I hope um
the long road we get here.
um couple of the points that uh Jordan
brought up with and the one of the
counselors brought up about these
blocks. I really just want to focus on
those. The balance of the report is not
an issue. Um
it's the if we look at the blocks uh
first I'll start um in the corner where
the park land is is proposed. um there's
really no issue there um in terms of
merging the blocks uh together because
if they're both conveyed to the village
then it really it doesn't matter the
common ownership is fine.
The next section that deals with the
blocks at the back of the residential
lots
I think you hit it right on the head in
terms of the practical issues there. Um
it's this situation not exactly the same
but the situation with blocks
um that are uh joining to a residential
lot does exist in other subdivisions in
Sarnia and it was handled
essentially the way we're proposing is
that these blocks didn't get conveyed
with the lot together. The concern that
uh I think the planners are raising is
that they don't want these things
conveyed to somebody and then the
landlord but not sure who would ever buy
them. But um
it can be it that can be regulated by um
the subdivision agreement can state
specifically that these have to go with
the adjoining lot in any conveyance. Um
legally we can uh we can create one pin
which is a property identifier number
under the uh land title system and so
when anybody searches the title they see
that these two are together. um the
issue of um species at risk. It
um maybe I'll just jump to the to the
big piece for a second and then I'll
come back.
At this point,
the the applicant's not certain as to
how that's going to be dealt with um in
terms of future ownership.
We believe that likely the best scenario
is that that piece will be uh owned by
all the uh people in the subdivision and
so they will have a 121 interest in that
and that way they can control it. They
get um access to it at all times. Um
but now if you if you include those
blocks at the bottom in that then it
becomes somewhat difficult because if
you have a fence there and then there's
another fence that um what's I can't
remember what the depth of the block is
10T so it's going to be a strange
situation where you got fence and then
another fence potentially and a 10-ft
strip
I see that as being something that
they're not maintained. It would likely
be
that place where probably garbage will
end up. Um
I believe again that you can put in the
agreement and we can do it through
restrictions uh on a title that the
owners have to maintain it and and and
you can put warnings in there that they
have to maintain it, they can't build on
it, they can't do anything to it. Um,
and that, uh, we believe is a better way
to, uh, regulate the use of the property
as opposed to having this one strip that
just runs along the back with two
fences. We
don't think that's going to be very
attractive. In my experience, in the
city, whenever you have laneways or or
anything of that sort, people just
eventually treat it like their own
anyway, and the fences come down and
Nobody's going to monitor it. There is
monitoring for I believe it's about five
years, but after that there won't be
anything nowhere. So, we just believe
it's more practical and and there's not
a whole lot to gain by keeping these
separate.
In terms of the of the water lot,
um again, at this point, we would like
to keep that separate. Um,
we believe the village can regulate that
again through a subdivision agreement.
It it may turn out that that's going to
be dealt with exactly like the peace
beside it, the species at risk area. Um,
and it will be for use by the by the
owner. So, if there's owners that want
the boat well bells there, then then
they can do it. Um
so at this point I guess what what we're
asking is that
those conditions for merging all these
blocks be um not included and can be
handled through the um subdivision
agreement process. And again, it may
turn out that eventually these will be
uh can be merged together um if u if if
it's going to be common ownership by all
the owners in the subdivision. So that's
really I think the only difference. We
would like to keep the blocks separate,
not for purposes of transferring them to
somebody because that's that's like not
going to happen, but really just so that
we can then decide which way we're going
to go with it.
I think those were really just the
blocks I think were the only points of a
difference.
I'm happy to answer your question.
Thank you, Mayor Grimes.
Thank you, Mayor Hand through you. Um,
so not all neighbors get along.
So you're saying these 21 homeowners
would decide where they're putting boat
wells and sharing the property. Will
there be a condo board to oversee this
or will they just all get along and
decide who gets to tie their boat up
where? How will that be managed?
Um, this is not a condo,
right?
