Good afternoon everyone and welcome to. The July 13th meeting
of the town of Halton Halls Council. We have a
motion from Councillor Albano and seconded by Councillor Keane that
the Council for the Town of Halton Hills reconvene this
meeting in open session, all in favor. That's carried. Now
I want to let people know that this is a
hybrid meeting held in the Council Chambers. And being live
streamed for members of the public to watch online. And
we have Councillor Fogle, Councillor Somerville and Councillor Engels attending
virtually. And I would like to remind members in the
gallery that photos of recording devices are not allowed to
be used in the Council Chambers. The recording of today's
meeting along with STAP Presentations will be posted to the
town's website. Later on this week. So while we've read
everyone to stand now for O Canada.
To. God.
And we begin. By acknowledging. That the land. On which
we gather is part of. The treating lens. And territory
of. The Mississaugas of the credit. Are. There any disclosures
of pecuniary interest or conflict of interest. I see none.
Thank you. Now we have some announcements today. And I
would first like to invite Councillor Norris. If you have
some things that you want to let people know about.
Yes, and thank you, Mayor. Two announcements. First announcement is
downtown Georgetown is a vibrant shopping district known for its
unique architecture and festivals in the area stores and restaurants.
This year, the downtown Georgetown Palooza has so much to
offer. So this Friday, evening July 17th, the Palooza stage
will be taking over the Main Street, right downtown Georgetown.
It'll begin with the Battle of the Bands. There will
be street eats. There will be dunk tank. There'll be
a Kid Zone. And there'll be a vendor village. And
as if the event couldn't get any better than it's
been before. Welcome to the Beer Garden. So downtown Plusa
is collaborating with Head for the Hills. Head for the
Hills for some of you may know is taking a
year off, but they're coming back with a pop -
up beer garden this time in downtown Georgetown at the
Palooza to bring you a beer garden to enjoy Palooza
even more. So join Head for the Hills team at
downtown Palooza to sip on local crap beverages, including beer,
cider, seltzers and wine. CUN July 17th for night to
remember. That's 5 p. m. to 10 p. m. Then
on Saturday morning July 18th. The Palooza stage will be
bringing the Georgetown Farmers Market to life with live music
throughout the morning. This will be going from 8 a.
m. to 1230. No matter when you stop by, your
regular farmer's market on Saturday morning is sure to have
a gorgeous soundtrack on our second day of downtown Palooza.
So that will now be Friday night, July 17th and
Saturday morning. July 18th. My second announcement is come out
and help celebrate the Royal Canadian legions 100th year. This
Saturday, July 18th, from the fund begins at 2 p.
m. at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 120 in Georgetown.
That's at 127 Mill Street, right downtown. They will have
live music dancing barbecues and games. For this special event,
the Georgetown legion will be outside to enjoy the summer
weather. The parking lot directly behind the legion will be
used for the outdoor events. And again, the fun begins
at 2 p. m. and absolutely everyone is welcome. Saturday,
July 18th, beginning at 2 p. m. Thank you, Madam
Mayor. Okay, thank you. And Councillor Hillston, I think you
have some announcements. To thank you, Madam Mayor. I've got
one that's also showcasing the Georgetown BIA. We're doing hope
in every step, Halton Hills once again on Saturday, July
25th at 11 a. m. at the corner of church
and Main Street. This is our third year doing it.
Myself and Addi Giswami started a couple of years ago
because the main events were happening in South Halton to
support Halton Women's Place. So, uh, we wanted to do
something in the North. And that's the opportunity this year.
So, uh, please join us Saturday, July 25th, 11 a.
m. at the Georgetown Farmers, Market. Thank you. Thank you.
And Councillor Keene, you've been distributing items to members of
Council. Well, thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, I have. I
bring exciting news from the world of garbage collection. As
a member of the Halton region waste management committee, I'm
privy to some information. Many of you may have seen
this brochure arrived in your mail. Uh, it is exciting
news actually. We're finally moving into the modern era with
the implementation of wheeled cart system. So no longer will
you have to lug your beat up little garbage candle
to the front of your house. You'll have a nice
wheeled cart that you can use for both your garbage
and your compost. Come in two sizes. The large size
would be 240 litres. The smaller size is 120 litres.
Those of you who are exceptionally are concerned about your
carbon front, men can use a TNE. We need a
little lady Bitty one. But just kidding. This is a
wonderful pencil case. Um, so the suicide is available. Please
do note that this only applies to garbage and organic
waste. The blue box program will not be changing because
that is managed by an independent company provincial legislation. There's
circular materials corporation. So the, uh, producers of recyclable waste
are now responsible for that. And they are choosing not
to implement wheeled carts. Uh, you'll stay with your standard
blue bin, which is unfortunate. Uh, we'll see what comes
down the road. So, um, good news. Look forward to
that in the new year starting in January, uh, until
March will be rolled out and, um, I trust you'll
enjoy their use. Thank you. Thank you very much. And
so, you know, stay tuned for that. I think we'll
be hearing more. Yeah. Thank you. And I have a
couple of announcements as well. And one regarding the Garden
of Hope. And the library in partnership with the Halton
Suicide Prevention Coalition will unveil a Garden of Hope at
the Actin Branch on World Suicide Prevention Day. Thursday, September
the 10th. Community members are invited to attend the ceremony
and painter Brock with a message of hope that will
become part of the garden. And finally, I'd like to
announce that we have a celebrity in our midst. And
we are sharing that Hillsview active living centre volunteer, Linda
Gordon. Was a recipient of the Ontario Senior's Achievement Award.
This provincial award recognises seniors who have made outstanding contributions
to their communities through volunteerism. Leadership, and dedication to enhancing
the lives of others. Linda has been a dedicated volunteer
at Hillsview for eight years, providing exceptional financial leadership. As
treasurer while supporting accessible and inclusive programming. She has played
a key role in the center's growth. Contributing to increased
membership, expanded programming. And greater community participation. Linda is also
actively involved in fundraising initiatives and organising social programs that
foster connection and engagement among seniors. Her commitment and contributions
have helped strengthen Hillsview as a vibrant and welcoming community
hub for seniors in acton. Linda received her award at
a reception, which was special at Queen's Park last month.
And the town Council is very proud of Linda's achievement.
Highlighting the meaningful impact of volunteerism within our community. So
please, all of you join me and congratulating Linda on
your well - deserved honour.
I will ask. You to come and ask. We can
shake your hand. From. Us.
Oh. Good.
Thank. You.
Okay. Now, I think that's the end of our announcements.
And now there are several items. That we want to
finish off as far as approvals. So I have a
resolution to adopt the general committee items from the June
22nd Council meeting. And the details of these items can
be found in section five of today's agenda. It has
been moved by Councillor Albano. Seconded by Councillor Garneau that
the recommendations contained in the following reports and memorandum from
Monday, June 22nd, General Committee are hereby adopted as presented.
Report CES 2026008 CES 2026009. CSE
2026 - 017. PD 2026 - 065 TPW 2026 -
014. TPW 2026 - 016. Memorandum PD - 2026 -
004 and memorandum CES 2026 - 004. All in favor.
That's carried, thank you. Now we have it moved by
Councillor Keane, seconded by Councillor Hillston that the following minutes
are hereby approved. Confidential and open session minutes of the
Council meeting held on Monday, June 22, 2026. All in
favor. That's carried.
The details of the consent items can be found in
section 8 of today's agenda. We have it moved by
Councillor Hillson, 2nd by Councillor Garneau, that the following consent
items are hereby approved. Memorandum CSE 2026 - 008, memorandum
CSE 2026 - 009. Memorandum CSE 2026 - 010. Admin
2026 - 022, and been 2026025. Report CES 2026 -
020 and memorandum CES - 2026 - 005. Is there
anyone who wishes to hold any of those items for
review at general committee. Councillor Garno. Yes, thank you Mayor.
I'd like to hold item six, the 2027 budget approach
and process memo, please. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that
number? Six, number six.
Oh. Okay. Uh, did anyone else wish to hold any
Councillor Bras. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want
to hold number six. So I look forward to that
discussion. And, uh, I have a quick comment on consent
item number three. If that's permitted. If it's truly quick.
Yep. Yeah, go ahead. It truly is. Okay, thank you.
I wanted to thank senior staff for reviewing this so
quickly and what is a very important mechanism in our
municipality for reporting. And I want to thank you sincerely
for getting this done so quickly. Great report, thank you.
Okay. And thanks for that truly was quick. Yeah. Okay.
Um, so I'm going to call then for an approval
on all the items save the memorandum. All in favor.
That is carried. Thank you. And, um, now we're going
to turn over the gavel. It has been moved by
Councillor Keane, seconded by Councillor Brest that counciled, do now
convene into general committee. And I think Councillor Albano, you're
in church. For next section of this meeting. All in
favor. That's carried.
Good afternoon. Um, thank you for being here today. And
we'll come to the general committee section of the agenda.
It is a lengthy one today. We have a number
of presentation and delegations today. And then we have full
packed agenda, um, on the reports side. So before we
get to the presentation delegation, uh, what we'll do is
we'll vet the agenda. And then we'll go back to
the presentations. Item A and item B, they're both held.
So we'll get back to that shortly. Um, item C,
report number C, E, S 2026 017 is a corporate
and emergency service report. Hold. On. Thank you, Councillor Bryce.
Um, report D. It's corporate emergency services report number. Two.
Sorry? Okay. We can hear feedback
conservative sonneville. Um, so report CES 2026 018 data July
13, 2026 regarding the 2025 annual financial statements, management discussion
analysis. And financial information return. So moved only in favor.
Carried. Item E. Community services report number
CSE 2026 014 dated June 10th, 2026 regarding Invesa Species
Management Framework. So moved only favored. Carried. Report
number, or Community Services report number C, SE 2026. 015,
dated June 26, 2026, regarding green infrastructure asset management plan.
Pull that report, please. Chair. The cube Council King. Uh,
item G Community Service report number CSE 2026 0 -
27 date of June 22. 26 regarding transverse St. Jones,
Anglican cemetery to the town of Halton Hills. So moved
to only in favor. Carried. Item H. Community service report
number, uh, CSE 2026 28 - 20028. Data June 26,
26 regarding economic development strategy, draft terms of reference. So
moved only favor. Garrett. Planning development report number PD -
2026 - 042 dated 18, 2026, regarding tension to designate
under part four, section 20 of the Ontario - Headed
Act. Move that report? Moved. What? All in favor. Carried.
Item J, Plan Development Report PD 2026 - 054, dated
June 26, regarding alteration two, a designated heritage property, nine
zero, nine four, regional road 25. So moved, all in
favor. Carry. Uh, item K, plan and development report, member
PD 2026 - 056, data June 16, 2026, regarding intention
to designate under Part 4, section 29 of the Ontario
Heritage Act, 11 - 80 - 10 Side Road is
squeezing. So moved all in favor. Carry.
And development report. PD - 2026 - 057, dated June
25th, 2026, regarding still - Bill 23. Uh,
Heritage Update recommendation and next steps. Moved. All in favor?
I'd like to hold for a comment. Okay.
I guess you can move it after. Councillor. Is it
a quick comment? Council Sargo. Yes, I was trying to
do that, but, uh, the staff were too quick on
the mute button for me. Okay. I just wanted to
thank the staff, uh, especially led by our commissioner and
Borrellonia or manager of Heritage Services. It's been a very
probably the most productive committee. We've had this term with
113 properties designated or pending. And I just wanted to
thank Laura and Kelly and all them for all the
hard work that they are doing and what they've done.
And you can see from there, they already have a
large stack of work going forward for the next term
of Council to continue after Bill 23 is finished. And
all those impacts are done. So thank you to them,
and I'll be glad to move it, Mr. Chair. Okay,
thank you very much. I believe Councillor Councillor Hillston said
that he would move it. So if that's all right
with you, be able to... Okay. Holy favor. Carried. Um,
report. Uh, item, uh, M planning and development report number
PD 2026060. Data June 16, 2026 regarding intention to designate
under Part 4, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
7593 - 5 Side Road is squeezing. So moved only
favor. Carrie. Uh, this I - O - Man is
an automatic hold, and we'll give back to that. So
go to O, Planning and Development Report number PD -
2026 - 069, Data June 18, 2026 regarding intention to
designate under Part 4, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage
Act. 16 Wilbur Street North, Achton. So moved Council Bryce
- Mood, all in favor. Carried. Uh, item P, Planning
and Development Report, number PD - 2026. - 070, dated
June 18, 2026, regarding tension to designate under Part 4,
Section 29 of the OHA - 9, 13 - 19
Wilbu Street North, Octon. So moved all in favor. Carrie.
Development Report number PD - 2026 - 072, dated June
18, 2026. Regarding notice - void, draw of notice of
intention to designate 11 - 309 - 22, second lime
house. So moved all in favor. Carried. Uh,
Planning and Development Report, Number PD - 2026 - 075
data June 30th, 2026, regarding Georgetown expansion lands, uh, secondary
plan, terms of reference. So moved all in favor. Carrie.
Planning and development report number PD - 2026 - 076,
date of June 30th, 2026 regarding Georgetown Expansion Lands Secondary
Plan Financial Agreement. So moved only in favor. Carrie. Okay.
Item T, I've just been informed that it's an automatic
hold, so we do not, it's not on the agenda,
but it's an automatic hole, so we'll get back to
that. And item U is also an automatic hold.
And I think. That's it. So we'll go back to.
We go back to the presentation and delegation. And the
first presentation is from Carl's Alvarez and Matthew Charidelli from
KPMG. But before we do that, Joey van der Meer,
I would like to make an opening remarks, Joy. Great,
thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Mayor Chair Al -
Bano, and members of committee. It is my pleasure to
present several finance reports today, including the town's 2025 Financial
Statements. The 2025 - UN process began in the fall
of 2025 with KPMG's intermodit. In February 2026, KPMG presented
the audit plan to the committee, providing an opportunity for
members to ask questions, and raise any concerns before the
audit was completed. Following the preparation of the financial statements
by town staff, KPMG completed its audit in May. Today,
the audited financial statements are before the committee for review.
Providing an opportunity to ask questions of KPMG before they
are presented to the town Council for final approval. Once
approved by Council, the annual financial report will be finalised
and posted on the town's website. At this time, I
would like to invite Carlos Alvarez and Matthew Chargerelli to
present the results of the 2025 audit. Carlos and Matthew,
the floor is yours. Is it on already? Oh, wonderful.
Good afternoon, Councillor Albano, madam mayor, and members of Council.
Happy to present the results of the 2025 fiscal year
- end audit. I'm joined by my colleague, Matt Chardelli,
senior manager. Uh, understanding that our audit findings report would
have been pre - circulated in advance. Uh, we are
going to highlight some of the more significant items that
we would like to bring forward to your attention. A
few pages into the audit findings report, uh, in terms
of audit highlights. On the fourth page. Overall, we are
substantively complete in terms of the Otter process. We are
at a point in time today where we expect to
be at. All of these substantive work is essentially complete.
What would be an audit without talking about misstatements? I
can confirm with Council that it was a clean sheet.
So that there are no misstatements, either corrected or uncorrected.
As well in terms of our audit areas of focus.
Uh, our audit areas of focus remain consistent with our
original audit plan. We did not have to pivot or
introduce any new procedures along the way during the course
of the audit. Moving forward in the slide deck in
terms of overall status. This is perfect. So while we
are substantively complete, there are a few customary loose ends
for us to tie up between today and tomorrow. One
of them being is we will ask your management team
to sign a management representation letter. That letter does a
good job in terms of outlining what our management's responsibilities
as it pertains to your financial statements versus the responsibilities
of the external auditor. Ultimately, when we do get evidence
that they are approved by Council, then I will proceed
to sign the independent auditor's report. Moving further back, in
the report. In terms of changes as part of the
current year's audit, from a regulatory standpoint, there were no
changes in the underlying accounting standards. What that means is
the way your debits and credits came together in 2025
would be on a identical basis as 2024. As well
from a auditing standpoint, the way that we performed the
audit, again, was consistent with the prior year. So nothing
to report on any of the items that are listed.
Proceeding further into the slide deck. Two items to bring
forward to your attention. As auditors were always required to
consider too specific risks. One is the Risk that your
management team circumvents the controls and the environment in place.
So this is a, on the topic of fraud, I
can confirm with Council that based on all of the
procedures that we performed. There was nothing fraudulent that we
detected. Nothing deemed suspicious or awkward or unreconciled. So a
clean sheet in that respect. The second risk that we're
always required to consider is the risk of fraudulent revenue
recognition. Again, I can confirm with Council that based on
all of the procedures, okay? I'll let Matt take over
and handle the next few slides. Great, thank you, Carlos.
If we could move to page 10, please. Thank you.
Uh, so this slide is the largest area of audit
focus that we'll choose to profile in our report and
presentation today. Uh, certainly we look at all of the
aspects of the town's financial statements. Uh, so there are
many more elements to the audit than just what you
see in the package here. Uh, but we do choose
to profile the work that we do over tangible capital
assets or long - lived assets, uh, in another term,
uh, because they are, uh, certainly very material to the
financial statements of the town, as would be the case
for any municipality or equivalent government entity. The suite of
procedures that we perform in this area includes reconciling the
ending point, uh, of the continuity schedule, the schedule of
assets from the prior year and reconciling it for all
of the transactions that occurred throughout 2025. And that includes
additions of new fixed assets. Capitalization of items that were
previously work in progress, any disposals of assets no longer
in use. And also the annual amortization, uh, which is
the accounting term for recognising an expense related to the
useful life of those fixed assets, uh, which is done
on a systemic basis year over year based on the
expected life, uh, asset. So all of these are standard
procedures that we perform each year. Again, as this is
a very material number on your financial statements. Uh, happy
to report that there were no issues, uh, during any
of those procedures. And also I'll touch on the last
bullet on the slide here, which relates to the work
done or the asset retirement obligation, uh, which is a
significant estimate in the financial statements, uh, some may recall
that came into effect. Three years ago when the standard
was required to be implemented across the sector. So lots
of work was done at that point. Each year subsequent
to implementation, your management team is required to review all
of the estimates. And assumptions that go into that number.
And we can confirm that, uh, there was no significant
change to the process management's process for estimating that obligation
remains above board. And there were no issues to bring
to your attention. Moving on to the next slide, please.
So as Carlos alluded to earlier, no big changes with
respect to accounting policies or practices externally, nor were there
any internally. So all of the accounting policy choices that
management has made in the past as reflected in note
one - tier financial statements remain consistent year over year.
Uh, so what that means is if you were to
page flip 2024 statements against 2025s, you will see very
consistent between the two years. Moving forward, please. Some of
it is just an annual confirmation from us as the
auditors, the form presentation, uh, and disclosures within the town's
financial statements. Do meet the requirements of the public sector
accounting standards. Again, no significant change year over year. So
as you were in the past, you remain on side
with all of the requirements in terms of the presentation
and disclosure in those statements. Moving on again. So this
slide covers a number of specific topics that were required
to report on. You can see no matters to report
in each of these areas, which is certainly a positive
result. Uh, there were no difficulties or curve balls during
the audit that led to disagreements with management, uh, or
things like that. Uh, so happy to report no issues
with any of the specific topics listed on this slide.
Moving on again. So page 14 and page 15, just
cover what Carlo saluted to in the highlights page. Try
as we may, uh, we did not identify any misstatements
in the audit package. None which were required to be
corrected, nor any which were left uncorrected. Our threshold for
reporting audit miss statements was just about 160, 000 dollars.
So anything above that number, we would have been required
to include in the report here. So a clean result
there. Uh, I'll also add just building off of carlos'comments
on the procedures we do to address fraud risk. When
it comes to frauds, that threshold effectively drops to one
dollar. Uh, so if there was anything that we found
that was suspicious, we would report that to you in
these slides regardless of the POSTN threshold. Uh, moving on
two slides to sixth deed, please. Uh, just to reiterate,
again, nothing came to our attention during the audit with
respect to deficiencies in internal control. And I would like
to highlight the last line on this slide. Uh, which
denotes that we receive the full support and cooperation of
management and team throughout the audit process, from interim in
the fall all the way to the completion of our
audit. Now, so we'd like to thank the management team
for having an audit ready package and being ready to
field our questions and deal with our many team members
and their inquiries throughout. Moving on again. So the last
thing I'll mention just quickly is, uh, the information here
on all of the processes that we a KPMG have
to abide by in order to ensure that we deliver
quality audits that are in line with our auditing standards.
There are some, uh, other links throughout the appendices in
our report as well for those curious as to what
we must adhere to. But otherwise, I will pass it
back to Carlos for some comments on Independence and closing.
Wonderful. Thank you, Matt. Moving further in the deck one
page. The audit report that is included in your package,
which is currently in draft, has the word independent in
front of it. So, uh, really important for external auditors
to talk about independence. I can confirm with Council that
throughout the entire Otter process. All that we have until
today that we remained independent. Uh, we are here to
audit your books and records. We're not here to prepare
them so I can confirm that we haven't, uh, cross
that line. Lastly, we will work with management to finalise
the Otter Report. Over the coming day, um, and make
sure that, um, everything, um, all the T's are crossed.
And the eyes are dotted and then proceed to issue
the financial statements, the auto report. So with that, I
will pause. And back to the chair. Thank you gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Alvaras. Thank you, Mr. Chair Delli. Are
there any questions for the delegation. Council Brass. Thank you,
Chair Obano, through you to Carlos and Matt. Good to
see you both. And Carlos, at our previous meeting, uh,
we discussed, I think it was the interim financial, or
quite possibly even the last fiscal, I forget which one.
But, uh, we discussed how, um, fraudulent tips would be
received. And if you had any oversight or insight on
that with our municipality, uh, the answer was no. And,
uh, so, uh, I would please that Council on March
9th passed a resolution to adopt a whistleblower strategy, which
was presented here tonight in the consent items. Uh, which
I spoke very briefly on. And, uh, I wondered if,
uh, Whistleblower policy for municipalities, if it's established, is that
something that you're, your team would review that policy as
part of your, your, your, your review, or is that
not part of your purview? And I'm wondering now that
you're speaking and talking about the threshold for fraudulent activity
as a dollar. If something is reported through our Whistleblower
policy, how that in turn gets to your team. Through
to you, Chair Albano. As part of any financial statement
audit, it is not just about the numbers. First, we
must undertake a risk assessment and assess whether or not
you as a municipality have a sufficiently developed control environment
to be able to mitigate various risks, including the risk
of fraud. So from our perspective, the fact that you
have now developed a strategy in terms of a whistleblower
program next year, we will make those inquiries with management
and council in terms of is the whistleble now operating
as intended, because it's one thing to have one. It's
another thing to make sure that it is actually operating
as it is designed. Once we get comfort that it
is operating as designed, then we can take comfort as
auditors that from a risk assessment perspective, it may lower
the risk of certain chances or the probability of certain
transactions happening. So we incorporate it into our Risk assessment
through you, Chair. That is really great to hear. Um,
and I'm wondering, you know, testing various numbers that you
get from staff, uh, that's an easy answer. But how
do you, how do you test the efficiency or effectiveness
of a policy like that? Through you the chair, I
would say in terms of. When we talk about effectiveness,
there's two ways that auditors test things. We can test
the design of something. Which more looks at what's the
overall process. Is it sufficient? Does it have all of
the control points measured off. And then we could go
one step further and actually test the operating effectness. Normally
we would just test the design of the control. And
not go one step further and test the operating effectiveness
unless something elsewhere in our file pointed us to that
we should do that to address another risk. But at
a minimum, we would test the design to make sure
that it is robust. And in our opinion, uh, designed
well enough that it would contribute to your control environment.
Well, that's fantastic. And I wanted to thank you for
that report you put forward is, uh, is fantastic second
to none, uh, I, I feel we're in very good
hand. So thank you. Council Keen. You had a question.
No, thank you, Chair Obano. And thank you to our,
uh, our guest, Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Shore deli. Great
report. Nice and boring. Just the way we like auto
reports to be. No red flags. That's awesome. Thank you.
I had a question because so much going to take
advantage of your expertise while you're here, some Councillor Brass.
On page 10, you talk about recalculating the annual amortization
expense to ensure accuracy and compliance with Town policies. And
then their final bullet point is the testing of the
asset retirement obligation estimate, blah, blah, blah. We have a
report coming up dealing with green asset management. And report
that we're going to be asked to comment and vote
on later on today. Um, does your auditing take into
account or have you have any policies in place to
deal with how you measure so - called green assets.
