[10:20] Good afternoon everyone and welcome to. The July 13th meeting

[10:24] of the town of Halton Halls Council. We have a

[10:28] motion from Councillor Albano and seconded by Councillor Keane that

[10:33] the Council for the Town of Halton Hills reconvene this

[10:36] meeting in open session, all in favor. That's carried. Now

[10:42] I want to let people know that this is a

[10:43] hybrid meeting held in the Council Chambers. And being live

[10:47] streamed for members of the public to watch online. And

[10:51] we have Councillor Fogle, Councillor Somerville and Councillor Engels attending

[10:55] virtually. And I would like to remind members in the

[10:59] gallery that photos of recording devices are not allowed to

[11:02] be used in the Council Chambers. The recording of today's

[11:06] meeting along with STAP Presentations will be posted to the

[11:10] town's website. Later on this week. So while we've read

[11:16] everyone to stand now for O Canada.

[11:38] To. God.

[12:39] And we begin. By acknowledging. That the land. On which

[12:42] we gather is part of. The treating lens. And territory

[12:46] of. The Mississaugas of the credit. Are. There any disclosures

[12:51] of pecuniary interest or conflict of interest. I see none.

[12:58] Thank you. Now we have some announcements today. And I

[13:04] would first like to invite Councillor Norris. If you have

[13:10] some things that you want to let people know about.

[13:19] Yes, and thank you, Mayor. Two announcements. First announcement is

[13:24] downtown Georgetown is a vibrant shopping district known for its

[13:29] unique architecture and festivals in the area stores and restaurants.

[13:34] This year, the downtown Georgetown Palooza has so much to

[13:39] offer. So this Friday, evening July 17th, the Palooza stage

[13:44] will be taking over the Main Street, right downtown Georgetown.

[13:49] It'll begin with the Battle of the Bands. There will

[13:51] be street eats. There will be dunk tank. There'll be

[13:53] a Kid Zone. And there'll be a vendor village. And

[13:57] as if the event couldn't get any better than it's

[13:59] been before. Welcome to the Beer Garden. So downtown Plusa

[14:03] is collaborating with Head for the Hills. Head for the

[14:07] Hills for some of you may know is taking a

[14:09] year off, but they're coming back with a pop -

[14:11] up beer garden this time in downtown Georgetown at the

[14:14] Palooza to bring you a beer garden to enjoy Palooza

[14:17] even more. So join Head for the Hills team at

[14:20] downtown Palooza to sip on local crap beverages, including beer,

[14:24] cider, seltzers and wine. CUN July 17th for night to

[14:29] remember. That's 5 p. m. to 10 p. m. Then

[14:35] on Saturday morning July 18th. The Palooza stage will be

[14:39] bringing the Georgetown Farmers Market to life with live music

[14:42] throughout the morning. This will be going from 8 a.

[14:44] m. to 1230. No matter when you stop by, your

[14:48] regular farmer's market on Saturday morning is sure to have

[14:51] a gorgeous soundtrack on our second day of downtown Palooza.

[14:55] So that will now be Friday night, July 17th and

[14:59] Saturday morning. July 18th. My second announcement is come out

[15:07] and help celebrate the Royal Canadian legions 100th year. This

[15:11] Saturday, July 18th, from the fund begins at 2 p.

[15:15] m. at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 120 in Georgetown.

[15:19] That's at 127 Mill Street, right downtown. They will have

[15:22] live music dancing barbecues and games. For this special event,

[15:28] the Georgetown legion will be outside to enjoy the summer

[15:30] weather. The parking lot directly behind the legion will be

[15:34] used for the outdoor events. And again, the fun begins

[15:37] at 2 p. m. and absolutely everyone is welcome. Saturday,

[15:41] July 18th, beginning at 2 p. m. Thank you, Madam

[15:45] Mayor. Okay, thank you. And Councillor Hillston, I think you

[15:51] have some announcements. To thank you, Madam Mayor. I've got

[15:54] one that's also showcasing the Georgetown BIA. We're doing hope

[15:59] in every step, Halton Hills once again on Saturday, July

[16:03] 25th at 11 a. m. at the corner of church

[16:06] and Main Street. This is our third year doing it.

[16:10] Myself and Addi Giswami started a couple of years ago

[16:14] because the main events were happening in South Halton to

[16:17] support Halton Women's Place. So, uh, we wanted to do

[16:20] something in the North. And that's the opportunity this year.

[16:24] So, uh, please join us Saturday, July 25th, 11 a.

[16:27] m. at the Georgetown Farmers, Market. Thank you. Thank you.

[16:32] And Councillor Keene, you've been distributing items to members of

[16:36] Council. Well, thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, I have. I

[16:38] bring exciting news from the world of garbage collection. As

[16:41] a member of the Halton region waste management committee, I'm

[16:45] privy to some information. Many of you may have seen

[16:46] this brochure arrived in your mail. Uh, it is exciting

[16:50] news actually. We're finally moving into the modern era with

[16:53] the implementation of wheeled cart system. So no longer will

[16:58] you have to lug your beat up little garbage candle

[16:59] to the front of your house. You'll have a nice

[17:03] wheeled cart that you can use for both your garbage

[17:07] and your compost. Come in two sizes. The large size

[17:11] would be 240 litres. The smaller size is 120 litres.

[17:15] Those of you who are exceptionally are concerned about your

[17:17] carbon front, men can use a TNE. We need a

[17:19] little lady Bitty one. But just kidding. This is a

[17:21] wonderful pencil case. Um, so the suicide is available. Please

[17:25] do note that this only applies to garbage and organic

[17:29] waste. The blue box program will not be changing because

[17:32] that is managed by an independent company provincial legislation. There's

[17:38] circular materials corporation. So the, uh, producers of recyclable waste

[17:42] are now responsible for that. And they are choosing not

[17:44] to implement wheeled carts. Uh, you'll stay with your standard

[17:47] blue bin, which is unfortunate. Uh, we'll see what comes

[17:50] down the road. So, um, good news. Look forward to

[17:53] that in the new year starting in January, uh, until

[17:55] March will be rolled out and, um, I trust you'll

[17:58] enjoy their use. Thank you. Thank you very much. And

[18:03] so, you know, stay tuned for that. I think we'll

[18:06] be hearing more. Yeah. Thank you. And I have a

[18:10] couple of announcements as well. And one regarding the Garden

[18:14] of Hope. And the library in partnership with the Halton

[18:18] Suicide Prevention Coalition will unveil a Garden of Hope at

[18:22] the Actin Branch on World Suicide Prevention Day. Thursday, September

[18:28] the 10th. Community members are invited to attend the ceremony

[18:33] and painter Brock with a message of hope that will

[18:36] become part of the garden. And finally, I'd like to

[18:42] announce that we have a celebrity in our midst. And

[18:47] we are sharing that Hillsview active living centre volunteer, Linda

[18:53] Gordon. Was a recipient of the Ontario Senior's Achievement Award.

[18:59] This provincial award recognises seniors who have made outstanding contributions

[19:04] to their communities through volunteerism. Leadership, and dedication to enhancing

[19:11] the lives of others. Linda has been a dedicated volunteer

[19:16] at Hillsview for eight years, providing exceptional financial leadership. As

[19:23] treasurer while supporting accessible and inclusive programming. She has played

[19:29] a key role in the center's growth. Contributing to increased

[19:34] membership, expanded programming. And greater community participation. Linda is also

[19:42] actively involved in fundraising initiatives and organising social programs that

[19:48] foster connection and engagement among seniors. Her commitment and contributions

[19:54] have helped strengthen Hillsview as a vibrant and welcoming community

[19:59] hub for seniors in acton. Linda received her award at

[20:05] a reception, which was special at Queen's Park last month.

[20:10] And the town Council is very proud of Linda's achievement.

[20:16] Highlighting the meaningful impact of volunteerism within our community. So

[20:21] please, all of you join me and congratulating Linda on

[20:25] your well - deserved honour.

[20:36] I will ask. You to come and ask. We can

[20:38] shake your hand. From. Us.

[20:50] Oh. Good.

[21:03] Thank. You.

[21:17] Okay. Now, I think that's the end of our announcements.

[21:23] And now there are several items. That we want to

[21:27] finish off as far as approvals. So I have a

[21:30] resolution to adopt the general committee items from the June

[21:34] 22nd Council meeting. And the details of these items can

[21:38] be found in section five of today's agenda. It has

[21:42] been moved by Councillor Albano. Seconded by Councillor Garneau that

[21:48] the recommendations contained in the following reports and memorandum from

[21:52] Monday, June 22nd, General Committee are hereby adopted as presented.

[21:58] Report CES 2026008 CES 2026009. CSE

[22:08] 2026 - 017. PD 2026 - 065 TPW 2026 -

[22:18] 014. TPW 2026 - 016. Memorandum PD - 2026 -

[22:27] 004 and memorandum CES 2026 - 004. All in favor.

[22:35] That's carried, thank you. Now we have it moved by

[22:43] Councillor Keane, seconded by Councillor Hillston that the following minutes

[22:47] are hereby approved. Confidential and open session minutes of the

[22:52] Council meeting held on Monday, June 22, 2026. All in

[22:57] favor. That's carried.

[23:08] The details of the consent items can be found in

[23:12] section 8 of today's agenda. We have it moved by

[23:16] Councillor Hillson, 2nd by Councillor Garneau, that the following consent

[23:20] items are hereby approved. Memorandum CSE 2026 - 008, memorandum

[23:31] CSE 2026 - 009. Memorandum CSE 2026 - 010. Admin

[23:40] 2026 - 022, and been 2026025. Report CES 2026 -

[23:49] 020 and memorandum CES - 2026 - 005. Is there

[23:56] anyone who wishes to hold any of those items for

[23:59] review at general committee. Councillor Garno. Yes, thank you Mayor.

[24:06] I'd like to hold item six, the 2027 budget approach

[24:10] and process memo, please. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that

[24:12] number? Six, number six.

[24:24] Oh. Okay. Uh, did anyone else wish to hold any

[24:33] Councillor Bras. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want

[24:37] to hold number six. So I look forward to that

[24:39] discussion. And, uh, I have a quick comment on consent

[24:42] item number three. If that's permitted. If it's truly quick.

[24:48] Yep. Yeah, go ahead. It truly is. Okay, thank you.

[24:51] I wanted to thank senior staff for reviewing this so

[24:55] quickly and what is a very important mechanism in our

[24:59] municipality for reporting. And I want to thank you sincerely

[25:03] for getting this done so quickly. Great report, thank you.

[25:06] Okay. And thanks for that truly was quick. Yeah. Okay.

[25:13] Um, so I'm going to call then for an approval

[25:18] on all the items save the memorandum. All in favor.

[25:26] That is carried. Thank you. And, um, now we're going

[25:34] to turn over the gavel. It has been moved by

[25:38] Councillor Keane, seconded by Councillor Brest that counciled, do now

[25:42] convene into general committee. And I think Councillor Albano, you're

[25:47] in church. For next section of this meeting. All in

[25:51] favor. That's carried.

[26:46] Good afternoon. Um, thank you for being here today. And

[26:50] we'll come to the general committee section of the agenda.

[26:54] It is a lengthy one today. We have a number

[26:56] of presentation and delegations today. And then we have full

[27:01] packed agenda, um, on the reports side. So before we

[27:05] get to the presentation delegation, uh, what we'll do is

[27:10] we'll vet the agenda. And then we'll go back to

[27:13] the presentations. Item A and item B, they're both held.

[27:22] So we'll get back to that shortly. Um, item C,

[27:26] report number C, E, S 2026 017 is a corporate

[27:32] and emergency service report. Hold. On. Thank you, Councillor Bryce.

[27:43] Um, report D. It's corporate emergency services report number. Two.

[27:51] Sorry? Okay. We can hear feedback

[28:01] conservative sonneville. Um, so report CES 2026 018 data July

[28:08] 13, 2026 regarding the 2025 annual financial statements, management discussion

[28:14] analysis. And financial information return. So moved only in favor.

[28:23] Carried. Item E. Community services report number

[28:32] CSE 2026 014 dated June 10th, 2026 regarding Invesa Species

[28:40] Management Framework. So moved only favored. Carried. Report

[28:49] number, or Community Services report number C, SE 2026. 015,

[28:58] dated June 26, 2026, regarding green infrastructure asset management plan.

[29:03] Pull that report, please. Chair. The cube Council King. Uh,

[29:12] item G Community Service report number CSE 2026 0 -

[29:20] 27 date of June 22. 26 regarding transverse St. Jones,

[29:24] Anglican cemetery to the town of Halton Hills. So moved

[29:29] to only in favor. Carried. Item H. Community service report

[29:37] number, uh, CSE 2026 28 - 20028. Data June 26,

[29:44] 26 regarding economic development strategy, draft terms of reference. So

[29:50] moved only favor. Garrett. Planning development report number PD -

[29:59] 2026 - 042 dated 18, 2026, regarding tension to designate

[30:07] under part four, section 20 of the Ontario - Headed

[30:11] Act. Move that report? Moved. What? All in favor. Carried.

[30:21] Item J, Plan Development Report PD 2026 - 054, dated

[30:26] June 26, regarding alteration two, a designated heritage property, nine

[30:32] zero, nine four, regional road 25. So moved, all in

[30:38] favor. Carry. Uh, item K, plan and development report, member

[30:45] PD 2026 - 056, data June 16, 2026, regarding intention

[30:52] to designate under Part 4, section 29 of the Ontario

[30:55] Heritage Act, 11 - 80 - 10 Side Road is

[31:00] squeezing. So moved all in favor. Carry.

[31:11] And development report. PD - 2026 - 057, dated June

[31:18] 25th, 2026, regarding still - Bill 23. Uh,

[31:28] Heritage Update recommendation and next steps. Moved. All in favor?

[31:34] I'd like to hold for a comment. Okay.

[31:47] I guess you can move it after. Councillor. Is it

[31:52] a quick comment? Council Sargo. Yes, I was trying to

[31:56] do that, but, uh, the staff were too quick on

[31:58] the mute button for me. Okay. I just wanted to

[32:00] thank the staff, uh, especially led by our commissioner and

[32:05] Borrellonia or manager of Heritage Services. It's been a very

[32:08] probably the most productive committee. We've had this term with

[32:12] 113 properties designated or pending. And I just wanted to

[32:16] thank Laura and Kelly and all them for all the

[32:20] hard work that they are doing and what they've done.

[32:23] And you can see from there, they already have a

[32:26] large stack of work going forward for the next term

[32:29] of Council to continue after Bill 23 is finished. And

[32:34] all those impacts are done. So thank you to them,

[32:36] and I'll be glad to move it, Mr. Chair. Okay,

[32:39] thank you very much. I believe Councillor Councillor Hillston said

[32:44] that he would move it. So if that's all right

[32:45] with you, be able to... Okay. Holy favor. Carried. Um,

[32:54] report. Uh, item, uh, M planning and development report number

[32:58] PD 2026060. Data June 16, 2026 regarding intention to designate

[33:05] under Part 4, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act

[33:10] 7593 - 5 Side Road is squeezing. So moved only

[33:18] favor. Carrie. Uh, this I - O - Man is

[33:28] an automatic hold, and we'll give back to that. So

[33:31] go to O, Planning and Development Report number PD -

[33:36] 2026 - 069, Data June 18, 2026 regarding intention to

[33:43] designate under Part 4, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage

[33:46] Act. 16 Wilbur Street North, Achton. So moved Council Bryce

[33:53] - Mood, all in favor. Carried. Uh, item P, Planning

[34:00] and Development Report, number PD - 2026. - 070, dated

[34:05] June 18, 2026, regarding tension to designate under Part 4,

[34:10] Section 29 of the OHA - 9, 13 - 19

[34:17] Wilbu Street North, Octon. So moved all in favor. Carrie.

[34:26] Development Report number PD - 2026 - 072, dated June

[34:32] 18, 2026. Regarding notice - void, draw of notice of

[34:37] intention to designate 11 - 309 - 22, second lime

[34:43] house. So moved all in favor. Carried. Uh,

[34:53] Planning and Development Report, Number PD - 2026 - 075

[34:58] data June 30th, 2026, regarding Georgetown expansion lands, uh, secondary

[35:05] plan, terms of reference. So moved all in favor. Carrie.

[35:16] Planning and development report number PD - 2026 - 076,

[35:22] date of June 30th, 2026 regarding Georgetown Expansion Lands Secondary

[35:27] Plan Financial Agreement. So moved only in favor. Carrie. Okay.

[35:39] Item T, I've just been informed that it's an automatic

[35:44] hold, so we do not, it's not on the agenda,

[35:47] but it's an automatic hole, so we'll get back to

[35:49] that. And item U is also an automatic hold.

[35:58] And I think. That's it. So we'll go back to.

[36:08] We go back to the presentation and delegation. And the

[36:12] first presentation is from Carl's Alvarez and Matthew Charidelli from

[36:18] KPMG. But before we do that, Joey van der Meer,

[36:22] I would like to make an opening remarks, Joy. Great,

[36:29] thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Mayor Chair Al -

[36:33] Bano, and members of committee. It is my pleasure to

[36:35] present several finance reports today, including the town's 2025 Financial

[36:40] Statements. The 2025 - UN process began in the fall

[36:44] of 2025 with KPMG's intermodit. In February 2026, KPMG presented

[36:52] the audit plan to the committee, providing an opportunity for

[36:55] members to ask questions, and raise any concerns before the

[36:58] audit was completed. Following the preparation of the financial statements

[37:04] by town staff, KPMG completed its audit in May. Today,

[37:09] the audited financial statements are before the committee for review.

[37:13] Providing an opportunity to ask questions of KPMG before they

[37:16] are presented to the town Council for final approval. Once

[37:20] approved by Council, the annual financial report will be finalised

[37:23] and posted on the town's website. At this time, I

[37:27] would like to invite Carlos Alvarez and Matthew Chargerelli to

[37:30] present the results of the 2025 audit. Carlos and Matthew,

[37:35] the floor is yours. Is it on already? Oh, wonderful.

[37:44] Good afternoon, Councillor Albano, madam mayor, and members of Council.

[37:48] Happy to present the results of the 2025 fiscal year

[37:52] - end audit. I'm joined by my colleague, Matt Chardelli,

[37:56] senior manager. Uh, understanding that our audit findings report would

[37:59] have been pre - circulated in advance. Uh, we are

[38:02] going to highlight some of the more significant items that

[38:05] we would like to bring forward to your attention. A

[38:09] few pages into the audit findings report, uh, in terms

[38:12] of audit highlights. On the fourth page. Overall, we are

[38:18] substantively complete in terms of the Otter process. We are

[38:22] at a point in time today where we expect to

[38:25] be at. All of these substantive work is essentially complete.

[38:29] What would be an audit without talking about misstatements? I

[38:33] can confirm with Council that it was a clean sheet.

[38:36] So that there are no misstatements, either corrected or uncorrected.

[38:40] As well in terms of our audit areas of focus.

[38:44] Uh, our audit areas of focus remain consistent with our

[38:47] original audit plan. We did not have to pivot or

[38:51] introduce any new procedures along the way during the course

[38:54] of the audit. Moving forward in the slide deck in

[38:58] terms of overall status. This is perfect. So while we

[39:08] are substantively complete, there are a few customary loose ends

[39:12] for us to tie up between today and tomorrow. One

[39:16] of them being is we will ask your management team

[39:18] to sign a management representation letter. That letter does a

[39:22] good job in terms of outlining what our management's responsibilities

[39:26] as it pertains to your financial statements versus the responsibilities

[39:30] of the external auditor. Ultimately, when we do get evidence

[39:34] that they are approved by Council, then I will proceed

[39:38] to sign the independent auditor's report. Moving further back, in

[39:44] the report. In terms of changes as part of the

[39:48] current year's audit, from a regulatory standpoint, there were no

[39:52] changes in the underlying accounting standards. What that means is

[39:56] the way your debits and credits came together in 2025

[40:00] would be on a identical basis as 2024. As well

[40:04] from a auditing standpoint, the way that we performed the

[40:07] audit, again, was consistent with the prior year. So nothing

[40:11] to report on any of the items that are listed.