So, it's that that process isn't there,
but essentially it will work in in the
same way. What we've been discussing is
setting up um an association which can
be an incorporated
uh entity that's not a forprofit
corporation. It's just it's it's it's
run like um it's it's a nonprofit
organization,
but each landowner is a member of that
association. And so that association has
a board, has officers, and they're the
ones that get together and they'll make
the decisions. But whether they get
along um or not, um there'll have to be
decisions made presumably as long as
there's a majority that can make the
decision.
Just to follow up with my three, like I
I'm not sure 21 boat slips and boats
would even fit in the water lot. So, how
like who who gets how would they decide
who gets turned down? Who gets it?
Sorry, I I didn't mean to make the
implication that there would be 21
there. There may there may never be any
there, right? I mean, it may be just uh
one of the discussions we had was it
would just be um a walkway and like a
boardwalk there and people can just go
there and sit there, put chairs or
whatever, whatever. Um
yeah, the boat wells
If they again if they want to decide to
do it, it would be the association that
would be uh would be controlling them
and then whatever whatever rules they
want to set down as far as how they
lease them or I don't it would not be a
case of people owning
right not.
Yeah. And then follow up on the species
at risk area again owned by 21 people.
Um, will they be required to pay for the
landscaping or the I know it's not going
to be cut like a a grass field, but that
part of it will be that association that
will cover the any work on that.
Yeah. What what I've seen in in other in
other developments um in not in Sarna
but mostly in other areas is that um the
land owners will basically like a
condominium. They're going to pay
whether it's 100 bucks a year or 200
bucks a year and that's going to cover
the maintenance of this.
Um,
presumably this is an asset to them, not
not a liability because there really
isn't going to be much to do with it.
There there may be some cutting grass
there's no grass to be grass. This is a
special grass and I'm responsible for
the first five years. Okay. Um there's
pretty special grass and it grows to a
certain height. There's no grass on it.
There should be very little
maintenance at all unless they want to
unless something happens to the ball
only.
Right. Okay. Thank you.
So it's interesting when you talked
about the two fences. I actually lived
in a house in Buford where that
situation existed. I was a lot a long
time ago. I was young, but we had about
5 ft between the fence and the neighbor
fence and it was stuff got thrown in
there and there was a lot of scrub trees
like zumac and whatnot and eventually we
came to I don't remember all that
happened. It came to an agreement where
one fence was torn down and an agreement
was made over that piece of land but it
can never make any sense to have a piece
blocked off like that to him good use.
Well,
that's how we feel. Yeah.
Any other questions?
Okay. So, are there any questions or
comments from the public? I'm in favor
or opposed to the application. Anyone
that chooses to speak will need to
identify themselves and provide their
address, please.
Is it okay, your honor? I'm sorry I
didn't pull the proper
That's okay.
It's okay. Yeah. You got rained in.
My name is Glenn Carson.
Y
I'm the president of LCC 53
and I'm al also representing So that's
1550 Venetian Boulevard, the property
adjacent to this this this proposed and
we fully agree with what's happening
here. And then I also I'm representative
of 1540 which is the new building there.
and Nick uh Nick's allowed me to be a
representative from
when 1540 was built it was given a
variation so it had less parking than
the province required okay and there's a
I think if you guys look back you'll
find a variation was giving in their
short 15 parking spots okay or something
like that I don't know if you guys are
aware of that or
okay so uh we've been uh looking for a
way to solve that problem because we
lost a lot of our parking spots when
they uh took they appropriated their
property and we were looking at section
living up here is block 25 which is
already a parking uh a gravel parking
area. So, uh, we had approached Al on
the possibility of in the future if it's
all agreed and the subdivision was
passed and things of acquiring that
property between our our two properties
and getting increased parking slots as
it is at a parking area right now. And
that would fulfill the provincial
requirements, the variance, go beyond
the variance for 1540 and allow us some
uh parking for 1550 that we've lost. So,
we were hoping as it is now still an
existing parking lot and there's very
little movement of animals and things on
that area that this could be approved as
it stands. Uh, if we go back to section
16 or 25 there, we go back to that one.