And if that's the case, uh, will you be looking
at amortization or asset retirement of so - called green
assets in your audience. For you, the chair. When it
comes to green assets, there are in Canada, County Board
that is working on developing standards for municipalities to measure,
recognise and record various green assets, such as the trees
that you have within your municipal boundaries. But those standards
are in development. They are not yet codified. And if
they're not yet codified, we don't necessarily assess compliance with
them until they're set into law. We do have our
advisory team that provides guidance on, you know, whether it's
green infrastructure, sustainability. But generally those types of topics, unless
they're codified are more sort of an add - on
on top of the financial statement audit that would be
done as part of a separate project. That's good to
know. So you're understanding there are potentially some regulations coming
down the pike, but they're not in place yet. Correct.
Okay. That's great. Okay. Thanks for clearing out. I appreciate
it, guys. Thanks. Thank you Council Keen. Are there any
other questions. I see none. Um, I'm just wondering if
it's all right to bring the report forward and we
can deal with our report. Any objection to bring the
report? No? All right. So any questions on the, on
the report. I see none. Somebody wants to move it.
Council Bryce. It's been moved all in favor. Carrie, thank
you gentlemen. Thank you for the presentation. Our next delegation
presentation to the committee is Nicole. Whatonioli, first Gulf Corporation.
In the house. She's all
mine. Okay. Nicole Uro. Can you hear us? Can you
hear me? I cannot. Yes. All right. Go ahead. The
floor is yours. Great. Uh, good afternoon, Madam Mayor Chair
Al - Bano and members of Council. My name is
Nicole Gudagnolian and I'm a senior development manager for first
golf corporation. I'm delegating today regarding report number 2026 067
as it relates to the premier gateway phase 2B employment
area zoning by law amendments. Uh, first golf is a
commercial developer that has been developing in Halton Hills for
well over a decade. We've constructed upwards of 2 million
square feet of industrial space. And we have an active
rezonian application. With their partner's son life. Uh, for lands
located at 14829 steals avenue, which will bring forward an
additional 1. 2 million square feet of industrial space. Uh,
the public meeting for this application will be heard later
today. Over the past few years, first golf has taken
an act of role in monitoring and providing feedback on
the phase 2B secondary plan area. Through this process, we
were faced with some challenges on our lands, including a
proposed collector Road within the secondary plan. And most recently
significant impacts as it related to the narrow area of
interest related to highway 413. Considering this, the town's Planning
and Development Department remained open to working with us and
navigating through these challenges. This meant proactive communication, consistent dialogue,
and problem solving, which allowed us to overcome the various
challenges and ultimately it led us to filing a rezoning
application last fall. The proposed zoning bylaw amendments will unlock
the final phase of the employment area that is strategically
positioned in the town near three major highways. By prezoning
these lines, it will help bring forward the land's online
sooner rather than later. We continue to receive interest for
our property. And after owning the lands for eight years,
we're excited to get shovels in the ground. We look
forward to the approval of the zoning bylaw amendment for
the phase two B lens. Thank you for your time
today. Thank you, Nicole. Thanks for the presentation. Are there
any questions for Nicole. I see none. And again, I'm
just wondering if it's all right with Councillor to bring
that report forward. There are no objections. Are there any
questions to the report? I see none. I need a
mover. So moved by Council Garneau only favor. And it's
Carrie. Thank you. Our next presenters, delegation to committees, it's
regarding the report, number at MEN 2026023. And it's regarding
exemption requests to annoy Spylaw. 16406, fifth side road. And
do we have this online. Okay. Bonnie Jehovah is the
resident of Halton Halls. Body, um, can you hear us?
And, uh, so. The floor is yours. Okay. Well, good
afternoon. Madam Mayor Councillors. Please bear with me. I have
never done this before. So. Um, we got a letter.
At our residents. And it's about notice of noise exemption
application outdoor gathering. And it has the dates with that.
Um, we live very close to, uh, melodie estates, which
is the company which wishes to have this outdoor facility
happen. Um, but my concern is melody estates. Has a,
uh, it has a website. And they advertise that they
are a full active venue where they offer weddings and
outdoor receptions and such. Um, so my concern is the
noise level. As proposed by the notice of noise exemption
application outdoor gathering for July 29th. In the notice dated,
or June 26, 2026. Um, the notice states, when state
July 29th to at 6 p. m. and continuing on
to Friday, July 31st, 2026 at 6 p. m. These
are weeknights. The residents and the immediate area are families.
Who compass all walks of life. Those people with young
children, uh, people who are elderly, people who work full
time, people have PETS. Just your every citizen in the
surrounding area. And I have two overall concerns, the noise
level. Days of the week, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are
all work days. I worked full - time. There's a
lot of people in my area work full - time
around me. That means I need to be in bid
early enough to get a good night's rest. So that
I can get up early the next day, fight the
traffic. And try to be productive at work. Um, the
notice from the Halton Hills noted that this is going
to be an outdoor event. Noise from an outdoor event
at that location will create noise levels at our own
property because we're very close. And the surrounding properties. To
be loud enough to possibly and probably make my personal
space uncomfortable. With my need to have struggle asleep, um,
and, uh, we try to keep our windows open at
night to conserve not using, uh, air conditioning. Um, but
it will definitely impact my ability to sleep that night.
Um, in the Halton Hills report, dated September 22nd in
2025. These are some points of interest. And under the
key points is listed as the topic. It set directly
from that report from the Halton Hills report. Proposing to
change the land use permission for 164065 Side Road to
allow for events venue banquet facilities for corporate events, weddings
and other gatherings to operate out of the existing barn
horse arena. That has been converted into a banquet home.
That statement indicates that an enclosed space. But, uh, on
the melody estates website, it emphasizes outdoor facilities. It also
states the venue capacity states that is for 405 people.
But the melody estates website until recently indicated the venue
could accommodate up to 1, 500 people. An event with
that many people will generate, I would guess, a lot
of noise. From melody estate's website, they advertise the expanse
of open air settings. They quoted from their website. Flexible
outdoor configuration. Centralized open airspace. And it gives quiet distinction.
And none of this indicates a closed - based facility.
So by the looks of it, uh, melodyus acres appears
to be a banquet facility offering open air events, not
enclosed area events. I've never been to a 1500 person
event. What I can tell you, though, family gathering of
10 is pretty noisy in my own house. And, uh,
with a music. And, uh, 11 to 1500 people talking.
And with music will impact the peace and quiet of
our neighbourhood. So melody estate's websites. That gives a serene
of quiet distinction. And I think an open air event
with that many people will definitely impact our quality of
life. For ourselves and our neighbours. Just want to rely
to that we have just six seconds left. And I
think you pretty much wrapped up. Okay. Thank you. Any
questions. Okay. Then we have our Peter, Jehovah, resident Halton
Hills delegating on the, on the same report. Good afternoon,
everyone. Good afternoon. Um, I just got a few things
to say. Um, Melody Acres, it's surrounded by single family
dwellings. Um, you know, to the north to the west,
east and south of facility. And these are all going
to be impacted by noise levels, which clearly are going
to exceed the sound level limits of the set by
the town. On top of it, um, it's set to
go on beyond 9 p. m. We live on the
corner of 10th line and five side road. And that's
about 300 metres from the location of this event. Last
year on Sunday, July 20th, an outdoor event was held.
I measured the sound levels with my trusty little app
metre. And this, they were hitting 70 dB at 7
p. m., which is pretty loud. Um, and that was
loud enough to disrupt our family barbecue, let alone, um,
what the possibility of if the bylaw is lifted, this
exemption could go on, beyond 9 p. m. for three
days. Um, the outdoor gathering is basically a three day
wedding banquet to be held, um, at an outdoor venue.
I don't see why there should be an exemption given
to the noise bylaw, um, to hold this event. And
I don't believe that they even have approval to hold
wedding events out at this location. Thank you. I think
you, Mr. Josh MES. All right. Are there any questions.
Yeah. Any questions site silver? No. Council Turmwell. Thank you
Mr. Chair. I do have a question of staff if
I could if this item is going to be brought
forward.
Uh, is it being brought forward Mr. Chair? Yeah. Go
ahead and ask questions. No, there's one more presentation that
comes with Soneville and uh, we'll bring the forward forward.
We have another presentation delegation. It's Nick Dell Harp Rodell.
It's regarding the report on the same report. Nick, uh,
if you can hear us, you go and can proceed
with your presentation.
Hi everyone. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. So
go ahead. Thank you. I'm sorry I'm not able to
be there in person with you today. I just celebrated
the birth of a newborn and not very mobile at
the moment for that reason. Um, but I, I appreciate
the opportunity to come forward and speak not only in
addition to what the Joba family has said, but also
a little bit of what was before the committee, uh,
Council this afternoon. Uh, I'm a planner. I'm working with
the client to the owner, uh, to help their son
have a wedding at this location and an outdoor setting.
Um, we are processing a official plan amendment and rezoning
application. We are in the midst of that review. There
was an event held in 2023, um, that was not
legal. And since then, there hasn't been any events. Um,
a couple of things to understand that I know you
can't really ask questions of a notice that you get
in the mail, but I am glad that the JOHA
family got notice. It's proof that the circulation works. And
that is that this is a temporary, uh, outdoor, uh,
event that does have permission to do so. There are
temporary tent outdoor permits that are included in my presentation.
Um, the slides that I provided to staff related to
the issued permits for those tents, uh, and the approval
from zoning that this is just a temporary event. I
think it's really helpful to think of this, um, like
any normal family would think of having, uh, that reception
for their family at their home, especially on farm settings.
There's a lot of space outdoors to gather people that
don't necessarily conflict with the building code requirements of the
parking requirements of the zoning bylaw for indoor settings. Um,
I think if you're like me, you've attended farm weddings
in Ontario before. And my wedding actually was hosted in
my fiance's family backyard and it was quite a large
and wonderful gathering. What this application is not is seeking
permanent approval for this to continue happening. This is a
personal event for my client's son. Uh, and it's a
family at gathering of about 150 to 200 people that
is going to take place over the course of three
days. Two of those days is going to comply with
the noise exemption bylaw. One of the evenings, they think
will be, um, the celebration will extend past 11. And
that's what's really before Council this evening, but under the
review of the application for noise exemption as well as
a temporary tent permits. It was felt that it would
be prudent to apply for all three. But if Council
is more comfortable, alleviating the concerns of the normal noise
ordinance that is at play, is it in play in
the town of Halton Hills. We're not seeking anything beyond
what you can normally, uh, as loud as you can
normally allow to be before a certain time in Halton
Hales. So these three tenths are approved. Uh, this farm
wedding for the owner's son is happening outdoor. And we're
seeking an exemption for one of the evenings when they
actual winning in the ceremony takes place. Um, just after
that, I think if we hadn't had a little bit
of a blemish on this parcel, uh, this would feel
a little bit more like a routine and normal request,
really a housekeeping matter. Um, to go slightly beyond the
normal ordinance of, of the noise bylaw. But I understand
and I can appreciate that, um, this feels as though
a different animal is looming. But I want to make
sure that we're fair to the application. What's before you
is, I think a very routine request for an event
to take place for the owner's son. It's not a
commercial event. It's not something that we're using for someone
else to come to this property to pay Melody Acres,
which is the numbered company or the name of the
owner of the property. It's not a melody acres event.
LEA car zone is the property and therefore they're the
advocate. It is the owner's son. And I think, um,
the confusion with respect to what's happening with the application,
but that's not what is being requested today. So my
client felt it was helpful for me to be here
to explain a little bit of continuity between the formal
proposal to amend land use. And what I'm going to
call again, a very housekeeping technical request, um, from a
personal aspect, um, of what's before you today. So there
are three tents that are approved. There is a wedding
that's going to happen on these dates. And we're going
to the proper channels to ask for one of the
days to be a little bit louder after the celebration
of their union. And so I just, Mr. Chair 3,
I wanted to make sure that that was clear. Uh,
it's not a permanent approval. This is a one off.
Um, that's not going to impede, um, more than we're
allowed to impede except for one of the evenings that
the noise bylaw regulates. And, uh, we're, we're very, um,
jealously protective of my clients, um, son and, and making
sure that they're a good citizen to go through the
right process this time around. And so I'd be happy
to answer any questions about where we're at when the,
in the formal application, but also, um, in and of
itself, what we're proposing to you this afternoon. Great. Thank
you. Thank you. Uh, Councillor had a question. I'm not
sure who to do. Are you going to direct the
question to, uh, Mr. Council Somerville. The floor yours? Hey,
I could Mr. Chair, but also asking the staff as
well. So you said you only need the exemption on
the one night, but it shows here that both Wednesday
and Thursday evening, you're asking to go until midnight. And,
uh, I don't think either both of those are within
our bylaw. That's why I was going to ask that
for clarification from staff. And they because I have concerns
going to midnight. I'll be very honest. I would if
this was in a urban area and as much as
I would in a rural area and consistently we have
stuck with what our bylaw says, but allowed it. So,
um, I just wanted to get a comment from you
on that. Please. Um, I appreciate the question. Um, I
tried to mention a little bit of this in my
presentation, but I completely understand why I wouldn't be clear.
Cause that is what we're asking for. That was what
we were recommended to ask for through the inspection and
review of the, of the temporary application, um, because you're
having an outdoor event. It's typically an add - on
that you should also ask for an exemption, um, for
noise on that event. So my clients have given me
instructions and I'm happy to accept this as a condition
through Council that it really is only one of the
days. The other two days, um, the follow up and
the cool down from the, um, event is not going
to go over, um, the, the current noise bylaw. Um,
and I think what's important, what this question really points
to is that, um, everyone can sort of, with permission,
um, be allowed up to a certain point in Halton
Hales. It's not a request that we're making of that
because that's what the noise by law is for. Whether
it corresponds to our personal feelings about bedtime and where
your family is in a rural urban setting, um, we
are not allowed to be loud after a certain time
no matter what happens. But because we have three tenths
approved, um, they felt it would be prudent to spread
the approval across the three dates, but my client has
told me in no one's certain terms, the only intend
to go past it on one of the dates, which
would be the middle date. The Thursday. Yeah. That would
be the 30th, Mr. Scherer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
do have questions of stops. Though. Okay. Thank you. Are
there any other questions. I see none sole Council Songville.
You can ask the question to SAF. Uh, thank you.
And assuming before we do that, I think we need
to bring the report forward first. I was just going
to offer to move that to come forward, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Thank you. So the reports on the table, uh,
questions for on the report. Council Somerville. You have a
question. Thank you. So I guess through you to, I'm
assuming, Oh, the Adam. It would be to Adam. Our
noise bylaw currently, if we didn't have an exemption, would
be to 11 p. m. Correct. Through the chair to
you, Councillor. Yes. That's correct. 11 p. m. Basically states
that there's no sound clearly audible is permitted after 11
p. m. Okay. And I guess historically asking you for
what we've done previous on the, uh, noise requests that
we've had. Um, if I recall, we've pretty well always,
if we've granted the exemption, we've said, yes, that they
have to go to that 11 p. m. sound. Uh,
through the chair to the Councillor, I believe that the
previous two, at least two or three of these, uh,
they've requested beyond midnight. And I think Council granted until
midnight, if I'm not mistaken. I remember being to 11
on one of them, uh, anyway, it was located in
a more urban area as well. Okay. Mr. Chair, those
are my questions of staff and all of a comment
or direction once we have other speakers. Okay. Thank you.
We do have other speakers. Councillor Norris. Thank you Mr.
Chair. And a question for the staff on this one
here. I did hear one of the delegates earlier referring
to the not just the time, but the level of
the sound. His comment was referring to earlier in the
time because they were enjoying a barbecue. So, but they
were having that disrupted. My question would be not only
just the time that would be the, um, within the
bylaw. Do we have a decibel level. That has to
be, um. You have to stay within. As well. Through
the chair to you, Councillor, yes, we do. So table
six on page 10 of the bylaw specifies the certain
times of day and certain decibel levels that are permitted.
So the maximum decibel level on weekdays and Saturdays from
5 p. m. Sorry from 7 a. m. until 5
p. m. would be 63 decibels would be the maximum.
And then from again, 9 a. m. until 5 p.
m. on Sundays and statutory holidays. It's the same 63
decibels. And then from 5 p. m. until midnight, we
have 50 decibels. So it lessens during that, uh, that
time period. Okay. Thank you for that. And, um, just
for us who are not really fully understanding that, what
would that be similar to if we're looking at 50
decibels? What could you relate that to? Through the chair
to the Councillor. It's difficult to say what it's like
because it really depends on the point of reception. And
the point of reception, what we call the point of
reception is the point that someone is concerned with the
noise level. And that could be a kilometer away. It
could be five kilometers away. And depending on the distance,
you're going to get a different reading at each of
those distances. So one of the one of these speakers
was referring to being 300 metres away. Um, if the,
the sound coming from the properties of PIT decibels, what
could that realistically sound like. Through the chair to the
Councillor 50 decibels, uh, 300, sorry, 300 metres away, you
had said. That's what I heard. Yeah. I mean, it
could sound loud. It could overbear a conversation. Um, it
really depends. It depends on whether the speakers are pointed
in the direction of that property. There are still other
variables. But, uh, it could potentially be disruptive. Okay. Yep.
Thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor Norris. Uh, mayor.
Yeah. Thanks very much. And, uh, my question is I
think along the same lines that Councillor Norris is. And,
and I'm curious to know where the decibels are measured.
And because if they're measured at source versus at, you
know, the receiving end. Then I think that could be
quite different. So, um, can you share a little bit
of that. Yeah. Through the Councillor to you, Madam Mayor.
If we were to measure the sound level from the
source location from the property with the speakers and having
the venue, it would certainly be louder and read louder
than it would from, uh, complainant properties, so to speak,
or from a point of reception, a further distance away.
Um, the way that we enforced the bylaw in enforcement
services though is taking that measurement from a point of
reception. And the point of reception may be a patio
area in someone's backyard nearby. At times maybe from within
someone's house if that noise is entering their home from
another property as well. Okay. So you would be measuring
the impact on a neighbouring property. When you're measuring this
disability through the chair. Do you matter mayor? Yes. That's
correct. We would be measuring the impact from the impacted
location. Okay. And, um, can you tell us what the
process is, um, during the course of an event, um,
the neighbours feel as though the decibel level is elevated.
And beyond what they feel, uh, it should be. What
is the process? How do they remedy that? Or how
does that get reviewed. Through the chair to you, Madam
Mayor. Essentially the report that's in front of you is
asking for two exemptions. It's asking for an exemption from
the decibel requirement. It's also asking for an exemption to
the going beyond 11 PM. Typically when we've had these
reports in the past, they're always asking for those two
exemptions. So ultimately the application in front of you is
to allow for in excess of the decibels that the
bylaw states. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And it
would be for the full amount of time that is
indicated here the three days. Through the chair to you,
Matt, to you, Madam Mayor. Originally when we got this
report, it was for three days. It was for, let
me give you this specific times and days. It was
for July 29, 6 p. m. until midnight, July 30th,
6 p. m. until midnight. And Friday, July 31st, 2
p. m. until 6 p. m. Late last week, I
received an email from the applicant. Basically saying that they
no longer required all of those dates and times that
the only date and Mr. Dell alluded to this in
his presentation. The only date really required was the Thursday,
which is July 30th, I believe. And, uh, in the
email that I received last week, they actually say that
they would only be going up until 11 p. m.
and not exceeding that 11 p. m. So if that
is the case, then the only exemption that would be
required would be the exemption from the decibel level, from
the maximum decibel level. Okay. Well, if. Just
to get something on the floor and to clarify, um,
I will, I will propose that amendment to the written
report that we have, if that's what they're asking for.
That just an exemption from the decibel level, um, 211
p. m. on the Thursday evening. Through the chair to
you, Madam Mayor. Yes, that's correct. That is the most
recent correspondence I received from the applicant. Okay. And, um,
now that said, is that about level, is it thin
unlimited. That's kind of scary. Through the chair to you,
Madam Mayor. I guess it is, yes, but I mean,
you know, if you, or Council would like to impose
something different, uh, I'm sure a maximum decibel level could
be, could be opted into. You know, over, over and
above what the Byla allows. To put a threshold, I
guess. Okay. Well, then I'll put it at the 63.
Okay. So there's my, there's my, to get, to get
something on the floor. And for further discussion.
Uh, Council Engels, who are you're next? And thank you,
Mr. Chair. Um, my questions were along there. I think
they've been answered, but Adam, just to, just to confirm.
I was a little confused with the three days once
the delegation, the latter delegation spoke. So the time exemption,
PAST 11 is for one day in that Thursday the
30. My correct saying that. Through the chair to you,
Councillor. From the email that I received again late last
week, and, uh, it was at that point I wasn't
able to change the report that had been written. Um,
they're only asking to go up until the applicants only
asking to go up until 11 PM. So they wouldn't
be exceeding that maximum time requirement. On any of the
dates. Through the councillor, through the chair to you, Mr.
Councillor. Yes. They're only asking for the Thursday and that
would be the latest day going up until 11 PM.
Okay. So really all they're asking for is a maximum
decibel level. For the one day, the Thursday of July,
sorry, not the, to be above, to be exempted from
the maximum decibel level for the one single day, Thursday,
the 30th. Through the chair to you, Mr. Councillor. Yes,
that's correct. Everything relating to the other, um, the other
two dates, the 29th and the 31st in is unnecessary
in the report then correct? Through the chair to you,
Councillor. Yes, that's correct. Those were originally applied for, for
the exemption, but then that was sort of withdrawn late
last week. We are basically going for decibel level exemption
on one day. And on the, on the floor right
now is a 63 decibel maximum. Correct. Through the chair
to you, Councillor. Yes, that's correct. Okay. I can't see
anybody there. So I will. Okay, it was a little
confused for a bit there. And thank you for, uh,
clarifying all of that. I'm not too sure where the
63 decibel sits in or why that was why that
number was picked or, or, or that. But maybe you
could clarify that. Why, well, maybe you couldn't because you
didn't put the number on the, on the floor. Could
I, I wonder if somebody could clarify that. Why, why,
why 63. Through the chair to you, Councillor, I believe
that Madam Mayor posed 63 because that's the maximum level
for, uh, sorry, 7 a. m. until 5 p. m.
on weekdays and Saturdays. And it's the same maximum level
for 9 a. m. to 5 p. m. on Sundays
and statutory holidays. This, this though, being later in the
day beyond the 5 p. m. So it would exceed
the 50 decibels, which is the maximum allowed after beyond
5 p. m., but it would exceed the 50. But
again, on the floor is up to 63 decibels. Oh,
that's good. No, I understand it. Now, thanks for clarifying.
After other speakers, I will wait. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Adema. Madam Clerk, I've commented regarding the 63
decibels, okay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you. So I
understand the limit for the 63 decibels, but I think
it will be very difficult for enforcement services to get
out there at 11 o'clock if the, if a complaint
comes in to say that the noise is very loud,
because our officers won't be working that evening. So I
can, I can see the exemption for. Two go past
a certain time frame. I don't know if it's convenient
or suitable enough for us to actually put a decibel
level on that. Adam, I don't know if you want
to comment on that. I agree. Uh, I agree with
the town clerk that it would be very difficult for
us to be out there at a specific time to
take that reading. Um, and to confirm that it is
under that 63 decibels, um, it would be difficult. And
it may be. Easier to enforce if it was a
specific time period rather than a decibel level.
Let them married. Did you have a comment on one
comment? Well, I guess it just kind of begs the
question, why do we even have it. Why do we
have any mention of Decibel levels in the bylaw at
all. But. Like I said, it begs the question. So
I'm just, I put it in there in order that
the residents, um, adjoining neighbouring residents would have some basis
for relief. And could they call the police. In that
case. Through to the chair to you, Madam Mayor. Yes.
Calling the police is always an option. In a situation
like this, what may happen if someone were to call
the police, though they may show them, you know, their
approvals that they have for this event if approvals are
given. And, uh, I mean, it would be ultimately a
matter taking up between the police and, and the property
owner at that point. Sure. Sure. Okay.