[40:16] Proceeding further into the slide deck. Two items to bring

[40:21] forward to your attention. As auditors were always required to

[40:25] consider too specific risks. One is the Risk that your

[40:30] management team circumvents the controls and the environment in place.

[40:35] So this is a, on the topic of fraud, I

[40:39] can confirm with Council that based on all of the

[40:41] procedures that we performed. There was nothing fraudulent that we

[40:44] detected. Nothing deemed suspicious or awkward or unreconciled. So a

[40:51] clean sheet in that respect. The second risk that we're

[40:54] always required to consider is the risk of fraudulent revenue

[40:58] recognition. Again, I can confirm with Council that based on

[41:02] all of the procedures, okay? I'll let Matt take over

[41:09] and handle the next few slides. Great, thank you, Carlos.

[41:13] If we could move to page 10, please. Thank you.

[41:18] Uh, so this slide is the largest area of audit

[41:21] focus that we'll choose to profile in our report and

[41:24] presentation today. Uh, certainly we look at all of the

[41:27] aspects of the town's financial statements. Uh, so there are

[41:30] many more elements to the audit than just what you

[41:32] see in the package here. Uh, but we do choose

[41:34] to profile the work that we do over tangible capital

[41:37] assets or long - lived assets, uh, in another term,

[41:41] uh, because they are, uh, certainly very material to the

[41:45] financial statements of the town, as would be the case

[41:47] for any municipality or equivalent government entity. The suite of

[41:52] procedures that we perform in this area includes reconciling the

[41:57] ending point, uh, of the continuity schedule, the schedule of

[42:00] assets from the prior year and reconciling it for all

[42:04] of the transactions that occurred throughout 2025. And that includes

[42:08] additions of new fixed assets. Capitalization of items that were

[42:13] previously work in progress, any disposals of assets no longer

[42:18] in use. And also the annual amortization, uh, which is

[42:22] the accounting term for recognising an expense related to the

[42:27] useful life of those fixed assets, uh, which is done

[42:30] on a systemic basis year over year based on the

[42:33] expected life, uh, asset. So all of these are standard

[42:37] procedures that we perform each year. Again, as this is

[42:40] a very material number on your financial statements. Uh, happy

[42:44] to report that there were no issues, uh, during any

[42:46] of those procedures. And also I'll touch on the last

[42:49] bullet on the slide here, which relates to the work

[42:52] done or the asset retirement obligation, uh, which is a

[42:56] significant estimate in the financial statements, uh, some may recall

[42:59] that came into effect. Three years ago when the standard

[43:03] was required to be implemented across the sector. So lots

[43:06] of work was done at that point. Each year subsequent

[43:10] to implementation, your management team is required to review all

[43:13] of the estimates. And assumptions that go into that number.

[43:17] And we can confirm that, uh, there was no significant

[43:20] change to the process management's process for estimating that obligation

[43:25] remains above board. And there were no issues to bring

[43:29] to your attention. Moving on to the next slide, please.

[43:35] So as Carlos alluded to earlier, no big changes with

[43:38] respect to accounting policies or practices externally, nor were there

[43:43] any internally. So all of the accounting policy choices that

[43:46] management has made in the past as reflected in note

[43:50] one - tier financial statements remain consistent year over year.

[43:53] Uh, so what that means is if you were to

[43:55] page flip 2024 statements against 2025s, you will see very

[44:00] consistent between the two years. Moving forward, please. Some of

[44:09] it is just an annual confirmation from us as the

[44:11] auditors, the form presentation, uh, and disclosures within the town's

[44:17] financial statements. Do meet the requirements of the public sector

[44:20] accounting standards. Again, no significant change year over year. So

[44:24] as you were in the past, you remain on side

[44:27] with all of the requirements in terms of the presentation

[44:30] and disclosure in those statements. Moving on again. So this

[44:37] slide covers a number of specific topics that were required

[44:41] to report on. You can see no matters to report

[44:44] in each of these areas, which is certainly a positive

[44:47] result. Uh, there were no difficulties or curve balls during

[44:51] the audit that led to disagreements with management, uh, or

[44:55] things like that. Uh, so happy to report no issues

[44:58] with any of the specific topics listed on this slide.

[45:02] Moving on again. So page 14 and page 15, just

[45:08] cover what Carlo saluted to in the highlights page. Try

[45:12] as we may, uh, we did not identify any misstatements

[45:15] in the audit package. None which were required to be

[45:18] corrected, nor any which were left uncorrected. Our threshold for

[45:24] reporting audit miss statements was just about 160, 000 dollars.

[45:29] So anything above that number, we would have been required

[45:31] to include in the report here. So a clean result

[45:36] there. Uh, I'll also add just building off of carlos'comments

[45:40] on the procedures we do to address fraud risk. When

[45:43] it comes to frauds, that threshold effectively drops to one

[45:46] dollar. Uh, so if there was anything that we found

[45:49] that was suspicious, we would report that to you in

[45:51] these slides regardless of the POSTN threshold. Uh, moving on

[45:56] two slides to sixth deed, please. Uh, just to reiterate,

[46:01] again, nothing came to our attention during the audit with

[46:03] respect to deficiencies in internal control. And I would like

[46:07] to highlight the last line on this slide. Uh, which

[46:12] denotes that we receive the full support and cooperation of

[46:14] management and team throughout the audit process, from interim in

[46:18] the fall all the way to the completion of our

[46:20] audit. Now, so we'd like to thank the management team

[46:23] for having an audit ready package and being ready to

[46:27] field our questions and deal with our many team members

[46:30] and their inquiries throughout. Moving on again. So the last

[46:36] thing I'll mention just quickly is, uh, the information here

[46:40] on all of the processes that we a KPMG have

[46:42] to abide by in order to ensure that we deliver

[46:45] quality audits that are in line with our auditing standards.

[46:48] There are some, uh, other links throughout the appendices in

[46:51] our report as well for those curious as to what

[46:54] we must adhere to. But otherwise, I will pass it

[46:57] back to Carlos for some comments on Independence and closing.

[47:02] Wonderful. Thank you, Matt. Moving further in the deck one

[47:07] page. The audit report that is included in your package,

[47:11] which is currently in draft, has the word independent in

[47:14] front of it. So, uh, really important for external auditors

[47:18] to talk about independence. I can confirm with Council that

[47:22] throughout the entire Otter process. All that we have until

[47:25] today that we remained independent. Uh, we are here to

[47:29] audit your books and records. We're not here to prepare

[47:31] them so I can confirm that we haven't, uh, cross

[47:34] that line. Lastly, we will work with management to finalise

[47:39] the Otter Report. Over the coming day, um, and make

[47:43] sure that, um, everything, um, all the T's are crossed.

[47:47] And the eyes are dotted and then proceed to issue

[47:49] the financial statements, the auto report. So with that, I

[47:54] will pause. And back to the chair. Thank you gentlemen.

[47:57] Thank you, Mr. Alvaras. Thank you, Mr. Chair Delli. Are

[48:00] there any questions for the delegation. Council Brass. Thank you,

[48:06] Chair Obano, through you to Carlos and Matt. Good to

[48:09] see you both. And Carlos, at our previous meeting, uh,

[48:14] we discussed, I think it was the interim financial, or

[48:18] quite possibly even the last fiscal, I forget which one.

[48:21] But, uh, we discussed how, um, fraudulent tips would be

[48:27] received. And if you had any oversight or insight on

[48:30] that with our municipality, uh, the answer was no. And,

[48:34] uh, so, uh, I would please that Council on March

[48:38] 9th passed a resolution to adopt a whistleblower strategy, which

[48:42] was presented here tonight in the consent items. Uh, which

[48:45] I spoke very briefly on. And, uh, I wondered if,

[48:50] uh, Whistleblower policy for municipalities, if it's established, is that

[48:56] something that you're, your team would review that policy as

[49:01] part of your, your, your, your review, or is that

[49:04] not part of your purview? And I'm wondering now that

[49:08] you're speaking and talking about the threshold for fraudulent activity

[49:12] as a dollar. If something is reported through our Whistleblower

[49:16] policy, how that in turn gets to your team. Through

[49:22] to you, Chair Albano. As part of any financial statement

[49:26] audit, it is not just about the numbers. First, we

[49:29] must undertake a risk assessment and assess whether or not

[49:33] you as a municipality have a sufficiently developed control environment

[49:40] to be able to mitigate various risks, including the risk

[49:43] of fraud. So from our perspective, the fact that you

[49:47] have now developed a strategy in terms of a whistleblower

[49:52] program next year, we will make those inquiries with management

[49:58] and council in terms of is the whistleble now operating

[50:03] as intended, because it's one thing to have one. It's

[50:07] another thing to make sure that it is actually operating

[50:09] as it is designed. Once we get comfort that it

[50:13] is operating as designed, then we can take comfort as

[50:17] auditors that from a risk assessment perspective, it may lower

[50:21] the risk of certain chances or the probability of certain

[50:25] transactions happening. So we incorporate it into our Risk assessment

[50:30] through you, Chair. That is really great to hear. Um,

[50:32] and I'm wondering, you know, testing various numbers that you

[50:36] get from staff, uh, that's an easy answer. But how

[50:40] do you, how do you test the efficiency or effectiveness

[50:44] of a policy like that? Through you the chair, I

[50:50] would say in terms of. When we talk about effectiveness,

[50:55] there's two ways that auditors test things. We can test

[50:58] the design of something. Which more looks at what's the

[51:02] overall process. Is it sufficient? Does it have all of

[51:05] the control points measured off. And then we could go

[51:10] one step further and actually test the operating effectness. Normally

[51:15] we would just test the design of the control. And

[51:19] not go one step further and test the operating effectiveness

[51:23] unless something elsewhere in our file pointed us to that

[51:27] we should do that to address another risk. But at

[51:31] a minimum, we would test the design to make sure

[51:34] that it is robust. And in our opinion, uh, designed

[51:39] well enough that it would contribute to your control environment.

[51:45] Well, that's fantastic. And I wanted to thank you for

[51:48] that report you put forward is, uh, is fantastic second

[51:52] to none, uh, I, I feel we're in very good

[51:54] hand. So thank you. Council Keen. You had a question.

[52:00] No, thank you, Chair Obano. And thank you to our,

[52:02] uh, our guest, Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Shore deli. Great

[52:06] report. Nice and boring. Just the way we like auto

[52:10] reports to be. No red flags. That's awesome. Thank you.

[52:15] I had a question because so much going to take

[52:17] advantage of your expertise while you're here, some Councillor Brass.

[52:21] On page 10, you talk about recalculating the annual amortization

[52:25] expense to ensure accuracy and compliance with Town policies. And

[52:28] then their final bullet point is the testing of the

[52:30] asset retirement obligation estimate, blah, blah, blah. We have a

[52:35] report coming up dealing with green asset management. And report

[52:38] that we're going to be asked to comment and vote

[52:41] on later on today. Um, does your auditing take into

[52:44] account or have you have any policies in place to

[52:47] deal with how you measure so - called green assets.

[52:51] And if that's the case, uh, will you be looking

[52:53] at amortization or asset retirement of so - called green

[52:57] assets in your audience. For you, the chair. When it

[53:05] comes to green assets, there are in Canada, County Board

[53:12] that is working on developing standards for municipalities to measure,

[53:20] recognise and record various green assets, such as the trees

[53:25] that you have within your municipal boundaries. But those standards

[53:29] are in development. They are not yet codified. And if

[53:34] they're not yet codified, we don't necessarily assess compliance with

[53:37] them until they're set into law. We do have our

[53:44] advisory team that provides guidance on, you know, whether it's

[53:49] green infrastructure, sustainability. But generally those types of topics, unless

[53:54] they're codified are more sort of an add - on

[53:56] on top of the financial statement audit that would be

[53:59] done as part of a separate project. That's good to

[54:03] know. So you're understanding there are potentially some regulations coming

[54:07] down the pike, but they're not in place yet. Correct.

[54:11] Okay. That's great. Okay. Thanks for clearing out. I appreciate

[54:13] it, guys. Thanks. Thank you Council Keen. Are there any

[54:18] other questions. I see none. Um, I'm just wondering if

[54:22] it's all right to bring the report forward and we

[54:25] can deal with our report. Any objection to bring the

[54:28] report? No? All right. So any questions on the, on

[54:31] the report. I see none. Somebody wants to move it.

[54:37] Council Bryce. It's been moved all in favor. Carrie, thank

[54:42] you gentlemen. Thank you for the presentation. Our next delegation

[54:51] presentation to the committee is Nicole. Whatonioli, first Gulf Corporation.

[54:58] In the house. She's all

[55:08] mine. Okay. Nicole Uro. Can you hear us? Can you

[55:14] hear me? I cannot. Yes. All right. Go ahead. The

[55:19] floor is yours. Great. Uh, good afternoon, Madam Mayor Chair

[55:24] Al - Bano and members of Council. My name is

[55:27] Nicole Gudagnolian and I'm a senior development manager for first

[55:30] golf corporation. I'm delegating today regarding report number 2026 067

[55:38] as it relates to the premier gateway phase 2B employment

[55:41] area zoning by law amendments. Uh, first golf is a

[55:45] commercial developer that has been developing in Halton Hills for

[55:48] well over a decade. We've constructed upwards of 2 million

[55:52] square feet of industrial space. And we have an active

[55:55] rezonian application. With their partner's son life. Uh, for lands

[55:59] located at 14829 steals avenue, which will bring forward an

[56:04] additional 1. 2 million square feet of industrial space. Uh,

[56:08] the public meeting for this application will be heard later

[56:11] today. Over the past few years, first golf has taken

[56:15] an act of role in monitoring and providing feedback on

[56:18] the phase 2B secondary plan area. Through this process, we

[56:23] were faced with some challenges on our lands, including a

[56:27] proposed collector Road within the secondary plan. And most recently

[56:30] significant impacts as it related to the narrow area of

[56:33] interest related to highway 413. Considering this, the town's Planning

[56:38] and Development Department remained open to working with us and

[56:41] navigating through these challenges. This meant proactive communication, consistent dialogue,

[56:47] and problem solving, which allowed us to overcome the various

[56:51] challenges and ultimately it led us to filing a rezoning

[56:55] application last fall. The proposed zoning bylaw amendments will unlock

[57:01] the final phase of the employment area that is strategically

[57:04] positioned in the town near three major highways. By prezoning

[57:09] these lines, it will help bring forward the land's online

[57:11] sooner rather than later. We continue to receive interest for

[57:15] our property. And after owning the lands for eight years,

[57:19] we're excited to get shovels in the ground. We look

[57:21] forward to the approval of the zoning bylaw amendment for

[57:24] the phase two B lens. Thank you for your time

[57:26] today. Thank you, Nicole. Thanks for the presentation. Are there

[57:30] any questions for Nicole. I see none. And again, I'm

[57:36] just wondering if it's all right with Councillor to bring

[57:39] that report forward. There are no objections. Are there any

[57:43] questions to the report? I see none. I need a

[57:47] mover. So moved by Council Garneau only favor. And it's

[57:53] Carrie. Thank you. Our next presenters, delegation to committees, it's

[58:04] regarding the report, number at MEN 2026023. And it's regarding

[58:13] exemption requests to annoy Spylaw. 16406, fifth side road. And

[58:22] do we have this online. Okay. Bonnie Jehovah is the

[58:30] resident of Halton Halls. Body, um, can you hear us?

[58:34] And, uh, so. The floor is yours. Okay. Well, good

[58:44] afternoon. Madam Mayor Councillors. Please bear with me. I have

[58:49] never done this before. So. Um, we got a letter.

[58:54] At our residents. And it's about notice of noise exemption

[58:59] application outdoor gathering. And it has the dates with that.

[59:03] Um, we live very close to, uh, melodie estates, which

[59:08] is the company which wishes to have this outdoor facility

[59:12] happen. Um, but my concern is melody estates. Has a,

[59:18] uh, it has a website. And they advertise that they

[59:21] are a full active venue where they offer weddings and

[59:26] outdoor receptions and such. Um, so my concern is the

[59:30] noise level. As proposed by the notice of noise exemption

[59:33] application outdoor gathering for July 29th. In the notice dated,

[59:39] or June 26, 2026. Um, the notice states, when state

[59:45] July 29th to at 6 p. m. and continuing on

[59:50] to Friday, July 31st, 2026 at 6 p. m. These

[59:55] are weeknights. The residents and the immediate area are families.

[1:00:00] Who compass all walks of life. Those people with young

[1:00:06] children, uh, people who are elderly, people who work full

[1:00:09] time, people have PETS. Just your every citizen in the

[1:00:14] surrounding area. And I have two overall concerns, the noise

[1:00:18] level. Days of the week, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are

[1:00:22] all work days. I worked full - time. There's a

[1:00:26] lot of people in my area work full - time

[1:00:28] around me. That means I need to be in bid

[1:00:32] early enough to get a good night's rest. So that

[1:00:35] I can get up early the next day, fight the

[1:00:37] traffic. And try to be productive at work. Um, the

[1:00:41] notice from the Halton Hills noted that this is going

[1:00:45] to be an outdoor event. Noise from an outdoor event

[1:00:50] at that location will create noise levels at our own

[1:00:53] property because we're very close. And the surrounding properties. To

[1:00:57] be loud enough to possibly and probably make my personal

[1:01:02] space uncomfortable. With my need to have struggle asleep, um,

[1:01:08] and, uh, we try to keep our windows open at

[1:01:11] night to conserve not using, uh, air conditioning. Um, but

[1:01:16] it will definitely impact my ability to sleep that night.

[1:01:20] Um, in the Halton Hills report, dated September 22nd in

[1:01:24] 2025. These are some points of interest. And under the

[1:01:29] key points is listed as the topic. It set directly

[1:01:33] from that report from the Halton Hills report. Proposing to

[1:01:38] change the land use permission for 164065 Side Road to

[1:01:43] allow for events venue banquet facilities for corporate events, weddings

[1:01:47] and other gatherings to operate out of the existing barn

[1:01:52] horse arena. That has been converted into a banquet home.

[1:01:58] That statement indicates that an enclosed space. But, uh, on

[1:02:04] the melody estates website, it emphasizes outdoor facilities. It also

[1:02:10] states the venue capacity states that is for 405 people.

[1:02:16] But the melody estates website until recently indicated the venue

[1:02:21] could accommodate up to 1, 500 people. An event with

[1:02:25] that many people will generate, I would guess, a lot

[1:02:28] of noise. From melody estate's website, they advertise the expanse

[1:02:35] of open air settings. They quoted from their website. Flexible

[1:02:42] outdoor configuration. Centralized open airspace. And it gives quiet distinction.

[1:02:49] And none of this indicates a closed - based facility.

[1:02:55] So by the looks of it, uh, melodyus acres appears

[1:02:59] to be a banquet facility offering open air events, not

[1:03:03] enclosed area events. I've never been to a 1500 person

[1:03:07] event. What I can tell you, though, family gathering of

[1:03:11] 10 is pretty noisy in my own house. And, uh,

[1:03:15] with a music. And, uh, 11 to 1500 people talking.

[1:03:19] And with music will impact the peace and quiet of

[1:03:22] our neighbourhood. So melody estate's websites. That gives a serene

[1:03:29] of quiet distinction. And I think an open air event

[1:03:33] with that many people will definitely impact our quality of

[1:03:35] life. For ourselves and our neighbours. Just want to rely

[1:03:40] to that we have just six seconds left. And I

[1:03:43] think you pretty much wrapped up. Okay. Thank you. Any

[1:03:50] questions. Okay. Then we have our Peter, Jehovah, resident Halton

[1:03:58] Hills delegating on the, on the same report. Good afternoon,

[1:04:03] everyone. Good afternoon. Um, I just got a few things

[1:04:07] to say. Um, Melody Acres, it's surrounded by single family

[1:04:12] dwellings. Um, you know, to the north to the west,

[1:04:17] east and south of facility. And these are all going

[1:04:20] to be impacted by noise levels, which clearly are going

[1:04:23] to exceed the sound level limits of the set by

[1:04:26] the town. On top of it, um, it's set to

[1:04:29] go on beyond 9 p. m. We live on the

[1:04:33] corner of 10th line and five side road. And that's

[1:04:38] about 300 metres from the location of this event. Last

[1:04:42] year on Sunday, July 20th, an outdoor event was held.