Sure. and uh we have it could be a u a
parking area that would bring 1540 up to
the the provincial standards and allow
us for the parking area we lost at 1550.
So that's what I was here to talk about
today. I I don't know if uh you know
parking is always a challenge. The three
Ps are parking, pets, and plants. So
that's one of the big the big P is the
parking. So, I wanted to bring that
before you and and ask you uh I don't
want to interfere with El's project
here, but he's been kind enough to talk
to us about this. And uh I wondered if
you'd consider that because we're going
to have a very big parking problem
there. You can't park on the street
there. So, there's no visitor parking to
speak of at all. Not even enough to meet
the provincial requirements at this
moment.
Would
you like to speak? I'm Mary on Hillress
on the owner of the property. I have
been had discussions with Glenn and he's
been very good and we he is on the right
lines there. Um but I think I've been
fair to Glenn and he realizes we have to
walk before we can run.
Yeah.
There's no agreement actually in place
for what they'd like to do. Uh firstly
after five years I just want to get over
I just want to move on this
and then we probably would have to come
back. There's some legal stuff but I
think I think we've been pretty frank
and consistent. Um as I said we we have
to get this development approved first
and then and we have to see how this uh
whole area is going to work including a
water lot. That's why, you know, we
can't really deal with that parking
until we have that resolved as to how
it's going to work.
We don't know what we're going to do
with that block. It's it's a bit of a
dead block now. It's it's hard pan. Um,
so I I just wanted to address if if it
was if it was passed the way it's drawn,
but that's a green area. uh then it
would be impossible for us to go forward
and and uh solve the parking problem we
have that sort of was generated when
they were allowed to build 1540. So
we're hoping that you guys in your
hearts could see the problems we're
facing with parking in those two
buildings and uh that green area right
now is a parking lot already and we're
not planning on building on it or or
doing anything if we're able to acquire
it. Like we don't know if we're going to
acquire it or not. We hope we can
I don't think that's gray confusion gray
area. So in the other drawing it's a
green area. If we go back to the one
where it shows green
right here not green as planted.
No let's go to the one where it shows
the
spot. Let's go for another species.
Next one there is that's covered by the
green area.
Well I think that's
that's species of risk. speech is a
grip.
That's but tell I'm telling you there's
there's no snakes on that hot pan. In
fact, I'll tell you now after spending
$22,000 to have a biologist there
morning, noon, and night didn't find any
snakes. And it was species at risk that
made me cut the grass after the salvage
time within 48 hours and remove all
vegetation.
That's why it's been too hard to clear
now. Mhm.
So, so I was I'm just here to solve a
problem that we have existing in the in
the in the village right now and it's
going to increase as that building's
completely full. We'll be struggling for
parking on those two buildings.
Um the mayor,
yeah,
I have Josie Parker 1741 Lakeshore Road
as a potential um owner of one of Mr.
Bington's um lots. Um I would just like
to say that
or the question first is how many cars
can you park in the driveway? Um like I
don't know how long the driveways are.
How many cars could you park in the
driveway before um out of consideration
for Mr. Carson that we essentially give
up parking lot that is part of the part
of the area now? Like
two on the driveway, two in the garage.
two in the driveway, two in the garage.
Okay. Okay. So, that will help people
make a decision, too, because um 20 21
lots, you know, company, one thing and
another, large families, you need a
place to to park. Um Okay. And thank
you.
Any other questions?
Is there anything else that the
applicant would like to address?
Lots.
Yeah. Well,
no, I think again really the the only
issue we really blocks, right? We'd like
to keep it the way that we proposed it.
I do have one question. I think that
maybe Jordan could have Jared. and the
green area which is archological.
Mhm.
Um
personally I'd like that all to be green
area.
Um obviously I'd like to plant trees
where the archologicus and the sinclair
allow me which is probably around the
outer edge and like Jordan said put some
benches or something in there. But are
you telling me nobody can walk over the
archeological land if it's a green area?