Councillor Norris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm hearing what's
being said. Then and I do completely understand that it
would be a challenge to have enforcement out at that
time at night. Um, for what we're looking at, this
has been identified as a private event, but in a
location that's actually being, the proposal in there to have
a regular, um, uh, wedding facility there. Um, this is
just talking not even have thought about this before. Is
there a spot where we can actually then bring this,
uh, requirement at the 63 decibels. If we go with
that number, uh, to be responsible, um, the responsibility of
the landowner in this case, the people that are hosting
it, that they would then have to monitor for themselves.
And then take that, um, responsibility as a good neighbour.
Um, and then of course if that is abused, then
the neighbours would have the option to phone the police.
Could we put that as part of the requirement. Through
the chair to you, Councillor, it could be done. But
again, it, how do we prove that they did exceed
that number if they did and we didn't have staff
out there to measure. That would be the difficulty. That
would be the challenge. Oh, thank you for that. But
if we had put it on there, then we'd be
looking to the applicant then to, uh, be part of
the honour system to, um, to stay within that. Knowing
that, you know, enforcement's difficult, but, you know, they would
take that responsibility. And just hope that the actors could
neighbours. Just my thought. Council Someville, you have another question.
I did. Thank you. And it was just to, um,
understand what the mayor put on the floor. What the
amendment was going to be. I just want to make
sure I have that clear in my head. And a
mayor. Okay. That maximum
time. That amplified sound could be delivered is to 11
p. m. on the Thursday evening only. And that the
sound must remain under 63 decibels during that time. Okay.
So thank you for that, Madam Mayor. I wanted to
make sure I was clear on it. To, uh, as
we were getting farther down into the discussion. That's all
it was, Mr. Chair's just understanding what's on the floor.
Thank you. I see no other questions. So, uh, I
guess we'll entertain the mayor's amendment to the report. There
are any questions to that amendment. I see none. Only
favor. And we'll just carry the report.
So I've been informed that our option B amended is
what we're looking for and what we're voting on. Have
a mover. Yeah. Councillor Norris, only favor. Carrie.
All right. So, uh, we delve up to D. We're
now on item D. And that is Rob Russell. Russell
Planning. Delegating two committee regarding Georgetown Go Protective Major Transit
area. And George Tongal Station area. Mill Street Corrido Secondary
Plan. And it's referred to 92T in the report. Mr.
Russell. What was yours? Uh, good evening, Chair Banno. Members
of the committee. Want to also take this opportunity to
probably the last time I'll be before you for this
Council term. So thank you for your assistance over the
last four years. And some of you longer than that,
of course. Um, anyway, as Chair Albano mentioned, I'm here
about the Georgetown Ghost Secondary Plan, OPA 64. And I
know a lot of work's been done on this. And
just for added context, I, as some of you know
in some of staff, no, I lived in the South
Precinct for 10 years. I moved away just as this
process was getting started. Had nothing to do with the
process at all, uh, but it was, you know, a
decision, my family and I made. But so I'm very
familiar with the neighbourhood. I'm familiar with the area. Uh,
and unfortunately I was just retained just a couple of
weeks ago, uh, for a client who was looking at
potential, potentially some other options in terms of some of
the properties he owns on King Street, uh, the north
side of King Street. To be designated as, as medium
density. And unfortunately it was just too late in the
process to really have that conversation with staff and explore
this. So my request here is simple is I'm not
asking you to redesignate or amend the secondary plan, but
give us some extra time, you know, potential defer, whether
it's all of OPA 64, whether it's carving out this
block. Just a little extra time to have those conversations.
But staff and try and see what is possible. And
I do believe with my knowledge of the area, I
do believe this is something that's worthwhile considering. And with
that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you
Mr. Russell. I believe that Todd Councillor Bras had your
hand up. Have a question. Yes, thank you, Chair, through
you to Mr. Russell. Thanks for, uh, delegating and for
those comments, it has been nice to see you over
the last four years as well. Uh, can you, you
just touched on it, but I wonder, are you talking
about. The, uh, MTSA or the secondary plant are both?
The secondary plan specifically, the lands are currently outside of
the PTMSA and with discussing with my client, uh, Mr.
Presswood, uh, we felt putting these lands in the PTMSA
was not necessarily the best option. Um, I'm not going
to say be unwilling to considerate, but we felt probably
the easiest path forward, uh, and the easiest discussion with
staff, uh, would have been to, uh, explore the opportunity
for designating its medium density. But again, we are willing
to consider other options. This is really, as I said,
just got involved in this a couple of weeks ago.
Thank you, Mr. Russell. Thank you, Chair. When the report
comes forward, I'll have some comments, please. Great. Thank you,
Mr. Brown. Council Brass? Uh, are there any other questions.
Thanks very much for coming forward and presenting this idea.
Can you describe your, um, how long your client has
owned the property. Uh, that I cannot say. I have
not asked those questions. There's four properties involved that my
client specifically owns is 83 through 93 King Street North.
And unfortunately, I don't have that information at my fingertips
right now. Do you know if they've been aware of
this exercise that's been going on for probably in excess
of three years. And that I can say that no,
they only really just became aware of the process and
the implications within the past month or so. So they
must have. They must have acquired the property quite recently
because it's been quite a subject of neighbourhood debate and
discussion all along King Street certainly and throughout it's been
quite widely circulated. So I'm curious to know a little
bit more about when they found out about this process.
And why they're coming literally at the last minute to,
to ask for deferral. Yeah. And, uh, through, through the
chair to Madam Mayor, I don't unfortunately have a good
answer for that. It is, uh, I've been in the
business long enough with clients who sometimes miss their deadline
or they don't even realise what's happened till later on.
Uh, and yes, I'm certainly aware that there's been a
lot of work going on on it by staff and
Council involvement, but I just, you know, I don't have
a good answer for you, unfortunately. Okay. And, and, but
they've assembled a set of properties like four properties. Yes.
Correct. So they've assembled properties. But they're not aware of
the process that's been going on for quite some time.
That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. It's
okay with Council will bring the report forward. Yes. All
in favor of that. Yes. Okay. Um, okay. So the
ports on the table and, uh, Councillor Bryce, you had
a comment to make on that report. Yes, I did,
Chair. Thank you. And, um, throughout this process, I've been
very vocal about, uh, the fact that, um, I don't
like the way this was handled with regards to transparency.
I think it's, uh, in fact, the opposite of transparency.
And I think the mayor having a house in this
area is an incredibly conflict of interest. Which was not
declared. Apparently it was okay, but in my, my, my
mind, uh, very bad taste. And also part of the
steering committee, which I think is a. Uh, totally against
transparency and something that I would not be part of.
Um, hearing us tonight is something I've heard in the
community from a few other people about that area and
some of the challenges that may be coming. If this
is approved tonight. So with that, I would like to
put on the floor to defer OPA 63 and 64
to the next term of Council. So we can take
a wholesome and look at this. Take it slow. Do
it right. And get it right. I'll put that on
the floor. Thank you Councillor Bryce. Mayor Lawler. Point of
order, Mr. Chair. And, um, and it regards the aspersions
that Councillor Brass are suggesting. This matter, he's brought up
before. And it's been brought before the integrity commissioner. And
the integrity commissioner has written a ruling that was discussed
and circulated amongst Council over a year ago. And Councillor
Brass is now raising this again. Inappropriately. And so I
would like him to rescind those comments. Um, given that
he has seen the integrity commissioner's report. And he has
seen that the statement made by that integrity commissioner. Talked
about interests in common. And that, um, that anyone who
has a property in that neighbourhood or anyone who, a
member of Council, who has properties in any neighbourhood, um,
are considered to have interests in common. And therefore the
conflict of interest does not apply. And so I regret
this comment that is made by him. And I would
ask him to rescind it in light of the fact
this matter has been clarified clearly by the integrity commissioner.
Who is in a position to make a ruling. Thank
you. Thank you, Madam Laurel. At this point, since the
referrals on the table, he doesn't have to rescind those
comments. Um, so we'll just deal with the referral first.
And then we'll vote on that. But, um, I've been
informed that he does not have to rescind those comments.
I would challenge that Mr. Chair because the basis of
the suggestion is that this has not been handled in
a transparent way. And it absolutely has, as the integrity
commissioner and as our planning department has proceeded, um, through
all of the steps that are normally conducted by our
planning processes, they've all been followed. And, um, therefore his
suggestion that a deferral should happen because it has not
been followed. Is quite wrong. We have a, uh, a
question from Councillor. It was not on this matter. It
was just about, um, to our planning commissioner about the
deferral if there's any issue. They can see from the
planning staff of deferring the OPA as played out by,
um, Councillor Brass because he did also say to make
sure that we're, as we did of somebody coming forward
tonight of making sure, I think he said of going
slow and right as opposed to fast and wrong. So
I'm just wondering if our planning commissioner can comment on
any implications on if this is deferred. Ms. Parker.
Through the chair to Councillor Somerville, um, great question. I
think one thing to keep in mind is that OPA
63 is the one that has to go to the
province for consideration because the minister is the approval authority
of that official plan amendment dealing specifically with the protected
major transition area. Deferring that would obviously then pause. Staff
from being able to continue those conversations with the province
until after the new Council is in place, um, based
on the deferral motion on the floor. When it comes
to OPA 64, dealing with the secondary plenaria Council is
the decision maker for that official plan amendment. So effectively
what the deferral would do with respect to that amendment
is obviously pause the process. Um, which I believe is
what, uh, Councillor Brass's intention is, um, given his comments
around wanting to have those discussions with, uh, the new
Council. Effectively what the deferral would do, obviously is pause
both of those processes from proceeding. Um, you know, we've
heard some comments around the table already about the length
of the process. There's multiple staff reports that are linked
in the staff report today. Um, you can take a
look at any one of those reports and it provides
the sort of history of the process and of the
file itself. Um, the file did start in 2022 with
all due respect to the delegate. I do know that
the owner did have conversations with staff back in 2024
about the process. Um, so, you know, I, I would
challenge the argument or the comment that the owner was
unaware that the process was happening because staff do have
a record of that conversation having taken place. Um, that
being said, ultimately, as always, staff are in Council's hands.
So whatever decision Council chooses to make, we will work
within those boundaries. But obviously the deferral would again put
another pause to this very lengthy process. And we wouldn't
be able to move forward with anything until the new
Council based again on the deferral. That's on the floor.
Hopefully that clarifies. Oh yeah. That makes that mud really
clear. Um, no, it's still, it's just trying to make
sure that if we did defer it, um, we're still
in a good position with the, with the province being
the approval agency on the one in the town on
the other. That's why I was asking my question, but,
uh, thank you for your answer. Thank you. We have
Council Folgo now. Okay. Well, um, I would really like
Councillor Brass to explain this idea of transparency and it
not being transparent. Like what. As far as I could
see we did everything the same on this process as
every other planning application or planning project. Uh, there were
open houses and reports and citizen committees. And, you know,
we did everything exactly the same. So what, what, what
got missed and what is envisioned to be added if
the deferral? Is there like another public meeting or what,
what exactly, I mean, I was part of this process
and I was really proud of this process. And the
impact that the citizen committee had on it, um, and
they really got into it and they, they spent a
lot of time on it. And now to say, Oh,
well, we don't think you did a good job. Or,
you know, the public wasn't aware or like, I just
don't understand what we missed. And what steps are envisioned
to take it forward that would make it more to
make it over the bar of transparency, whatever that bar
might be that I don't understand. So I'd love some
clarity on that. Thank you Councillor Fogle. Council Bryson, comment.
Thank you, Chair, through you. Yes, I do. Um, Councillor
Fogle at the beginning of this process, there was, there
was not a citizen, the citizen group involved, but there
wasn't an official steering committee. That was eventually done after
a ruckus meeting with some citizens. And it is my
personal opinion. That the mayor who lives in the area,
regardless of what was received, should not A, not be
on that committee. Should not have any impact on who's
on that committee should not be in the meetings to
be able to manipulate a situation. And living in the
area should have declared a conflict in good taste, regardless
of what was provided. And, uh, given that Councillor Engels
over and over and over again, declared a conflict of
interest because he owns a rental property in that area.
For me, he provides incredible contrast to are the mayor
who lives in the area and is on these committees
or on this steering committee. So for those reasons, I
don't. Think it was handled as transparent as possible. For
me, the mayor being off of the steering committee and
declaring a conflict during these discussions would have. Been more
credible. And would have been much more transparent. Okay. Well,
from my point of view, I was in all of
the meetings. I didn't see, uh, any of the things
going on that have been described by Councillor Brass. I
believe the, uh, the citizens were saying their own things,
the planners were too. I didn't, I didn't see a
problem with it. So, uh, I will, I will not
be supporting the, uh, deferral.
Just give us a few seconds till we figure out,
uh, what, uh, what we need to do here. Okay.
We're just going to take, uh, short recess for about
five minutes, uh, until we sort things out. Okay. We'll
get back in five minutes.
Okay. So after lengthy discussion with the clerk staff. So
after speaking with the cleric, it was noted that the
mayor meant to raise a point of personal privilege, not
a point of order. I let the clerk explain the
difference between the two. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through
you. So the difference between the two, and I had
discussed this with Madam Mayor. So a point of order
means a matter that a member considers to be a
departure from the contravention of the rules. So something that
we're not following in the procedural bylaw. A point of
personal privilege is a statement calling attention to a matter
where the integrity character or reputation of an individuals or
the Council is perceived to be in question. So the
mayor was speaking to a point of personal privilege and
the point that she was speaking to was the comments
regarding not declaring a conflict or peculiary interest. So Council
members, it is their choice whether or not they declare
a conflict of interest on the floor and should a
member of Council not agree or a member of the
public or staff agree that a Council member should have
declared the can take that opinion to the integrity commissioner
to open a formal investigation. The integrity commissioner is the
third party body who does look into code related violations.
So the integrity commissioner would be the one to rule
on a decision and the mayor had stated that the
integrity commissioner had already ruled on this matter and provided
a statement to the members of Council declaring that. So
that is why the mayor has put the point of
personal privilege on the floor. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So
based on the definition provided by the cleric, I'm satisfied
the point of personal privilege raised by the mayor is
in order. So please keep your personal comments out of
this discussion. And there is a deferral on the floor
so we can deal with a differ all at this
moment. Yes, madam Mayor. Just another point. I would like
to address the suggestions from the Councillor by reading again
the comments from the integrity commissioner. That all members of
Council received in 2024. Before this planning process was fully
underway. So could you advise me, Mr. Chair, when I
can respond to the comments that were made by Councillor
Bras.
So, Madame Mayor, I think at this time it's not
the appropriate time to make those decisions since we have
debated this and brought that up or the integrity commissioner.
Perhaps I could be dressing another time, but not at
this time. Okay, I will make a public statement about
it then. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So we have
a deferral on the table. Council Brass, could you please
remind us what the referral was all about? I sort
of lost track of that. Yes, thank you, Chair, through
you. The deferral is to defer OPA 63 in OPA
64. To the next term of Council for their review.
Period. Thank you. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Council Keane.
And I believe it's a point of order, Madam Clerk.
I've heard the words that this happened in the pastor
for the words both deferral and referral expressed just a
clarification on the matter. We're voting on a referral or
deferral. Is it a deferral. It is a de -
fur. So we have a deferral on the table that
we defer a 6364 for the next term of Council.
Council Council. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, I'm
just curious, are we deferring this exact report. To the
next term of Council? Or are we looking, is the
suggestion that the process be redone by the next term
of Council? Because I'm not clear on that. Council Brass.
You want to clarify that, please? Thank you, Chair, through
you to the Councillor. Yes, to the intent is to
defer this report. To the next term of Council for
the review. And sorry, just a follow - up to
that. I guess I'm not sure why. Like. What would
the next, if the concern was around the process that
led to this report, what is the difference if this
Council makes the decision on it versus another Council. If
the concern is how we got to this process. So
I'm just looking for clarity. Council Brass. Thank you, Chair.
Through you, given what we heard from Mr. Russell today
and some other comments I've received from community members and
landowners in that area, the deferral is intended to land
on the next term of Council for their review to
see if we got this right or not. Sorry, one
more follow - up. So it would be to look
at changing the recommendations to include some of the requests
that are coming in from other. So it would be
looking at redoing this. Then. Or you're saying, if Council
thinks this was fine, then we would just be voting
on this. I just, I'm worried about this process has
been ongoing since before this term account. And so, um,
I'm just hoping to get clarity around what. The outcome.
Would be by deferring this. Like what would the benefit
be. Council Breath, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, for you
Councillor Garneau more like a silver second thought. To get
Council to review this report and also give staff time
to have another look at it to see if anything
was missed or if any other lands should be considered.
So potentially nothing changes, potentially something does. Go ahead. Thank
you. So then I have a question to staff. Around.
Any potential implications. That staff see regarding differing the report.
Particularly I know that what this report would do is
it would update policies in that area. Um, and so
I know that we've had some applications come in that
were under the previous secondary plan. And so if applications
come in between now and when the next Council reviews
it, they would be still continuing to follow the policies
from the previous secondary plan. And any concerns around that.
Certainly through the chair to the Councillor. Um, you're absolutely
correct. If an application came in for any type of
development or redevelopment within the secondary plan boundary, um, that
application would be viewed based on the merits of the
existing secondary plan. Effectively through
deferring, um, should Council decide to defer the applic, the
staff report this evening. Any applicant that comes in during
that process or during that time period within which we
would be, um, looking at whatever it is that the
new Council would be asking staff to look at, um,
those owners would be able to speak to staff about
consideration, um, of their lands through that deferred time frame
through that review process, which I believe is what Councillor
Brass was referring to when he was responding to you
earlier questions. Um, hopefully that is what you're asking. Yeah.
And I'm just wondering, because those policies were updated to
be more, um, modern, more reflective of, of where we're
at right now and the vision that we have for
that area. Are there risks to, like, what would be
the risk to the community that has had input into
this if applications do come in under the old policies.
Like, what would we, what would be the loss. By
having the new applications being treated in the old way
versus the new way. Through the chair to the Councillor,
great question. It's a tricky one to answer. Um, to
be honest with you because, uh, even if the secondary
plan was approved as per the staff report this evening.
And let's say there were no appeals received on OPA
64 and that secondary plan was in place that does
not stop any owner of land from coming forward and
requesting site specific amendment regardless of the fact that the
new policies would be in place. Um, I hear you
in terms of your comments about how the new secondary
plan would be updating those policies, bringing them more in
line with provincial direction, et cetera. That is, of course,
the intent behind this process. And I think you can
read that through the comments in the staff report. Um,
but that doesn't stop any owner of land from being
able to come in and make an application to change
the land at any point in time. Just one follow
- up question. Go ahead. Okay. So in that same
vein, if we did approve it today, would that stop
any landowners from coming forward with an application for medium
density. Within the area. Uh, through the chair, no, it
wouldn't. They could commit at any point in time and
apply. Okay. So whether it's deferred to look at including
more land in the secondary plan or not, they can
still appeal or they can come in with an application.
Regardless. Through the chair to the Councillor, that's correct. Okay.
Thank you. Councillor Fogle, your hands up and then we
have Council of Somerville. Yeah. I'm thinking that if it's
deferred that there must be some public process that would
ensue that the point the Councillor can correct me that
the point being that the maybe public don't know about
this, that we would have public meetings or something. So
I'm just wondering from a staff point of view. What
would you envision as the process going forward with a
deferral? Would there be nothing and then the report just
shows up. Or. In the meantime there are people that
apply to come in and you've got to make changes.
So you update. Then do we need a public meeting.
Like how would you see this unfolding to have value
to the public. Ms. Parker. Uh, through the chair to
Councillor Fogle, uh, that's a great question. Um. As you
can imagine, staff hadn't, uh, stop to think about what
a sort of revamp of the process would look like
given our staff report. Seeking Council approval today. That said,
I think at minimum what we would have to do
is meet with the, uh, Sajaki team. Uh, because they
have been retained to complete the work on this project.
So we would have to have a conversation with them.
I think candidly off the top of my head, what
we would have to do is take the existing work
that we've done because staff stand behind the work that
we've done. And we stand behind the policies that are
before council this evening. And look at those of sort
of the starting point for additional conversations with the public
and with the new Council, given it would be a
new council. I do think we would also need to
have some kind of a, you know, information session with
them to bring any new members of Council up to
speed on the process that has transpired since Project Initiation.
Um, it's more than just reading staff reports. It's being
able to, you know, have them ask questions and us
be able to respond as best we possibly can. But
again, that being said. We would have to spend some
time really taking a look at the work that's been
done and what the intention of Council is. In having
this project deferred. Okay. So yeah, I guess it's still
unclear as to why it's being deferred and what, what
the steps are that are envisioned to cover all the
bases, I guess. I don't know. And, um, so I
guess there'd be some costs involved then if we've got
the consultants back on side and staff time, that would
add something, I'm sure to. To our expenditures. Am I
right in thinking that. Through the chair to the Councillor,
that's a great question. Um, Sajear still retained to continue
the work with us right now. So, um, we could
have those conversations or at least initial conversations with them
right now. But I can't really speak to anything beyond
sort of the current state of things. Okay. Well, I
think it's safe to say some costs would be involved.
But okay, thank you. That's it. Okay, thank you. Councillor
Somerville. Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. You're doing a fine
job tonight staring this ship. Um, I guess the question
I would have is to the playing director. It's kind
of following up miss Parker on what I asked before
So we have the two pieces. There's OPA 63, which
is the The protected major trends at area. And then
we have OPA 64, which is the secondary plan now
in the question before you indicated OPA 63 is the
one that the province approved. And 64 is the one
that we do the work on. So what I'm wondering
about to keep us moving forward on this is if
we pass 63 but deferred the actual secondary plan that
gets down to some of the nitty gritty. Where we
could look at some of these other properties that might
have been left out around in the edges Uh, cause
there may be more. I'm just wondering if that's something
that we could do is you know past the one
so we can keep working with the province on that
one. We still have the framework in place, but then
the nitty gritty of the secondary plan being the one
that is deferred. Through the chair to the Councillor I
believe what you're asking me is if that is something
that could happen and I thank you I see you
nodding. As far as I understand yes unless Madame Clark
believes otherwise the way that this report has been structured
is that OPA - 63 is separate from OPA -
64 intentionally So should Council decide to adopt official plan
amendment 63 that would give staff the opportunity to put
the provincial package together send everything forward to the province
for their consideration on that Protected major transit station area
and then we could continue to work through the process
on OPA - 64. Okay, thank you for that and
um, the issues that were raised by Mr. Russell on
behalf of his client if it was under the OPA
- 64 those issues could be worked through if that
part was deferred. Correct. Through the chair to the Councillor
yes, that's correct. I will suggest that Councillor Brass that
maybe he split it that way. That we do pass
the 63 allow that part to go forward. Um, so
the province can keep working on it and for a
deferral is do it for OPA 64. And then we
can allow that extra Conversations around it and we're still
moving forward on as well So Councillor Bryce I would
I would suggest that as a not really an amendment
But just as a suggestion. Council Bryce comments on that.
Thank you chair through you Uh Councillor Somerville Thanks for
asking that question I Until then I thought 63 and
64 were Tied at the hip and that sounds like
they're not so Um, maybe to the commissioner. So they're
not. Is what councillor Somerville is suggesting does that work
for the town to put if we change my deferral
to OP - a64 only? Does that work with that
Pfine for the talents the question. Through the chair to
the Councillor That's an excellent question The two are inherently
linked naturally because OPA - 63 sits within OPA -
64 if you're looking at visually from the maps that
are attached to the staff report You can see where
the PMTSA fits within the OPA - 64 context That
said they are still two separate OPAs. So Council does
have the ability to adopt OPA - 64. And defer
the decision on OP - A64. That's interesting Chair -
Through I not considered that with that information I will
change my deferral to OPA - 64 only. Okay.
Well I see this exercise as or this conversation right
now I should say. A significant undermining of planning process
that has been underway for in the neighbourhood of three
years. That has involved significant public consultation that has been
led by a professional planning agency that has had the
buy - in of all members of Council Um... And...
Given the green light after it was explained The processes
that should be followed And I see this last minute
Um... Attempt to... Change the outcome perhaps. Um...
Particularly when I'm hearing that... In fact, the owner of
those properties has had discussions with staff Um... Regarding this
process and was fully aware... And... Perhaps even part of
the process that we all undertook And so if we
are to defer this process Which frankly I think has
been triggered by someone attempting to get cheap political points
Um... I am... I am... Seriously disappointed. This Council would
undermine its very own planning processes Madam Mayor We meet
reference about keeping the comments not to keep Not to
make personal comments So can we do that please? Yes
And so I am not supporting this deferral. Because I
see a huge investment. And buy - in on the
part of Council I think by deferring it Um... It
will undermine everything that this Council has been doing. Um...