[1:04:47] I measured the sound levels with my trusty little app

[1:04:50] metre. And this, they were hitting 70 dB at 7

[1:04:56] p. m., which is pretty loud. Um, and that was

[1:04:59] loud enough to disrupt our family barbecue, let alone, um,

[1:05:03] what the possibility of if the bylaw is lifted, this

[1:05:11] exemption could go on, beyond 9 p. m. for three

[1:05:15] days. Um, the outdoor gathering is basically a three day

[1:05:19] wedding banquet to be held, um, at an outdoor venue.

[1:05:22] I don't see why there should be an exemption given

[1:05:25] to the noise bylaw, um, to hold this event. And

[1:05:28] I don't believe that they even have approval to hold

[1:05:31] wedding events out at this location. Thank you. I think

[1:05:37] you, Mr. Josh MES. All right. Are there any questions.

[1:05:42] Yeah. Any questions site silver? No. Council Turmwell. Thank you

[1:05:50] Mr. Chair. I do have a question of staff if

[1:05:52] I could if this item is going to be brought

[1:05:54] forward.

[1:06:06] Uh, is it being brought forward Mr. Chair? Yeah. Go

[1:06:09] ahead and ask questions. No, there's one more presentation that

[1:06:12] comes with Soneville and uh, we'll bring the forward forward.

[1:06:21] We have another presentation delegation. It's Nick Dell Harp Rodell.

[1:06:26] It's regarding the report on the same report. Nick, uh,

[1:06:33] if you can hear us, you go and can proceed

[1:06:35] with your presentation.

[1:06:48] Hi everyone. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. So

[1:06:51] go ahead. Thank you. I'm sorry I'm not able to

[1:06:53] be there in person with you today. I just celebrated

[1:06:56] the birth of a newborn and not very mobile at

[1:07:01] the moment for that reason. Um, but I, I appreciate

[1:07:03] the opportunity to come forward and speak not only in

[1:07:07] addition to what the Joba family has said, but also

[1:07:09] a little bit of what was before the committee, uh,

[1:07:12] Council this afternoon. Uh, I'm a planner. I'm working with

[1:07:16] the client to the owner, uh, to help their son

[1:07:19] have a wedding at this location and an outdoor setting.

[1:07:22] Um, we are processing a official plan amendment and rezoning

[1:07:26] application. We are in the midst of that review. There

[1:07:29] was an event held in 2023, um, that was not

[1:07:32] legal. And since then, there hasn't been any events. Um,

[1:07:36] a couple of things to understand that I know you

[1:07:38] can't really ask questions of a notice that you get

[1:07:39] in the mail, but I am glad that the JOHA

[1:07:41] family got notice. It's proof that the circulation works. And

[1:07:45] that is that this is a temporary, uh, outdoor, uh,

[1:07:49] event that does have permission to do so. There are

[1:07:52] temporary tent outdoor permits that are included in my presentation.

[1:07:56] Um, the slides that I provided to staff related to

[1:08:01] the issued permits for those tents, uh, and the approval

[1:08:04] from zoning that this is just a temporary event. I

[1:08:06] think it's really helpful to think of this, um, like

[1:08:09] any normal family would think of having, uh, that reception

[1:08:12] for their family at their home, especially on farm settings.

[1:08:15] There's a lot of space outdoors to gather people that

[1:08:18] don't necessarily conflict with the building code requirements of the

[1:08:20] parking requirements of the zoning bylaw for indoor settings. Um,

[1:08:24] I think if you're like me, you've attended farm weddings

[1:08:28] in Ontario before. And my wedding actually was hosted in

[1:08:33] my fiance's family backyard and it was quite a large

[1:08:35] and wonderful gathering. What this application is not is seeking

[1:08:39] permanent approval for this to continue happening. This is a

[1:08:42] personal event for my client's son. Uh, and it's a

[1:08:46] family at gathering of about 150 to 200 people that

[1:08:48] is going to take place over the course of three

[1:08:50] days. Two of those days is going to comply with

[1:08:52] the noise exemption bylaw. One of the evenings, they think

[1:08:56] will be, um, the celebration will extend past 11. And

[1:08:59] that's what's really before Council this evening, but under the

[1:09:02] review of the application for noise exemption as well as

[1:09:06] a temporary tent permits. It was felt that it would

[1:09:08] be prudent to apply for all three. But if Council

[1:09:11] is more comfortable, alleviating the concerns of the normal noise

[1:09:15] ordinance that is at play, is it in play in

[1:09:17] the town of Halton Hills. We're not seeking anything beyond

[1:09:20] what you can normally, uh, as loud as you can

[1:09:23] normally allow to be before a certain time in Halton

[1:09:25] Hales. So these three tenths are approved. Uh, this farm

[1:09:30] wedding for the owner's son is happening outdoor. And we're

[1:09:34] seeking an exemption for one of the evenings when they

[1:09:37] actual winning in the ceremony takes place. Um, just after

[1:09:41] that, I think if we hadn't had a little bit

[1:09:43] of a blemish on this parcel, uh, this would feel

[1:09:46] a little bit more like a routine and normal request,

[1:09:48] really a housekeeping matter. Um, to go slightly beyond the

[1:09:51] normal ordinance of, of the noise bylaw. But I understand

[1:09:55] and I can appreciate that, um, this feels as though

[1:09:58] a different animal is looming. But I want to make

[1:10:00] sure that we're fair to the application. What's before you

[1:10:04] is, I think a very routine request for an event

[1:10:06] to take place for the owner's son. It's not a

[1:10:08] commercial event. It's not something that we're using for someone

[1:10:12] else to come to this property to pay Melody Acres,

[1:10:14] which is the numbered company or the name of the

[1:10:16] owner of the property. It's not a melody acres event.

[1:10:20] LEA car zone is the property and therefore they're the

[1:10:22] advocate. It is the owner's son. And I think, um,

[1:10:26] the confusion with respect to what's happening with the application,

[1:10:29] but that's not what is being requested today. So my

[1:10:32] client felt it was helpful for me to be here

[1:10:34] to explain a little bit of continuity between the formal

[1:10:37] proposal to amend land use. And what I'm going to

[1:10:41] call again, a very housekeeping technical request, um, from a

[1:10:44] personal aspect, um, of what's before you today. So there

[1:10:47] are three tents that are approved. There is a wedding

[1:10:50] that's going to happen on these dates. And we're going

[1:10:53] to the proper channels to ask for one of the

[1:10:55] days to be a little bit louder after the celebration

[1:10:57] of their union. And so I just, Mr. Chair 3,

[1:11:00] I wanted to make sure that that was clear. Uh,

[1:11:02] it's not a permanent approval. This is a one off.

[1:11:05] Um, that's not going to impede, um, more than we're

[1:11:09] allowed to impede except for one of the evenings that

[1:11:11] the noise bylaw regulates. And, uh, we're, we're very, um,

[1:11:15] jealously protective of my clients, um, son and, and making

[1:11:19] sure that they're a good citizen to go through the

[1:11:21] right process this time around. And so I'd be happy

[1:11:23] to answer any questions about where we're at when the,

[1:11:25] in the formal application, but also, um, in and of

[1:11:28] itself, what we're proposing to you this afternoon. Great. Thank

[1:11:32] you. Thank you. Uh, Councillor had a question. I'm not

[1:11:36] sure who to do. Are you going to direct the

[1:11:38] question to, uh, Mr. Council Somerville. The floor yours? Hey,

[1:11:42] I could Mr. Chair, but also asking the staff as

[1:11:44] well. So you said you only need the exemption on

[1:11:47] the one night, but it shows here that both Wednesday

[1:11:50] and Thursday evening, you're asking to go until midnight. And,

[1:11:54] uh, I don't think either both of those are within

[1:11:58] our bylaw. That's why I was going to ask that

[1:11:59] for clarification from staff. And they because I have concerns

[1:12:05] going to midnight. I'll be very honest. I would if

[1:12:08] this was in a urban area and as much as

[1:12:10] I would in a rural area and consistently we have

[1:12:15] stuck with what our bylaw says, but allowed it. So,

[1:12:19] um, I just wanted to get a comment from you

[1:12:22] on that. Please. Um, I appreciate the question. Um, I

[1:12:25] tried to mention a little bit of this in my

[1:12:27] presentation, but I completely understand why I wouldn't be clear.

[1:12:31] Cause that is what we're asking for. That was what

[1:12:33] we were recommended to ask for through the inspection and

[1:12:36] review of the, of the temporary application, um, because you're

[1:12:39] having an outdoor event. It's typically an add - on

[1:12:42] that you should also ask for an exemption, um, for

[1:12:45] noise on that event. So my clients have given me

[1:12:47] instructions and I'm happy to accept this as a condition

[1:12:49] through Council that it really is only one of the

[1:12:51] days. The other two days, um, the follow up and

[1:12:55] the cool down from the, um, event is not going

[1:12:58] to go over, um, the, the current noise bylaw. Um,

[1:13:03] and I think what's important, what this question really points

[1:13:06] to is that, um, everyone can sort of, with permission,

[1:13:11] um, be allowed up to a certain point in Halton

[1:13:14] Hales. It's not a request that we're making of that

[1:13:17] because that's what the noise by law is for. Whether

[1:13:22] it corresponds to our personal feelings about bedtime and where

[1:13:25] your family is in a rural urban setting, um, we

[1:13:28] are not allowed to be loud after a certain time

[1:13:30] no matter what happens. But because we have three tenths

[1:13:32] approved, um, they felt it would be prudent to spread

[1:13:36] the approval across the three dates, but my client has

[1:13:39] told me in no one's certain terms, the only intend

[1:13:41] to go past it on one of the dates, which

[1:13:43] would be the middle date. The Thursday. Yeah. That would

[1:13:49] be the 30th, Mr. Scherer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I

[1:13:53] do have questions of stops. Though. Okay. Thank you. Are

[1:13:58] there any other questions. I see none sole Council Songville.

[1:14:02] You can ask the question to SAF. Uh, thank you.

[1:14:07] And assuming before we do that, I think we need

[1:14:09] to bring the report forward first. I was just going

[1:14:13] to offer to move that to come forward, Mr. Chairman.

[1:14:16] Okay. Thank you. So the reports on the table, uh,

[1:14:20] questions for on the report. Council Somerville. You have a

[1:14:24] question. Thank you. So I guess through you to, I'm

[1:14:28] assuming, Oh, the Adam. It would be to Adam. Our

[1:14:34] noise bylaw currently, if we didn't have an exemption, would

[1:14:38] be to 11 p. m. Correct. Through the chair to

[1:14:43] you, Councillor. Yes. That's correct. 11 p. m. Basically states

[1:14:48] that there's no sound clearly audible is permitted after 11

[1:14:51] p. m. Okay. And I guess historically asking you for

[1:14:56] what we've done previous on the, uh, noise requests that

[1:15:01] we've had. Um, if I recall, we've pretty well always,

[1:15:06] if we've granted the exemption, we've said, yes, that they

[1:15:08] have to go to that 11 p. m. sound. Uh,

[1:15:13] through the chair to the Councillor, I believe that the

[1:15:17] previous two, at least two or three of these, uh,

[1:15:23] they've requested beyond midnight. And I think Council granted until

[1:15:27] midnight, if I'm not mistaken. I remember being to 11

[1:15:35] on one of them, uh, anyway, it was located in

[1:15:39] a more urban area as well. Okay. Mr. Chair, those

[1:15:42] are my questions of staff and all of a comment

[1:15:45] or direction once we have other speakers. Okay. Thank you.

[1:15:49] We do have other speakers. Councillor Norris. Thank you Mr.

[1:15:55] Chair. And a question for the staff on this one

[1:15:58] here. I did hear one of the delegates earlier referring

[1:16:01] to the not just the time, but the level of

[1:16:05] the sound. His comment was referring to earlier in the

[1:16:09] time because they were enjoying a barbecue. So, but they

[1:16:12] were having that disrupted. My question would be not only

[1:16:15] just the time that would be the, um, within the

[1:16:19] bylaw. Do we have a decibel level. That has to

[1:16:22] be, um. You have to stay within. As well. Through

[1:16:28] the chair to you, Councillor, yes, we do. So table

[1:16:32] six on page 10 of the bylaw specifies the certain

[1:16:36] times of day and certain decibel levels that are permitted.

[1:16:40] So the maximum decibel level on weekdays and Saturdays from

[1:16:45] 5 p. m. Sorry from 7 a. m. until 5

[1:16:49] p. m. would be 63 decibels would be the maximum.

[1:16:54] And then from again, 9 a. m. until 5 p.

[1:16:58] m. on Sundays and statutory holidays. It's the same 63

[1:17:01] decibels. And then from 5 p. m. until midnight, we

[1:17:06] have 50 decibels. So it lessens during that, uh, that

[1:17:10] time period. Okay. Thank you for that. And, um, just

[1:17:14] for us who are not really fully understanding that, what

[1:17:18] would that be similar to if we're looking at 50

[1:17:20] decibels? What could you relate that to? Through the chair

[1:17:23] to the Councillor. It's difficult to say what it's like

[1:17:28] because it really depends on the point of reception. And

[1:17:30] the point of reception, what we call the point of

[1:17:32] reception is the point that someone is concerned with the

[1:17:36] noise level. And that could be a kilometer away. It

[1:17:38] could be five kilometers away. And depending on the distance,

[1:17:41] you're going to get a different reading at each of

[1:17:42] those distances. So one of the one of these speakers

[1:17:46] was referring to being 300 metres away. Um, if the,

[1:17:50] the sound coming from the properties of PIT decibels, what

[1:17:53] could that realistically sound like. Through the chair to the

[1:17:56] Councillor 50 decibels, uh, 300, sorry, 300 metres away, you

[1:18:02] had said. That's what I heard. Yeah. I mean, it

[1:18:05] could sound loud. It could overbear a conversation. Um, it

[1:18:10] really depends. It depends on whether the speakers are pointed

[1:18:14] in the direction of that property. There are still other

[1:18:16] variables. But, uh, it could potentially be disruptive. Okay. Yep.

[1:18:21] Thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor Norris. Uh, mayor.

[1:18:28] Yeah. Thanks very much. And, uh, my question is I

[1:18:32] think along the same lines that Councillor Norris is. And,

[1:18:38] and I'm curious to know where the decibels are measured.

[1:18:44] And because if they're measured at source versus at, you

[1:18:49] know, the receiving end. Then I think that could be

[1:18:53] quite different. So, um, can you share a little bit

[1:18:57] of that. Yeah. Through the Councillor to you, Madam Mayor.

[1:19:02] If we were to measure the sound level from the

[1:19:05] source location from the property with the speakers and having

[1:19:09] the venue, it would certainly be louder and read louder

[1:19:12] than it would from, uh, complainant properties, so to speak,

[1:19:16] or from a point of reception, a further distance away.

[1:19:20] Um, the way that we enforced the bylaw in enforcement

[1:19:24] services though is taking that measurement from a point of

[1:19:27] reception. And the point of reception may be a patio

[1:19:32] area in someone's backyard nearby. At times maybe from within

[1:19:37] someone's house if that noise is entering their home from

[1:19:40] another property as well. Okay. So you would be measuring

[1:19:45] the impact on a neighbouring property. When you're measuring this

[1:19:50] disability through the chair. Do you matter mayor? Yes. That's

[1:19:53] correct. We would be measuring the impact from the impacted

[1:19:56] location. Okay. And, um, can you tell us what the

[1:20:01] process is, um, during the course of an event, um,

[1:20:06] the neighbours feel as though the decibel level is elevated.

[1:20:11] And beyond what they feel, uh, it should be. What

[1:20:16] is the process? How do they remedy that? Or how

[1:20:21] does that get reviewed. Through the chair to you, Madam

[1:20:25] Mayor. Essentially the report that's in front of you is

[1:20:28] asking for two exemptions. It's asking for an exemption from

[1:20:33] the decibel requirement. It's also asking for an exemption to

[1:20:39] the going beyond 11 PM. Typically when we've had these

[1:20:43] reports in the past, they're always asking for those two

[1:20:46] exemptions. So ultimately the application in front of you is

[1:20:51] to allow for in excess of the decibels that the

[1:20:55] bylaw states. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And it

[1:21:01] would be for the full amount of time that is

[1:21:05] indicated here the three days. Through the chair to you,

[1:21:09] Matt, to you, Madam Mayor. Originally when we got this

[1:21:12] report, it was for three days. It was for, let

[1:21:16] me give you this specific times and days. It was

[1:21:20] for July 29, 6 p. m. until midnight, July 30th,

[1:21:25] 6 p. m. until midnight. And Friday, July 31st, 2

[1:21:29] p. m. until 6 p. m. Late last week, I

[1:21:32] received an email from the applicant. Basically saying that they

[1:21:38] no longer required all of those dates and times that

[1:21:41] the only date and Mr. Dell alluded to this in

[1:21:45] his presentation. The only date really required was the Thursday,

[1:21:49] which is July 30th, I believe. And, uh, in the

[1:21:54] email that I received last week, they actually say that

[1:21:57] they would only be going up until 11 p. m.

[1:22:01] and not exceeding that 11 p. m. So if that

[1:22:03] is the case, then the only exemption that would be

[1:22:06] required would be the exemption from the decibel level, from

[1:22:10] the maximum decibel level. Okay. Well, if. Just

[1:22:20] to get something on the floor and to clarify, um,

[1:22:23] I will, I will propose that amendment to the written

[1:22:27] report that we have, if that's what they're asking for.

[1:22:32] That just an exemption from the decibel level, um, 211

[1:22:37] p. m. on the Thursday evening. Through the chair to

[1:22:41] you, Madam Mayor. Yes, that's correct. That is the most

[1:22:43] recent correspondence I received from the applicant. Okay. And, um,

[1:22:49] now that said, is that about level, is it thin

[1:22:53] unlimited. That's kind of scary. Through the chair to you,

[1:22:59] Madam Mayor. I guess it is, yes, but I mean,

[1:23:05] you know, if you, or Council would like to impose

[1:23:09] something different, uh, I'm sure a maximum decibel level could

[1:23:13] be, could be opted into. You know, over, over and

[1:23:18] above what the Byla allows. To put a threshold, I

[1:23:21] guess. Okay. Well, then I'll put it at the 63.

[1:23:28] Okay. So there's my, there's my, to get, to get

[1:23:33] something on the floor. And for further discussion.

[1:23:58] Uh, Council Engels, who are you're next? And thank you,

[1:24:02] Mr. Chair. Um, my questions were along there. I think

[1:24:05] they've been answered, but Adam, just to, just to confirm.

[1:24:09] I was a little confused with the three days once

[1:24:12] the delegation, the latter delegation spoke. So the time exemption,

[1:24:20] PAST 11 is for one day in that Thursday the

[1:24:24] 30. My correct saying that. Through the chair to you,

[1:24:29] Councillor. From the email that I received again late last

[1:24:32] week, and, uh, it was at that point I wasn't

[1:24:35] able to change the report that had been written. Um,

[1:24:39] they're only asking to go up until the applicants only

[1:24:41] asking to go up until 11 PM. So they wouldn't

[1:24:46] be exceeding that maximum time requirement. On any of the

[1:24:52] dates. Through the councillor, through the chair to you, Mr.

[1:24:56] Councillor. Yes. They're only asking for the Thursday and that

[1:24:59] would be the latest day going up until 11 PM.

[1:25:05] Okay. So really all they're asking for is a maximum

[1:25:08] decibel level. For the one day, the Thursday of July,

[1:25:14] sorry, not the, to be above, to be exempted from

[1:25:17] the maximum decibel level for the one single day, Thursday,

[1:25:21] the 30th. Through the chair to you, Mr. Councillor. Yes,

[1:25:25] that's correct. Everything relating to the other, um, the other

[1:25:33] two dates, the 29th and the 31st in is unnecessary

[1:25:37] in the report then correct? Through the chair to you,

[1:25:41] Councillor. Yes, that's correct. Those were originally applied for, for

[1:25:46] the exemption, but then that was sort of withdrawn late

[1:25:49] last week. We are basically going for decibel level exemption

[1:25:55] on one day. And on the, on the floor right

[1:25:59] now is a 63 decibel maximum. Correct. Through the chair

[1:26:05] to you, Councillor. Yes, that's correct. Okay. I can't see

[1:26:09] anybody there. So I will. Okay, it was a little

[1:26:13] confused for a bit there. And thank you for, uh,

[1:26:16] clarifying all of that. I'm not too sure where the

[1:26:19] 63 decibel sits in or why that was why that

[1:26:22] number was picked or, or, or that. But maybe you

[1:26:25] could clarify that. Why, well, maybe you couldn't because you

[1:26:28] didn't put the number on the, on the floor. Could

[1:26:32] I, I wonder if somebody could clarify that. Why, why,

[1:26:36] why 63. Through the chair to you, Councillor, I believe

[1:26:40] that Madam Mayor posed 63 because that's the maximum level

[1:26:45] for, uh, sorry, 7 a. m. until 5 p. m.