Is it going to walk over it?
The chair can answer for my same
question. M
um what it says in the the stage three
assessment. Yeah. And the letter from
the middle screen is um tree removals
not allowed. uh sight disturbance
digging into the ground. Yeah. Not
allowed. And generally speaking in
parks, you're not allowed to do that
anyways.
Um walking over the land I don't think
would be an issue.
All right. So
necessarily it's once you get extensive
disturbance of that soil damage the
artifact and everything that's really
nice I see a nice green area everybody
point everyone can get some benefit
from.
Um, just I don't know how you want to
address the issue with the parking. To
me, it sounds like it's something that
you're going to park and go in good
faith and see what you can do in the
future.
Yeah. I I I just think you can't really
address that. I mean, that's a and
that's really just a private issue
between two land owners anyway.
We just wanted to make sure that it
wasn't zoned as a exclusive green area.
Then that would take away the ability
for us to make a a deal on the parking.
So, that was our only concern.
Dr. Kog,
is there any any issue with what they're
saying
on the Z?
Yeah. Yeah. Through the chair, these are
some things that are maybe better in the
future to discuss rather than really at
this time.
Um, from my understanding of the whole
endangered species act and the permit
that was required for that, that is a
habitat creation area if I'm uh correct.
So, they will have to establish some
sort of habitat. How that works together
with a future parking lot, I think would
need further study. They'd have to get
biologists out there, evaluate
everything and then make a decision at
that time.
Well, I'm working with them right now.
So, I'll try and answer those questions
ahead of
Well, you we've you've opened up to the
opportunity to have a discussion in the
future. So, there's nothing that we can
do about that today. So, I just
Yeah.
So, does is what we're going to do
tonight will will that block them making
that a parking lot or will they have to
come back and start all over if they
want to make it a parking lot?
And through the chair today, really what
council is doing is they're deciding on
the reszoning application to allow the
the 20 semi- detached owners in one
single. The lot creation or the
subdivision approval is actually up to
the county of Atlanta. So, they will
review the minutes, they'll review the
report, they'll review all the the
studies and reports that were submitted
and they'll make a decision. Now,
council, if they do support the
subdivision, uh they could send to the
county, let them know that you do
support the subdivision. If there's some
issues with some of the conditions or
what's being proposed for some of the
lots to merge together that can be
identified in the minutes or even in a
resolution and or sorry, as a in a
motion and that can be sent to the
county for their consideration. Uh but
what you're deciding today has no impact
on the park. You're not changing the
zoning on that whatsoever.
Okay. Thank you.
Thanks, Jordan.
There any more questions from council?
Is there anyone um wish to make a motion
regarding the resing application? Oh, I
got to close I'm going to close the
public
so there no more questions. We're going
to close the public part of the meeting.
I thank you all for your input.
Thank you, council. Thank you.
Thank you.
There's two motions, right?
I can move one.
So, I'll move the council approve
reszoning application Z1-2025.
Second that.
Nick, you want to do it? Can we do it as
Jonah or do it separate?
Separate.
Okay. All in favor of that motion.
Thank you.
Okay. Move on. And is there a little
I'll move the second.
Thank you.
You have it.
Yeah.
You want to read it? Oh, sorry. Do you
want me to read?
I can read it. that the report and
comments from the public be received and
that council re recommends to the county
of LAN they approve the application
subject to the draft conditions of the
approval
seconded by council doctor. All in
favor?
So, just as a reminder, there is a
20-day appeal period.
Have you just mandated the conditions in
that you agree with all the those
conditions?
We've recommended um
the county approve and basically
consider all those conditions like it's
up to the county to make the final
decision on the recommen
Yeah. Yeah. Am I correct Jordan? Like
it's not
Thank you.
We we just moved it forward, right? Now
the county does their due diligence and
it comes back to us.
So we'll give them minutes of the
meeting. They'll have access to the
video. This is all being recorded. So
they'll have access to all the public
input and then they will make the
decision on what what the actual
conditions of the final approval will
be.