If you can simply overturn a process at this stage
in the game I also note that staff has explained
that any property owner can come in at any time.
And suggest a change to a secondary plan Um... So
that their properties can be considered in a different way.
That avenue is clearly available to the proponent And I
think that... That they should follow that course of action
That is available to them. Um... MOOM Those are my
comments. Thank you. So we have Amendment To defer OPA
- 64. Um... Until next term. And just... OP -
A63 We'll be past or we'll be kept us. So
I'll put that motion on the floor Can we have
a recorded vote please. Yes you can. Council Guarno.
Thank you chair. I'm still I think I'm still very
confused around What the deferral is actually going to lead
to. So I heard Councillor Somerville talking about we can
defer it and then we can look at adding on
in other properties. But through this process. There was the
preliminary land use plan It was approved There was a
lot of public engagement. So if we start adding in
other properties into the secondary plan Do we not have
to go back out to the public and do full
public consultation. So this is what I'm trying to understand
Is it simply this report would be deferred to the
next Council to pass. Or is it redoing a land
use plan that has to go back through all the
stages of approval that we've already gone through. So to
me those are very different things. Through the chair to
the Councillor. I believe we would have to then ask
Councillor Brass whether or not he would like to add
additional clarification to his motion Right now based on my
scribbles here I believe it says to defer OPA 64
to the next term of Council for their review.
Are you able to Councillor? Are you able to clarify
that. Again? Like we're Councillor Somerville was talking about adding
in new properties Like that does have a public consultation
component to it. So is that what the intent is
to defer it to add in more properties. Or even
to explore that? Because that also has public consultation implications.
And I just want to make sure I know what
I'm voting on. Through you chair to the Councillor Thank
you Councillor Greno The intent is to make sure we
get this right. And when we're hearing from. Property owners
and residents that they don't think that that's the case.
Then the intent is to defer it and I'd be
happy to take guidance from staff as to How to
appropriately review OPA 64 and what's involved with that I'm
not a planner so I can't suggest that But the
intent is to make sure we get this right. And
to make sure that this area is. His wealth is
thought out and that people agree that everyone agrees with
the OP - A64 So whatever that process is with
staff I'd be happy to have a meeting with them
I'd be happy to entertain the process. But the intent
is to make sure we get this right. Thank you
Councillor Hall Bras CEO would like to make a comment.
Thank you and through the chair to Council So listening
to the conversation and in quick discussions with the clerk
Because it sounds like there's an expectation that there will
be conversations with the new Council before a report is
brought forward to understand and sort of then shape the
report potentially differently Um, our recommendation would be a sorry
Councillor another change to yours would be to rather than
just defer it We refer it back to staff and
then those conversations can be had. From a practical perspective
if we defer it what will happen and it can
be done this way as well It'll be relisted on
a Council Agenda in the new term as is And
then there would need to be discussion and direction to
staff as to whether Changes would be made So there's
two ways to do it in effect Um I think
in discussions with the clerk If we refer it back
to staff that would open the ability for staff to
have those conversations not directly through the report with the
new Uh, uh, with the new term account and Councillor
brass I believe that meets your intent based on listening
to the conversation today So that would be my suggestion
But again if you would prefer to defer it Um,
we can also then relist it in the new term
and then there would be further directions to staff in
the event that changes were. Changes to either the plan
or the process we're being looked at. Council brass. Thank
you chair through you to the CAO Yes you're correct
The intent is to make sure we get this right.
Uh... And if that means referring it back to staff.
I'd be happy to do that. Through the chair to
the Councillor Um... That would be my recommendation after listening
to all the comments and consultation with the clerk Thank
you. And chair through you once again I will amend.
So it would be to refer OPA - 64 back
to staff. To make sure we get it right. Okay
so noted So we have the refer on the floor.
Okay. The clerk's gonna put the recommendation on the screen
so we can all see We had lots of discussions
And we can all see what the recommendation is. So
Through the chair So you can... This is the recommendation
that's in the staff report Bronwyn, please correct me if
I get any of this wrong So based on the
discussion Council just has just had. That first paragraph will
remain the same Because it is bringing both 63 and
64 to Council for receipt. And further that Council receive
in support of official plan amendment 63. Of the town
of Halton Hale's official plan. The rest of that will
come out. And further that Council receives for information in
support of official plan amendment 63. The complete set of
background studies I'm not sure if that's relevant Brown -
winsted in section 2. 4 of this report and available
on Let's Talk Halton Hills. And further that the town
of Halton Hale's official plan amendment number 63 Dated June
23rd attached as appendix 1 to this report be adopted.
The next one comes out. And further at all interested
agencies listed in the report and those members of the
public who have requested notice Be advised of Council's decision
regarding these official plan amendments. And further that. Um... OP
The official plan amendment 64 be referred back to staff
in the new term of Council. And then the last
one and further that a copy of this report be
sent to the region Does that make sense to you.
Through the chair to the clerk? Yes it does The
only question I would have goes back to Councillor Garno's
question based on Councillor Somerville's comments about adding properties in.
If it's looking at adding properties in. Two OPA -
63 Which is the PMTSA That brings back Councillor Bras's
initial concern about the two processes being tied at the
hip. So I guess my question Through the chair if
I may Madam Clark would be to Councillor Somerville. Asking
clarification if he's looking at potentially adding properties to the
PMTSA. Or just looking at designating OPA 64 parcels.
It would be looking at the ones under opaque OPA
64. Not the PMTSA. Okay so
that's okay That's a recommendation there So the Zuri Ver
on the table Mushroom table. And it was believed that
it was to be a recorded vote. There lawyer. Yes
and well and I'll let people know that I will
not be supporting this referral or a deferral I see
this as an end run that is attempting to undermine
a very thorough process And I think it represents a
failure of our Council Um and planning processes that I
thought were very professionally undertaken If this is allowed to
be derailed at this stage in the decision process Um,
particularly when there are other avenues available to the proponent
Um, so I will not be supporting Um... The referral.
Thank you Madam Mayor Councillor Hilton. You got a question
No Mr. Chair I just have a comment Just obviously
a very charged conversation Uh... Unfortunately But I'm not going
to support the referral back Uh... Just because it has
been a long process Uh... There's been a lot of
people involved I know a lot of money And uh...
Mr. Russell It's been a pleasure meeting you during this
term as well And I'm notoriously late RSKing my friends
I've missed planes before I've missed everything So I know
it's not fun being late to the party But... To
stop it at this point Um... One of the things
I hear when people talk about this area And they've
got concerns is The high density That we're looking at...
And I just say That's not really... The transit station
So I don't know If I don't know what concerns
have been brought up But if that's one of them
That's something that we're having to manage Uh... More than
anything else So it just feels to me if we
put it to next Council We know the people retiring
There's gonna be changes And it's just like Uh... When
you watch a movie You get five minutes before the
end And then you have to go somewhere And then
you end up watching at six months later You have
no idea what happened So I don't want the next
Council to have no idea what happens at the end
of the secondary plan and have to go back again
So anyways Just those are my comments Thank you. Uh
Thank you very much Councillor Engels please. And thank you
Mr. Chair I I don't want the money of the
waters anymore A little confused here. My Councillor Brass is
right I did declare conflicts on this. Um... 64 on
the secondary plan. After the integrity Commissioner Unknowns what she
did I need to make sure that Uh was consistent
there. And uh, I will be abstaining from the recorded
vote. Because of the past declarations and some not declarations
Here I'm a little confused here Because they're both tied
together The secondary plan And they protected Transit area as
well So those two are I thought they were separate.
As far as discussion. Um... They are not. By the
sounds of it. And. So I will abstain from this
particular vote here now And uh... And, uh, sort of
Look into it in the future. Thank you. Thank you
Council Ingols Um... Because we are in the general committee
Um... At this moment Uh... We're not going to have
a recorded vote We will have a standing vote. Uh...
Instead Recorded vote is during the Council session. Okay.
Yes Council Bernard. Um Thank you Andree Mr. Chair I'm
having I'll be honest I'm having a hard time with
this decision. Um I do I was involved in the
process I was the chair of the committee I feel
like. It was a very thorough process There was a
lot of public engagement staff Did a great job The
residents were thoroughly engaged And I think the planning reports
that are before us are sound And I believe in
what's being brought forward. And at the same time I
feel like. What I'm hearing from staff is that there's
not a lot of harm caused by allowing Future Council
to have a look at it. And so I don't
think... I believe in what's presented here today And I
think it was done well. And I think there's not
a lot of harm in allowing another SOTA Council to
have a look at it. And so I will be
supporting the referral for that reason. Gone. So the
recommendation As the man is on the floor at the
moment. Um... All those in favor Stand. Please.
So that carries. Thank you.
So because we've dealt with referral We don't have to
deal with the report. It's passed as amended Uh It
is 526 We are going to be having a public
meeting soon So I think we'll take.
Alright We will be taking a 15 - minute break
And we will be back at 10 12 After 6.
Good evening, everyone. We're going to start a public meeting.
Eminently, but first I'd like a motion from a member
of Council Please. To resume back into Council Council Arabno.
All in favor. Thanks very much. Okay, so now we're
constituted as a Council meeting. And as such, we are
holding a public meeting. And there will be three meetings
tonight. So you feel sorry for us all. We have
to go back and finish our Council agenda that we
didn't complete this afternoon. So I will introduce some speaking
notes, and so we all know what is on the
agenda. So this is a public meeting. Regarding one Elgin
Street in Georgetown. And the town is holding a statutory
public meeting for a development application submitted by Blake Murray,
the owner. And the application is proposing a temporary use
zoning bylaw amendment. To extend the previous temporary microbrewery and
32 seasonal patio permissions. For an additional three years. To
2029 at one Elgin Street in Georgetown. And the purpose
of this public meeting is to inform the public of
the proposal and to provide members of the community with
the opportunity to ask questions and express their views regarding
the application. The Planning Act requires that at least one
public meeting beheld for any development proposal. And that members
of the public shall be given an opportunity to make
representations in respect to the proposal. The format of this
public meeting is as follows. The town will provide a
presentation that generally explains the purpose and details of the
application. The applicant will then present any further relevant information.
Afterwards, the public can express their views on the proposal
or as questions for clarification regarding the application. And as
the chair, I am informing you that any person or
public body that does not make oral submissions at a
public meeting or make written submissions to the town of
Halton Hills before the town makes a decision regarding the
proposed temporary use zoning bylaw amendment. May not be added
as a party to the hearing of an appeal before
the Ontario land tribunal unless. In the opinion of the
tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Please contact
Planning Staff for Furthermore Information on the Appeal Process. It
is important to note that Councillors are here to observe
and listen to your comments only. Council will not be
taking any action or make a decision on the proposal
tonight. And at the end of the public meetings, Stouff
will respond to questions or comments that have answers available
at this time. And all other responses or answers will
be provided by staff at a later date. The authority
who approve and passed temporary use zoning bylaw amendments has
been delegated to the commissioner of planning provided any concerns
raised by the public through the consultation process are resolved
to the satisfaction of the town. So with the towns
representative from the Planning Department, Ruth Cunard, please come forward
to explain the proposal.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Mayor Councillors, staff,
and members of the public. The purpose of tonight's statutory
public meeting is to provide a summary of the temporary
use zoning by - line member application submitted by Blake
Murray, the owner of the lands located at One Algin
Street in Georgetown. The subject property is located on the
east side of Elgin Street, adjacent to the Gho Station
parking lot, just north of King Street in the urban
area of Georgetown. The 0. 2 Hectar Property has frontage
of approximately 30. 35 metres on Elgin Street and contains
an existing vacant building, which was previously occupied by FurnaceRum
Brewery. Surrounding land uses to the subject parcel include. To
the north, CN Rail Tracks, and a proposed high -
density residential development for the North. To the east, our
single detached dwellings and Greenwood Cemetery further east. To the
south, our single detached dwellings. And approval for a multi
- unit medium density residential development abutting the site. And
to the West, our single detached dwellings and the Georgetown
Gho Station. On May 24, 2022, Council approved a temporary
youth zoning bylaw amendment to permit a microbrewery on the
subject property for a period of two years. The microbrery
permissions allowed for the temporary consumption of food and beverages
to occur within the existing building, which expanded on the
beer manufacturing and accessory retail uses already permitted. On May
29, 2023, Council approved an extension of the microbrewery temporary
use, which also included permission for a 32 - seat
seasonal patio from March until October. The temporary zoning by
- law amendment for the microbrewery and patio expired on
May 29, 2026. On June 15, 2026, the town deemed
complete a new temporary used zoning by - al -
I membran application seeking to extend the previous temporary microbrewery
use and seasonal patio for an additional three years to
expire in 2029. The intentist to allow a new brewery
to occupy the vacant building with the same permissions that
were available to the previous occupant, who I mentioned as
the furnace - brumbert was the furnace room brewery, and
they are no longer in business. The new brewery operator
intends to maintain the site in its current state with
the seasonal patio being located within the parking lot at
the front of the site. Or directly adjacent to the
building's entrance. So the slide before you illustrates how the
previous patio functioned with a Saturday option and the weekday
on Sunday option. Food would be available through a food
truck to be located at the rear of the property
or a small internal kitchen to be constructed inside. It
should be noted that as per By - Load 2022
- 0039, the authority to approve and past temporary use
zoning by - law amendments has been delegated by Council
to the commissioner of planning, provided any concerns raised by
the public and our staff during the application review and
consultation process are resolved to the satisfaction of the commissioner.
The subject property is located within the Georgetown Ghost Station
Secondary Plan Area and situated in the South Precinct. The
property is designated employment area which recognises and permits the
use of the lot and existing buildings and additions to
the buildings for industrial, office, and other non - residential
uses, including retail and service commercial uses. This designation does
not preclude the use of the property as a BRE
manufacturing facility with ancillary or associated uses. The official plan
states that bylaws may be passed permitting the temporary use
of lands, buildings or structures, which may not conform to
the policies of the official plan subject to the following
being satisfied. That the proposed use is of a temporary
nature and shall not entail any major construction or investment
on the part of the owner. The proposed use will
not prejudice the long - term intent or orderly development
contemplated by the provisions and land use designations contained in
the official plan. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent
land uses and the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The
proposed use will not require the extension or expansion of
existing municipal services. The proposed use will not cause traffic
hazards or an unacceptable level of congestion on surrounding roads.
Parking facilities required by the proposal. By the proposed use
story will be provided. And the proposed use shall generally
be beneficial to the neighbourhood or the community as a
whole. The official plan states that a temporary use may
be authorized for a specific time period of up to
three years. Subsequent by - laws granting extensions of up
to three years may also be passed. The subject property
is zone employment one exception 110 under the town zoning
bylaw 201050 as amended. The EMP - 1 exception 110
zone permits employment and industrial - related uses, including beer
manufacturing. In 2018, the site also received minor variance approval
to permit an accessory retail use to a maximum of
15 percent of the gross floor area of the building,
which allows for tasting of the product to be provided
on - site. The previous temporary one zone provided a
temporary three - year permission for a microbrewery and 32
- seat seasonal patio, which allowed the formal consumption of
food and beverages to occur. The temporary one zone expired,
as I mentioned on May 29, 2026. The new temporary
youth Sony by - line member application seeks to reestablish
the temporary one zone to extend the micro - brewery
use and seasonal patio permissions for an additional three years
to expire in 2029. The temporary Eusonian Byla application with
circulated to external agencies and town departments and is still
under - reviewed by staff. Planning staff received written requests
from two members of the public for copies of the
submission material and additional information about the proposal. One member
of the public provided verbal comments in support of the
application. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Kenard. And, um, I know colon, the
applicant, if there is any further information that they wish
to provide.
Evening Council and Staff, my name is Blake Murray. I'm
from FRB - 5. Andrew Bellum also from FRP5. And
we're just here to answer any questions. We agree with
the staff report. Well, if you're available to answer questions,
that's great. Then I, um, if you want to take
a seat, I'll invite the public if they have questions.
This is the time for them to ask the questions.
So thank you. Yeah.
So I will, um, I will let you know that
now is the time when any resident or person who
has questions requires further clarification or information or wishes to
present their views on the proposal to come forward to
speak. As a reminder at the end of this public
meeting, staff will respond as well as the proponent if
needed. To questions or comments that have answers available at
this time. And so I have three people so far
who have registered to speak. And I believe, um, a
couple of them are here. And one is virtual. So
first up, I have Mr. Laurentibo. And are you available,
sir, to ask your question or make your comment, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was one of the people
who originally was very enthusiastic about starting a Kraft PrERIN
town. As you may know, that was 10 years ago
now. And, uh, we were delighted that it was launched
very, very successful and became a great asset to other
community. Um. Following that initial success, uh, as many
startups, uh, see, it's tough to start up. And they
didn't quite make it. And they're not currently operating. But,
um, it's, uh, from my perspective, any kind of craft
brewery like that is a terrific asset to the community.
And I think its initial success certainly demonstrated that. Um,
so, um, I just want to speak in support of
the application. I'm delighted that new owners are willing to
have a go at it. I know there are plans
for the, for the, uh, the property over the long
term. But for the, for the current time, if we
could get the micro brewery restarted, that would be just
a terrific thing. So I'm pleased to support the application
to extend. The, whatever it is, the bylaw that allows
them to operate more or less as they have very
successfully before. And as was explained in the staff report,
I'm not aware of any issues that have arisen while
it was operating under the temporary permit before. So. So
that's my, uh, contribution. I hope the Council supports it.
Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Um. The second
person who I have up is Cheryl Sim. And Cheryl,
are you online.
Hi there. Yes, we hear you. Please. I dare. Please
go ahead. Um, no, I don't have any questions. Um,
the only thing is, um, as long as it's, um,
uh, it's a line with what was proposed, like what
was allowed before with, um, noise restrictions and respect to
the community. Surrounding community. I think it's great to have
another, um, new entrepreneur incoming. And, um, try to grow
and build this, uh, business, um, involving surrounding neighbourhoods. But
of course with respect to, um, the surrounding areas too.
So I have no questions at the moment. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I think that clarification you provided
is probably helpful. Um, next up I have Jessica Beck.
Are you in the chamber. Thank you. Uh, members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I
wanted to just bring a perspective of support for furnace
roomry from someone who lives on Elgin Street in this
neighbourhood. Um, I believe this amendments an important way to
support local food and beverage producers. Small independent businesses help,
uh, create a vibrant local economy. Keeping jobs investment and
spending within our community. A microbreweries more than just a
place that makes beer. It's a local manufacturer, a small
business and a gathering place that contributes to the unique
character of our neighbourhood. The last point highlights the importance
of creating and preserving these third spaces. Places that are
neither home nor work. But somewhere that people can come
together and build connections. In our increasingly isolated world, spaces
were neighbours can meet socialize and participate in community life
are extremely valuable to me. A well - run microbrewery
can provide that type of welcoming environment for residents of
all ages. For these reasons, I believe a brewery or
restaurant would benefit our community, supporting local entrepreneurship, fostering that
social connection, and creating more opportunities for arts and culture
to thrive. I want to just speak on a personal
note that my husband and I moved into our house
on Elgin Street in the summer of 2021. And what
made it stand out from every other house was a
breed that we could pretty much see from our front
door. During that first summer, the brewery was an oasis
away from the chaos of unpacking. And a great way
to meet our new neighbours in a really friendly atmosphere.
Over the last five years, we've made that two -
minute walk to the brewery countless times. I'm enjoyed our
new tradition of picking up some local beer on a
Friday afternoon. They have been excellent and respectful neighbours, and
we've never had an issue with any of the guests.
Although furnace from brewery is not currently an operation. It's
my hope that in extending this zoning amendment, Ideally permanently,
it will encourage a similar business to operate in the
same location and rebuild the small community hub that was
part of the reason we fell in love with our
neighbourhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. I just
wanted to bring a sort of local voice and support
of the brewery. Thank you very much. Are there any
others in the chamber who wish to speak to this
item. Yes, sir.
Well, Mad Mayor, councillors. I just have a question, one
question to the new Michael Brewers. Um, I love the
idea that I'm fully supportive of it. I'd like to
know what you're going to do differently. To allow this
business to be successful. And not fall into the same
trapdoor of what happened with the furnace roomberry. That's the
only question I have. And sir, could you please give
your name and address? All of my name's Anthony Galari.
And from 19h Street in Acton. That's it.
Sir, could you just hold for a second? I'm going
to see if there are any other questions, and then
we can answer them all at the same time. Is
there anyone else in the gallery that wants to make
a comment. Okay. Is there anyone online. No. Okay. We're
good. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
So currently, uh, we're talking to two groups that are
looking at operating the brewery. The model obviously would have
to change quite a bit. Um, I would like to,
you know, when we were, the first round with the
brewery, we were going through COVID new business, honeymoon phase,
um, obviously we weren't perfect. We made mistakes. But, uh,
we're looking to change the environment economically to that new
tenant that will hopefully make that space flourish. Yeah. That
stated there's some modification into the type of, uh, distribution
that comes out of there. Uh, and it should support
it a little bit better. But the addition of the
food was a huge, huge component. And I believe that,
uh, once that gets fleshed out and becomes, you know,
the awareness becomes more broad. I mean, you know, to
a four Georgetown more opportunities of some more different to
go to and spend some time, uh, within, you know,
reasonable hours, you know, the real family atmosphere there. I
think that it's going to be a, you know, thing
that the community is going to love to see back
in place. Thank you. All right.
So I think, I think we've heard from all members
of the public who want to weigh in. And we've
heard from the owners. Is there any final comment from
staff. That you want to provide prior to the conclusion
of this meeting. Is he none? Thank you. I will
now then declare this public meeting closed. As mentioned earlier,
Council will take no action in this proposal tonight. And
if you wish to receive further information regarding this proposal,
please contact our planner, Ruscanard, following this meeting. And a
business containing her business card containing her contact information can
be found when you exit the Council Chambers. So thank
you very much for your attention to this item. On
our public meeting agenda. And so we'll now just allow
a minute for anyone who was here only for that
meeting. Is now's a good time to exit. Next we
will be talking about. Um, our second meeting. And it
will be, um. Regarding 16768 22nd Side Road.
That is being submitted by Welling's planning. Okay.
So the town is holding a statutory public meeting for
the development application submitted by Welling's Planning Consultants on behalf
of shared and nursery's limited. The application is proposing to
amend the town of Halton Hills official plan to obtain
the necessary land use permissions to allow for a severance
to divide the 160 hectare or 400 acre parcel into
two lots. At 16768 22nd Side Road is squeezing. And
the purpose of this public meeting is to inform the
public of the proposal. And to provide members of the
community with the opportunity to ask questions and express their
views regarding the application. The planning act requires that at
least one public meeting beheld for any development proposal. And
that members of the public shall be given an opportunity
to make representations in respect of the proposal. In the
format of this public meeting is as follows. The town
will provide a presentation that generally explains the purpose and
details of the application. And the applicant will then present
any further relevant information. Afterwards, the public can express their
views on the proposal. Or as questions for clarification regarding
the application. I'm informing you that any person or public
body that does not make oral submissions at a public
meeting or make written submissions to the town of Halton
Hills before Council makes a decision regarding the proposed official
plan amendment. May not be added as a party to
the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario land tribunal
unless in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable
grounds to do so. Please contact planning staff for further
information on the appeal process. It's important to note that
Councillors are here to observe and listen to comments only.
Council will not be taking any action or make a
decision on the proposal tonight. Staff will be reporting to
Council at a later date with a recommendation for Council's
consideration. And at the end of the public meeting, staff
will respond to questions or comments that have answers available
at this time. All other responses are answers will be
provided by staff at a later date. When the recommendation
is brought forward to Council for Decision. So with the
town's Representative from the Planning Department, Josh Sellsbury, please come
forward to explain the proposal.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. And good evening to you, Madam
Mayor, as well as the rest of Council. I also
want to say good evening to those from the public
who are attending in person tonight and tuning in virtually.