[1:26:50] on weekdays and Saturdays. And it's the same maximum level

[1:26:53] for 9 a. m. to 5 p. m. on Sundays

[1:26:57] and statutory holidays. This, this though, being later in the

[1:27:02] day beyond the 5 p. m. So it would exceed

[1:27:04] the 50 decibels, which is the maximum allowed after beyond

[1:27:10] 5 p. m., but it would exceed the 50. But

[1:27:14] again, on the floor is up to 63 decibels. Oh,

[1:27:19] that's good. No, I understand it. Now, thanks for clarifying.

[1:27:23] After other speakers, I will wait. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:27:37] Thank you, Adema. Madam Clerk, I've commented regarding the 63

[1:27:43] decibels, okay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you. So I

[1:27:47] understand the limit for the 63 decibels, but I think

[1:27:52] it will be very difficult for enforcement services to get

[1:27:54] out there at 11 o'clock if the, if a complaint

[1:27:57] comes in to say that the noise is very loud,

[1:28:00] because our officers won't be working that evening. So I

[1:28:04] can, I can see the exemption for. Two go past

[1:28:07] a certain time frame. I don't know if it's convenient

[1:28:10] or suitable enough for us to actually put a decibel

[1:28:13] level on that. Adam, I don't know if you want

[1:28:16] to comment on that. I agree. Uh, I agree with

[1:28:20] the town clerk that it would be very difficult for

[1:28:23] us to be out there at a specific time to

[1:28:26] take that reading. Um, and to confirm that it is

[1:28:30] under that 63 decibels, um, it would be difficult. And

[1:28:35] it may be. Easier to enforce if it was a

[1:28:40] specific time period rather than a decibel level.

[1:28:49] Let them married. Did you have a comment on one

[1:28:51] comment? Well, I guess it just kind of begs the

[1:28:54] question, why do we even have it. Why do we

[1:28:56] have any mention of Decibel levels in the bylaw at

[1:28:59] all. But. Like I said, it begs the question. So

[1:29:07] I'm just, I put it in there in order that

[1:29:10] the residents, um, adjoining neighbouring residents would have some basis

[1:29:16] for relief. And could they call the police. In that

[1:29:22] case. Through to the chair to you, Madam Mayor. Yes.

[1:29:27] Calling the police is always an option. In a situation

[1:29:29] like this, what may happen if someone were to call

[1:29:32] the police, though they may show them, you know, their

[1:29:35] approvals that they have for this event if approvals are

[1:29:38] given. And, uh, I mean, it would be ultimately a

[1:29:42] matter taking up between the police and, and the property

[1:29:44] owner at that point. Sure. Sure. Okay.

[1:29:55] Councillor Norris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm hearing what's

[1:30:00] being said. Then and I do completely understand that it

[1:30:02] would be a challenge to have enforcement out at that

[1:30:06] time at night. Um, for what we're looking at, this

[1:30:10] has been identified as a private event, but in a

[1:30:12] location that's actually being, the proposal in there to have

[1:30:16] a regular, um, uh, wedding facility there. Um, this is

[1:30:22] just talking not even have thought about this before. Is

[1:30:26] there a spot where we can actually then bring this,

[1:30:29] uh, requirement at the 63 decibels. If we go with

[1:30:31] that number, uh, to be responsible, um, the responsibility of

[1:30:36] the landowner in this case, the people that are hosting

[1:30:39] it, that they would then have to monitor for themselves.

[1:30:43] And then take that, um, responsibility as a good neighbour.

[1:30:48] Um, and then of course if that is abused, then

[1:30:52] the neighbours would have the option to phone the police.

[1:30:54] Could we put that as part of the requirement. Through

[1:30:58] the chair to you, Councillor, it could be done. But

[1:31:01] again, it, how do we prove that they did exceed

[1:31:05] that number if they did and we didn't have staff

[1:31:08] out there to measure. That would be the difficulty. That

[1:31:10] would be the challenge. Oh, thank you for that. But

[1:31:13] if we had put it on there, then we'd be

[1:31:15] looking to the applicant then to, uh, be part of

[1:31:18] the honour system to, um, to stay within that. Knowing

[1:31:22] that, you know, enforcement's difficult, but, you know, they would

[1:31:25] take that responsibility. And just hope that the actors could

[1:31:30] neighbours. Just my thought. Council Someville, you have another question.

[1:31:39] I did. Thank you. And it was just to, um,

[1:31:42] understand what the mayor put on the floor. What the

[1:31:45] amendment was going to be. I just want to make

[1:31:47] sure I have that clear in my head. And a

[1:31:51] mayor. Okay. That maximum

[1:32:02] time. That amplified sound could be delivered is to 11

[1:32:09] p. m. on the Thursday evening only. And that the

[1:32:17] sound must remain under 63 decibels during that time. Okay.

[1:32:25] So thank you for that, Madam Mayor. I wanted to

[1:32:27] make sure I was clear on it. To, uh, as

[1:32:31] we were getting farther down into the discussion. That's all

[1:32:34] it was, Mr. Chair's just understanding what's on the floor.

[1:32:37] Thank you. I see no other questions. So, uh, I

[1:32:43] guess we'll entertain the mayor's amendment to the report. There

[1:32:50] are any questions to that amendment. I see none. Only

[1:32:57] favor. And we'll just carry the report.

[1:33:16] So I've been informed that our option B amended is

[1:33:20] what we're looking for and what we're voting on. Have

[1:33:26] a mover. Yeah. Councillor Norris, only favor. Carrie.

[1:33:53] All right. So, uh, we delve up to D. We're

[1:33:57] now on item D. And that is Rob Russell. Russell

[1:34:00] Planning. Delegating two committee regarding Georgetown Go Protective Major Transit

[1:34:06] area. And George Tongal Station area. Mill Street Corrido Secondary

[1:34:12] Plan. And it's referred to 92T in the report. Mr.

[1:34:18] Russell. What was yours? Uh, good evening, Chair Banno. Members

[1:34:23] of the committee. Want to also take this opportunity to

[1:34:26] probably the last time I'll be before you for this

[1:34:27] Council term. So thank you for your assistance over the

[1:34:29] last four years. And some of you longer than that,

[1:34:32] of course. Um, anyway, as Chair Albano mentioned, I'm here

[1:34:36] about the Georgetown Ghost Secondary Plan, OPA 64. And I

[1:34:40] know a lot of work's been done on this. And

[1:34:43] just for added context, I, as some of you know

[1:34:45] in some of staff, no, I lived in the South

[1:34:47] Precinct for 10 years. I moved away just as this

[1:34:50] process was getting started. Had nothing to do with the

[1:34:51] process at all, uh, but it was, you know, a

[1:34:54] decision, my family and I made. But so I'm very

[1:34:57] familiar with the neighbourhood. I'm familiar with the area. Uh,

[1:35:01] and unfortunately I was just retained just a couple of

[1:35:03] weeks ago, uh, for a client who was looking at

[1:35:06] potential, potentially some other options in terms of some of

[1:35:09] the properties he owns on King Street, uh, the north

[1:35:12] side of King Street. To be designated as, as medium

[1:35:15] density. And unfortunately it was just too late in the

[1:35:17] process to really have that conversation with staff and explore

[1:35:20] this. So my request here is simple is I'm not

[1:35:23] asking you to redesignate or amend the secondary plan, but

[1:35:26] give us some extra time, you know, potential defer, whether

[1:35:30] it's all of OPA 64, whether it's carving out this

[1:35:32] block. Just a little extra time to have those conversations.

[1:35:35] But staff and try and see what is possible. And

[1:35:39] I do believe with my knowledge of the area, I

[1:35:42] do believe this is something that's worthwhile considering. And with

[1:35:46] that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you

[1:35:48] Mr. Russell. I believe that Todd Councillor Bras had your

[1:35:52] hand up. Have a question. Yes, thank you, Chair, through

[1:35:58] you to Mr. Russell. Thanks for, uh, delegating and for

[1:36:02] those comments, it has been nice to see you over

[1:36:04] the last four years as well. Uh, can you, you

[1:36:08] just touched on it, but I wonder, are you talking

[1:36:10] about. The, uh, MTSA or the secondary plant are both?

[1:36:15] The secondary plan specifically, the lands are currently outside of

[1:36:19] the PTMSA and with discussing with my client, uh, Mr.

[1:36:23] Presswood, uh, we felt putting these lands in the PTMSA

[1:36:27] was not necessarily the best option. Um, I'm not going

[1:36:31] to say be unwilling to considerate, but we felt probably

[1:36:35] the easiest path forward, uh, and the easiest discussion with

[1:36:39] staff, uh, would have been to, uh, explore the opportunity

[1:36:43] for designating its medium density. But again, we are willing

[1:36:49] to consider other options. This is really, as I said,

[1:36:51] just got involved in this a couple of weeks ago.

[1:36:54] Thank you, Mr. Russell. Thank you, Chair. When the report

[1:36:56] comes forward, I'll have some comments, please. Great. Thank you,

[1:36:59] Mr. Brown. Council Brass? Uh, are there any other questions.

[1:37:09] Thanks very much for coming forward and presenting this idea.

[1:37:13] Can you describe your, um, how long your client has

[1:37:18] owned the property. Uh, that I cannot say. I have

[1:37:22] not asked those questions. There's four properties involved that my

[1:37:26] client specifically owns is 83 through 93 King Street North.

[1:37:31] And unfortunately, I don't have that information at my fingertips

[1:37:34] right now. Do you know if they've been aware of

[1:37:40] this exercise that's been going on for probably in excess

[1:37:43] of three years. And that I can say that no,

[1:37:48] they only really just became aware of the process and

[1:37:51] the implications within the past month or so. So they

[1:37:55] must have. They must have acquired the property quite recently

[1:38:01] because it's been quite a subject of neighbourhood debate and

[1:38:05] discussion all along King Street certainly and throughout it's been

[1:38:11] quite widely circulated. So I'm curious to know a little

[1:38:15] bit more about when they found out about this process.

[1:38:19] And why they're coming literally at the last minute to,

[1:38:24] to ask for deferral. Yeah. And, uh, through, through the

[1:38:29] chair to Madam Mayor, I don't unfortunately have a good

[1:38:32] answer for that. It is, uh, I've been in the

[1:38:35] business long enough with clients who sometimes miss their deadline

[1:38:38] or they don't even realise what's happened till later on.

[1:38:40] Uh, and yes, I'm certainly aware that there's been a

[1:38:43] lot of work going on on it by staff and

[1:38:47] Council involvement, but I just, you know, I don't have

[1:38:50] a good answer for you, unfortunately. Okay. And, and, but

[1:38:54] they've assembled a set of properties like four properties. Yes.

[1:38:58] Correct. So they've assembled properties. But they're not aware of

[1:39:02] the process that's been going on for quite some time.

[1:39:07] That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. It's

[1:39:15] okay with Council will bring the report forward. Yes. All

[1:39:20] in favor of that. Yes. Okay. Um, okay. So the

[1:39:24] ports on the table and, uh, Councillor Bryce, you had

[1:39:27] a comment to make on that report. Yes, I did,

[1:39:32] Chair. Thank you. And, um, throughout this process, I've been

[1:39:35] very vocal about, uh, the fact that, um, I don't

[1:39:40] like the way this was handled with regards to transparency.

[1:39:45] I think it's, uh, in fact, the opposite of transparency.

[1:39:48] And I think the mayor having a house in this

[1:39:52] area is an incredibly conflict of interest. Which was not

[1:39:56] declared. Apparently it was okay, but in my, my, my

[1:40:00] mind, uh, very bad taste. And also part of the

[1:40:04] steering committee, which I think is a. Uh, totally against

[1:40:08] transparency and something that I would not be part of.

[1:40:12] Um, hearing us tonight is something I've heard in the

[1:40:15] community from a few other people about that area and

[1:40:19] some of the challenges that may be coming. If this

[1:40:22] is approved tonight. So with that, I would like to

[1:40:25] put on the floor to defer OPA 63 and 64

[1:40:29] to the next term of Council. So we can take

[1:40:32] a wholesome and look at this. Take it slow. Do

[1:40:36] it right. And get it right. I'll put that on

[1:40:40] the floor. Thank you Councillor Bryce. Mayor Lawler. Point of

[1:40:48] order, Mr. Chair. And, um, and it regards the aspersions

[1:40:54] that Councillor Brass are suggesting. This matter, he's brought up

[1:41:00] before. And it's been brought before the integrity commissioner. And

[1:41:04] the integrity commissioner has written a ruling that was discussed

[1:41:09] and circulated amongst Council over a year ago. And Councillor

[1:41:16] Brass is now raising this again. Inappropriately. And so I

[1:41:22] would like him to rescind those comments. Um, given that

[1:41:28] he has seen the integrity commissioner's report. And he has

[1:41:32] seen that the statement made by that integrity commissioner. Talked

[1:41:38] about interests in common. And that, um, that anyone who

[1:41:44] has a property in that neighbourhood or anyone who, a

[1:41:49] member of Council, who has properties in any neighbourhood, um,

[1:41:55] are considered to have interests in common. And therefore the

[1:42:00] conflict of interest does not apply. And so I regret

[1:42:06] this comment that is made by him. And I would

[1:42:09] ask him to rescind it in light of the fact

[1:42:12] this matter has been clarified clearly by the integrity commissioner.

[1:42:17] Who is in a position to make a ruling. Thank

[1:42:21] you. Thank you, Madam Laurel. At this point, since the

[1:42:26] referrals on the table, he doesn't have to rescind those

[1:42:28] comments. Um, so we'll just deal with the referral first.

[1:42:34] And then we'll vote on that. But, um, I've been

[1:42:37] informed that he does not have to rescind those comments.

[1:42:41] I would challenge that Mr. Chair because the basis of

[1:42:48] the suggestion is that this has not been handled in

[1:42:51] a transparent way. And it absolutely has, as the integrity

[1:42:57] commissioner and as our planning department has proceeded, um, through

[1:43:01] all of the steps that are normally conducted by our

[1:43:07] planning processes, they've all been followed. And, um, therefore his

[1:43:13] suggestion that a deferral should happen because it has not

[1:43:17] been followed. Is quite wrong. We have a, uh, a

[1:43:23] question from Councillor. It was not on this matter. It

[1:43:30] was just about, um, to our planning commissioner about the

[1:43:35] deferral if there's any issue. They can see from the

[1:43:39] planning staff of deferring the OPA as played out by,

[1:43:44] um, Councillor Brass because he did also say to make

[1:43:47] sure that we're, as we did of somebody coming forward

[1:43:50] tonight of making sure, I think he said of going

[1:43:54] slow and right as opposed to fast and wrong. So

[1:43:57] I'm just wondering if our planning commissioner can comment on

[1:43:59] any implications on if this is deferred. Ms. Parker.

[1:44:09] Through the chair to Councillor Somerville, um, great question. I

[1:44:15] think one thing to keep in mind is that OPA

[1:44:18] 63 is the one that has to go to the

[1:44:21] province for consideration because the minister is the approval authority

[1:44:25] of that official plan amendment dealing specifically with the protected

[1:44:28] major transition area. Deferring that would obviously then pause. Staff

[1:44:35] from being able to continue those conversations with the province

[1:44:38] until after the new Council is in place, um, based

[1:44:42] on the deferral motion on the floor. When it comes

[1:44:45] to OPA 64, dealing with the secondary plenaria Council is

[1:44:49] the decision maker for that official plan amendment. So effectively

[1:44:55] what the deferral would do with respect to that amendment

[1:44:58] is obviously pause the process. Um, which I believe is

[1:45:02] what, uh, Councillor Brass's intention is, um, given his comments

[1:45:06] around wanting to have those discussions with, uh, the new

[1:45:10] Council. Effectively what the deferral would do, obviously is pause

[1:45:15] both of those processes from proceeding. Um, you know, we've

[1:45:20] heard some comments around the table already about the length

[1:45:22] of the process. There's multiple staff reports that are linked

[1:45:26] in the staff report today. Um, you can take a

[1:45:28] look at any one of those reports and it provides

[1:45:32] the sort of history of the process and of the

[1:45:34] file itself. Um, the file did start in 2022 with

[1:45:40] all due respect to the delegate. I do know that

[1:45:41] the owner did have conversations with staff back in 2024

[1:45:45] about the process. Um, so, you know, I, I would

[1:45:50] challenge the argument or the comment that the owner was

[1:45:53] unaware that the process was happening because staff do have

[1:45:55] a record of that conversation having taken place. Um, that

[1:45:58] being said, ultimately, as always, staff are in Council's hands.

[1:46:02] So whatever decision Council chooses to make, we will work

[1:46:04] within those boundaries. But obviously the deferral would again put

[1:46:09] another pause to this very lengthy process. And we wouldn't

[1:46:12] be able to move forward with anything until the new

[1:46:14] Council based again on the deferral. That's on the floor.

[1:46:18] Hopefully that clarifies. Oh yeah. That makes that mud really

[1:46:23] clear. Um, no, it's still, it's just trying to make

[1:46:26] sure that if we did defer it, um, we're still

[1:46:31] in a good position with the, with the province being

[1:46:34] the approval agency on the one in the town on

[1:46:36] the other. That's why I was asking my question, but,

[1:46:39] uh, thank you for your answer. Thank you. We have

[1:46:43] Council Folgo now. Okay. Well, um, I would really like

[1:46:53] Councillor Brass to explain this idea of transparency and it

[1:47:00] not being transparent. Like what. As far as I could

[1:47:04] see we did everything the same on this process as

[1:47:08] every other planning application or planning project. Uh, there were

[1:47:14] open houses and reports and citizen committees. And, you know,

[1:47:20] we did everything exactly the same. So what, what, what

[1:47:26] got missed and what is envisioned to be added if

[1:47:31] the deferral? Is there like another public meeting or what,

[1:47:36] what exactly, I mean, I was part of this process

[1:47:40] and I was really proud of this process. And the

[1:47:43] impact that the citizen committee had on it, um, and

[1:47:48] they really got into it and they, they spent a

[1:47:53] lot of time on it. And now to say, Oh,

[1:47:56] well, we don't think you did a good job. Or,

[1:48:00] you know, the public wasn't aware or like, I just

[1:48:04] don't understand what we missed. And what steps are envisioned

[1:48:11] to take it forward that would make it more to

[1:48:14] make it over the bar of transparency, whatever that bar

[1:48:18] might be that I don't understand. So I'd love some

[1:48:22] clarity on that. Thank you Councillor Fogle. Council Bryson, comment.

[1:48:31] Thank you, Chair, through you. Yes, I do. Um, Councillor

[1:48:34] Fogle at the beginning of this process, there was, there

[1:48:36] was not a citizen, the citizen group involved, but there

[1:48:39] wasn't an official steering committee. That was eventually done after

[1:48:44] a ruckus meeting with some citizens. And it is my

[1:48:50] personal opinion. That the mayor who lives in the area,

[1:48:56] regardless of what was received, should not A, not be

[1:49:00] on that committee. Should not have any impact on who's

[1:49:04] on that committee should not be in the meetings to

[1:49:07] be able to manipulate a situation. And living in the

[1:49:09] area should have declared a conflict in good taste, regardless

[1:49:13] of what was provided. And, uh, given that Councillor Engels

[1:49:20] over and over and over again, declared a conflict of

[1:49:22] interest because he owns a rental property in that area.

