[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.