My purpose tonight is to provide a summary of the
official plan amendment application submitted on behalf of shared and
nursery's limited for the lands located at 1676822 Side Road
and a squeezing. The application is seeking to obtain the
necessary permissions to allow for the future severance. Of the
existing 160 hectare, which is 400 acres. Parcel, which is
known as shared in nurseries into 280 hectare or 200
hectare lots. The subject lands municipally known
as 1676822 Side Road are located on 22 Side Road
in between 10th line and Winston Churchill Boulevard. The Western
half of the lands, which are proposed to be severed,
contain the Sheridan Nursery's Horticultural Nursery as well as three
single detached dwellings used for farm worker accommodations. The eastern
half of the lands, which are proposed to be retained,
are agricultural lands that contain one detached dwelling used for
farm worker accommodation. There are also two wood lots situated
across the property and a natural heritage feature located in
the southeast corner of Tenth Line in 22 Side Road.
The surrounding land uses are primarily agricultural with some single
detached dwellings as well as the town of Caladin to
the east and Glen Williams to the west. As mentioned,
the application seeks to amend the town's official plan to
obtain the necessary permissions to allow for the future severance
of the existing 160 hectare or 400 acres parcel, which
is known as shared in nurseries into 280 hectare or
200 acre lots. The severed lot is intended to be
sold to a new group wanting to maintain the existing
nursery use. The retain lot would remain under ownership of
a company started by the shareholders of shared and nurseries
with the agricultural use maintained on - site. The subject
lands are subject to the Greenbelt plan, which establishes a
policy framework intended to conserve the agricultural land base, support
agricultural viability, and protect environmental features. The subject lands, which
are approximately within the drawn - on yellow circle shown
on this map. It's kind of hard to see there,
but you can see it a little bit. Our primary
located within the protected countryside designation of the Greenbelt plan,
which is the darker green colour on this map. A
small northwest colour of the subject lands falls within the
green belt natural heritage system. This application is not proposing
the removal of the subject lands from the Greenbelt. It
should be noted that section 4. 6 of the Greenbelt
plan contains policies that contemplate limited instances of law creation
within the protected countryside designation, so long as the severed
and retain lots are intended for agricultural uses and the
minimum MOT size is 400 hectares or 100 acres within
prime agricultural areas. Under the town's official plan, the subject
lands or designated protected countryside area. The subject lands are
also identified as being within the primaricultural area with the
northwest corner being identified as natural heritage system in the
Green Bell Plann. Section E1. 4. 2 of the town's
official plan permits agricultural operations in the Protected Countryside Area.
However, notwithstanding provincial policy which contemplates servants in agricultural areas.
The town's official plan identifies that the creation of new
lots outside of the urban area, Hamlet, and rural cluster
area designation are prohibited. Unless intended for a utility or
a public body. Therefore, an official plan amendment is required
for the proposed future severance. Under comprehensive zoning Bylaw 2010
- 0050, the majority of the subject lands are zoned
protected countryside with a small portion located at the northwest
corner being zoned as protected countryside natural heritage systems too.
These designations permit agricultural uses. Comments from
Townstaff include the requirement of land dedication for the appropriate
right of way widths for 10th line in 22 Side
Road, which may result in a give or take 3
metre widenings being required from the existing 20 metre rights
of way. As of today, no comments have been formally
submitted by the public.
Sorry about, oh geez. Sorry about that. Oh. It's Monday
for this thing too, I guess, eh? Alright, I don't
know why this isn't. Do you mind just flipping the
side of the next one? There you go, thank you.
Following the public meeting, planning staff will await a second
submission from the applicant for review that addresses the comments
and issues identified by town departments and external agency staff.
Staff will also await and work through any comments provided
by the public. Members of the public are encouraged to
provide oral comments at this public meeting where written comments
to me by August the 3rd or 3 weeks after
this meeting for consideration. Lastly, staff will then summarize and
address all comments in the final recommendation report to Council
regarding the disposition of this matter. To request to be
added to the email notification list, or if you have
any further questions for me, please email me. My address
is jsalt. ca. So this concludes the
presentation, and thank you Madam Mayor Council. Thank you, Mr.
Sellsbury. I now call on the applicant to provide any
further information or details on the proposal. Aye, goody. Good
evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. My name is Glenn Wellings.
I'm Planning Consultant for Sheridan Nursery's on this matter. Uh,
Mr. Carl Stenson. From Sheridan Nurse Reese is also an
attendance this evening. We're happy to answer any questions of
the public. Just a few comments. I'll try and be
brief, Madam Mayor. First of all, thank you Mr. Sellsbury
for the presentation. Uh, he covered off a lot of
detail in a short period of time. As Mr. Salisbury
didn't mention. The purpose of the application is to facilitate
the sale of the existing Glenn Williams Nursery operation. And,
uh, just to explain, Mr. Stenson is a third generation
owner. And is planning to retire. Which is good on
him. After close to 60 years in the business. So
the fourth generation, unfortunately, has pursued at her career paths
and will not and cannot take over the business. Uh,
so there is a pending sale. Purchaser has come forward.
And will be acquiring a significant portion of the Sheridan
Nursery's property, Sir Land's, including the subject lands and the
200 - acre portion of the subject lands that Mr.
Salisbury had mentioned. And, uh, Madam Mayor, if I can
call on the town clerk to put up a graphic,
I've distributed this to both the Town Hall cleric into
two town planning staff. And this identifies in yellow, the
lands that are subject to the purchase. And the lands
that are shown in white will be the lands that
are retained undersharatin nurses ownership. In a company that will
be set up. Um, in the future. So metamair and
Council members, this is a good news story. Uh, the,
uh, Sheridan was, um, in the process of winding down
the business, uh, but instead, uh, this opportunity does retain
a business in the community. And the jobs will also
remain in the community, which is really good news story.
Um, unfortunately, matter mayor, as we come to expect with
social media these days, there has been some misinformation that's
been circulating surrounding this application. So I, uh, going to
clarify that for, for this Council. First of all, there
is no change in land use proposed here. The official
plan amendment for the subject lands is simply to facilitate
a severance application. Uh, there was no change in the
lands. They are in agricultural production now. They will remain
in agricultural production. Mr. Salisbury did mention that the lands
are located entirely within the green belt. These lands are
not part of the white belt that has been a
rumour circulating. These lands are wholly contained within the green
belt plan. And there's no plans to remove these lands
from the green belt for redevelopment purposes. And by the
way, the town has no jurisdiction. To do that. It's
a provincial plan. But there was no intent whatsoever to
remove these lands from the Green Bell Plan. From a
planning perspective, the application is consistent with the provincial planning
statement. And does conform to the Green Belt plan and
the region of Halton official plan. The Green Belt Plan
actually does provide for severances of agricultural properties. That maintain
a minimum size of 40 hectares or 100 acres. So
the towns official plans pretty prohibitive and in restrictive in
this regard. And I'm hoping that'll be looked at in
the future. Uh, during an official plant review. From a
planet, from the amendment required to the Halton Hills Official
Plan will result in the creation of two lots. Uh,
each having 200 acres in size. As Mr. Salisbury had
mentioned, uh, each one of these parcels already contains existing
homes. So in this case, a new building lot will
not be created. These are existing building lots. So Madam
Mayor Council members, I'm happy to answer any questions in
the public hoping that clarification does resonate. And, um, I'll
be back. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Clarification.
So now I will invite any resident or person who
has questions requires further clarification or information. Or wishes to
present their views on the proposal to come forward to
speak. As a reminder at the end of this public
meetings staff will be respond to questions or comments that
have answers available at this time. And all other responses
are answers will be provided by staff at a later
date. When the recommendation is brought forward to Council for
decision. So I have one person who is registered so
far. Mr. Rogers Stoffford, I believe you are in the
gallery. Thank you. Model. That's great. Thank you.
Uh, good evening, Madam Mayor and Councillors. I am here
representing Glenn Williams Community Association. To speak regarding the application.
Uh, that's just been spoken about. Uh, for the official
plan amendment. I have only lived here for 45 years.
Sheridan Nurses has been here a lot longer. And, uh,
the story of Chardnicers is a great story. It has
strong roots here in Glenn Williams and novel and Georgetown.
I am the first to say that propsy owners have
rights. And Sheridan Nurses has decided to exercise their rights,
put the land up for sale. And exercise their right
to apply for the official plan amendment. The landing question
is that the northeast corner of Glen Williams slightly further
east of that point lies the, what I'll refer to
as the vast subdivisions of Brampton, where they continue to
bill their highest concentration of new housing directly on our
northeast corner. I Googled and according to Google 30, 000
new residents arrive in our northeast neighbour every year. The
growth is four times faster than Canada five times faster
than Ontario. All to say that there is immense pressure
to build housing in the northeast corner. The subject application
does not ask for a change of land use. Uh,
which is agricultural. On the other side of the Sheridan
lands lies Glenn Williams, uh, which I've spoken about before
and which we're all familiar with. For traffic from the
burgeoning megopolis on our northeast corner to get westward. And
that is Main Street. That runs through the heart of
the village and through the hearts of village life. Here,
narrow road that's evokes the characteristic feel of the historic
village. People meander school children meander tourists meander. The road
is busy with people. Planners would dream to be able
to create such a community environment. Fitting to the context,
the road has no curbs. There is no demarcation of
boundaries. People stroll cars park, often reverse park. Fitting to
local businesses that thrive, the paces relaxed, even when packed
with Taurus. We are all familiar. With the many businesses
that operate in the hearts of the village. And people
live here. They don't just sleep and commute. Many of
the local homeowners live and actually stay and spend their
time right there in the village core. My ask here
tonight. Is that Council resolves alongside this subject application. To
get the missing part of 22nd Side Road built. Between
10th line and eighth line. Building a direct route between
our northeast corner and Highway 7 on our west side.
Would give traffic an attractive alternative route to funneling through
the harps of the Heritage Village. And would directly contribute
to preserving and enhancing the irreplaceable heritage asset that is
Glenn Williams. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak. And there may be staff comments to that request.
Later. Is there anyone else in the gallery. Who wishes
to speak? Yes, please come forward and give your name
and address.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Madam Chair. My
name is Jeff Westwood. I live at 12 109 10th
line. So I'm one of those little notches that you
see in your presentation. So I have a couple of
questions for the first Welling's Planning Consultants. Obviously, uh, the
change of, uh, ownership, uh, but the keeping of the,
um, keeping the agriculture nature is very important to us.
Uh, obviously our biggest concern when I found out that
Sharondon were closing the doors where, you know, would we
be blighted with some of the other issues that we
have in town with illegal tracking. So when I was
told that it was going to stay agricultural, I was
very happy. So I do support this application. However, and
as always, I however, isn't it? However, I am concerned
about the five year plan for the new owners. Is
a expectation to grow. The, agricultural area. You know, I
back onto pretty much scrub land, which gets mode once
a year. Uh, and then a little bit more scrub
line. Do we know what the new owners plans are?
And I'm looking directly at you, sorry, I should look
at you. Do we know what the five year plan
is for this new owner? Obviously my biggest concerned is,
is there going to be additional greenhouses built? Um, will
there be additional noise? Will we see a lot more
traffic around the little road at the back? Um, tractors
and things like that. Will this start at four o'clock
in the morning like some of the operations do at
the moment. And then obviously my biggest concern is will
this impact the enjoyment of my own property. You know,
will I have to be without impair, you know, impact
everything from my home price. Will it be unsellable? Is
there going to be, uh, is there going to be
issues around that? Obviously it's not. Really anything to do
with your permission to give the change of severance. However,
this would be something that I would be looking at
in future. Should I need to take whatever course needs
action. If there is an impact on my enjoyment of
my own property. And that's it. So thank you for
your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And,
and I'll ask that perhaps that question could be answered
later on. If we hear from others in the audience
who might have questions because there might be a little
bit of overlap. So, um, thank you very much. Thank
you. Yes. And I think there are others who.
Good evening, everybody. Don't you enjoy air conditioning. You know,
thank you Mayor Town Council. Town staff and the public
for attending tonight. Thank you all to Schellsbury, who's been
very helpful in providing us with information. Um, I represent
a group called the concerns citizens of the Glenn. We
want to state, first of all, that we very much
appreciate Sheridan's long history and support of the Glenn. Shert
has been an important economic player for Halton Hills. Citizens
of the Glenn, though, however, opposed the amendment as we
found concerns that need to be addressed. We found inconsistencies
between the town report and the materials that reportedly supplied
by the applicant and the business plan shared by Sheridan.
Although we know that some of the concerns we had
were addressed in the Sherton's business plan. We note the
stated sense of urgency, but if that was the case,
why was the process not started earlier, the end of
June has passed. And mid - July is only two
days away. Succession planning takes a lot of time. And
so perhaps a little more advanced planning would be useful.
We also concerned about the absence of feedback from the
credit valley conservation authority. Because water is a very critical
issue for agricultural operations. But it's also a very critical
issue for the Glenn's ecosystem. In the shared inspecess plan,
it states that the stents and family will retain the
eastern portion of the 200 acres for agricultural purposes. Could
there be, um, more explanation of what those agricultural purposes
are planned. To give the Council a little more background
concerns citizens of the Glen was formed during the COVID
period. Which we all hopefully will be able to forget
soon. We operate under Chatham House rule. We aim for
unanimity whenever possible. And we rely on building consensus of
our members. Our members are residents that share intimate knowledge
of the community. So unfortunately we are not in the
position to support this plan. And thank you very much
for your time. Oh, sorry. Could you give your name,
please? Oh, sorry. I thought I did. Lindal Henson. Representative
concerns, citizens of the gland. Okay. Address to what might
address. 118 Confederation. Okay. We're just where we have one
of those great speed bumps that the concern citizens got
into play with the town's Council Hall. Name to please.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the gallery who
wishes to. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone online. Okay.
Um, well, I see that there are no other speakers.
So I'm wondering if. Now my, my, my notes say
staff might provide answers, but it could be that the
proponent wants to, uh, respond to some of the questions
or comments. Madam. Mayor. Carl Stansen. Uh, to my right.
I'll let Carl speak to the five year plan and
in the purchaser. Um, there is some confidentiality with the
purchaser, but I like Carl speak to that. And I'll
speak to some of the others. Issues raised. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Um, as far as talking about
succession planning, uh, we started 10 years ago. And, um,
went through two or three different proposals to buy our
company. For various reasons, mostly the fact that whoever wanted
to buy the nursery didn't want to buy the land.
Or whoever wanted to buy the land did not want
to run a nursery. And so last August, we made
the difficult decision. To wind down the nursery business. So
that the land could be sold to other agricultural people.
That wanted to run a farm. Um, there is no
development plan that is going on here. It's simply, and
I will say that why is this just coming up?
Because about six weeks ago, someone came to us and
said, I have a plan. I have financing. And, but
I only have financing for so much. And if you
saw the acreage that we put up on the screen
before that little yellow diagram that I coloured up, uh,
I stayed within the lines too. It was really very
good. Um, but it's approximately half the land that we
own in the gland. And that person or persons could
not afford to buy all of the land to run
the business. Their plan is to run a scaled down
nursery. Not an increased nursery, but a scaled down growing
only certain products. We at one point grew close to
a thousand different varieties of plants. They're proposing to grow
about 40 to 50 varieties of plants. But the big
ones that we are known for, such as boxwood, where
the largest box would grow in Canada. And so, and
one of the second largest in North America. And so
they're planning on just using those, um, with mass merchants,
Home Depot. We have a huge contract with Home Depot.
So they're carrying on those. Businesses. Um, but they did
not want that land. All the rest of the land.
And I will say that anything that's drawn in yellow
there has been developed mostly for container growing. Which you're
growing plants in containers above the ground. All of the
other ones that weren't coloured in. Are mostly field. And
because when we first bought this land in the 50s
and 60s, all of our production was in the ground.
So, um, it's a matter of the person who wants
to do this. And as, as Glenn said, um, we're
very happy that this is happening because we told our
staff that they'd all be out of work. And now
there's probably about 40 to 45 of them that will
have permanent jobs. In Halton. And that's good for Halton
as well and good for the community. Um, again, there
is no way that we can put a subdivision up.
No way we can do anything. With the land because
it is Greenbelt. I will say also, as far as
credit Valley and conservation, um, Sheridan was the first company
in Canada to put in a bio pond, which is
over 30 million gallons with a backup pond of 20
million gallons. And, uh, that pond. Has reduced the water
consumption from the credit river by 40 percent. And that
is millions of gallons. Cause in a very hot day,
you can punk two million gallons of water onto the
field. And so I think we've been very good in
conservation. I think we have moved as quickly as we
can to work on this proposal. And it came out
of the blue, as I say. So it's not like
we should have done this 10 years ago or five
years ago. We'd been working on it. And finally, I'd
like to say that we have supported the Glenn Williams
Town Hall with our shrub sale. The shrub sale that
they have every year on the 24th of May weekend,
we donate all of those plants. To them so that
they can sell and make money for the town Hall.
And, uh, we calculate that probably a quarter of a
million dollars who has been put towards the town hall
over the years from the sale of those shrubs. So
I think we'd actually named a citizen of the year.
The company was a citizen of the year for Glenn
Williams. So we're very proud of our connection with the
Glenn and, um, this is a simple severance to allow
us to keep the business going once we're out of
it. And as far as what's happening with the rest
of the land, it's going into a new co, which
with the same shareholders. And if someone comes along and
wants to buy it for farmland, then we'll sell it
for farmland. That's. A moment. Okay. Madam Chair, if I
can just, um, add a few more comments. In terms
of the first gentleman that spoke, uh, expressed concerns about
noise traffic and enjoying his own property, just a reminder,
this is an agricultural area. You're going to have a
heavy equipment machinery. In occasionally noise. In traffic and use
of roads by, by heavy equipment. So just, just, uh,
just a note on that. Concern citizens of the Glenn.
I'm puzzled by, by the opposition to the application, uh,
the inconsistencies, uh, between what dissemitted on behalf of Sheridan
and what. The town staff report. Indicates. I didn't see
any inconsistencies. Um, but I like to know who they're
speaking on behalf of man, a mayor, Council members, because
every time I deal with this, this concern citizens at
a gland, I just hear from one person. In it's
always negative. So I would like to know who they
are. And who's, what their membership is like, why. Are
these people part of the Glenn Williams community association. It
was speak and I unified voice. And so I am
concerned by their opposition. And I'd like to know more
about their organisation. So, Madam Chair, that's all I have
to say. Thank you. Well, and thank you very much
for those responses. And I certainly everyone around this table
and everyone in this room, I should guess as very
well aware of what a prominent citizen shared in nursery's
has been of the Glenn and have broader town of
Halton Halls. And, um, I know we're sad when all
good things come to an end. But, um, we, we
certainly do applaud. The contributions of shared in nurseries to
our community have been absolutely profound over decades. So, um,
thank you for coming and describing what you see the
future as holding. It's very helpful for us. Okay. Are
there any further comments from staff. Thank you, Madam
Mayor. And through you, Madam Mayor, we have been taking
some pretty diligent notes during this presentation. So we will
be providing information to the questions that were asked in
the recommendation report. I do also want to add that
credit value conservation have been circulated on this application. And
they will be reviewing it and providing comments to this
application. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr.
Stanson. Just one thing, Credit Valley Conservation is coming to
walk the site tomorrow. So they are involved. Thank you.
And we're aware that this public meeting is just part
of the process. And so decisions will not be made
imminently. There are, there is still more review to happen.
Okay. So I will conclude the meeting then. I declare
this public meeting closed. And as mentioned earlier, Council will
take no action on this proposal tonight. Staff will be
reporting at a later date with a recommendation for Council's
consideration. And if you wish to receive further information regarding
the proposal, please contact our planner Josh Sellsbury following the
meeting. A business card containing his contact information can be
found when you exit the Council Chambers. So thank you
very much. And this is a good time for anyone
who wants to, um, make their way home. We have
one more public meeting tonight.
So if residents could make their way and have their
conversations in the hallway, that would allow us to move
on to the next meeting. Thank you. So the town
is now holding a public meeting for the development application
submitted by first Gulf Corporation. On behalf of the owners.
And the application is proposing a zoning bylaw amendment. To
permit five multi - unit industrial warehouse buildings with 271
commercial vehicle waiting spaces and a maximum building height of
15 metres at 14829 stealsue. And the purpose of this
public meeting is to inform the public of the proposal.
And to provide members of the community with the opportunity
to ask questions and express their views regarding the application.
The planning act requires at least one public meeting beheld
for any development proposal. And that members of the public
shall be given an opportunity to make representations in respect
of the proposal. The format of this public meeting is
as follows. The town will provide a presentation that generally
explains the purpose and details of the application. The applicant
will then present any further relevant information. And afterwards, the
public can express their views on the proposal or ask
questions for clarification regarding the application. As chair, I am
informing you that any person or public body that does
not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the town of Halton Hills before being
added as a party. Before the Ontario land tribunal, unless
in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable grounds
to do so. Please contact planning staff for further information
on the appeal process. It's important to note that councillors
are here to observe and listen to comments tonight only.
Council will not be taking any action or make a
decision on the proposal tonight. At the end of the
public meeting staff will respond to questions or comments that
have answers available at the time. All other responses or
answers will be provided by staff at a later date.
The authority to approve and PAST minor zoning bylaw amendments
has been delegated to the commissioner of planning. Provided any
concerns raised by the public or staff. Regarding the review
process are resolved to the satisfaction of the commissioner. So
with the towns representative from the Planning Department, just cover
him please come forward to explain the proposal. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Mayor Councillor, staff and members
of the public. The purpose of this evening stashed story
public meeting is to present an overview of the zoning
bylaw amendment application submitted by first Gulf Corporation on behalf
of 1st Gulf Halton Steeles Limited and Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada. The Soning by - law amendment application
pertains to the property location. In the Premier Gateway Employment
Area of Halton Halls. So the subject property is
located on the west side of ninth line north of
Steels Avenue and the Premier Gateway Employment Area. The lands
have approximate area of 41. 72 hectares are just over
103 acres with approximately 462 metres of frontage along steels
avenue and 512 metres along ninth line. The northern portion
of the site includes the tributary of the 16 -
mile creek and the lands are currently vacant. With regards
to the neighbourhood context surrounding land uses to the subject
lands include agricultural lands approved for future industrial development and
single detached dwellings along nightline. Agricultural lands to the east,
approved for future industrial development. To the south single detached
dwellings and an institutional use, which contains a church and
a cemetery. And additional agricultural lands approved for future industrial
development across deals avenue. And to the West is agricultural
lands approved for future industrial development and the continuation of
the tributary of the 16 mile creek. So this is
the development proposal before you the application seeks to obtain
the necessary land use permissions to construct five multi -
unit industrial warehouse buildings at 14829 STEALS Avenue in the
Premier Gateway Employment Area. Although the end users have not
been determined, the intended uses of the property include building
the intended uses proposed industrial buildings include but are not
limited to warehouse. Warehousing wholesaling distribution and accessory office uses.
Uh, the five buildings are shown as being divided into
18 leasing units total on the submitted plan. However, each
building can be organised to accommodate more or fewer units
depending on the need for prospective tenants. The applicants are
proposing 245 loading spaces and 271 commercial vehicle waiting spaces.
It is important to note that while the transportation impacts
CETI proposes six access points to the site to access
points off steels avenue and four access points off ninth
line, the updated development concept presented on the slide includes
only four access points to the site which was addressing
comments received from staff.
So policy context here, this is the Halton Hale Hale's
official plan designation. So under the town's official plan, the
property is located within the Premier Gateway employment area phase
2B secondary plan area. Um, under OPA 50 was approved
by the Ontario Land Tribunal. The plans identify the subject
property is being designated prestige industrial area, which permits a
wide range of employment related uses, including manufacturing assembly, processing
warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution facilities located primarily within the buildings.
Under the secondary plan, the subject site is designated as
prestige industrial area and natural heritage system. Uh, the property
is also subject to a residential special policy area overlay,
uh, which applies to the lands where there is existing
residential uses, which might not develop in the short term.