[1:49:25] For me, he provides incredible contrast to are the mayor

[1:49:30] who lives in the area and is on these committees

[1:49:33] or on this steering committee. So for those reasons, I

[1:49:38] don't. Think it was handled as transparent as possible. For

[1:49:44] me, the mayor being off of the steering committee and

[1:49:48] declaring a conflict during these discussions would have. Been more

[1:49:52] credible. And would have been much more transparent. Okay. Well,

[1:50:01] from my point of view, I was in all of

[1:50:02] the meetings. I didn't see, uh, any of the things

[1:50:06] going on that have been described by Councillor Brass. I

[1:50:11] believe the, uh, the citizens were saying their own things,

[1:50:16] the planners were too. I didn't, I didn't see a

[1:50:18] problem with it. So, uh, I will, I will not

[1:50:21] be supporting the, uh, deferral.

[1:50:32] Just give us a few seconds till we figure out,

[1:50:34] uh, what, uh, what we need to do here. Okay.

[1:52:11] We're just going to take, uh, short recess for about

[1:52:13] five minutes, uh, until we sort things out. Okay. We'll

[1:52:17] get back in five minutes.

[2:09:30] Okay. So after lengthy discussion with the clerk staff. So

[2:09:37] after speaking with the cleric, it was noted that the

[2:09:40] mayor meant to raise a point of personal privilege, not

[2:09:44] a point of order. I let the clerk explain the

[2:09:47] difference between the two. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through

[2:09:54] you. So the difference between the two, and I had

[2:09:58] discussed this with Madam Mayor. So a point of order

[2:10:00] means a matter that a member considers to be a

[2:10:02] departure from the contravention of the rules. So something that

[2:10:05] we're not following in the procedural bylaw. A point of

[2:10:08] personal privilege is a statement calling attention to a matter

[2:10:11] where the integrity character or reputation of an individuals or

[2:10:16] the Council is perceived to be in question. So the

[2:10:20] mayor was speaking to a point of personal privilege and

[2:10:27] the point that she was speaking to was the comments

[2:10:31] regarding not declaring a conflict or peculiary interest. So Council

[2:10:38] members, it is their choice whether or not they declare

[2:10:44] a conflict of interest on the floor and should a

[2:10:47] member of Council not agree or a member of the

[2:10:50] public or staff agree that a Council member should have

[2:10:53] declared the can take that opinion to the integrity commissioner

[2:10:57] to open a formal investigation. The integrity commissioner is the

[2:11:00] third party body who does look into code related violations.

[2:11:07] So the integrity commissioner would be the one to rule

[2:11:09] on a decision and the mayor had stated that the

[2:11:13] integrity commissioner had already ruled on this matter and provided

[2:11:16] a statement to the members of Council declaring that. So

[2:11:20] that is why the mayor has put the point of

[2:11:23] personal privilege on the floor. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So

[2:11:29] based on the definition provided by the cleric, I'm satisfied

[2:11:33] the point of personal privilege raised by the mayor is

[2:11:37] in order. So please keep your personal comments out of

[2:11:41] this discussion. And there is a deferral on the floor

[2:11:45] so we can deal with a differ all at this

[2:11:47] moment. Yes, madam Mayor. Just another point. I would like

[2:11:56] to address the suggestions from the Councillor by reading again

[2:12:06] the comments from the integrity commissioner. That all members of

[2:12:10] Council received in 2024. Before this planning process was fully

[2:12:19] underway. So could you advise me, Mr. Chair, when I

[2:12:24] can respond to the comments that were made by Councillor

[2:12:28] Bras.

[2:12:59] So, Madame Mayor, I think at this time it's not

[2:13:01] the appropriate time to make those decisions since we have

[2:13:05] debated this and brought that up or the integrity commissioner.

[2:13:09] Perhaps I could be dressing another time, but not at

[2:13:11] this time. Okay, I will make a public statement about

[2:13:17] it then. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So we have

[2:13:21] a deferral on the table. Council Brass, could you please

[2:13:27] remind us what the referral was all about? I sort

[2:13:29] of lost track of that. Yes, thank you, Chair, through

[2:13:34] you. The deferral is to defer OPA 63 in OPA

[2:13:43] 64. To the next term of Council for their review.

[2:13:48] Period. Thank you. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Council Keane.

[2:13:57] And I believe it's a point of order, Madam Clerk.

[2:14:00] I've heard the words that this happened in the pastor

[2:14:02] for the words both deferral and referral expressed just a

[2:14:05] clarification on the matter. We're voting on a referral or

[2:14:08] deferral. Is it a deferral. It is a de -

[2:14:12] fur. So we have a deferral on the table that

[2:14:17] we defer a 6364 for the next term of Council.

[2:14:24] Council Council. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, I'm

[2:14:29] just curious, are we deferring this exact report. To the

[2:14:33] next term of Council? Or are we looking, is the

[2:14:36] suggestion that the process be redone by the next term

[2:14:39] of Council? Because I'm not clear on that. Council Brass.

[2:14:44] You want to clarify that, please? Thank you, Chair, through

[2:14:47] you to the Councillor. Yes, to the intent is to

[2:14:49] defer this report. To the next term of Council for

[2:14:52] the review. And sorry, just a follow - up to

[2:15:00] that. I guess I'm not sure why. Like. What would

[2:15:09] the next, if the concern was around the process that

[2:15:14] led to this report, what is the difference if this

[2:15:18] Council makes the decision on it versus another Council. If

[2:15:22] the concern is how we got to this process. So

[2:15:25] I'm just looking for clarity. Council Brass. Thank you, Chair.

[2:15:30] Through you, given what we heard from Mr. Russell today

[2:15:35] and some other comments I've received from community members and

[2:15:39] landowners in that area, the deferral is intended to land

[2:15:44] on the next term of Council for their review to

[2:15:47] see if we got this right or not. Sorry, one

[2:15:55] more follow - up. So it would be to look

[2:15:57] at changing the recommendations to include some of the requests

[2:16:04] that are coming in from other. So it would be

[2:16:06] looking at redoing this. Then. Or you're saying, if Council

[2:16:12] thinks this was fine, then we would just be voting

[2:16:15] on this. I just, I'm worried about this process has

[2:16:20] been ongoing since before this term account. And so, um,

[2:16:25] I'm just hoping to get clarity around what. The outcome.

[2:16:30] Would be by deferring this. Like what would the benefit

[2:16:34] be. Council Breath, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, for you

[2:16:39] Councillor Garneau more like a silver second thought. To get

[2:16:43] Council to review this report and also give staff time

[2:16:47] to have another look at it to see if anything

[2:16:50] was missed or if any other lands should be considered.

[2:16:54] So potentially nothing changes, potentially something does. Go ahead. Thank

[2:17:01] you. So then I have a question to staff. Around.

[2:17:11] Any potential implications. That staff see regarding differing the report.

[2:17:21] Particularly I know that what this report would do is

[2:17:24] it would update policies in that area. Um, and so

[2:17:29] I know that we've had some applications come in that

[2:17:32] were under the previous secondary plan. And so if applications

[2:17:37] come in between now and when the next Council reviews

[2:17:41] it, they would be still continuing to follow the policies

[2:17:45] from the previous secondary plan. And any concerns around that.

[2:17:56] Certainly through the chair to the Councillor. Um, you're absolutely

[2:17:58] correct. If an application came in for any type of

[2:18:01] development or redevelopment within the secondary plan boundary, um, that

[2:18:06] application would be viewed based on the merits of the

[2:18:10] existing secondary plan. Effectively through

[2:18:20] deferring, um, should Council decide to defer the applic, the

[2:18:24] staff report this evening. Any applicant that comes in during

[2:18:31] that process or during that time period within which we

[2:18:35] would be, um, looking at whatever it is that the

[2:18:40] new Council would be asking staff to look at, um,

[2:18:44] those owners would be able to speak to staff about

[2:18:51] consideration, um, of their lands through that deferred time frame

[2:18:57] through that review process, which I believe is what Councillor

[2:19:00] Brass was referring to when he was responding to you

[2:19:03] earlier questions. Um, hopefully that is what you're asking. Yeah.

[2:19:10] And I'm just wondering, because those policies were updated to

[2:19:13] be more, um, modern, more reflective of, of where we're

[2:19:19] at right now and the vision that we have for

[2:19:21] that area. Are there risks to, like, what would be

[2:19:26] the risk to the community that has had input into

[2:19:29] this if applications do come in under the old policies.

[2:19:35] Like, what would we, what would be the loss. By

[2:19:38] having the new applications being treated in the old way

[2:19:42] versus the new way. Through the chair to the Councillor,

[2:19:47] great question. It's a tricky one to answer. Um, to

[2:19:51] be honest with you because, uh, even if the secondary

[2:19:56] plan was approved as per the staff report this evening.

[2:20:00] And let's say there were no appeals received on OPA

[2:20:03] 64 and that secondary plan was in place that does

[2:20:06] not stop any owner of land from coming forward and

[2:20:09] requesting site specific amendment regardless of the fact that the

[2:20:13] new policies would be in place. Um, I hear you

[2:20:16] in terms of your comments about how the new secondary

[2:20:19] plan would be updating those policies, bringing them more in

[2:20:22] line with provincial direction, et cetera. That is, of course,

[2:20:24] the intent behind this process. And I think you can

[2:20:27] read that through the comments in the staff report. Um,

[2:20:31] but that doesn't stop any owner of land from being

[2:20:33] able to come in and make an application to change

[2:20:35] the land at any point in time. Just one follow

[2:20:40] - up question. Go ahead. Okay. So in that same

[2:20:43] vein, if we did approve it today, would that stop

[2:20:47] any landowners from coming forward with an application for medium

[2:20:50] density. Within the area. Uh, through the chair, no, it

[2:20:56] wouldn't. They could commit at any point in time and

[2:20:57] apply. Okay. So whether it's deferred to look at including

[2:21:02] more land in the secondary plan or not, they can

[2:21:05] still appeal or they can come in with an application.

[2:21:08] Regardless. Through the chair to the Councillor, that's correct. Okay.

[2:21:13] Thank you. Councillor Fogle, your hands up and then we

[2:21:19] have Council of Somerville. Yeah. I'm thinking that if it's

[2:21:26] deferred that there must be some public process that would

[2:21:30] ensue that the point the Councillor can correct me that

[2:21:36] the point being that the maybe public don't know about

[2:21:39] this, that we would have public meetings or something. So

[2:21:45] I'm just wondering from a staff point of view. What

[2:21:49] would you envision as the process going forward with a

[2:21:53] deferral? Would there be nothing and then the report just

[2:21:59] shows up. Or. In the meantime there are people that

[2:22:04] apply to come in and you've got to make changes.

[2:22:07] So you update. Then do we need a public meeting.

[2:22:11] Like how would you see this unfolding to have value

[2:22:16] to the public. Ms. Parker. Uh, through the chair to

[2:22:24] Councillor Fogle, uh, that's a great question. Um. As you

[2:22:28] can imagine, staff hadn't, uh, stop to think about what

[2:22:31] a sort of revamp of the process would look like

[2:22:34] given our staff report. Seeking Council approval today. That said,

[2:22:42] I think at minimum what we would have to do

[2:22:44] is meet with the, uh, Sajaki team. Uh, because they

[2:22:51] have been retained to complete the work on this project.

[2:22:55] So we would have to have a conversation with them.

[2:22:57] I think candidly off the top of my head, what

[2:23:01] we would have to do is take the existing work

[2:23:04] that we've done because staff stand behind the work that

[2:23:07] we've done. And we stand behind the policies that are

[2:23:09] before council this evening. And look at those of sort

[2:23:14] of the starting point for additional conversations with the public

[2:23:18] and with the new Council, given it would be a

[2:23:21] new council. I do think we would also need to

[2:23:23] have some kind of a, you know, information session with

[2:23:25] them to bring any new members of Council up to

[2:23:28] speed on the process that has transpired since Project Initiation.

[2:23:33] Um, it's more than just reading staff reports. It's being

[2:23:35] able to, you know, have them ask questions and us

[2:23:38] be able to respond as best we possibly can. But

[2:23:42] again, that being said. We would have to spend some

[2:23:46] time really taking a look at the work that's been

[2:23:48] done and what the intention of Council is. In having

[2:23:52] this project deferred. Okay. So yeah, I guess it's still

[2:23:59] unclear as to why it's being deferred and what, what

[2:24:03] the steps are that are envisioned to cover all the

[2:24:09] bases, I guess. I don't know. And, um, so I

[2:24:13] guess there'd be some costs involved then if we've got

[2:24:16] the consultants back on side and staff time, that would

[2:24:21] add something, I'm sure to. To our expenditures. Am I

[2:24:28] right in thinking that. Through the chair to the Councillor,

[2:24:35] that's a great question. Um, Sajear still retained to continue

[2:24:38] the work with us right now. So, um, we could

[2:24:41] have those conversations or at least initial conversations with them

[2:24:44] right now. But I can't really speak to anything beyond

[2:24:47] sort of the current state of things. Okay. Well, I

[2:24:51] think it's safe to say some costs would be involved.

[2:24:54] But okay, thank you. That's it. Okay, thank you. Councillor

[2:25:01] Somerville. Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. You're doing a fine

[2:25:05] job tonight staring this ship. Um, I guess the question

[2:25:09] I would have is to the playing director. It's kind

[2:25:11] of following up miss Parker on what I asked before

[2:25:14] So we have the two pieces. There's OPA 63, which

[2:25:17] is the The protected major trends at area. And then

[2:25:22] we have OPA 64, which is the secondary plan now

[2:25:27] in the question before you indicated OPA 63 is the

[2:25:31] one that the province approved. And 64 is the one

[2:25:36] that we do the work on. So what I'm wondering

[2:25:41] about to keep us moving forward on this is if

[2:25:44] we pass 63 but deferred the actual secondary plan that

[2:25:49] gets down to some of the nitty gritty. Where we

[2:25:53] could look at some of these other properties that might

[2:25:55] have been left out around in the edges Uh, cause

[2:25:59] there may be more. I'm just wondering if that's something

[2:26:02] that we could do is you know past the one

[2:26:05] so we can keep working with the province on that

[2:26:08] one. We still have the framework in place, but then

[2:26:12] the nitty gritty of the secondary plan being the one

[2:26:15] that is deferred. Through the chair to the Councillor I

[2:26:23] believe what you're asking me is if that is something

[2:26:25] that could happen and I thank you I see you

[2:26:29] nodding. As far as I understand yes unless Madame Clark

[2:26:33] believes otherwise the way that this report has been structured

[2:26:36] is that OPA - 63 is separate from OPA -

[2:26:39] 64 intentionally So should Council decide to adopt official plan

[2:26:45] amendment 63 that would give staff the opportunity to put

[2:26:48] the provincial package together send everything forward to the province

[2:26:51] for their consideration on that Protected major transit station area

[2:26:54] and then we could continue to work through the process

[2:26:57] on OPA - 64. Okay, thank you for that and

[2:27:02] um, the issues that were raised by Mr. Russell on

[2:27:05] behalf of his client if it was under the OPA

[2:27:08] - 64 those issues could be worked through if that

[2:27:12] part was deferred. Correct. Through the chair to the Councillor

[2:27:18] yes, that's correct. I will suggest that Councillor Brass that

[2:27:22] maybe he split it that way. That we do pass

[2:27:26] the 63 allow that part to go forward. Um, so

[2:27:30] the province can keep working on it and for a

[2:27:33] deferral is do it for OPA 64. And then we

[2:27:37] can allow that extra Conversations around it and we're still

[2:27:41] moving forward on as well So Councillor Bryce I would

[2:27:44] I would suggest that as a not really an amendment

[2:27:47] But just as a suggestion. Council Bryce comments on that.

[2:27:54] Thank you chair through you Uh Councillor Somerville Thanks for

[2:27:57] asking that question I Until then I thought 63 and

[2:28:01] 64 were Tied at the hip and that sounds like

[2:28:05] they're not so Um, maybe to the commissioner. So they're

[2:28:12] not. Is what councillor Somerville is suggesting does that work

[2:28:17] for the town to put if we change my deferral

[2:28:21] to OP - a64 only? Does that work with that

[2:28:26] Pfine for the talents the question. Through the chair to

[2:28:32] the Councillor That's an excellent question The two are inherently

[2:28:36] linked naturally because OPA - 63 sits within OPA -

[2:28:42] 64 if you're looking at visually from the maps that

[2:28:44] are attached to the staff report You can see where

[2:28:47] the PMTSA fits within the OPA - 64 context That

[2:28:51] said they are still two separate OPAs. So Council does

[2:28:56] have the ability to adopt OPA - 64. And defer

[2:29:02] the decision on OP - A64. That's interesting Chair -

[2:29:08] Through I not considered that with that information I will

[2:29:11] change my deferral to OPA - 64 only. Okay.

[2:29:24] Well I see this exercise as or this conversation right

[2:29:29] now I should say. A significant undermining of planning process

[2:29:36] that has been underway for in the neighbourhood of three

[2:29:40] years. That has involved significant public consultation that has been

[2:29:45] led by a professional planning agency that has had the

[2:29:51] buy - in of all members of Council Um... And...

[2:29:56] Given the green light after it was explained The processes

[2:30:03] that should be followed And I see this last minute

[2:30:09] Um... Attempt to... Change the outcome perhaps. Um...

[2:30:19] Particularly when I'm hearing that... In fact, the owner of

[2:30:25] those properties has had discussions with staff Um... Regarding this

[2:30:30] process and was fully aware... And... Perhaps even part of

[2:30:37] the process that we all undertook And so if we

[2:30:43] are to defer this process Which frankly I think has

[2:30:48] been triggered by someone attempting to get cheap political points

[2:30:52] Um... I am... I am... Seriously disappointed. This Council would

[2:31:00] undermine its very own planning processes Madam Mayor We meet

[2:31:07] reference about keeping the comments not to keep Not to

[2:31:10] make personal comments So can we do that please? Yes

[2:31:15] And so I am not supporting this deferral. Because I

[2:31:20] see a huge investment. And buy - in on the

[2:31:24] part of Council I think by deferring it Um... It

[2:31:30] will undermine everything that this Council has been doing. Um...

[2:31:35] If you can simply overturn a process at this stage

[2:31:40] in the game I also note that staff has explained

[2:31:45] that any property owner can come in at any time.

[2:31:50] And suggest a change to a secondary plan Um... So

[2:31:54] that their properties can be considered in a different way.

[2:31:57] That avenue is clearly available to the proponent And I

[2:32:02] think that... That they should follow that course of action

[2:32:07] That is available to them. Um... MOOM Those are my

[2:32:11] comments. Thank you. So we have Amendment To defer OPA

[2:32:20] - 64. Um... Until next term. And just... OP -

[2:32:28] A63 We'll be past or we'll be kept us. So

[2:32:33] I'll put that motion on the floor Can we have

[2:32:37] a recorded vote please. Yes you can. Council Guarno.

[2:32:49] Thank you chair. I'm still I think I'm still very

[2:32:53] confused around What the deferral is actually going to lead

[2:32:58] to. So I heard Councillor Somerville talking about we can

[2:33:02] defer it and then we can look at adding on

[2:33:04] in other properties. But through this process. There was the

[2:33:10] preliminary land use plan It was approved There was a

[2:33:13] lot of public engagement. So if we start adding in

[2:33:16] other properties into the secondary plan Do we not have

[2:33:20] to go back out to the public and do full

[2:33:22] public consultation. So this is what I'm trying to understand

[2:33:26] Is it simply this report would be deferred to the

[2:33:29] next Council to pass. Or is it redoing a land

[2:33:34] use plan that has to go back through all the

[2:33:36] stages of approval that we've already gone through. So to

[2:33:42] me those are very different things. Through the chair to

[2:33:48] the Councillor. I believe we would have to then ask

[2:33:52] Councillor Brass whether or not he would like to add

[2:33:54] additional clarification to his motion Right now based on my

[2:34:00] scribbles here I believe it says to defer OPA 64

[2:34:05] to the next term of Council for their review.

[2:34:16] Are you able to Councillor? Are you able to clarify

[2:34:18] that. Again? Like we're Councillor Somerville was talking about adding

[2:34:23] in new properties Like that does have a public consultation

[2:34:27] component to it. So is that what the intent is

[2:34:31] to defer it to add in more properties. Or even

[2:34:34] to explore that? Because that also has public consultation implications.