Okay. So thank you everyone for
attending. Um we appreciate your input
and the bylaw to reszone properly will
be dealt with at a later um later in
this meeting.
Now we are moving on to
the camera.
Okay. Yeah, you're right.
Sorry. Let's stop there.
Okay. So, moving on to number 10, the
new building and environmental services.
For several years, council has be been
reviewing the need for a new building at
the Environmental Services Department
pollution control plant. The design and
location of the building has been
determined and in 2024, the decision was
made to go to tenders on the building.
Upon closing of the tenders, the
engineer we were working with indicated
that they could no longer support us
with the completion of the project.
Council subsequently directed staff to
approach and a new engineer to review
the design work and tenor the building
of the building. The engineer has now
identified indicated that they have not
identified any substantial changes in
the design of the building. Staff would
like to obtain final approval to proceed
with the construction of the new
building subject to the contractor with
the low tender amount agreeing to the
price
to the bill for that price at that time.
At this time, documentation
from all past meetings of the
environmental services building
committee has been circulated for
council's information.
Construction of the new environmental
services building has been discussed for
approximately seven years. Staff is
asking council to approve approve moving
forward with awarding the center of this
project.
So we circulated documentation
um everything we recirculated
open that door recirculated everything
that um ever was sent to the
uh
the building committee and then also
there was the document circulated to a
council meeting in I believe it was
April that broke down all the costs for
you know all the not just the building
but all the additional like um there's
work that needs to be done around
removing removing soil and there's uh
fiber optic work and like a few of those
types of things. Um, so I recirculated
that as well and then uh prepared a bit
of a memo explaining where we've, you
know, where we've been over the last few
years with the project. And we have a
recommendation
um that
council would like to discuss.
Where did we discuss we discuss without
a motion that when we're done?
Um,
typically there's a motion on the floor
to before you discuss
open it up.
Well, I'll move the recommendation.
Second.
All in favor?
Wait, no, sorry. To open it for
construction. I didn't mean I meant for
discussion questions.
answer the mayor. Uh the new
environmental services building is far
more than a building upgrade. It it will
provide a safe work environment for our
employees and it's a commitment to
sustainable and efficient municipal
services at both environmental services
and public works.
Uh because it will allow more space for
public works. Uh it'll position the
village of Point Ever to move forward
with immediate and future population
growth as we spoke about here earlier
this evening.
I support this
building.
Other questions, comments?
Depay
and Jim for putting together the
comprehensive package. I know I
requested it and it really helps us
to make sure we're um we have all the
information in front of us and not have
to search it down. So, I do appreciate
that.
Any other questions?
We recorded vote though.
No, leave doors got to stay open.
Recorded vote, please.
Councelor Mondu
in favor.
Councelor Noctturn
in favor.
Councelor Burgess
in favor.
Deputy Mayor Grimes
opposed. And Mayor Hand
in favor.
Motion carries four to one. So Jay and I
and the treasurer will work over the
next two weeks to have a report on
financing and I I feel the St. Clair
Street project and this are very
intertwined as as you alluded to in your
email. Um so we'll we'll have that
report back for you in two weeks from
tonight.
Thank you.
Okay.
There might be other new business.
Is there any other new business?
Moving on to community events and public
announcements. So, as a reminder, Machin
Point ever is Saturday, July the 12th,
and looking for people to support the
Rotary Breakfast.
It's an annual event. Um, the car show
vintage in the vintage in the park is
July 25th.
And that's all that that I know about in
the next few weeks. Anybody have any
other events that they know of?
And no new business.
We'll move on to bylaws.
I'll move the bylaw that bylaw number 19
being a bylaw to amend the zoning bylaw
25 of 2012 be read a first, second and
third time and finally passed on this
8th day of July 2025.
Thank you. Um
second
doctor.
All in favor that's carried. Um I needed
resolution to move in camera. I'll move
that.
Thank you.
Now we can shut the door.
Now I'm going to stop the live stream.