Policies that apply to the residential special policy area overlay
include the requirements for landscaping and other buffering to be
provided along the boundary of the site proposed for development
adjacent to the existing residential uses. So Halton Hale zoning
bylaws, subject property is zoned agricultural A and environmental protection
one EP1 under the zoning bylaw 2010 - 0050 as
amended, which does not permit industrial uses. The applicant is
proposing to rezone the property zone agricultural to a site
- specific for a one corridor prestige industrial M7 zone
to facilitate the proposed development. Sites - specific provisions regarding
the number of commercial vehicle waiting spaces and maximum building
height is required. The EP - 1 zone at the
northwest corner of the property would remain and be expanded
to acknowledge the tributary of the 16 - mile creek
and the required associated buffers. As mentioned in the previous
slides, the lands are included within the phase 2B of
the Premier Gateway Employment Area. On June 1st of this
year, a public meeting was held to discuss the phase
2B draft zoning by - law amendment, which would establish
zoning permissions to implement the phase 2B Secondary Plan. While
the approval of the phase 2B zoning by - law
amendment would permit industrial warehouse on the site, a site
- specific zoning by - law amendment would still be
required to abstain. Site - specific provisions for the proposed
development. Um. I have on the back. Note that once
the phase 2 be zoning by law amendment is in
effect, the subject application could be considered a minor zoning
bylaw amendment given the application would only seek to vary
standards of the phase 2B bylaw rather than implement new
zoning permissions for the lands. Uh, as per By -
law 2022 - 0039 Council has delegated authority to approve
and past minor zoning by - law amendments to the
commissioner of planning, provided that any concerns identified through the
public consultation and technical review process have been resolved to
the satisfaction of the commissioner. So comments from agency and
department. So this submission materials were circulated to town department
and external agencies for review. These slides outline the comments
identified to staff by to date. So the first is
Ministry of Transportation or MTO. Lands are located within the
study area for Highway 413 and are currently subject to
the corridor protection overlay identified in the town's official plan.
However, MTO has since finalised the environmental assessment for the
Highway 413 route and have confirmed that the property is
located outside the future corridor and MTO permit control area.
Ministry of Energy and Minds. So ERO posting 025 -
1133, which pertains to refining the Protection Corridor for future
electricity, uh, transmission infrastructure in the northwest greater Toronto area
has revised the narrow area of interest or the NAI.
Identified under the provincial planning statement. The updated NAI may
impose additional constraints on the subject lands, potentially future, or
further limiting the development opportunities for the clarification from the
province will be required to be determined whether development may
proceed within these areas. Development Engineering staff require a separate
functional site servicing report in the next submission. Uh, this
report must address the proposed development site grading and Storm
Sewer layout and provide sufficient details to confirm that the
development is viable and will function appropriately within the intended
property. And zoning comments, a draft by law is proposing
a site - specific requirement for a maximum building height
of 15 metres. However, the proposed elevation drawings indicated a
maximum height of 15. 5 metres. Therefore a site -
specific requirement for maximum building height should be increased to
15. 6 metres. Uh, the propose all appears to meet
the definition of an industrial mall under the town zoning
by - law. The required parking rate for an industrial
mall is one space per 40 square metres of gross
floor area. So as a result, a site - specific
parking rate would be required. So further review and discussion
will be necessary for that. And if a road widening
is required along ninth line, the proposed exterior side yard
setback and planting strip may not comply with the minimum
bylaw requirements. Therefore, for the review and discussion for a
site - specific provision may also be required. Uh, Halton
region comments. So the region is currently undertaking a detailed
design project to extend water and wastewater services along steels
avenue. However, full municipal serving Singh is not yet available
for these lands. The submitted report does not demonstrate whether
sufficient infrastructure capacity exists to support the proposed development. So
additional analysis is required to confirm servicing feasibility for the
development. Along ninth line, the two proposed full access driveways
are spaced 130 metres apart as indicated in the traffic
impact study. As part of the first submission and do
not meet the Halton regions required minimum spacing of 400
metres. The layout should be revised to provide one full
axis, signalize entrance in one restricted access entrance. Uh, the
submitted concept plan does not identify the centre line of
STOEOS ANUR nine flying, so both steals Avenue in ninth
line are planned to be widened as per the approved
regional capital budget. As such, staff are unable to confirm
if the proposed development plans provide and protect for the
planned of both deals avenue and ninth line. And conservation
Halton comments to support confirmation of the limited between the
development and the non - developable zones. This submitted geotechnical
investigation report should be updated to provide preliminary conclusions relating
to the proposed store modern management pond outlet. And conservation
Halton recommends that the full extent of conservation Halton regulated
area be zoned for protection and placed into public ownership
where appropriate. Parks and open space, um, the northwest portion
of building fives parking and internal road network appears to
be within the significant woodland buffer. Um, justification must be
provided in the appropriate studies. Otherwise, uh, revision to the
site plan to remove any development within the buffer may
be required. And landscape plans should incorporate appropriate buffer screening
landscaping site design elements, um, for the site. Um, planning
stuff have received one request for additional information from the
public and no comments or concerns have been received to
date. Uh, the purpose of this public meeting is to
obtain additional comments and feedback from the community. Any additional
comments received from the public will also be reviewed, evaluated
and included in a final recommendation report. Next steps, uh,
following the statutory public meeting, planning staff will await a
second submission from the applicant to address the comments and
issues identified by town department and external agencies from our
initial review. Staff will also await and consider any comments
provided from the public members of the public are encouraged
to provide oral comments at the public meeting or written
comments to be by August 3rd, which is three weeks
following this meeting for consideration. And once staff have completed
our review of the proposal, we will, and summarize and
address any concerns in a final recommendation report regarding the
disposition of the matter. And thank you that concludes my
presentation. Thank you. I will now call on the applicant
if they wish to provide any further information and detail
on the proposal.
Online. Okay. Uh, Nicole. I, good evening. Um, thank you
Madam Mayor and thank you Jessica for the presentation. Um,
my name is Nuko Gwadnoli. I work for first golf.
As Jessica had indicated, uh, in her presentation, uh, the
purpose of our application, uh, was followed by both first
golf and sunlife, uh, essentially to bring the lines and
two conformity with the secondary plan, uh, which would ultimately
unlock the property to be the first development, um, under
construction within the phase two B lands. Um, as I
also noted earlier in my delegation, uh, this afternoon, uh,
there were some challenges that we had faced over the
last couple of years, uh, just including a collector Road
and the narrow era of interest regarding 413, um, which
we were able to overcome with staff. Uh, that ultimately
led us to filing this rezoning application. Uh, we are
aware of the comments identified in Jessica's presentation and a
resubmission will be submitted in the upcoming weeks, uh, just
to address, uh, those comments. And ideally bring forward a
positive staff report, uh, to conclude this recealing application. And
at this time I'm available to answer any questions that
there may be from the public. Thank you very much.
Um, so now I will invite any resident or person
who has questions requires for the clarification. Or information or
wishes to present their views on the proposal to come
forward to speak. As a reminder at the end of
the public meeting staff will respond to questions or comments
that have answers available at this time. Are there any
registered speakers. Oh, yes sir. Would you come forward? Yes.
Come ahead. Madam Mayor and Council members. My name's Henry
Alley. I'm with St. Stevens Ankle and Church. I've been
the former People's Warns for many years. It's the White
Church at the bottom of ninth line, or mountain view.
And steals Avenue. And our concern is water and sewage.
I know all the development's going to be to the
north. But we've always been hoping in our lifetime there.
We're over 189 years old. Um, that we would get
some water from the city somewhere and sewage probably get
through. We've got gas now, but we're looking for some
kind of, uh, indication that might come across the road
or it might just stay, as we've heard in the
past, it's all going to stay on the north side
of steals and not cutting across the side, the south
side. So that's my main concern. That's the main concern
to most of the people at the church. It's just,
and the church itself, and the rectory. And of course
the cemetery doesn't use any water except for watering and
stuff like that. So anyway, so that's my concern. And,
uh, thank you for listening to me for a second.
Well, thank you very much for those comments as a
neighbour. Yes. Okay. Is there anyone else in the gallery
who wishes to speak. Thank you, DMA and councillors. They're
with. I'm from Main Street North Gedstone. I have question
first question to the applicant. I know it's zoned institutional,
but have they made any considerations in building office space
or there. Because a lot of that area has become
warehouses. Just wait hoses, which is not going to create
any jobs. Obviously the town makes a lot of property
access and development charges, but employment wise that is not
big benefit. So my question to the applicant is, are
they considering to build some kind of office spaces which
would invite some big clients that can create some good
hyping skill jobs over there. And if they are considering
like that, are the expecting some kind of support from
the town. Curiosity, my next question, or should I just
wait for? Yes. Yeah. Add your next question, please. My
next question is for the town staff. This particular development
is huge, which is going to bring in a lot
of revenue in the form of development charges to start
with. So the town has calculated in numbers. And can
they also tell us how the funds is going to
completely use like because what I've absurd over the past
three years. There is a lot of dollar points. I
just being collected. But there is no clarity on whether
a hundred percent of the development judges is being spent
on municipal infrastructure. Valid injust or not. I've been complaining
about municipal services, especially water. I think has been done.
I know that the Halton region is spending some money
and expanding ninth line into four lane road. And there's
municipal services also being part of the proposal. But I
don't see any proposal in bringing in Munsper water. Uh,
the lake water to just or not. So I want
to understand the funds that is being connected from this
development, how that is being spent and where the allocation
is going on. Thank you. Thank. You. Anything anyone else
wants to add. Okay. Thank you. Um, do staff have
any comments about any of the questions that were asked.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, we just had a quick
comment that the region is targeting 2028 for servicing for
that area. Um, but all other comments would be addressed
in our recommendation. Thank you. All right. Does the proponent
have anything for further to add. Did you have anything
to add. Hi Madame Mayor? Sorry
about that. Takes a second to connect here in my
laptop, uh, appreciate the questions in the comments, um, I
will continue to leave it to staff to just discuss
servicing for the area. Um, but in terms of the
actual uses itself, um, as it stands, we have been
actively in discussions with various large - scale, uh, industrial
users. Uh, the land is designated as prestige industrial. Um,
so that's what has been considered for the property. What
I will say is the zoning does also permit standalone
office. So shoot in the future, there be, uh, attendant
interested in the property. Um, I'm sure that's something that
we could take a look into, uh, once it gets
to a site plan application stage, um, but as it
stands, uh, right now it's just large scale industrial users.
That we're considering. All right. Thank you. Okay.
Yes. Did you want to come forward again? Uh. It
was what a follow - up question, I think. Not
that, but in general, I have a concern regarding these
lands, everything being industrial. That's just going to add more
truck traffic. Right from employment point of view. This is
a question to the town. Are we considering zoning specific
properties to office space. Because I've looked at states and
Ms. Saga Road where there's a lot of office space
in Brampton, Miss Saga, which is generating more revenue, more
six figure salary jobs. At I did work in Law
- Blast, there were some time. I know that area
very well. So it's a town doing an efforts because
I see the town spending money in inverting businesses or
Germany. Even funding some of the travel and interactions. But
I don't see any town policies in inviting Canadian companies
to create office spaces, not even zoning policies. There is
no money being spent on zoning changes. Right. You just
have to allow the zoning to build office spaces. Does
the town has any plan to create good jobs in
the town? If yes, I would like to see some
details. Thank you. All right. And I think staff can
follow up afterwards with you on, on that answer. Yeah.
Okay. Um, I think then we've heard from staff and
the proponent and follow up questions. And so I would
now declare this public meeting closed. As mentioned earlier, a
Council will take no action on this proposal tonight. And
if you wish to receive further information regarding the proposal,
please contact the planner Jessica Rahim following the meeting. A
business card containing her contact information can be found when
you exit the Council Chambers. So that's good. Let's see.
We haven't moved by Councillor Keane. Second of my Councillor
Norris that report PD 2026074 dated June 26, 2026 regarding
a public meeting for a proposed temporary use zoning bylaw
amendment. To extend a microbrew reviews for an additional three
years at one Elgin Street, Georgetown, we received. And that
further that all agency in public comment be referred to
staff for further report regarding the disposition of this matter.
All in favor. That's carried.
And we haven't moved by Councillor Brass. Second of my
Councillor Kinbaum that report PDE 2026 071 regarding a public
meeting for a proposed official plan amendment to allow for
a severance to divide the 160 hectare, 400 acre parcel
into two lots at 16768, 22nd Side Road to squeezing
be received. And further that all agency in public comments
be referred to staff for consideration as part of the
review of the development proposal. With the intention that a
recommendation report be brought forward to Council for disposition of
this matter at a later date, went staff have completed
their evaluation of the applications. All in favor. That's carried.
And we have it moved by Councillor Brass. Second of
our Councillor Kinbaum that report PD 2026062 dated June 29,
2026 regarding a public meeting. For Pro Posed zoning bylaw
amendment. To permit five multi - unit industrial buildings at
14829 steals Avenue Premier Gateway area be received. And further
that all agency and public comments be referred to staff
for further report. Regarding the disposition of this matter. All
in favor. That's carried.
And now finishing our public meetings, we are going to
return to general committee. It has been moved by Councillor
Keene, second of our Councillor Brass that we do now
return to general committee. And Councillor Rabano. You're on again.
All in favor. That's carried.
All right. Thank you very much. And we're back into
general committee. Uh, we have two, uh, two outstanding items
in the, uh, in the delegation and presentation. And then
I believe we have three, uh, three items in the
rest of the reports. So, uh, the first thing that
we'll do is we'll do the item F. We'll deal
with item F. And that's Jennifer Reynolds Halton Hills pickleball
association. Um, she's delegating regarding building communities. Yeah. Uh, building
communities strong fun. Eighth line park expansion expression of interest.
Um, submission. So, um, Jennifer.
Jennifer. You have the floor. We can't hear you.
You're not muted. Is there something else that you need
to turn on there. Jennifer?
Can you hear me now? Yes, we can loud and
clear. Okay. Just remind you that we have five minutes.
Okay. Yes. I know it's been a long day. Thank
you Chair Albano. And thank you members of Council for
allowing me to be a delegate. I'd also like to
just thank staff for having the memorandum on tonight's agenda.
I know it's being a bit of a piece of
work hitting that done. I'm speaking on behalf of the
Halton Hills pickleball association. And as the acting chair of
the Halton Hills Sports Coalition. As previously reported to Council,
the coalition includes several sports looking for additional indoor playing
space. Tennis Badmenton Volleyball basketball soccer baseball football flag football
cricket and pickleball representing over 7, 000 participants. We also
have two DOM providers providing guidance and needed technical advice.
I'd like to comment on two main points in the
memorandum. Point number one, the existing Afeline Park concept or
an amended version, including a two dome solution. We developed
a two dome solution to address several sporting needs at
the eight line park. One dome over the proposed courts
facility and gym facility flooring. And one over the existing
soccer field with the requirement for TURF acknowledged as part
of the added expense. We believe that a phase project
of that nature would be able to be ready to
meet the application criteria. We have met with town staff
most recently on June 15. At that time we strongly
supported staff moving forward with a full application to the
federal funding program to meet the July 15th deadline date.
The coalition offered support subject matter expert services, a willingness
to assist in any way possible to advance the two
DOM solution and to not miss the window under the
building community strong fund. The EOI on the agenda tonight
is the same concept approved by Council in 2024. And
while providing needed indoor hardcourt opportunities, it still falls short
in terms of satisfying many more unmet needs in the
community. It is also not clear what the outcome may
be within EOI. Is there another round of funding available.
The eighth line part project recommends moving and redeveloping the
existing soccer pitch, which will provide no net new capacity.
The two DOM solution we propose would address many more
needs. Stuff led us to believe there are constraints to
amending the eighth line park design to meet the criteria
that would include the two DOM solution. We would argue
that while challenging, it does not appear impossible. We provided
some suggested solutions that included FACE tendering, giving, given the
municipal election later this fall. Reassessing the potential impact on
the Gellert community centre. It's planned expansion location appears to
be east and somewhat south of the existing soccer field.
We're not sure how that would be impacted. And also
in relation to funding confirmation for the community centre expansion.
We offer fundraising support Council is aware that pickleball has
already made a commitment and the potential for additional funds
to address additional costs that could include turf and the
grade beam at some future date. We talked about temporary
washrooms for a seasonal dome. We're aware that that happens
in other locations. And we also thought the second dome
in terms of consultation in the neighbourhood would really not
have a lot of visual impact A at seasonal and
nature and B it would be protected by existing vegetation
in the eighth line, uh, Birming. A domatrophalgar sports park,
which is an option and also likely needed requires additional
servicing, including natural gas, which we understand is not currently
provided to that location. Putting the potential to accelerate that
project further away in terms of timing. Point number two,
an expression of interest versus a full application to the
building community strong fund. It raises questions on project readiness.
If staff felt that most of the criteria for a
full application submission could be met, the outstanding question is
whether the town is prepared to make a financial commitment
to any project advanced under the federal program. And if
a provincial program is also announced with the municipality being
a position to leverage funding. And if so, in what
time frame. What is the potential outcome by submitting an
EOI at this time? What if there is not a
second round of funding. We acknowledge the importance of all
of the projects that have been identified as priorities, including
the act and indoor pool and the Gellert community centre,
all requiring a financial commitment from Council. However, we support
the eight line park in full or in a phased
approach as the most shovel - ready project. We can
conclude by continuing to support all opportunities to expand indoor
facilities for sport and recreation going forward and encourage the
town to make ongoing investment as needed, particularly to leverage
funding from other levels of government. Thank you very much.
Thank you. You just a couple of seconds over the
five - minute period. Good job. Uh, we do have
some questions. Um, from councillors, um, Council Bryce. Ms. Thank
you, Chair O'Bennel. Thank you, Jennifer, for your delegation and
your patients. And I do have a couple of questions.
And the first, Jennifer would be, you, you touched on
it briefly. And, um, about, excuse me, about picking book
pickleballs, uh, commitment to helping fund this. And the possibility
of the coalition doing the same. Can you give us
an idea of, uh, the level of commitment of the
coalition and what dollars they could potentially bring to the
table or is it too early to, uh, to tell
us that? Uh, count it through you, Mr. Chair to
Council Brass. I think it's too early on behalf of
the coalition because we talked about it and we talked
about the idea, which is why we all came together
of working collectively with some kind of fundraising target. Uh,
you know that Halton Hall's pickleball association has made a
commitment of 250, 000 dollars We stand by that. We
could potentially commit more depending on circumstances. I do know
on behalf of the Georgetown soccer club that their fundraising
is likely going to be directed to their more immediate
project, which is, I think working, uh, with the potential
for the hide house project. That was my last communication
with them, uh, but clearly talking to flag football and
football, uh, and bad menton. There's an interest. We don't
have a number, uh, Councillor Brass, but, uh, and, and
to be honest, we don't really have a pro checked
yet. So it's, it would be difficult to rally everybody
around, uh, on that particular point. Right. Okay. I know
that's early days in that. So thank you, but I'm
glad to hear that the level of interest there for,
for fundraising. That's great. Uh, thank you, Chair. That's it
for now. But I will have some comments when the
report comes forward, please. All right. Thank you very much
Council Brass. Anyone else. So, um, without the, no objections
and we'll bring that item up, which is CSE 2026
010. That's a memorandum. It's okay. All right. So my
random is on the floor. Any discussion on the memorandum.
Council Bras. Thank you, Chair Obano. Uh, I do, uh,
actually after having many discussions with staff. And Ms. Reynolds
and other sports groups. And the pros and cons and
the complexities of options and the difficulties around, some of
them. Uh, you know, one thing is certain though, is
that opportunity is knocking here. And, uh, the federal government
seems to be, um, willing to dole out some dollars.
And, uh, I would hate to lose that opportunity. For
either a one dome or a two dorm solution. And
also being cognizant of some provincial program that's yet to
be identified that we don't have the parameters of yet,
but perhaps would be able to piggyback on this project
as well. And, uh, given that the coalition is looking
to fundraise and maybe get creative, uh, coupled with potentially
a fundraising group or some sponsorship opportunities. Uh, I would
like to put amendment on the floor to amend a
report. To direct staff to look at a two dome
solution. And potentially schedule a special counsel meeting in advance.
To look at the finances should the federal government find
the EOI acceptable or to have interest in it. So
that we have something scheduled and be ready to go
and answer that very tough question on the funding. And
maybe some other things would come to light by then.
So. I'll put that on the floor to amend the
report to include a two DOM solution. And to pre
- schedule a special counsel meeting to review the finances.
Thank you, Councillor Brass. So we have an amendment on
the memorandum. So
the memorandum stays at SOB directions to staff to look
at that two dome solution. Thank you for the correction
chair al - Bannel. That's fine with me. All right.
So, um, we do have an amendment and a direction
for staff. And I will vote on the amendment. Oh,
sorry. Well, no, I, I think my question was answered
because I was going to ask, um, whether or not
the proposal changes the memorandum. And I'm gathering it doesn't.
That we would still submit the expression of interest. And
should the federal government come back and say, yes, tell
us more. Than there would be a direction to staff
to look at the potential for a two dome solution.
No. Oh, okay. So I need more than, yes. Mr.
Mills. Thank you, Chair and Councillor Brass. If I get
this wrong, please correct me, but my understanding is the
direction would, uh, pertain to the submission of the EOI
and that the EOI would be modified to include a
two dome solution. And then if the federal government comes
back positively on that, uh, with us, then we would
schedule prior to, um, the last date in August that
we can schedule Council meetings, uh, to come back with
financing options for council is consideration. Is that, did I
get that correct. Through the chair that is bang on,
although I would add that perhaps scheduling a special county
meeting now would be of interest that we could always
cancel if we don't need. Thank you. All right. We're
all clear then. Oh, Coach Kimball. Just a general comment
here. I'm not sure exactly what details are on the
table here, but I think in general, it's a prudent
step. An expression of interest costs as little commits as
to nothing and keeps Halton Hills in a running for
substantial federal funding. We should always be pursuing opportunities to
bring outside dollars into our community and reduce the burden
on local taxpayers. There, Lawler. I guess my question to
staff is given the deadline. Is it possible to change
the EOI as it's currently constituted. Is there time to
make this, um, two DOM solution. Um, as part of
the proposal. That it would be needed to be done
in a day. So can you fill us in on
that a little bit. So through the chair to the
mayor, there is no deadline on the expression of interest.
The deadline only pertains to a full application. And that
was July 15th. I see. Okay. And so we don't
really have a submission date necessarily on the EOI. Through
the chair to the mayor, that's correct. All right. Sure.
Thank you. All right. So we have Councillor Bras. Thank
you, Chair Obano. I'll further to that, Heather. Can you
give us an idea of the soonest date that we
could submit that EOI with the amended judome solution. And
do you want me to put that date in the
direction to staff. The sooner we get that in, the
better, obviously. So through the chair to the Councillor, staff
would be working on modifying the costing and just modifying
the actual proposal to show the demand for the two
DOM solution. Um, so, but a two to three week
turnaround. Yeah. Is what it is. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Are there any other questions. So we have the
amendment on the floor. We need to vote on that.
And then we'll receive the memory. Oh, a direction of
staff. So all in favor. You have one more question.
Yes. Thank you, Chair about it. I just want to
make sure to include that we schedule a special counsel
meeting in advance. Okay. So all in favor, not amendment.
Direct. Car. And then, um, to receive the memorandum. All
in favor. Uh, hands up again. Okay. Carrie. Thank you.
All right. Uh, and then item H is the other,
um, uh, the delegation and it's regarding the exceptionary request
from the noise by law. Uh, at
13434, 20 second side road. And it's an item report
number admin 2026 024. H.
The report is B 92B. A Zimbob.
9 to be.
Oh, have you got the report now? Okay. All right.
So, um, uh, just me del Wally. She's online. She'll
be making a presentation regarding this item. Just meet if
you're online. Can you hear us? I can hear you,
Chair. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead.
Proceed. You have five minutes. Okay. Thank you so much
for that. We have an engagement party on August 15th
starting at 6 p. m. And we filled out this
application because we believe it might go over time until
1231 a. m. It is a party of 100 people.
And since it's quite a bit of people, it's too
much for our house. So we plan to put a
tent outside. We have hired a DJ to host the
event and he will be bringing two speakers. And they
will be facing our neighbour and we have already talked
to him. And he has no issue with it, but
just to be on the safe side, we have built
out this application. There will also be a dance floor
installed. And the party will end at 1. 8. That
is it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there
any questions for just me. Council Somerville. Yes, thank you.
It's to the delegation. Thank you for being here tonight.