[2:34:40] And I just want to make sure I know what

[2:34:41] I'm voting on. Through you chair to the Councillor Thank

[2:34:46] you Councillor Greno The intent is to make sure we

[2:34:49] get this right. And when we're hearing from. Property owners

[2:34:55] and residents that they don't think that that's the case.

[2:34:59] Then the intent is to defer it and I'd be

[2:35:02] happy to take guidance from staff as to How to

[2:35:05] appropriately review OPA 64 and what's involved with that I'm

[2:35:11] not a planner so I can't suggest that But the

[2:35:13] intent is to make sure we get this right. And

[2:35:15] to make sure that this area is. His wealth is

[2:35:21] thought out and that people agree that everyone agrees with

[2:35:26] the OP - A64 So whatever that process is with

[2:35:31] staff I'd be happy to have a meeting with them

[2:35:33] I'd be happy to entertain the process. But the intent

[2:35:35] is to make sure we get this right. Thank you

[2:35:41] Councillor Hall Bras CEO would like to make a comment.

[2:35:45] Thank you and through the chair to Council So listening

[2:35:48] to the conversation and in quick discussions with the clerk

[2:35:53] Because it sounds like there's an expectation that there will

[2:35:56] be conversations with the new Council before a report is

[2:36:01] brought forward to understand and sort of then shape the

[2:36:04] report potentially differently Um, our recommendation would be a sorry

[2:36:09] Councillor another change to yours would be to rather than

[2:36:12] just defer it We refer it back to staff and

[2:36:16] then those conversations can be had. From a practical perspective

[2:36:21] if we defer it what will happen and it can

[2:36:23] be done this way as well It'll be relisted on

[2:36:27] a Council Agenda in the new term as is And

[2:36:31] then there would need to be discussion and direction to

[2:36:34] staff as to whether Changes would be made So there's

[2:36:39] two ways to do it in effect Um I think

[2:36:41] in discussions with the clerk If we refer it back

[2:36:44] to staff that would open the ability for staff to

[2:36:47] have those conversations not directly through the report with the

[2:36:51] new Uh, uh, with the new term account and Councillor

[2:36:56] brass I believe that meets your intent based on listening

[2:37:00] to the conversation today So that would be my suggestion

[2:37:05] But again if you would prefer to defer it Um,

[2:37:08] we can also then relist it in the new term

[2:37:12] and then there would be further directions to staff in

[2:37:15] the event that changes were. Changes to either the plan

[2:37:19] or the process we're being looked at. Council brass. Thank

[2:37:25] you chair through you to the CAO Yes you're correct

[2:37:29] The intent is to make sure we get this right.

[2:37:32] Uh... And if that means referring it back to staff.

[2:37:35] I'd be happy to do that. Through the chair to

[2:37:38] the Councillor Um... That would be my recommendation after listening

[2:37:42] to all the comments and consultation with the clerk Thank

[2:37:44] you. And chair through you once again I will amend.

[2:37:49] So it would be to refer OPA - 64 back

[2:37:52] to staff. To make sure we get it right. Okay

[2:37:55] so noted So we have the refer on the floor.

[2:38:03] Okay. The clerk's gonna put the recommendation on the screen

[2:38:07] so we can all see We had lots of discussions

[2:38:10] And we can all see what the recommendation is. So

[2:38:18] Through the chair So you can... This is the recommendation

[2:38:20] that's in the staff report Bronwyn, please correct me if

[2:38:22] I get any of this wrong So based on the

[2:38:24] discussion Council just has just had. That first paragraph will

[2:38:31] remain the same Because it is bringing both 63 and

[2:38:34] 64 to Council for receipt. And further that Council receive

[2:38:40] in support of official plan amendment 63. Of the town

[2:38:44] of Halton Hale's official plan. The rest of that will

[2:38:46] come out. And further that Council receives for information in

[2:38:50] support of official plan amendment 63. The complete set of

[2:38:54] background studies I'm not sure if that's relevant Brown -

[2:38:57] winsted in section 2. 4 of this report and available

[2:39:01] on Let's Talk Halton Hills. And further that the town

[2:39:05] of Halton Hale's official plan amendment number 63 Dated June

[2:39:08] 23rd attached as appendix 1 to this report be adopted.

[2:39:12] The next one comes out. And further at all interested

[2:39:16] agencies listed in the report and those members of the

[2:39:19] public who have requested notice Be advised of Council's decision

[2:39:22] regarding these official plan amendments. And further that. Um... OP

[2:39:30] The official plan amendment 64 be referred back to staff

[2:39:34] in the new term of Council. And then the last

[2:39:38] one and further that a copy of this report be

[2:39:39] sent to the region Does that make sense to you.

[2:39:45] Through the chair to the clerk? Yes it does The

[2:39:47] only question I would have goes back to Councillor Garno's

[2:39:51] question based on Councillor Somerville's comments about adding properties in.

[2:39:55] If it's looking at adding properties in. Two OPA -

[2:40:01] 63 Which is the PMTSA That brings back Councillor Bras's

[2:40:06] initial concern about the two processes being tied at the

[2:40:09] hip. So I guess my question Through the chair if

[2:40:14] I may Madam Clark would be to Councillor Somerville. Asking

[2:40:18] clarification if he's looking at potentially adding properties to the

[2:40:22] PMTSA. Or just looking at designating OPA 64 parcels.

[2:40:35] It would be looking at the ones under opaque OPA

[2:40:39] 64. Not the PMTSA. Okay so

[2:40:49] that's okay That's a recommendation there So the Zuri Ver

[2:40:54] on the table Mushroom table. And it was believed that

[2:40:59] it was to be a recorded vote. There lawyer. Yes

[2:41:08] and well and I'll let people know that I will

[2:41:10] not be supporting this referral or a deferral I see

[2:41:14] this as an end run that is attempting to undermine

[2:41:22] a very thorough process And I think it represents a

[2:41:27] failure of our Council Um and planning processes that I

[2:41:35] thought were very professionally undertaken If this is allowed to

[2:41:40] be derailed at this stage in the decision process Um,

[2:41:47] particularly when there are other avenues available to the proponent

[2:41:52] Um, so I will not be supporting Um... The referral.

[2:41:59] Thank you Madam Mayor Councillor Hilton. You got a question

[2:42:04] No Mr. Chair I just have a comment Just obviously

[2:42:08] a very charged conversation Uh... Unfortunately But I'm not going

[2:42:13] to support the referral back Uh... Just because it has

[2:42:16] been a long process Uh... There's been a lot of

[2:42:19] people involved I know a lot of money And uh...

[2:42:23] Mr. Russell It's been a pleasure meeting you during this

[2:42:25] term as well And I'm notoriously late RSKing my friends

[2:42:30] I've missed planes before I've missed everything So I know

[2:42:32] it's not fun being late to the party But... To

[2:42:36] stop it at this point Um... One of the things

[2:42:39] I hear when people talk about this area And they've

[2:42:42] got concerns is The high density That we're looking at...

[2:42:47] And I just say That's not really... The transit station

[2:42:53] So I don't know If I don't know what concerns

[2:42:56] have been brought up But if that's one of them

[2:42:58] That's something that we're having to manage Uh... More than

[2:43:02] anything else So it just feels to me if we

[2:43:04] put it to next Council We know the people retiring

[2:43:07] There's gonna be changes And it's just like Uh... When

[2:43:09] you watch a movie You get five minutes before the

[2:43:13] end And then you have to go somewhere And then

[2:43:15] you end up watching at six months later You have

[2:43:17] no idea what happened So I don't want the next

[2:43:20] Council to have no idea what happens at the end

[2:43:22] of the secondary plan and have to go back again

[2:43:24] So anyways Just those are my comments Thank you. Uh

[2:43:28] Thank you very much Councillor Engels please. And thank you

[2:43:33] Mr. Chair I I don't want the money of the

[2:43:36] waters anymore A little confused here. My Councillor Brass is

[2:43:41] right I did declare conflicts on this. Um... 64 on

[2:43:45] the secondary plan. After the integrity Commissioner Unknowns what she

[2:43:51] did I need to make sure that Uh was consistent

[2:43:55] there. And uh, I will be abstaining from the recorded

[2:44:00] vote. Because of the past declarations and some not declarations

[2:44:09] Here I'm a little confused here Because they're both tied

[2:44:12] together The secondary plan And they protected Transit area as

[2:44:18] well So those two are I thought they were separate.

[2:44:24] As far as discussion. Um... They are not. By the

[2:44:29] sounds of it. And. So I will abstain from this

[2:44:35] particular vote here now And uh... And, uh, sort of

[2:44:40] Look into it in the future. Thank you. Thank you

[2:44:43] Council Ingols Um... Because we are in the general committee

[2:44:49] Um... At this moment Uh... We're not going to have

[2:44:53] a recorded vote We will have a standing vote. Uh...

[2:44:56] Instead Recorded vote is during the Council session. Okay.

[2:45:07] Yes Council Bernard. Um Thank you Andree Mr. Chair I'm

[2:45:13] having I'll be honest I'm having a hard time with

[2:45:16] this decision. Um I do I was involved in the

[2:45:19] process I was the chair of the committee I feel

[2:45:21] like. It was a very thorough process There was a

[2:45:24] lot of public engagement staff Did a great job The

[2:45:28] residents were thoroughly engaged And I think the planning reports

[2:45:33] that are before us are sound And I believe in

[2:45:36] what's being brought forward. And at the same time I

[2:45:41] feel like. What I'm hearing from staff is that there's

[2:45:45] not a lot of harm caused by allowing Future Council

[2:45:49] to have a look at it. And so I don't

[2:45:55] think... I believe in what's presented here today And I

[2:45:59] think it was done well. And I think there's not

[2:46:02] a lot of harm in allowing another SOTA Council to

[2:46:05] have a look at it. And so I will be

[2:46:08] supporting the referral for that reason. Gone. So the

[2:46:18] recommendation As the man is on the floor at the

[2:46:20] moment. Um... All those in favor Stand. Please.

[2:46:34] So that carries. Thank you.

[2:46:44] So because we've dealt with referral We don't have to

[2:46:47] deal with the report. It's passed as amended Uh It

[2:46:56] is 526 We are going to be having a public

[2:47:01] meeting soon So I think we'll take.

[2:47:12] Alright We will be taking a 15 - minute break

[2:47:14] And we will be back at 10 12 After 6.

[3:13:30] Good evening, everyone. We're going to start a public meeting.

[3:13:34] Eminently, but first I'd like a motion from a member

[3:13:37] of Council Please. To resume back into Council Council Arabno.

[3:13:44] All in favor. Thanks very much. Okay, so now we're

[3:13:49] constituted as a Council meeting. And as such, we are

[3:13:53] holding a public meeting. And there will be three meetings

[3:13:59] tonight. So you feel sorry for us all. We have

[3:14:03] to go back and finish our Council agenda that we

[3:14:07] didn't complete this afternoon. So I will introduce some speaking

[3:14:14] notes, and so we all know what is on the

[3:14:17] agenda. So this is a public meeting. Regarding one Elgin

[3:14:24] Street in Georgetown. And the town is holding a statutory

[3:14:29] public meeting for a development application submitted by Blake Murray,

[3:14:33] the owner. And the application is proposing a temporary use

[3:14:39] zoning bylaw amendment. To extend the previous temporary microbrewery and

[3:14:46] 32 seasonal patio permissions. For an additional three years. To

[3:14:52] 2029 at one Elgin Street in Georgetown. And the purpose

[3:14:58] of this public meeting is to inform the public of

[3:15:01] the proposal and to provide members of the community with

[3:15:04] the opportunity to ask questions and express their views regarding

[3:15:09] the application. The Planning Act requires that at least one

[3:15:15] public meeting beheld for any development proposal. And that members

[3:15:19] of the public shall be given an opportunity to make

[3:15:22] representations in respect to the proposal. The format of this

[3:15:28] public meeting is as follows. The town will provide a

[3:15:32] presentation that generally explains the purpose and details of the

[3:15:36] application. The applicant will then present any further relevant information.

[3:15:43] Afterwards, the public can express their views on the proposal

[3:15:48] or as questions for clarification regarding the application. And as

[3:15:53] the chair, I am informing you that any person or

[3:15:56] public body that does not make oral submissions at a

[3:16:01] public meeting or make written submissions to the town of

[3:16:04] Halton Hills before the town makes a decision regarding the

[3:16:08] proposed temporary use zoning bylaw amendment. May not be added

[3:16:13] as a party to the hearing of an appeal before

[3:16:16] the Ontario land tribunal unless. In the opinion of the

[3:16:21] tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Please contact

[3:16:27] Planning Staff for Furthermore Information on the Appeal Process. It

[3:16:32] is important to note that Councillors are here to observe

[3:16:36] and listen to your comments only. Council will not be

[3:16:39] taking any action or make a decision on the proposal

[3:16:43] tonight. And at the end of the public meetings, Stouff

[3:16:47] will respond to questions or comments that have answers available

[3:16:51] at this time. And all other responses or answers will

[3:16:56] be provided by staff at a later date. The authority

[3:17:01] who approve and passed temporary use zoning bylaw amendments has

[3:17:06] been delegated to the commissioner of planning provided any concerns

[3:17:11] raised by the public through the consultation process are resolved

[3:17:15] to the satisfaction of the town. So with the towns

[3:17:21] representative from the Planning Department, Ruth Cunard, please come forward

[3:17:25] to explain the proposal.

[3:17:40] Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Mayor Councillors, staff,

[3:17:45] and members of the public. The purpose of tonight's statutory

[3:17:48] public meeting is to provide a summary of the temporary

[3:17:51] use zoning by - line member application submitted by Blake

[3:17:54] Murray, the owner of the lands located at One Algin

[3:17:57] Street in Georgetown. The subject property is located on the

[3:18:04] east side of Elgin Street, adjacent to the Gho Station

[3:18:06] parking lot, just north of King Street in the urban

[3:18:09] area of Georgetown. The 0. 2 Hectar Property has frontage

[3:18:14] of approximately 30. 35 metres on Elgin Street and contains

[3:18:18] an existing vacant building, which was previously occupied by FurnaceRum

[3:18:22] Brewery. Surrounding land uses to the subject parcel include. To

[3:18:27] the north, CN Rail Tracks, and a proposed high -

[3:18:30] density residential development for the North. To the east, our

[3:18:34] single detached dwellings and Greenwood Cemetery further east. To the

[3:18:40] south, our single detached dwellings. And approval for a multi

[3:18:44] - unit medium density residential development abutting the site. And

[3:18:48] to the West, our single detached dwellings and the Georgetown

[3:18:51] Gho Station. On May 24, 2022, Council approved a temporary

[3:19:00] youth zoning bylaw amendment to permit a microbrewery on the

[3:19:03] subject property for a period of two years. The microbrery

[3:19:07] permissions allowed for the temporary consumption of food and beverages

[3:19:10] to occur within the existing building, which expanded on the

[3:19:13] beer manufacturing and accessory retail uses already permitted. On May

[3:19:19] 29, 2023, Council approved an extension of the microbrewery temporary

[3:19:23] use, which also included permission for a 32 - seat

[3:19:26] seasonal patio from March until October. The temporary zoning by

[3:19:31] - law amendment for the microbrewery and patio expired on

[3:19:34] May 29, 2026. On June 15, 2026, the town deemed

[3:19:43] complete a new temporary used zoning by - al -

[3:19:45] I membran application seeking to extend the previous temporary microbrewery

[3:19:50] use and seasonal patio for an additional three years to

[3:19:53] expire in 2029. The intentist to allow a new brewery

[3:19:58] to occupy the vacant building with the same permissions that

[3:20:01] were available to the previous occupant, who I mentioned as

[3:20:04] the furnace - brumbert was the furnace room brewery, and

[3:20:07] they are no longer in business. The new brewery operator

[3:20:10] intends to maintain the site in its current state with

[3:20:14] the seasonal patio being located within the parking lot at

[3:20:17] the front of the site. Or directly adjacent to the

[3:20:19] building's entrance. So the slide before you illustrates how the

[3:20:23] previous patio functioned with a Saturday option and the weekday

[3:20:27] on Sunday option. Food would be available through a food

[3:20:32] truck to be located at the rear of the property

[3:20:34] or a small internal kitchen to be constructed inside. It

[3:20:39] should be noted that as per By - Load 2022

[3:20:41] - 0039, the authority to approve and past temporary use

[3:20:46] zoning by - law amendments has been delegated by Council

[3:20:48] to the commissioner of planning, provided any concerns raised by

[3:20:52] the public and our staff during the application review and

[3:20:56] consultation process are resolved to the satisfaction of the commissioner.

[3:21:04] The subject property is located within the Georgetown Ghost Station

[3:21:08] Secondary Plan Area and situated in the South Precinct. The

[3:21:12] property is designated employment area which recognises and permits the

[3:21:16] use of the lot and existing buildings and additions to

[3:21:18] the buildings for industrial, office, and other non - residential

[3:21:22] uses, including retail and service commercial uses. This designation does

[3:21:27] not preclude the use of the property as a BRE

[3:21:29] manufacturing facility with ancillary or associated uses. The official plan

[3:21:35] states that bylaws may be passed permitting the temporary use

[3:21:38] of lands, buildings or structures, which may not conform to

[3:21:41] the policies of the official plan subject to the following

[3:21:44] being satisfied. That the proposed use is of a temporary

[3:21:48] nature and shall not entail any major construction or investment

[3:21:51] on the part of the owner. The proposed use will

[3:21:55] not prejudice the long - term intent or orderly development

[3:21:58] contemplated by the provisions and land use designations contained in

[3:22:03] the official plan. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent

[3:22:07] land uses and the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The

[3:22:13] proposed use will not require the extension or expansion of

[3:22:15] existing municipal services. The proposed use will not cause traffic

[3:22:20] hazards or an unacceptable level of congestion on surrounding roads.

[3:22:25] Parking facilities required by the proposal. By the proposed use

[3:22:29] story will be provided. And the proposed use shall generally

[3:22:32] be beneficial to the neighbourhood or the community as a

[3:22:35] whole. The official plan states that a temporary use may

[3:22:39] be authorized for a specific time period of up to

[3:22:42] three years. Subsequent by - laws granting extensions of up

[3:22:46] to three years may also be passed. The subject property

[3:22:52] is zone employment one exception 110 under the town zoning

[3:22:56] bylaw 201050 as amended. The EMP - 1 exception 110

[3:23:01] zone permits employment and industrial - related uses, including beer

[3:23:05] manufacturing. In 2018, the site also received minor variance approval

[3:23:10] to permit an accessory retail use to a maximum of

[3:23:13] 15 percent of the gross floor area of the building,

[3:23:17] which allows for tasting of the product to be provided

[3:23:19] on - site. The previous temporary one zone provided a

[3:23:24] temporary three - year permission for a microbrewery and 32

[3:23:27] - seat seasonal patio, which allowed the formal consumption of

[3:23:30] food and beverages to occur. The temporary one zone expired,

[3:23:34] as I mentioned on May 29, 2026. The new temporary

[3:23:39] youth Sony by - line member application seeks to reestablish

[3:23:42] the temporary one zone to extend the micro - brewery

[3:23:45] use and seasonal patio permissions for an additional three years

[3:23:49] to expire in 2029. The temporary Eusonian Byla application with

[3:23:57] circulated to external agencies and town departments and is still

[3:24:01] under - reviewed by staff. Planning staff received written requests

[3:24:07] from two members of the public for copies of the

[3:24:09] submission material and additional information about the proposal. One member

[3:24:15] of the public provided verbal comments in support of the

[3:24:17] application. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[3:24:28] Thank you, Ms. Kenard. And, um, I know colon, the

[3:24:34] applicant, if there is any further information that they wish

[3:24:36] to provide.

[3:24:47] Evening Council and Staff, my name is Blake Murray. I'm

[3:24:50] from FRB - 5. Andrew Bellum also from FRP5. And

[3:24:56] we're just here to answer any questions. We agree with

[3:24:58] the staff report. Well, if you're available to answer questions,

[3:25:04] that's great. Then I, um, if you want to take

[3:25:07] a seat, I'll invite the public if they have questions.

[3:25:12] This is the time for them to ask the questions.

[3:25:15] So thank you. Yeah.