And for waiting out a very long meeting for all
of us. But, um, it's just a concern I have
as one of the councillors for the areas. We've been
consistent on the time of allowing it till 11 p.
m. on a lot of other applications. And I'm just
wondering if that would be satisfactory to you if we
did allow that, um, the, um, 211 p. m. Is
it possible to push it by one hour? We can
do 12, we can send everyone home at midnight. With
1 a. m. to a lady. In my mind. And
if you're a neighbour getting the noise, they would even
say that midnight is a bit late, um, no, I
just wondered if, uh, the flexibility of that on, on
your end, because I know you're straight as a very
private street where you're located down on the private part
of 22nd side road. That's why I wanted to find
out. Yes. And before we decided on hosting this party,
we did talk to our neighbours and they so far
have shown no concern. But just to cover everything and
make sure there is no complaint in the future, that
is why we filled out this application. Okay. Thank you.
And again, thank you for being here tonight. Thank you.
Thank you Council Sarah. Uh, Councillor Kimball. Uh, thank you
Mr. Chair. I propose an amendment to, uh, 12 PM
to midnight. Since that seemed to be agreeable to the
resident. When we bring the report forward, you can propose
the amendment. We're right now. We just have a conversation
with. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mayor. Yes. I'd just
like to confirm, have you talked to all your neighbours.
About this and did you propose a time. To them.
We have talked to our next door neighbours because the
rest of the houses are very, um, a little bit
more separated. And we have no backdoor neighbours, but we
were hoping once this application does get approved, we will
be letting, um, the other four neighbours on the street
know that we will be throwing a party. But we
have only talked to our next or neighbours who are
in close approximately to us. Thank you. Are there any
other questions. If not, we'll bring thee a report forward
and we can discuss the report. And the objections to
that. Council Kimbalm, you had, uh, you had an amendment
to the, uh, there. That's correct. Go ahead. To move
the, uh, to, to, to change the, the, um, date
at the time from one a. m. to midnight. It
feels like it's been typed right now. Tw amendment. To
midnight from 1 a. m. Okay.
So, um, the amendment to change it to, uh, 12
rather than one o'clock. We'll vote on the amendment. Only
favor. Okay. And, uh, on the report, only fever. And
it's carried.
All right. Uh, we're now back to, um, so all
the delegations and presentations are being completed. It's complete. I'm
not going back to report item C. Which is the,
um, CES 2026. And it's the, uh. Corporate emergency service
report dated July 13, 2026 regarding distribution and funding 2025
final operating budget position. I believe the Council Bryce held
that report. Council Brass. Thank you, uh, chair. I don't
have it in front of me. Is that the, is
that the one with the surplus? Cause the hell too.
Oh, thank you very much. So, uh, through you chair
to staff, uh, one question, I have several questions. First
one would be that, uh, very little from savings in
other departments. And I wondered what corporate revenue was. And
with that answer, if then one component of corporate revenue,
what was the breakdown. Through the chair to the Councillor.
So the primary drivers of, uh, the corporate revenue liner,
um, penalty and interest revenue. And supplemental tax revenue. Um,
I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but if
I remember correctly penalty and interest is about 800, 000
of it. And, uh, 300 or so, um, supplementary revenue
for taxes. Through you, Chair, the treasure. Is the, would
some of that be the automated camera for the tickets
that we had? Or is that not included in this?
That's not included in this number. So other penalties. So
like on your taxes. So yeah. Okay. And I see
some of the, um, funds when automatically to library reserve
fund, et cetera. So some of that, uh, surplus obligatory
elsewhere. Yeah. Through the Chair to the Councillor. In our
reserve and reserve fund policy, uh, the library surplus is
transferred to the library reserve. Great. And through the chair,
uh, the remaining 1. 1 million. Uh, that, that's being
recommended to go to the tax stabilization fund. Does it
need to go to the tax stabilization fund or does
can Council give direction on that money to go elsewhere?
Through the chair to the Councillor, I would say meat
does it have to go there. No. The caveat being,
um, that's kind of a slippery slope to deviate from
that. Um, for the reserve and reserve fund policy, uh,
gives the treasurer discretion to direct that the monies to
whichever reserve necessary. So based on balance and so on
and so forth, um, historically deficits have been funded from
the tax rate stabilization reserves. So it's suiting that we
would send a surplus to the same place. Um, in
addition to that Council in the last several meetings has
approved reports that are going to draw or have the
potential to rock quite substantially on the tax rate stabilization
reserve. So, um, we have to be mindful of that
as well. In addition, our, our reserve financial indicator has
significantly declined since, uh, 2019. Um, we are on an
upward trend now, but we're definitely not out of the
woods and we aren't where we were in 2019 and
we're far below what the average is for a municipality
of our size. So I would just caution that if
that is the will of council, uh, it may not
be in the best financial interest of the town. Through
the chair to the treasurer, I'm not suggesting that's the
will of Council. Just trying to understand the mechanisms and
the liberty that Council has on this money. And so
having said that, uh, if Council has some discretion, for
example, not the will of Council, but for example, could
Council direct this surplus to, if our EOI was, uh,
accepted or if the federal government says, great, put a
plan in quickly what your funding source. Could somewhere all
of this money be directed to, to help fund that
UI. Through the chair to the Councillor, uh, yes, I
would, my recommendation would be to leave it as is,
send it the tax rate stabilization reserve in the future.
If we have to make funding decisions, um, if Council
decided to use some of the tax rate stabilization to
reserve to fund that project, that could be a recommendation
of Council. PON. One final question chair to the treasure.
And maybe the CIO. If we're going to schedule a
special counsel meeting in anticipation of a positive reply by
the feds, what it makes sense to hold off on
this decision until that meeting in case it needs to
be part of the funding conversation. I know you said
we could take it from that fun, but that's another
step we would maybe we could avoid. Threw it. Through
the chair to the Councillor. Not really because it holds
up the whole entire year end of the municipality. So
this is the distribution of the surplus. So until these
entries are made, we can't close the 2025 fiscal year.
So our audit is done. You've approved our financial statements.
Um, this money has to go somewhere. So you have
to send it to reserves if you're not allocating it
to a project at this point. So Council would also
have to make the decision to spend it. So I
think you're safe to send it to the reserve. And
in the future, that money is going to be there
and less count as otherwise spent that money. Okay. Through
the chair. Mr. Mills. Yep. Yeah. Thank you. And through
the chair to the council, just building on our treasurer's
comments. I think what we have to realise is the
overall funding strategy, if we were successful, uh, to move
on to the full application for the eighth line park
and the two dome solution would be significantly more than
the amount we're putting into the tax rate stabilization through
this report. So it'll be a multiple. There'll be lots
of components that, uh, our treasure will have to put
together in order to get to what our overall funding
commitment would be, which would be the entire amount of
the project minus what the federal contribution would be. Um,
notwithstanding the fact that we know that there could be
or likely is external monies from the sports groups available.
We would have to show the government as part of
the application that we're backstopping the entire amount until the
agreements with those, uh, with those entities as to the
funding. So when you look at the overall project, um,
the funding strategy would at least an approval stage, uh,
for the application would need to be our, the town's
hundred percent. So it could be part of the tax
rate stabilization, but there may be other elements as our
treasurer and his team go through the financing options that
he may lay out for Council. And just to reiterate
what Joey said, by putting it in tax rate stabilization
now, it does not preclude the removal of tax of
it from tax rate stabilization in the future. So you're
not, you're not precluding. You're not precluding that action by
approving this report today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That fully satisfies my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Council
Bryce. Uh, we have two other speakers. Councillor Kimball. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I think this is sound fiscal management.
One time surpluses should strengthen our reserves, not fund, ongoing
spending. Building the tax rate stabilization reserve helps protect taxpayers
and improves the towns long - term financial resilience. Thank
you, Council Count. And, uh, and Councillor Keena had a
question. Thank you, Chair. And following on the same theme,
just so we know we're talking about here. Um, what
are the actual numbers? What's in the tax rate stabilization
fund now. Uh, and you said it's below where you
would recommend we should be for a municipality of our
size. And what would that number look like, I don't
mind. Through the chair to the Councillor. It's just over
10 million, uh, right now. And, uh, it should be
in the area of, uh, 10 to 20 percent of
our annual budget. So yeah, so about 15 to 20
million. That's very helpful. Thank you. All right. Are there
any other questions. There are none. The reports on the
table. We need a move or two. So moved by
Councillor Bryce holy in favor. Carried.
All right. We have two more items. One on this
area. And then one on the consent item. Council Keane,
you held F report F. Thank you, Chair. I did.
This is the Green asset management report. I want to
some clarification on this. If you don't mind straight to
the commissioners of Walski. My memory serves me correctly. When
we originally were presented with this report, our memo, whatever
it was, uh, for approval or acceptance a few months
ago, there was a pretty clear statement made at that
time. And I consulted with other Councillors who seemed to
recall the same thing. We were told that there was
absolutely no financial implications to what we were proving at
that time. Is that correct? Was that what we were
told. Through the Chair of the Council? I've already called
Collecting at the time Council just received a status update
on the report on the project. And today you're receiving
the actual report for seeking council's in principle approval of
the report. And there is no financial implications today also.
Okay. So maybe I'm misreading it because I don't recall
seeing this in the original. Sort of status report or
whatever it was that we approved originally where it's pretty
clear recommendation that we endorse scenario two. So - called
sustained scenario. Which will very clearly, it says right here,
Scenario 2 would require an additional investment of about 800,
000 dollars annually. Recognises Halloween's financial position. A lot of
current cancer view prior to the Affordable Actional Effective Approach.
Arguably the Council Direct staff to develop a tenure implementation
plan. So that's 10 times 800, 000. Eventually, right? Um,
and the report to Council later date, an interim to
maintain momentum and infusible actions will be considered as part
of the 2027 budget as appropriate. That concerns me. That
sounds like there ask. For the 2027 budget. In and
around the 800, 000 dollar level. Am I wrong to.
Have my radar up on that one? 33, I changed
that Councillor. No, excellent question. So no, I do not
anticipate that Council will CN - 800, asking the budget
What we are doing with Townstaff is looking for any
opportunities through other efficiencies or allocation of resources where we
can continue to advance the plan. If it's approved by
Councilman Principal today, why are we developed a 10 year
plan for that scenario too that would come back to
Council with recommendations about how to implement that 10 year
plan? So no, I do not foresee at 800, 000
dollar ask for 2027. I'd feel a lot more comfortable
with that number was removed from this report then. If
that's okay. I think it's very specific. And I can
see things changing when the budget comes to us with
a new Council. Which will be dealing with. Also just
for. Additional commentary. Scenario 2 sustained. Seems to me translates
into people. We'll just continue with the status quo. And
if that's the case, how come we're looking at an
additional almost millions of dollars if we're not changing anything.
If we're just doing what we're doing already. Which is
scenario too. I just don't see what this eat in
a thousand dollars is coming from and I don't like
it, frankly. Thank you for the question again. Councillor, if
I may, I'll ask Catherine to come up and maybe
explain what the differences between scenario one and scenario two,
because they are different and require different, uh, different actions.
Thank you. Um, through the chair to the Councillor. Thank
you for the question. So first scenario too, um, those
are management activities that are required to maintain levels of
service over the next 10 years and asset condition over
the next 10 years. Um, in the face of threats,
um, like environmental change, so invasive species, um, storm events
as well as growth. Um, so there are some improvements
that would be seen under scenario too. Um, but it's
mostly that it's the 800, 000 is the average annual
funding gap over the 10 years. Um, various management actions
to address things like risk, um, and growth. And the,
the GMP, like the plan itself, um, does include financial
projection section that breaks down those costs by asset type,
um, and by activity. Thank you for that. Um, yeah,
I'm still not satisfied with that answer. I'm sorry. Um,
there's no evidence that things are changing in such a
way. And certainly not provided in this report that we
need to put come up with the next year 800,
000 dollars to essentially maintain. It says maintain. Not enhance.
Um, what we have now. So given the, what I
see is some inconsistencies in this report and the implication
that we're going to be being asked for to approve
an 800, 000 dollar annual increase to our budget. When
the things out there that we need a lot more.
Right now, like a two dome solution, for example. I'd
rather see money being allocated towards that. I'm going to
propose that we defer this report until, uh, the next
Council session. Uh, we, uh. We don't address it today.
That's my motion is to propose a deferral, Mr. Chair.
Thank you Council Keen. Are there any other questions. Council
Kimbal? Just a matter of procedure, would I address to
the deferral, would I speak to the, uh, original report.
I think you could speak to the report right now.
That's what we're doing. Yes, we haven't voted on the.
Furest on the floor. Sorry. I speak to the pro.
Yes. Speak on the two of the deferral and then
we'll deal with the, with the report. Yeah. Thank you.
Yeah. Um, when, when the, uh, the auditors were up
here a while ago, they acknowledged that Canadian public sector
accounting, uh, that they recognised that the, uh, the reliability
of measuring national or natural capital within conventional financial statements
that remained difficult. So I think before a committing an
additional 800, 000 each year, I think, uh, we need
to have a clear understanding exactly what taxpayers will receive,
including specific projects, staff requirements and measurable results. So my
question is if staff could now at this stage provided
detailed breakdown of what the additional 800, 000 dollars annually
would actually purchase and what measurable improvements residents should expect.
Yeah. Stuff. Catherine. Through the chair to the Councillor. So
the 800, 000 dollars, um, it is broken out in
the green infrastructure asset management plan, um, it's done so
in an even more detailed way, um, in a work
sheet that the consultants used for their financial projections. Um,
so that could be provided if desired. Um, but in
terms of generally what activities we're looking at, um, there
was a second attachment with the report that detailed examples
of activities in scenario, um, too. So invasive species management
more frequent pruning of mature trees. Um, so residents would
see natural areas, um, improving in condition with invasive species
being removed as well as over time healthier, more mature
trees and less damage after storm events. Um, as some
examples. And the intent of the report, like the 800,
000 dollar funding gap is highlighted. But, um, the intent
isn't, um, for that to be an ask like associated
with this report. It's, um, this report recommends that staff
are directed to develop a 10 year implementation plan work
plan that would each year be, um, considered through the
annual budget process. And so, um, as the commissioner said,
it wouldn't be the 800, 000 dollars up front There
would be certain priorities item priority items phased in.
Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah, I mean, um, I'm looking,
maybe this is too premature. I mean, I'm looking for
a tangible financial benefits for the town. I mean, I
think we're maybe a risk of losing, of not seeing
the force for the trees, much of the discussion is
on tree planting and invasive species. But in order to
justify for taxpayers, I need, we, I, I honestly believe
we need to spell out, uh, exactly, uh, clearly what
the tangible benefits are. So, um, leave it at that.
And we can discuss it if when it comes up.
Yeah. Um, commissioner Swallowski wants to, uh, add some comments
to that. Thank you, Chairman, building on the question earlier
from Councillor Kimbaum. Just a reminder that the asset management
regulations in Ontario require us to consider green acid manage.
Green acid management. And that's what's in front of Councillor
today. So in order for us to be in full
compliance, we need, uh, we're looking for councils approval, at
least in principle of the report. The report presents three
scenarios to Council. The details in terms of the questions
you're asking Councillor in terms of the KPIs, the specific
actions. That's what staff would go back and develop for
the 10 year implementation plan. The reason we're asking for
guidance around scenario three is that would shape the 10
year action plan. When we bring the 10 year action
plan and Council, you know, has other suggestions disagrees with
it. That's would be the time where we would actually
amend the details of how the plan would be developed,
implemented and what the cost would be. But we really
need to be in compliance with the regulations and the
10 year plan with the details that you're seeking would
be the next step. The final comment. No, I agree
with you. I think green infrastructure is really infrastructure. Uh,
but it must be managed with the same financial discipline
that we expect for prejudice and roads. I think before
we commit substantial funds, um, we do need to know
exactly how those funds will be allocated. I think that's
our responsibility. Thank you. Thank you Council Campbell. Councillor Bras.
Thank you, chair, through you to. Staff. In light of
Councillor Keene's deferral. Proposal. I'm still confused. With what exactly
the ask is since getting into this conversation. So, uh,
I agree with Councillor Keene that when this was first
brought to our attention not too long ago, the intent
and asked was more of FYI and knowledge. Not we're
going to need a monumental amount of money in a
very short period of time. And is this report asking
Council to commit any funds to this. Or not? Or
not? So thank you, Councillor. Through this report. No, not
directly. What we're seeking is to Council to, in principle,
which was one of the requests from Council Had the
Prior meeting when we discussed this, recognising the timing we're
in this year is just in principle approval of the
report, which is very technical. And then endorsement of staff
to go away and develop an implementation plan with all
the details that Councillor Kimball was asking for that would
lay out a 10 year plan. And we would be
back in front of Council, probably the new Council to
say in order to implement scenario two, these are the
specific actions. This specific annual budget request and see councils
review in a provide that time. So today we are
not seeking any budget approval from Council. We're seeking in
principle providing the plan. And we're seeking direction to go
away and develop a 10 year implementation plan that will
have the budget and we'll have the actions attached to
it. Okay. So to me, it sounds. Like money cloaked
and mystery as well. So I have to agree that
it sounds ambiguous on, I'm sorry, maybe I'm not, I
didn't read it right or I'm not getting the correct
explanation. But if we're agreeing to a framework to put
together a plan that's going to be involved in the
budget coming up, then that's asking to be asking Council
for money. So it's, so it is asking Council for
money, but it's about the question mark is how much
money. And the 800, 000 is just highlighting what the
current gap is. So I understand the hesitation in this.
And is there a way to clean up the language.
That would satisfy Council instead of the deferral? Or, I
mean, I only got up to Councillor King. It's histopharal,
but, uh, I'm equally as confused, quite be quite honest.
I'll try to clarify Councillor through the chair. Please ask
me any or Catherine additional questions. That would help out.
But again, we're seeking the approval of the plan in
principle because that will put us in compliance with the
regulations, which require consideration of green assets, just like we
have plans developed where our roads and bridges and playgrounds
and parks that's already been approved by Council. And we
have been developing plans to carry out that plan. Currently,
we do not have a plan to manage our green
assets. Our tree canopy and all our parks and so
on. So that's what Council is approving or hopefully approving
in principle today. We're not presenting today in front of
Council In terms of what are the detailed actions that
would be required to implement that plan? Because we need
to go away and develop that plan in more detail.
And it'll be a 10 year plan. And that's when
we would come back with, this is the associated budget,
but we are saying in the report that scenario two,
which we're recommending as the scenario to be implemented, has
an average annual cost of 800, 000 dollars That does
not mean that that's the recombination will bring back, but
it gives staff, our framework to work within because each
of this scenarios has a different annual gap associated with
it. And we are not planning to bring an 800,
000 dollar asks to the 2027 budget because we're not
going to be in front of Council before. The end
of this year with the 10 year plan. So that
will be for the next Councillor Trump to consider the
actual plan to implement. Thank you, Chair, through you. I'd
be curious to hear from Councillor Keene if there's. An
amendment to the language that would satisfy rather than a
deferral, just like to hear that. That commentary, please. Go
ahead, Council King. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Bryce.
No, I mean, I'm not saying no, not ever. I'm
just saying not tonight. Because they don't believe the specifics,
particularly the Councillor Kimbalms are questioning, hard numbers, the same
kind of accuracy that we see when we're dealing with
grey assets. That's not in this report. I read it
over for the consultants'report. It's a very nonspecific. The numbers
don't, there are no numbers to add up. In terms
of benefits or post a cost. And with all respect,
Councillors - Zabolski, you say we're not being asked to
endorse anything, but the language is very clear. It says
right here, staff recommend the Council endorse scenario 2. With
an estimated cost, blah, blah, blah, 800, 000. We approve
this report. We're essentially giving you what you're recommending, approval
of scenario too. I'm sorry. Deferret. Till the next council.
You've heard some of the comments from councillors here. They
don't appear to be satisfied. That the business case have
been made for this. And. That's, but the reason for
my deferral. And the other areas in this as well,
but I mean, that's the main point. There's no reason
we can't defer this. Until Council Returns. Through. Yes, go
ahead, Catherine. Sorry through the chair. Um, so I just
wanted to clarify one thing, which is that the green
infrastructure asset management plan, um, it includes three management scenarios.
And there is no recommendation in the plan itself for
scenario two or for one over the other. It just
gives us all the information we need to make informed
decisions like other asset management plans. And so the staff
recommendation, um, to endorse scenario two is based on, um,
the fact that that scenario, um, you know, all three
scenarios are associated with various implications for the residents and
for the services that they derive from green assets and
scenario, um, was the scenario that would allow those benefits
that residents derived to be sustained. And so that was
the scenario selected to be recommended in the staff report.
However, if we were to amend the staff report, um,
that language in the staff report specifically, um, the plan
could still be approved, um, without approving that scenario specifically.
I asked the question again. What's the rush. Just go
back. We'll defer until the next meeting rework it, come
back. You know, I just find an office suspicious that
the Halton Hills today article from a climate corner ends
with the following paragraph. Open the whole articles of a
green asset management. And at the very end, it implors
the citizens of our grid burger, a good Berke. If
you're concerned about sustaining or enhancing our green infrastructure assets,
contact your councillors and let them know that you support
allocating money to do so. Wonderful. It's funny coincidence that,
eh? Sounds like it was an agenda here to me.
And I don't, it doesn't pass a smell test. Let's
have a, um, Councillor Zabowski replied. Commissioner, not Councillor yet.
But thank you. That's been a long night, long afternoon.
If I can make a suggestion, Councillor or to Council
and the chair, if you're building on what Catherine just
said, if you, if Councillor to approve or approve the
actual attachment, the report itself, the Green infrastructure, Estimate Plan
in principle, without the second recommendation or the second part
that says the specific scenario two, we would still have
the plan and we can go away and develop a
10 year plan. And look at all the three sets.
We can re - look at all the three scenarios
and develop a plan that best fits without Council specifically
improving scenario two. And the attachment itself, like after mentioned,
doesn't recommend a specific scenario. It's downstaff that are recommending
the specific scenario. So that way we meet our obligations.
And Council is not committing to any specific scenario until
you hear back from us in the term about an
actual plan to implement. I still don't understand what the
Russia is. Just clean this up and bring it back
in the next meeting. If we're not, is there a
deadline to comply with OREG - 155 - 18? And
how many other communities of complied? Yes, Councillor, so through
the chair, I believe by July 1st of next year,
we have to have an annual report about implementation. And
again, the attachment is the plan. The scenarios are there.
But if you just approve the plan, we meet our
requirements and we can go away and develop plan. There
is no more edits or updates to be made to
the attachment itself. Really where the work needs to happen
is in the 10 year plan. If we don't have
the plan approved, we can develop a 10 - year
plan. So we'll be kind of stuck. We won't be
any more work that we can undertake. So to be
clear, we were talking about just approving the plan is
that the consultants plan that we've been presented with. Not
staff plan. That's correct. Councillor. So you would be in
principle approving the attachment, the lengthy document that's attached. I'll
vote to receive it. I'm not going to vote to
approve it without staff giving their professional report attached to
it. Sorry. So through the chair councillor, the staff report
is our commentary on the professional consulting report. Which I've
already pointed out has language in it, which I cannot
accept. Okay, thank you. We got a list of speakers
here. So just stick to the, uh, the people that
actually had their hands up. So Councillor Hillston. Yes, Mr.
Chair, thank you. You know, following the conversation. I mean,
really we're coming near to the end of this Council
term and Sturf need to have something to do for
the next six months who are assigned to do this.
And we need something by next July. So, I mean,
looking at the clauses here. So, um, commissioner. So are
you, are you saying so that in the second, so
the first claw stays the same. The third clause stays
the same, but it's the, and further that Council proved
the green infrastructure asset management plan in principle. And then
you, and then we stop. You take out the part
about the 10 year inflammation implementation plan at that point?
Or is I enough just having the first part of
that clause. Thank you, Councillor, for the chair. I think
the simplest thing from our perspective would be to delete
the words for this, for the sustained scenario two, out
of the Second Recommendation. That way you're approving the report
and principle. And directing staff to report with a 10
year implementation plan without endorsing a specific scenario. Right? So
that's when we come back and you can see the
specific actions. You can see the specific budget, but you
are not telling us to build a plan around 800,
000 dollars our year. All right. Uh, thank you for
that. So I think the furl on the floor. So,
uh, so I won't support the deferral if there was
an amendment to that like that, I would support that.
Thank you. All right. So we're still dealing with the
referral and there's more questions about that referral. And then
we'll, we'll deal with other things that come up. Sorry,
Mr. Chair. Just a point of procedure. Is it a
referral or a deferral? I believe it was a deferral.