[3:25:27] So I will, um, I will let you know that

[3:25:30] now is the time when any resident or person who

[3:25:34] has questions requires further clarification or information or wishes to

[3:25:38] present their views on the proposal to come forward to

[3:25:41] speak. As a reminder at the end of this public

[3:25:44] meeting, staff will respond as well as the proponent if

[3:25:48] needed. To questions or comments that have answers available at

[3:25:52] this time. And so I have three people so far

[3:25:55] who have registered to speak. And I believe, um, a

[3:26:00] couple of them are here. And one is virtual. So

[3:26:04] first up, I have Mr. Laurentibo. And are you available,

[3:26:09] sir, to ask your question or make your comment, please.

[3:26:17] Thank you, Madam Chair. I was one of the people

[3:26:21] who originally was very enthusiastic about starting a Kraft PrERIN

[3:26:25] town. As you may know, that was 10 years ago

[3:26:28] now. And, uh, we were delighted that it was launched

[3:26:33] very, very successful and became a great asset to other

[3:26:37] community. Um. Following that initial success, uh, as many

[3:26:46] startups, uh, see, it's tough to start up. And they

[3:26:52] didn't quite make it. And they're not currently operating. But,

[3:26:56] um, it's, uh, from my perspective, any kind of craft

[3:27:01] brewery like that is a terrific asset to the community.

[3:27:05] And I think its initial success certainly demonstrated that. Um,

[3:27:09] so, um, I just want to speak in support of

[3:27:14] the application. I'm delighted that new owners are willing to

[3:27:19] have a go at it. I know there are plans

[3:27:21] for the, for the, uh, the property over the long

[3:27:26] term. But for the, for the current time, if we

[3:27:28] could get the micro brewery restarted, that would be just

[3:27:33] a terrific thing. So I'm pleased to support the application

[3:27:37] to extend. The, whatever it is, the bylaw that allows

[3:27:42] them to operate more or less as they have very

[3:27:45] successfully before. And as was explained in the staff report,

[3:27:50] I'm not aware of any issues that have arisen while

[3:27:53] it was operating under the temporary permit before. So. So

[3:27:57] that's my, uh, contribution. I hope the Council supports it.

[3:28:01] Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Um. The second

[3:28:08] person who I have up is Cheryl Sim. And Cheryl,

[3:28:14] are you online.

[3:28:24] Hi there. Yes, we hear you. Please. I dare. Please

[3:28:30] go ahead. Um, no, I don't have any questions. Um,

[3:28:34] the only thing is, um, as long as it's, um,

[3:28:39] uh, it's a line with what was proposed, like what

[3:28:42] was allowed before with, um, noise restrictions and respect to

[3:28:47] the community. Surrounding community. I think it's great to have

[3:28:52] another, um, new entrepreneur incoming. And, um, try to grow

[3:29:01] and build this, uh, business, um, involving surrounding neighbourhoods. But

[3:29:07] of course with respect to, um, the surrounding areas too.

[3:29:12] So I have no questions at the moment. Thank you.

[3:29:18] Thank you very much. I think that clarification you provided

[3:29:22] is probably helpful. Um, next up I have Jessica Beck.

[3:29:29] Are you in the chamber. Thank you. Uh, members of

[3:29:37] the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I

[3:29:40] wanted to just bring a perspective of support for furnace

[3:29:43] roomry from someone who lives on Elgin Street in this

[3:29:45] neighbourhood. Um, I believe this amendments an important way to

[3:29:49] support local food and beverage producers. Small independent businesses help,

[3:29:54] uh, create a vibrant local economy. Keeping jobs investment and

[3:29:58] spending within our community. A microbreweries more than just a

[3:30:01] place that makes beer. It's a local manufacturer, a small

[3:30:04] business and a gathering place that contributes to the unique

[3:30:07] character of our neighbourhood. The last point highlights the importance

[3:30:12] of creating and preserving these third spaces. Places that are

[3:30:15] neither home nor work. But somewhere that people can come

[3:30:18] together and build connections. In our increasingly isolated world, spaces

[3:30:24] were neighbours can meet socialize and participate in community life

[3:30:28] are extremely valuable to me. A well - run microbrewery

[3:30:31] can provide that type of welcoming environment for residents of

[3:30:34] all ages. For these reasons, I believe a brewery or

[3:30:38] restaurant would benefit our community, supporting local entrepreneurship, fostering that

[3:30:42] social connection, and creating more opportunities for arts and culture

[3:30:46] to thrive. I want to just speak on a personal

[3:30:49] note that my husband and I moved into our house

[3:30:51] on Elgin Street in the summer of 2021. And what

[3:30:55] made it stand out from every other house was a

[3:30:57] breed that we could pretty much see from our front

[3:30:59] door. During that first summer, the brewery was an oasis

[3:31:03] away from the chaos of unpacking. And a great way

[3:31:06] to meet our new neighbours in a really friendly atmosphere.

[3:31:09] Over the last five years, we've made that two -

[3:31:12] minute walk to the brewery countless times. I'm enjoyed our

[3:31:15] new tradition of picking up some local beer on a

[3:31:17] Friday afternoon. They have been excellent and respectful neighbours, and

[3:31:21] we've never had an issue with any of the guests.

[3:31:24] Although furnace from brewery is not currently an operation. It's

[3:31:27] my hope that in extending this zoning amendment, Ideally permanently,

[3:31:31] it will encourage a similar business to operate in the

[3:31:33] same location and rebuild the small community hub that was

[3:31:36] part of the reason we fell in love with our

[3:31:38] neighbourhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. I just

[3:31:41] wanted to bring a sort of local voice and support

[3:31:44] of the brewery. Thank you very much. Are there any

[3:31:50] others in the chamber who wish to speak to this

[3:31:54] item. Yes, sir.

[3:32:05] Well, Mad Mayor, councillors. I just have a question, one

[3:32:08] question to the new Michael Brewers. Um, I love the

[3:32:13] idea that I'm fully supportive of it. I'd like to

[3:32:16] know what you're going to do differently. To allow this

[3:32:19] business to be successful. And not fall into the same

[3:32:25] trapdoor of what happened with the furnace roomberry. That's the

[3:32:28] only question I have. And sir, could you please give

[3:32:31] your name and address? All of my name's Anthony Galari.

[3:32:34] And from 19h Street in Acton. That's it.

[3:32:45] Sir, could you just hold for a second? I'm going

[3:32:47] to see if there are any other questions, and then

[3:32:50] we can answer them all at the same time. Is

[3:32:54] there anyone else in the gallery that wants to make

[3:32:57] a comment. Okay. Is there anyone online. No. Okay. We're

[3:33:05] good. Thank you. Thank you for the question.

[3:33:17] So currently, uh, we're talking to two groups that are

[3:33:21] looking at operating the brewery. The model obviously would have

[3:33:25] to change quite a bit. Um, I would like to,

[3:33:28] you know, when we were, the first round with the

[3:33:30] brewery, we were going through COVID new business, honeymoon phase,

[3:33:34] um, obviously we weren't perfect. We made mistakes. But, uh,

[3:33:37] we're looking to change the environment economically to that new

[3:33:42] tenant that will hopefully make that space flourish. Yeah. That

[3:33:47] stated there's some modification into the type of, uh, distribution

[3:33:51] that comes out of there. Uh, and it should support

[3:33:55] it a little bit better. But the addition of the

[3:33:57] food was a huge, huge component. And I believe that,

[3:34:01] uh, once that gets fleshed out and becomes, you know,

[3:34:04] the awareness becomes more broad. I mean, you know, to

[3:34:07] a four Georgetown more opportunities of some more different to

[3:34:09] go to and spend some time, uh, within, you know,

[3:34:13] reasonable hours, you know, the real family atmosphere there. I

[3:34:16] think that it's going to be a, you know, thing

[3:34:18] that the community is going to love to see back

[3:34:19] in place. Thank you. All right.

[3:34:30] So I think, I think we've heard from all members

[3:34:33] of the public who want to weigh in. And we've

[3:34:37] heard from the owners. Is there any final comment from

[3:34:42] staff. That you want to provide prior to the conclusion

[3:34:47] of this meeting. Is he none? Thank you. I will

[3:34:52] now then declare this public meeting closed. As mentioned earlier,

[3:34:56] Council will take no action in this proposal tonight. And

[3:34:59] if you wish to receive further information regarding this proposal,

[3:35:04] please contact our planner, Ruscanard, following this meeting. And a

[3:35:09] business containing her business card containing her contact information can

[3:35:15] be found when you exit the Council Chambers. So thank

[3:35:19] you very much for your attention to this item. On

[3:35:23] our public meeting agenda. And so we'll now just allow

[3:35:28] a minute for anyone who was here only for that

[3:35:31] meeting. Is now's a good time to exit. Next we

[3:35:37] will be talking about. Um, our second meeting. And it

[3:35:45] will be, um. Regarding 16768 22nd Side Road.

[3:35:56] That is being submitted by Welling's planning. Okay.

[3:36:08] So the town is holding a statutory public meeting for

[3:36:12] the development application submitted by Welling's Planning Consultants on behalf

[3:36:17] of shared and nursery's limited. The application is proposing to

[3:36:22] amend the town of Halton Hills official plan to obtain

[3:36:26] the necessary land use permissions to allow for a severance

[3:36:31] to divide the 160 hectare or 400 acre parcel into

[3:36:37] two lots. At 16768 22nd Side Road is squeezing. And

[3:36:44] the purpose of this public meeting is to inform the

[3:36:47] public of the proposal. And to provide members of the

[3:36:50] community with the opportunity to ask questions and express their

[3:36:55] views regarding the application. The planning act requires that at

[3:37:00] least one public meeting beheld for any development proposal. And

[3:37:05] that members of the public shall be given an opportunity

[3:37:08] to make representations in respect of the proposal. In the

[3:37:13] format of this public meeting is as follows. The town

[3:37:17] will provide a presentation that generally explains the purpose and

[3:37:21] details of the application. And the applicant will then present

[3:37:26] any further relevant information. Afterwards, the public can express their

[3:37:31] views on the proposal. Or as questions for clarification regarding

[3:37:36] the application. I'm informing you that any person or public

[3:37:40] body that does not make oral submissions at a public

[3:37:43] meeting or make written submissions to the town of Halton

[3:37:47] Hills before Council makes a decision regarding the proposed official

[3:37:51] plan amendment. May not be added as a party to

[3:37:55] the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario land tribunal

[3:37:59] unless in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable

[3:38:03] grounds to do so. Please contact planning staff for further

[3:38:07] information on the appeal process. It's important to note that

[3:38:11] Councillors are here to observe and listen to comments only.

[3:38:15] Council will not be taking any action or make a

[3:38:18] decision on the proposal tonight. Staff will be reporting to

[3:38:23] Council at a later date with a recommendation for Council's

[3:38:26] consideration. And at the end of the public meeting, staff

[3:38:30] will respond to questions or comments that have answers available

[3:38:33] at this time. All other responses are answers will be

[3:38:37] provided by staff at a later date. When the recommendation

[3:38:41] is brought forward to Council for Decision. So with the

[3:38:45] town's Representative from the Planning Department, Josh Sellsbury, please come

[3:38:49] forward to explain the proposal.

[3:39:05] Thank you, Madam Mayor. And good evening to you, Madam

[3:39:08] Mayor, as well as the rest of Council. I also

[3:39:10] want to say good evening to those from the public

[3:39:12] who are attending in person tonight and tuning in virtually.

[3:39:15] My purpose tonight is to provide a summary of the

[3:39:18] official plan amendment application submitted on behalf of shared and

[3:39:21] nursery's limited for the lands located at 1676822 Side Road

[3:39:26] and a squeezing. The application is seeking to obtain the

[3:39:30] necessary permissions to allow for the future severance. Of the

[3:39:33] existing 160 hectare, which is 400 acres. Parcel, which is

[3:39:37] known as shared in nurseries into 280 hectare or 200

[3:39:41] hectare lots. The subject lands municipally known

[3:39:51] as 1676822 Side Road are located on 22 Side Road

[3:39:55] in between 10th line and Winston Churchill Boulevard. The Western

[3:39:59] half of the lands, which are proposed to be severed,

[3:40:02] contain the Sheridan Nursery's Horticultural Nursery as well as three

[3:40:05] single detached dwellings used for farm worker accommodations. The eastern

[3:40:10] half of the lands, which are proposed to be retained,

[3:40:13] are agricultural lands that contain one detached dwelling used for

[3:40:17] farm worker accommodation. There are also two wood lots situated

[3:40:20] across the property and a natural heritage feature located in

[3:40:24] the southeast corner of Tenth Line in 22 Side Road.

[3:40:28] The surrounding land uses are primarily agricultural with some single

[3:40:32] detached dwellings as well as the town of Caladin to

[3:40:34] the east and Glen Williams to the west. As mentioned,

[3:40:43] the application seeks to amend the town's official plan to

[3:40:46] obtain the necessary permissions to allow for the future severance

[3:40:49] of the existing 160 hectare or 400 acres parcel, which

[3:40:54] is known as shared in nurseries into 280 hectare or

[3:40:57] 200 acre lots. The severed lot is intended to be

[3:41:01] sold to a new group wanting to maintain the existing

[3:41:04] nursery use. The retain lot would remain under ownership of

[3:41:07] a company started by the shareholders of shared and nurseries

[3:41:10] with the agricultural use maintained on - site. The subject

[3:41:20] lands are subject to the Greenbelt plan, which establishes a

[3:41:23] policy framework intended to conserve the agricultural land base, support

[3:41:27] agricultural viability, and protect environmental features. The subject lands, which

[3:41:33] are approximately within the drawn - on yellow circle shown

[3:41:35] on this map. It's kind of hard to see there,

[3:41:38] but you can see it a little bit. Our primary

[3:41:40] located within the protected countryside designation of the Greenbelt plan,

[3:41:44] which is the darker green colour on this map. A

[3:41:47] small northwest colour of the subject lands falls within the

[3:41:50] green belt natural heritage system. This application is not proposing

[3:41:56] the removal of the subject lands from the Greenbelt. It

[3:42:01] should be noted that section 4. 6 of the Greenbelt

[3:42:04] plan contains policies that contemplate limited instances of law creation

[3:42:08] within the protected countryside designation, so long as the severed

[3:42:12] and retain lots are intended for agricultural uses and the

[3:42:15] minimum MOT size is 400 hectares or 100 acres within

[3:42:19] prime agricultural areas. Under the town's official plan, the subject

[3:42:28] lands or designated protected countryside area. The subject lands are

[3:42:32] also identified as being within the primaricultural area with the

[3:42:36] northwest corner being identified as natural heritage system in the

[3:42:39] Green Bell Plann. Section E1. 4. 2 of the town's

[3:42:43] official plan permits agricultural operations in the Protected Countryside Area.

[3:42:48] However, notwithstanding provincial policy which contemplates servants in agricultural areas.

[3:42:54] The town's official plan identifies that the creation of new

[3:42:57] lots outside of the urban area, Hamlet, and rural cluster

[3:43:00] area designation are prohibited. Unless intended for a utility or

[3:43:04] a public body. Therefore, an official plan amendment is required

[3:43:08] for the proposed future severance. Under comprehensive zoning Bylaw 2010

[3:43:16] - 0050, the majority of the subject lands are zoned

[3:43:20] protected countryside with a small portion located at the northwest

[3:43:24] corner being zoned as protected countryside natural heritage systems too.

[3:43:29] These designations permit agricultural uses. Comments from

[3:43:39] Townstaff include the requirement of land dedication for the appropriate

[3:43:42] right of way widths for 10th line in 22 Side

[3:43:45] Road, which may result in a give or take 3

[3:43:48] metre widenings being required from the existing 20 metre rights

[3:43:52] of way. As of today, no comments have been formally

[3:44:01] submitted by the public.

[3:44:15] Sorry about, oh geez. Sorry about that. Oh. It's Monday

[3:44:22] for this thing too, I guess, eh? Alright, I don't

[3:44:27] know why this isn't. Do you mind just flipping the

[3:44:30] side of the next one? There you go, thank you.

[3:44:32] Following the public meeting, planning staff will await a second

[3:44:35] submission from the applicant for review that addresses the comments

[3:44:38] and issues identified by town departments and external agency staff.

[3:44:43] Staff will also await and work through any comments provided

[3:44:46] by the public. Members of the public are encouraged to

[3:44:49] provide oral comments at this public meeting where written comments

[3:44:52] to me by August the 3rd or 3 weeks after

[3:44:55] this meeting for consideration. Lastly, staff will then summarize and

[3:45:03] address all comments in the final recommendation report to Council

[3:45:06] regarding the disposition of this matter. To request to be

[3:45:10] added to the email notification list, or if you have

[3:45:12] any further questions for me, please email me. My address

[3:45:15] is jsalt. ca. So this concludes the

[3:45:25] presentation, and thank you Madam Mayor Council. Thank you, Mr.

[3:45:31] Sellsbury. I now call on the applicant to provide any

[3:45:37] further information or details on the proposal. Aye, goody. Good

[3:45:41] evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. My name is Glenn Wellings.

[3:45:46] I'm Planning Consultant for Sheridan Nursery's on this matter. Uh,

[3:45:50] Mr. Carl Stenson. From Sheridan Nurse Reese is also an

[3:45:53] attendance this evening. We're happy to answer any questions of

[3:45:57] the public. Just a few comments. I'll try and be

[3:46:00] brief, Madam Mayor. First of all, thank you Mr. Sellsbury

[3:46:06] for the presentation. Uh, he covered off a lot of

[3:46:08] detail in a short period of time. As Mr. Salisbury

[3:46:12] didn't mention. The purpose of the application is to facilitate

[3:46:17] the sale of the existing Glenn Williams Nursery operation. And,

[3:46:22] uh, just to explain, Mr. Stenson is a third generation

[3:46:27] owner. And is planning to retire. Which is good on

[3:46:32] him. After close to 60 years in the business. So

[3:46:37] the fourth generation, unfortunately, has pursued at her career paths

[3:46:41] and will not and cannot take over the business. Uh,

[3:46:44] so there is a pending sale. Purchaser has come forward.

[3:46:50] And will be acquiring a significant portion of the Sheridan

[3:46:53] Nursery's property, Sir Land's, including the subject lands and the

[3:46:59] 200 - acre portion of the subject lands that Mr.

[3:47:02] Salisbury had mentioned. And, uh, Madam Mayor, if I can

[3:47:06] call on the town clerk to put up a graphic,

[3:47:12] I've distributed this to both the Town Hall cleric into

[3:47:15] two town planning staff. And this identifies in yellow, the

[3:47:22] lands that are subject to the purchase. And the lands

[3:47:27] that are shown in white will be the lands that

[3:47:31] are retained undersharatin nurses ownership. In a company that will

[3:47:37] be set up. Um, in the future. So metamair and

[3:47:41] Council members, this is a good news story. Uh, the,

[3:47:45] uh, Sheridan was, um, in the process of winding down

[3:47:48] the business, uh, but instead, uh, this opportunity does retain

[3:47:54] a business in the community. And the jobs will also

[3:47:58] remain in the community, which is really good news story.

[3:48:02] Um, unfortunately, matter mayor, as we come to expect with

[3:48:08] social media these days, there has been some misinformation that's

[3:48:12] been circulating surrounding this application. So I, uh, going to

[3:48:17] clarify that for, for this Council. First of all, there

[3:48:21] is no change in land use proposed here. The official

[3:48:25] plan amendment for the subject lands is simply to facilitate

[3:48:29] a severance application. Uh, there was no change in the

[3:48:33] lands. They are in agricultural production now. They will remain

[3:48:37] in agricultural production. Mr. Salisbury did mention that the lands

[3:48:45] are located entirely within the green belt. These lands are

[3:48:49] not part of the white belt that has been a

[3:48:52] rumour circulating. These lands are wholly contained within the green

[3:48:56] belt plan. And there's no plans to remove these lands

[3:49:00] from the green belt for redevelopment purposes. And by the

[3:49:05] way, the town has no jurisdiction. To do that. It's

[3:49:08] a provincial plan. But there was no intent whatsoever to

[3:49:13] remove these lands from the Green Bell Plan. From a

[3:49:16] planning perspective, the application is consistent with the provincial planning

[3:49:20] statement. And does conform to the Green Belt plan and

[3:49:25] the region of Halton official plan. The Green Belt Plan

[3:49:29] actually does provide for severances of agricultural properties. That maintain

[3:49:35] a minimum size of 40 hectares or 100 acres. So

[3:49:39] the towns official plans pretty prohibitive and in restrictive in

[3:49:42] this regard. And I'm hoping that'll be looked at in

[3:49:46] the future. Uh, during an official plant review. From a

[3:49:52] planet, from the amendment required to the Halton Hills Official

[3:49:55] Plan will result in the creation of two lots. Uh,

[3:50:02] each having 200 acres in size. As Mr. Salisbury had

[3:50:06] mentioned, uh, each one of these parcels already contains existing

[3:50:11] homes. So in this case, a new building lot will

[3:50:15] not be created. These are existing building lots. So Madam

[3:50:21] Mayor Council members, I'm happy to answer any questions in

[3:50:24] the public hoping that clarification does resonate. And, um, I'll

[3:50:30] be back. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Clarification.