Thank you. That's what I thought too. Thank you. Uh,
Councillor Fogle. Here we go. I always have trouble finding
the mic. Um, yeah. I think we need to, uh,
allows Dov to move ahead. I mean, as that manager,
the green assets are important and they do require looking
after. I mean, even every lawn has to get looked
after. Every tree has to be looked after. Just to
maintain what we've got. It made it sound like, Oh,
we don't need any money. We'll just keep what we've
got. But these are living, growing things that within base
of species and so on coming in. We're going to
have to invest something and we know how, how much
this functions to help the town function that doesn't exist.
Then we've got a big problem, especially with floods. So,
um, uh, I like the ideas that, uh, the commissioners
brought forward to make it less specific around funding, but
lots of proven principle the plan and let them get
on with it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Fogle. Council
Keen, you had a question before, but I believe that,
uh, major comments or do you have an additional? I
had you on the list. What other speakers? Okay. Thank
you. Uh, Council Garnel.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you to staff.
So. It's getting late. Um, but I'm wondering if we
can just back a little bit and can you explain
the intent of the provincial regulation? Like why is the
province asking municipalities that we have to do this in
the first place. Sure. Through the chair to the Councillor.
Thank you. Um, so the intent of the green infrastructure
asset management plan and the intent for green infrastructure to
be included in the legislation is that green assets also
require the same understanding to be able to make informed
decisions about investing in them. Um, they're critical infrastructure from
municipalities like grey assets. Um, and they like grey assets.
Are, you know, they have risks associated with their service
delivery. They provide critical services to residents. And, you know,
they provide value to the community. And so it's important
that we bring them into the same asset management framework
as grey assets so that we can make, um, informed
decisions about investing in them and ensure that we're protecting
the assets as well as the services that they provide
that are very important. And so in the report, I
see that, um. There's some numbers here, like 140 million
dollars in avoided Strawater Management costs every year. So if
we don't do anything and we don't address this and
the quality of those, um. Ecosystems that are managing that
stormwater erode through, as you mentioned, invasive species, development, um,
climate change, then it's going to end up costing us
a lot more money in grey infrastructure. Or floods or
emergency situations. Is that part of the philosophy behind this?
Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you. Um, so going to
the deferral, I don't, I don't see in the actual
recommendation anywhere that says. 800, 000 dollars a year. Like
that seems like it's stated further down in the report
as this is what it might be. And my understanding
is that the intent of the next step is for
you to get a very clear MOPTO detail. Like the
what Councillor Kimbalm was asking for. That's what would come
to us in the second phase. Is that correct? Yes.
Okay. That's correct. So I will not be supporting the
deferral, but I would support the, if it, if it
pleases Council and it's easier to accept going forward, I
would be fine with the removal of the sustained scenario
too. Um, and I wonder what kind of, like, I
know that we're also behind, I believe, in passing this.
Like we, the province wanted us to have something in
place already. Is that correct? Yes. Let's correct. Okay. So
if we wait again, until next Council term before new
Council looks at this. Are there any, like that would
put us even further behind with what the province has
directed us to do. Yes. Okay. Um, thank you. And
the last speaker that I have on my list is
Councillor Norris. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I've
been going through this over and over and over again
and listening to all the comments as well. Um, before
I get to my opinion on what we've been talking
about, I want to scale or go down towards the
bottom where we talked about public engagement. Public engagement has
been conducted as follows the online survey, open house, PIC
workshops, stakeholder meeting. At any time with the questions, and
I'm not sure who should get this, whether it be
commissioner or Catherine. Was there any time in the questions
where the public understood that it was going to be
around 800, 000 dollars a year just to move forward
with what we're talking about here. Through the chair to
the Councillor. Thank you for that question. Um, so in
terms of our public survey, that was done early on
in the process in May 2025. Um, and it had,
I think 17 questions, um, in the public survey, 107
people responded, um, and there was very widespread support for
increased investment in green assets. Um, so there were questions
about that. And, um, you know, we explain the context.
And there was widespread support for that. Um, in our
community workshop that we held in June, um, we also
described that there would be increased investment required. Um, we
didn't get into specific numbers. And with the open house,
um, that was also held in June, um, which unfortunately
wasn't as well attended. But, um, the poster boards were
later put online as well. Um, we didn't include specific
numbers in that is either, but we described that there
would be increased investment required. Okay. Um, so no numbers,
but that there would be increased on investment. I think
I'm going to go back to the contentious part here
with staff recommends to Council Endors Scenario 2. Um, I
can't help but think that there needs to be a
lot more before I would support using the word endorse.
Um, in there, as I read through it, what I
see is we're endorsing that. It's a 10 year implementing.
Too late for that word implementation plan. And report back
to Council Later Date in the interim to Main Momentum,
any feasible actions will be considered as part of the
2027 budget. I'm not convinced that the majority of people
in Halton Hills are even aware of this. I believe
that there's certain element of people that were part of
the online survey. You even said that the workshop wasn't
that well - attended. I would like to see more
details on what was said, uh, on the survey. Why
we didn't get that many people in the workshop. But
I'm going to have to agree with Councillor Keene here
is I can't endorse scenario to, I need to see
the wording drastically changed before I can support that. So
either we do drastically change this report. Or I would
agree with Councillor Keane that we need to defer this
to a later time. So sorry, there's too many questions.
And if I'm being asked on behalf of all of
the residents in Halton Hills, I don't believe all of
the residents in Halton Hills would be jumping. Um, through
hoops to move forward with this. So I think we
need to be clear. So thank you. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. I do have you on the
list Council King, but Councillor Salmon was before you. So
Councillor Salva. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I asked the
question. I need some clarification because I want to make
sure I have the language right. What was said between
Catherine and Damian. So I wanted you had, I think
Damian had said that we have to have the plan
passed by next July. But then in Catherine's response to
Councillor Garnot, sound like we are already behind. So I'm
curious when by our provincial requirement is that we have
a plan in place. Is it next July or is
it something that we have to have done sooner. Catherine.
Through the chair to the Councillor. So under OREG -
588 - 17 municipalities were required to have asset management
plans for all assets, including green infrastructure that include current
and proposed levels of service, state - of - the
- infrastructure and financial strategy and lifecycle management strategies by
July 1st, 2025. And so this plan includes all of
those elements. Um, so that deadline has passed. And that's
what, you know, this plan is working to meet. Um,
but as the commissioner said, there are annual reports that
need to be completed as well under that regulation. Um,
that happened and need to be prepared by July as
well. So that's what we're looking at for next year
in July. It was the two July that threw me
off. So I guess the other thing I would, I
would ask is, you know, when we're looking at the
report, I got to flip back over to, uh, eScribe
now. I think it was kind of suggested. And I'm
wondering instead of deferring it outright that we keep the,
the very first part that's there. But after it says
direct staff to report back with a phase 10 year
implementation plan period. And stop there and drop the rest.
I know that was kind of suggested. Because that does
have where we improve it in principle. But it has
the implementation plane coming back. And it would be to
the next Council. So, um, either to Damian or to
Catherine, if that would be acceptable to do it that
way where we approve it in principle and we direct
staff to report back with the phase 10 year implementation
plan, if that would satisfy the requirements under those regulations
and would allow us to keep moving before midnight. Through
the Cheryl 2 Council, some of those, yes, it would.
Okay. Thank you. That's something to consider. I don't know
where I'm going to go on this yet, but I
think that might be the way to go. You can
see my hair is already standing up on edge. Um,
but, uh, that might be the best way to go.
And maybe that's something Councillor King could consider. I know
he said he had some issues with it with, uh,
that. But it's still the report. And we don't historically
change what's in the staff report except for the recommendations
that are there in contained. Thank you Council Somerville. Council
Keen, you're next. Well, it's good timing. Dr. Councillor Somerville's
recommendation. Could I just get the wording and where that
is in the report, how that would be done. Some
are, Vil. I'm flipping between two screens here to make
sure I had better internet. I would have it that
it would say that Council approved the green asset infrastructure
asset management plan in principle. And direct staff to report
back with a phase 10 year implementation plan. Period. And
then the third operative clause would remain. So there would
be a period after implementation plan. The rest would be
struck. Then that allows the new Council would be able
to have a look at it. And we've also approved
it in principle and we can sort out the details
down the road. So everything after. Further. Gets struck. After
plan, 10 year implementation planned, then it would be struck
after that. But the third, the third one would actually
remain the third operative clause would remain. Cause it's required
under the regulations. I know Mr.
Chair, I'm not really speaking to the deferral, but it's
just what I would suggest. Well, I'll remove the deferral.
If we, I don't like this doing this on the
fly. Right. Like it's late at night and we're being
asked to deal with some pretty specific language. Right. So
it'd be nice to see the wording. So we could
sort of make a decision on it. If it's acceptable,
we're withdraw the deferral. We, if you give us a
few minutes, we'll get the warding. From Council of Somerville's
recommendation or suggestion. Clarifying a question.
Mr. Chair. All right. Um, we have another speaker first.
And again, can I get back to you on that?
Okay. Yeah. Council Garno. Thank you. Um, just a question
to staff on this suggested wording. It also takes out
the anti - consider any practical actions that may be
advanced as part of the 2027 budget as appropriate. So
understanding that some of this is the work on Fairy
Lake. Some of it is other, other things that you
may fall under funding for next year, if that's taken
out of here, would you still be able to present
an understanding that the way the budget works. Is that
Council still votes on it. Just because it's included in
the budget doesn't mean it is rubber stamped. So would
staff still be able to propose projects related to green
infrastructure asset management. In the 2027 budget that the 2027
Council can vote on. At that time. Yeah, through the
chair to the Councillor, that's a great question. Yeah, I
don't believe it would preclude us from doing that because
there's other projects that are fallen under the umbrella of
green assets. Like you mentioned Fairy Lake, which is already
something that's approved by Council. So yes, Fairy Lake touches
on. This project, but, uh, by taking that out, I
don't think it would percotheas from doing it. The way
it's written in the second class, it's just tied into
the second scenario. Essentially what it's saying is Councillor approved
a plan and principle direct us to work with scenario
two. And in the meantime, see if there appropriate for
the 2027 budget, but the way that Councillor Somerville has
proposed the amendment, we're fine. I have no concerns and
it wouldn't preclude us from identifying anything relevant in that
2027 budget. That's not tied to a 10 year plan
or a specific scenario. And just, just to be clear
again, this is provincial regulation that we're complying with, right?
So whether the population doesn't want us to do, like
doesn't want to spend money on green infrastructure, the province
is requiring municipalities to think about that in our long
- range financial plans, because the province recognises the value
of green infrastructure and the impact that it has on
municipal finances. Is that correct. That's correct, Councillor. Thank you.
Council Gamble. Just to clarifying a question. Did we remove
the reference to the 800, 000 dollars. Is that now
removed? Yeah, it was net, if I can speak for
the chair. It was never in the recommendations Councillor. Okay.
Um. My problem is that if we're approving things before
we actually, I can, I can agree with it in
principle, but the problem is if we're approving for things
without knowing exactly what services projects or tangible outcomes, I
mean, I find that difficult. I mean, if we're planting
a whole lot of new trees, they would presumably create
a whole new additional, um, ecosystem of financial obligations. So.
I'm just, uh, I'm just afraid of a mission creep
that we're committing to all these, um, without seeing a
plan. It's difficult to commit to it. Because if we're
committing to something, that'll actually increase our financial obligations down
the road that is unsustainable. That would be a problem.
All right. You can see the text on the screen.
Sorry. Council King. Yeah. Chair, alone. I had a chance
to read it. I'm satisfied with this change. It removes
any reference to recommending scenario two. And it's, uh. Attend
800, 000 dollar price tag. And also eliminates any considering
a practical actions in advance. With a budget. It just
literally just, uh, producer report. So I'll remove my differral
and I'll be prepared to support this recommendation. Thank you.
All right. So we have the recommendation on the floor.
Does everyone happy with, with, uh, with Councillor Samuel suggestion.
Recommendation. All right. So, um, if everyone's okay with that,
um, all in favor, new recommendation from Councillor Sonnenville. And
that is carried. Thank you very much. That was quite
a conversation.
All right. Um, the last item that I, that I
have here, which was under the, uh, consent item. And
it's, uh. Eight point six, which is 2027, budget approach
and process. And this is referring to the memorandum number
CES. 2026 005 is to provide Council with overview of
the approach and process being undertaken in the development of
the towns 2027 budget. Council Garnel. Yes, thank you, Chair.
It feels like perhaps a lifetime ago that I held
this report. I actually have two questions. One is to
the treasurer. And it's regarding the zero - based budgeting
approach as well as the critical needs framework. And I'm
wondering if you can tell us about these approaches and
why staff are recommending we go in that direction this
time. Through the chair to the Councillor. Great question. So,
uh, we're looking at it from a different lens this
year. So typically you would have your, uh, your base
budget from the prior year. And you would, uh, review
actual spending and see if you were in line with
the budget and tweak where necessary. Um, which is a
good approach, but also, uh, sometimes the needs of the
municipality change. So we're kind of, uh, looking at the
budget from the ground up this year to justify, uh,
the expenses based on our current service needs, uh, ensure
that, uh, what I would call base budget creep isn't
happening and that spending is aligned with the Council priorities.
And the current demand. It doesn't mean that we're rebuilding
the entire budget from scratch. Uh, it just means we're
taking a little bit more of a rigorous look at
the programs and service levels. Um, to confirm that they
deliver the value as an expected for the residents. With
respect to the critical needs framework, uh, we're reviewing requests
based on the legislative requirements, uh, health and safety obligations
and core service needs and ensuring that they still align
with, uh, the current Council priorities, uh, but understanding those
Council priorities may change in the next term of Council
when the Strategic plan is once again updated. And I'm
very supportive of this approach. And I'm wondering when it's
presented to Council, will you have a visual cue that
these are, uh, legislative requirements. These are core services like
something so that we can easily see which budget asks
are in those different categories that you mentioned. We can
take that back and ensure that we have some sort
of, uh, information in the budget package that, uh, speaks
to that. Okay. Thank you. And then, um, I have
a question for the commissioner of transportation and public works.
And this goes back to a conversation that Councillor Norris
and Councillor Fogel and I had with residents on James
Street regarding the redesign of a sidewalk and just confirming
that that project will be considered in the budget process.
Thank you through the chair to the Councillor. Uh, yeah,
so that project has been identified by staff. It'll be
considered as part of our capital planning program. Um, can't
commit. It'll come forward necessarily this year, but it is
identified in the needs, uh, within the municipality. So each
year, each budget process will go through and look for
opportunities to, um, when the right time would be and
when that can be incorporated. So it's identified. It's in
our plan, but we do have a very long list
of needs within it. Thank you very much. Councillor
Brass, you have a question. Yes. Thank you chair for
you. I'm just, uh, I have a couple of questions.
And the first would be to maybe, uh, commissioner Rahill.
And that would be, uh, with the 2027 or with
the new term coming up and some new councillors, et
cetera. How much time will be allocated for members of
Council to have meaningful discussions around the budget. And impactful
way instead of, well, again, will it come to them
pre - baked as usual, or will they actually have
some input. Uh, through the chair, the Councillor, um, so
the budget will be tabled under the Strong Mayor Powers
framework, which, uh, requires the mayor to table it by
February 1st of the year for the budget. With this
being an election year, um, the timeline that we've put
together will have a little bit of additional time from
what we're used to seeing with the budget being before
you in early December. So Council, the election will be
at the end of, uh, October, uh, with meeting scheduled
to tentatively take place with the incoming mayor, uh, post
election. And then there'll be Council Orientation through the middle
of, uh, November. Along with other meetings with, uh, senior
staff and members of Council, which will then follow along
to a budget workshop in the beginning of December. The
hope is that we'll have the budget documentation ready for
Council ahead of the Halliday break. So there's time to
review over the holidays if time permits. Um, affording the
mayor the opportunity to the table, the budget early in
January. That would start the 30 day clock, which would,
uh, bring us to the beginning of February for budget
committee and the veto period would then take place in
that early part of February until the budget was fully
adopted. Council will have the opportunity to, uh, shorten the,
uh, legislative periods, uh, at the beginning of December, but
that will, uh, that will come at a later date.
And it will just, uh, change when the budget becomes
fully adopted, maybe to be a little bit earlier in
February. But this is already going to be pushing the
timelines, uh, quite a bit further than what you, uh,
normally would see. Okay. And in previous, uh, budget years,
some have expressed frustration at the short period of time
in which to analyse a lot of information. Uh, and
I believe, uh, I believe it was Councillor Somerville that
made the suggestion at one point that the perhaps the
capital budget be tabled prior to the operating budget. To
give, cause I know the pressures in terms of getting
bids out there, et cetera, for, for, for, for big
projects. But under strong mayor power, is it possible to
break them up and have different deadlines for both budgets
and getting them in under the provincial requirement. Through the
chair to the Councillor. It's a great question. Um, I
would have to take it back with the team and
look at, uh, what that would look like and report
back to Council and see if it would make sense
and or is, uh, able to be done. But, uh,
at this time, I don't, uh, I don't know like
what that would look like in a process standpoint. Okay.
And then finally the, uh, the 6. 63 percent. I
know it's early days, but this is the preliminary target.
And can you advise. That's just what you're in the
report. It says just to keep the lights on. But,
uh, obvious question would be that it's double, that rate
of inflation. And where is this number coming from. Uh,
is that really the starting point or is there room
for Council of 2027 to move the needle on this
number. Through the chair to the Councillor. So, um, the
6. 63 percent is a very preliminary outlook. It's not,
uh, not a proposed budget, not a recommended budget. Um,
but it does reflect the pressures that are currently known
at this stage. Um, they're not, uh, these are not
inflationary. Some of it is inflationary. Yeah. But they're not
fully inflationary, um, items. In addition to that, many of
the cost drivers, they don't really align with the national
inflation rate. Align with contractual obligations and other items like
insurance. And utilities and so on and so forth. They
go up at a different pace. Uh, you have your
labour union. So QP and the fire negotiations or fire
union, sorry. Um, the increases from those two labour, uh,
bodies is much higher than that three percent. So three
percent is a gauge on certain items, but it's not
the end all be all. And then I would say
that the several items in that 6. 63 percent that
are based on prior commitments. So capital projects that have
been approved in prior budgets. That's the operating side of
them. Um. I'll leave it there. If that satisfier a
question or do you want more? Yes. That part. Thank
you, Chair. Just one more of you. Don't mind. Go
ahead. Uh. Despawn another question on my head. And that
would be if, if everything stayed the same, the region,
uh, police, et cetera, the town at 66. 3. What
would the blended rate come out to be to staff
have that number. Through the chair to the councillor? Yeah.
We have a, uh, we have that estimate. So based
on what the region is projecting at this point and
subject to change, uh, further in the budget process. They
have, uh, a 5. 4 percent combined region and police
impact. With our, uh, R6. If nothing
were to change. Thank you, Joey. Thank you, Chair. Yes.
Council or something else Council. Through the chair to the
councillor. I just, uh, Mr. Mills. Thank you, sir. Um,
just in addition to the thing that the, I'll call
it the assumptions that we've used to provide that estimate.
We did include also the, uh, the fire levy and
the state of good repair levy, which I believe gets
close to 1. 7. - ish percent. So that's in
there already. So when you, when you look at sort
of, if you took out those special levees, uh, then
we're starting to get down into the four high fours.
Uh, before we start to really get into that detailed
analysis that, uh, that Councillor Garnell last about on the
zero - based budgeting and they're looking at the critical
elements, this is really, our goal was not, again, and
I think Joey, sorry, the treasurer outlined it really well.
This, this isn't a target in any way. This is
just preliminary estimates based on what we know today. And.
We felt it very important to be able to transparently
show all of those numbers now so that there was
no confusion later on. Thank you. Great Council Serumville. Well,
it's four of a comment, Mr. Chair, and it was
disappointment that you get to page five before it even
mentions that the strong mayor's budget. It should have been
in the title because that's how the budget process is.
It's a lot of it is out of the hands
of Council. And I do appreciate that the treasurer's response
mentioned that, uh, I think that's an important part for
anyone who is looking at the budget is that, uh,
the budget process has changed dramatically. Into the undemocratic strong
mayor powers that the province has instilled upon us in
their infinite wisdom. Thank you Council Songhill. Madam Mayor. Yeah.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. And I'm wondering if staff
could describe a little bit more about the zero -
based budgeting approach. I quite like this approach too. Um,
it is probably more work than we've been used to
in the last few years. And, um, it's my sense
that it does, as you described, provide a bit of
a ground up analysis of ensuring that the programs that
were funding are truly delivering the kinds of services and
so forth that we want. I'm wondering when staff do
present the budget to Council. And I think this picks
up a little bit on Councillor Brass'comment about the amount
of time needed. To really delve into the budget with
some vigour. Will staff be able to provide some comparative
analysis about, um, uh, and rankings, perhaps, that show the
cost of various programs. And what the impacts might be
if we kept them in or took them out. And
this could range anything from grass cutting to road paving
to recreation programs to capital investments. Is that something when
you're doing the zero - based budgeting approach. You would
be able to share with Council. At some level. Through
the chair to the mayor, um, great question a lot
to unpack in that question. Um, we are going to
have to take it back and think about it that
a little bit. One of the comments I can make
right now is, uh, we don't, uh, currently track things
on, I shouldn't say track. It's the wrong word. We
in a full program by program manner. We don't allocate
overhead to programs in that manner. We're not set up
to do so. Um, it's something that we've talked about
and we're looking to move in somewhat of that direction.
So we won't have all the information at our fingertips
to be able to look at it from that lens.
Um, but other than that, I would have to take
it back and, uh, discuss that with the team. Well,
and just, I mean, I'm conscious. Like switching budgeting systems,
which is I think kind of what you're suggesting is
a bit of a deal. Um, administratively. And, and while
I said, I like the approach. I'm conscious that it's
probably a significant amount of work. And, um, but by
the same token, having some of that analysis available to
members of Council to be able to really, you know,
as we said, drill down and understand how, how various
services and programs are ranked, whether it be legislated, whether
it be risk management, whether it be insurance, whether it
be, you know, program, whether it be high need demand,
whether, you know, those are all the rankings that we,
that we refer to. I guess I'm curious to know
how much of that you might be able to share
with Council as you're implementing this budgeting system.
Through the chair of the mayor. Yeah, I can take
that back with the team. It is, it's definitely more
time consuming this time around. It is a different way
of thinking about it. Where, like I said, we're not
rebuilding the entire budget we're looking at certain programs in
a different lens just to kind of check the way
we're budgeting. And I'll leave it at that. Great. Looking
forward to it. Thank you. I see no other questions.
Council Garnot, you held this. Would you like to move
this item. Councillor Nova's moved, only favor. Carried.
All right, I need a motion to adjourn back to
Councillarno, only favor. Done.
All right. So you. May want to explain to those
listening. At home. Because. We don't have another Council meet.
Until after the election. Okay. So some of the items
from general committee were identified as being time sensitive, needing
immediate action by Council tonight. And in fact, every item
was because of the timing of this agenda and the
fact that this is our last formal meeting. Scheduled meeting
before the election. So the details of these items can
be found. In section 9 of today's agenda. And it
has been moved by Councillor Hillson, seconded by Councillor Garneau.
That the recommendations contained in the following immediate action item
reports from Monday, June 22nd, 2026 general committee meeting are
hereby adopted. Reported MIN 2026 - 023 as amended. Report
at MIN 2026 - 024 as amended. Report CENS 2026
- 017 is presented. CES 2026 - 018 is presented.
CSE 2026 - 014 as presented. CSE 2026 - 015
as amended. CSE 2026 - 027 as presented. CSE 2026
- 028 is presented. PD - 2026 - 042 as
presented. PD - 2026 - 054 as presented. PD -
2026 - 056 is presented. PD - 2026 - 057
as presented. PD - 2026 - 060 is presented. PD
- 2026 - 067 as presented. PD - 2026 -
069 as presented. PD - 2026 - 070 as presented.
PD - 2026 - 072 is presented. PD - 2026
- 075 as presented. PD - 2026 - 076 is
presented PD - 2026 - 073 as amended. Mamosi -
SE - 2026 - 010 as presented. MO - CSE
- 026 - 005 as presented, all in favor. That
is carried unanimously.
Okay, so we now need to move into closed session.
We still have a few items in order to address.
And so could I have a motion. Councillor Kinbaum, all
in favor. That is carried and will take a five
- minute recess in order to switch screens and adjust
our broadcast.