[3:50:40] So now I will invite any resident or person who

[3:50:44] has questions requires further clarification or information. Or wishes to

[3:50:48] present their views on the proposal to come forward to

[3:50:51] speak. As a reminder at the end of this public

[3:50:54] meetings staff will be respond to questions or comments that

[3:50:58] have answers available at this time. And all other responses

[3:51:02] are answers will be provided by staff at a later

[3:51:05] date. When the recommendation is brought forward to Council for

[3:51:09] decision. So I have one person who is registered so

[3:51:16] far. Mr. Rogers Stoffford, I believe you are in the

[3:51:20] gallery. Thank you. Model. That's great. Thank you.

[3:51:35] Uh, good evening, Madam Mayor and Councillors. I am here

[3:51:41] representing Glenn Williams Community Association. To speak regarding the application.

[3:51:48] Uh, that's just been spoken about. Uh, for the official

[3:51:51] plan amendment. I have only lived here for 45 years.

[3:51:57] Sheridan Nurses has been here a lot longer. And, uh,

[3:52:00] the story of Chardnicers is a great story. It has

[3:52:05] strong roots here in Glenn Williams and novel and Georgetown.

[3:52:10] I am the first to say that propsy owners have

[3:52:14] rights. And Sheridan Nurses has decided to exercise their rights,

[3:52:19] put the land up for sale. And exercise their right

[3:52:22] to apply for the official plan amendment. The landing question

[3:52:26] is that the northeast corner of Glen Williams slightly further

[3:52:30] east of that point lies the, what I'll refer to

[3:52:34] as the vast subdivisions of Brampton, where they continue to

[3:52:38] bill their highest concentration of new housing directly on our

[3:52:42] northeast corner. I Googled and according to Google 30, 000

[3:52:48] new residents arrive in our northeast neighbour every year. The

[3:52:53] growth is four times faster than Canada five times faster

[3:52:56] than Ontario. All to say that there is immense pressure

[3:53:01] to build housing in the northeast corner. The subject application

[3:53:05] does not ask for a change of land use. Uh,

[3:53:08] which is agricultural. On the other side of the Sheridan

[3:53:12] lands lies Glenn Williams, uh, which I've spoken about before

[3:53:16] and which we're all familiar with. For traffic from the

[3:53:21] burgeoning megopolis on our northeast corner to get westward. And

[3:53:26] that is Main Street. That runs through the heart of

[3:53:29] the village and through the hearts of village life. Here,

[3:53:34] narrow road that's evokes the characteristic feel of the historic

[3:53:38] village. People meander school children meander tourists meander. The road

[3:53:46] is busy with people. Planners would dream to be able

[3:53:51] to create such a community environment. Fitting to the context,

[3:53:56] the road has no curbs. There is no demarcation of

[3:54:00] boundaries. People stroll cars park, often reverse park. Fitting to

[3:54:06] local businesses that thrive, the paces relaxed, even when packed

[3:54:11] with Taurus. We are all familiar. With the many businesses

[3:54:15] that operate in the hearts of the village. And people

[3:54:19] live here. They don't just sleep and commute. Many of

[3:54:22] the local homeowners live and actually stay and spend their

[3:54:25] time right there in the village core. My ask here

[3:54:31] tonight. Is that Council resolves alongside this subject application. To

[3:54:37] get the missing part of 22nd Side Road built. Between

[3:54:42] 10th line and eighth line. Building a direct route between

[3:54:46] our northeast corner and Highway 7 on our west side.

[3:54:50] Would give traffic an attractive alternative route to funneling through

[3:54:54] the harps of the Heritage Village. And would directly contribute

[3:54:59] to preserving and enhancing the irreplaceable heritage asset that is

[3:55:04] Glenn Williams. Thank you very much for the opportunity to

[3:55:07] speak. And there may be staff comments to that request.

[3:55:16] Later. Is there anyone else in the gallery. Who wishes

[3:55:21] to speak? Yes, please come forward and give your name

[3:55:24] and address.

[3:55:36] Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Madam Chair. My

[3:55:39] name is Jeff Westwood. I live at 12 109 10th

[3:55:42] line. So I'm one of those little notches that you

[3:55:45] see in your presentation. So I have a couple of

[3:55:47] questions for the first Welling's Planning Consultants. Obviously, uh, the

[3:55:55] change of, uh, ownership, uh, but the keeping of the,

[3:56:00] um, keeping the agriculture nature is very important to us.

[3:56:04] Uh, obviously our biggest concern when I found out that

[3:56:08] Sharondon were closing the doors where, you know, would we

[3:56:11] be blighted with some of the other issues that we

[3:56:13] have in town with illegal tracking. So when I was

[3:56:16] told that it was going to stay agricultural, I was

[3:56:19] very happy. So I do support this application. However, and

[3:56:25] as always, I however, isn't it? However, I am concerned

[3:56:29] about the five year plan for the new owners. Is

[3:56:36] a expectation to grow. The, agricultural area. You know, I

[3:56:42] back onto pretty much scrub land, which gets mode once

[3:56:46] a year. Uh, and then a little bit more scrub

[3:56:49] line. Do we know what the new owners plans are?

[3:56:52] And I'm looking directly at you, sorry, I should look

[3:56:54] at you. Do we know what the five year plan

[3:56:58] is for this new owner? Obviously my biggest concerned is,

[3:57:04] is there going to be additional greenhouses built? Um, will

[3:57:08] there be additional noise? Will we see a lot more

[3:57:11] traffic around the little road at the back? Um, tractors

[3:57:16] and things like that. Will this start at four o'clock

[3:57:19] in the morning like some of the operations do at

[3:57:21] the moment. And then obviously my biggest concern is will

[3:57:25] this impact the enjoyment of my own property. You know,

[3:57:29] will I have to be without impair, you know, impact

[3:57:33] everything from my home price. Will it be unsellable? Is

[3:57:39] there going to be, uh, is there going to be

[3:57:41] issues around that? Obviously it's not. Really anything to do

[3:57:46] with your permission to give the change of severance. However,

[3:57:51] this would be something that I would be looking at

[3:57:53] in future. Should I need to take whatever course needs

[3:57:58] action. If there is an impact on my enjoyment of

[3:58:02] my own property. And that's it. So thank you for

[3:58:05] your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And,

[3:58:08] and I'll ask that perhaps that question could be answered

[3:58:13] later on. If we hear from others in the audience

[3:58:16] who might have questions because there might be a little

[3:58:19] bit of overlap. So, um, thank you very much. Thank

[3:58:22] you. Yes. And I think there are others who.

[3:58:34] Good evening, everybody. Don't you enjoy air conditioning. You know,

[3:58:39] thank you Mayor Town Council. Town staff and the public

[3:58:43] for attending tonight. Thank you all to Schellsbury, who's been

[3:58:47] very helpful in providing us with information. Um, I represent

[3:58:51] a group called the concerns citizens of the Glenn. We

[3:58:57] want to state, first of all, that we very much

[3:58:59] appreciate Sheridan's long history and support of the Glenn. Shert

[3:59:03] has been an important economic player for Halton Hills. Citizens

[3:59:08] of the Glenn, though, however, opposed the amendment as we

[3:59:11] found concerns that need to be addressed. We found inconsistencies

[3:59:15] between the town report and the materials that reportedly supplied

[3:59:19] by the applicant and the business plan shared by Sheridan.

[3:59:24] Although we know that some of the concerns we had

[3:59:26] were addressed in the Sherton's business plan. We note the

[3:59:30] stated sense of urgency, but if that was the case,

[3:59:33] why was the process not started earlier, the end of

[3:59:35] June has passed. And mid - July is only two

[3:59:39] days away. Succession planning takes a lot of time. And

[3:59:43] so perhaps a little more advanced planning would be useful.

[3:59:46] We also concerned about the absence of feedback from the

[3:59:49] credit valley conservation authority. Because water is a very critical

[3:59:52] issue for agricultural operations. But it's also a very critical

[3:59:56] issue for the Glenn's ecosystem. In the shared inspecess plan,

[4:00:02] it states that the stents and family will retain the

[4:00:03] eastern portion of the 200 acres for agricultural purposes. Could

[4:00:07] there be, um, more explanation of what those agricultural purposes

[4:00:11] are planned. To give the Council a little more background

[4:00:16] concerns citizens of the Glen was formed during the COVID

[4:00:19] period. Which we all hopefully will be able to forget

[4:00:22] soon. We operate under Chatham House rule. We aim for

[4:00:28] unanimity whenever possible. And we rely on building consensus of

[4:00:32] our members. Our members are residents that share intimate knowledge

[4:00:35] of the community. So unfortunately we are not in the

[4:00:40] position to support this plan. And thank you very much

[4:00:43] for your time. Oh, sorry. Could you give your name,

[4:00:47] please? Oh, sorry. I thought I did. Lindal Henson. Representative

[4:00:51] concerns, citizens of the gland. Okay. Address to what might

[4:00:55] address. 118 Confederation. Okay. We're just where we have one

[4:01:00] of those great speed bumps that the concern citizens got

[4:01:03] into play with the town's Council Hall. Name to please.

[4:01:08] Thank you. Is there anyone else in the gallery who

[4:01:13] wishes to. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone online. Okay.

[4:01:24] Um, well, I see that there are no other speakers.

[4:01:28] So I'm wondering if. Now my, my, my notes say

[4:01:34] staff might provide answers, but it could be that the

[4:01:37] proponent wants to, uh, respond to some of the questions

[4:01:42] or comments. Madam. Mayor. Carl Stansen. Uh, to my right.

[4:01:53] I'll let Carl speak to the five year plan and

[4:01:56] in the purchaser. Um, there is some confidentiality with the

[4:02:00] purchaser, but I like Carl speak to that. And I'll

[4:02:02] speak to some of the others. Issues raised. Thank you.

[4:02:06] Thank you. Thank you. Um, as far as talking about

[4:02:11] succession planning, uh, we started 10 years ago. And, um,

[4:02:15] went through two or three different proposals to buy our

[4:02:20] company. For various reasons, mostly the fact that whoever wanted

[4:02:27] to buy the nursery didn't want to buy the land.

[4:02:30] Or whoever wanted to buy the land did not want

[4:02:32] to run a nursery. And so last August, we made

[4:02:37] the difficult decision. To wind down the nursery business. So

[4:02:42] that the land could be sold to other agricultural people.

[4:02:47] That wanted to run a farm. Um, there is no

[4:02:52] development plan that is going on here. It's simply, and

[4:02:58] I will say that why is this just coming up?

[4:03:01] Because about six weeks ago, someone came to us and

[4:03:04] said, I have a plan. I have financing. And, but

[4:03:10] I only have financing for so much. And if you

[4:03:13] saw the acreage that we put up on the screen

[4:03:16] before that little yellow diagram that I coloured up, uh,

[4:03:21] I stayed within the lines too. It was really very

[4:03:24] good. Um, but it's approximately half the land that we

[4:03:29] own in the gland. And that person or persons could

[4:03:35] not afford to buy all of the land to run

[4:03:38] the business. Their plan is to run a scaled down

[4:03:42] nursery. Not an increased nursery, but a scaled down growing

[4:03:47] only certain products. We at one point grew close to

[4:03:51] a thousand different varieties of plants. They're proposing to grow

[4:03:56] about 40 to 50 varieties of plants. But the big

[4:03:59] ones that we are known for, such as boxwood, where

[4:04:05] the largest box would grow in Canada. And so, and

[4:04:09] one of the second largest in North America. And so

[4:04:14] they're planning on just using those, um, with mass merchants,

[4:04:19] Home Depot. We have a huge contract with Home Depot.

[4:04:23] So they're carrying on those. Businesses. Um, but they did

[4:04:27] not want that land. All the rest of the land.

[4:04:31] And I will say that anything that's drawn in yellow

[4:04:33] there has been developed mostly for container growing. Which you're

[4:04:38] growing plants in containers above the ground. All of the

[4:04:42] other ones that weren't coloured in. Are mostly field. And

[4:04:48] because when we first bought this land in the 50s

[4:04:50] and 60s, all of our production was in the ground.

[4:04:55] So, um, it's a matter of the person who wants

[4:04:58] to do this. And as, as Glenn said, um, we're

[4:05:02] very happy that this is happening because we told our

[4:05:06] staff that they'd all be out of work. And now

[4:05:10] there's probably about 40 to 45 of them that will

[4:05:13] have permanent jobs. In Halton. And that's good for Halton

[4:05:18] as well and good for the community. Um, again, there

[4:05:22] is no way that we can put a subdivision up.

[4:05:25] No way we can do anything. With the land because

[4:05:27] it is Greenbelt. I will say also, as far as

[4:05:30] credit Valley and conservation, um, Sheridan was the first company

[4:05:37] in Canada to put in a bio pond, which is

[4:05:40] over 30 million gallons with a backup pond of 20

[4:05:44] million gallons. And, uh, that pond. Has reduced the water

[4:05:51] consumption from the credit river by 40 percent. And that

[4:05:57] is millions of gallons. Cause in a very hot day,

[4:06:00] you can punk two million gallons of water onto the

[4:06:03] field. And so I think we've been very good in

[4:06:08] conservation. I think we have moved as quickly as we

[4:06:11] can to work on this proposal. And it came out

[4:06:15] of the blue, as I say. So it's not like

[4:06:17] we should have done this 10 years ago or five

[4:06:20] years ago. We'd been working on it. And finally, I'd

[4:06:24] like to say that we have supported the Glenn Williams

[4:06:26] Town Hall with our shrub sale. The shrub sale that

[4:06:31] they have every year on the 24th of May weekend,

[4:06:35] we donate all of those plants. To them so that

[4:06:37] they can sell and make money for the town Hall.

[4:06:41] And, uh, we calculate that probably a quarter of a

[4:06:44] million dollars who has been put towards the town hall

[4:06:46] over the years from the sale of those shrubs. So

[4:06:49] I think we'd actually named a citizen of the year.

[4:06:54] The company was a citizen of the year for Glenn

[4:06:56] Williams. So we're very proud of our connection with the

[4:06:59] Glenn and, um, this is a simple severance to allow

[4:07:04] us to keep the business going once we're out of

[4:07:07] it. And as far as what's happening with the rest

[4:07:09] of the land, it's going into a new co, which

[4:07:13] with the same shareholders. And if someone comes along and

[4:07:17] wants to buy it for farmland, then we'll sell it

[4:07:19] for farmland. That's. A moment. Okay. Madam Chair, if I

[4:07:27] can just, um, add a few more comments. In terms

[4:07:30] of the first gentleman that spoke, uh, expressed concerns about

[4:07:35] noise traffic and enjoying his own property, just a reminder,

[4:07:40] this is an agricultural area. You're going to have a

[4:07:43] heavy equipment machinery. In occasionally noise. In traffic and use

[4:07:50] of roads by, by heavy equipment. So just, just, uh,

[4:07:54] just a note on that. Concern citizens of the Glenn.

[4:08:05] I'm puzzled by, by the opposition to the application, uh,

[4:08:10] the inconsistencies, uh, between what dissemitted on behalf of Sheridan

[4:08:16] and what. The town staff report. Indicates. I didn't see

[4:08:20] any inconsistencies. Um, but I like to know who they're

[4:08:25] speaking on behalf of man, a mayor, Council members, because

[4:08:30] every time I deal with this, this concern citizens at

[4:08:34] a gland, I just hear from one person. In it's

[4:08:37] always negative. So I would like to know who they

[4:08:41] are. And who's, what their membership is like, why. Are

[4:08:47] these people part of the Glenn Williams community association. It

[4:08:52] was speak and I unified voice. And so I am

[4:08:56] concerned by their opposition. And I'd like to know more

[4:08:59] about their organisation. So, Madam Chair, that's all I have

[4:09:03] to say. Thank you. Well, and thank you very much

[4:09:11] for those responses. And I certainly everyone around this table

[4:09:18] and everyone in this room, I should guess as very

[4:09:22] well aware of what a prominent citizen shared in nursery's

[4:09:26] has been of the Glenn and have broader town of

[4:09:30] Halton Halls. And, um, I know we're sad when all

[4:09:35] good things come to an end. But, um, we, we

[4:09:39] certainly do applaud. The contributions of shared in nurseries to

[4:09:44] our community have been absolutely profound over decades. So, um,

[4:09:50] thank you for coming and describing what you see the

[4:09:55] future as holding. It's very helpful for us. Okay. Are

[4:10:03] there any further comments from staff. Thank you, Madam

[4:10:12] Mayor. And through you, Madam Mayor, we have been taking

[4:10:15] some pretty diligent notes during this presentation. So we will

[4:10:19] be providing information to the questions that were asked in

[4:10:22] the recommendation report. I do also want to add that

[4:10:25] credit value conservation have been circulated on this application. And

[4:10:30] they will be reviewing it and providing comments to this

[4:10:32] application. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr.

[4:10:40] Stanson. Just one thing, Credit Valley Conservation is coming to

[4:10:46] walk the site tomorrow. So they are involved. Thank you.

[4:10:54] And we're aware that this public meeting is just part

[4:10:57] of the process. And so decisions will not be made

[4:11:02] imminently. There are, there is still more review to happen.

[4:11:11] Okay. So I will conclude the meeting then. I declare

[4:11:14] this public meeting closed. And as mentioned earlier, Council will

[4:11:18] take no action on this proposal tonight. Staff will be

[4:11:22] reporting at a later date with a recommendation for Council's

[4:11:26] consideration. And if you wish to receive further information regarding

[4:11:31] the proposal, please contact our planner Josh Sellsbury following the

[4:11:36] meeting. A business card containing his contact information can be

[4:11:40] found when you exit the Council Chambers. So thank you

[4:11:45] very much. And this is a good time for anyone

[4:11:49] who wants to, um, make their way home. We have

[4:11:53] one more public meeting tonight.

[4:12:54] So if residents could make their way and have their

[4:12:57] conversations in the hallway, that would allow us to move

[4:13:01] on to the next meeting. Thank you. So the town

[4:13:08] is now holding a public meeting for the development application

[4:13:12] submitted by first Gulf Corporation. On behalf of the owners.

[4:13:17] And the application is proposing a zoning bylaw amendment. To

[4:13:21] permit five multi - unit industrial warehouse buildings with 271

[4:13:28] commercial vehicle waiting spaces and a maximum building height of

[4:13:33] 15 metres at 14829 stealsue. And the purpose of this

[4:13:39] public meeting is to inform the public of the proposal.

[4:13:43] And to provide members of the community with the opportunity

[4:13:46] to ask questions and express their views regarding the application.

[4:13:51] The planning act requires at least one public meeting beheld

[4:13:55] for any development proposal. And that members of the public

[4:13:59] shall be given an opportunity to make representations in respect

[4:14:03] of the proposal. The format of this public meeting is

[4:14:09] as follows. The town will provide a presentation that generally

[4:14:13] explains the purpose and details of the application. The applicant

[4:14:18] will then present any further relevant information. And afterwards, the

[4:14:22] public can express their views on the proposal or ask

[4:14:26] questions for clarification regarding the application. As chair, I am

[4:14:32] informing you that any person or public body that does

[4:14:35] not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make

[4:14:39] written submissions to the town of Halton Hills before being

[4:14:42] added as a party. Before the Ontario land tribunal, unless

[4:14:48] in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable grounds

[4:14:51] to do so. Please contact planning staff for further information

[4:14:56] on the appeal process. It's important to note that councillors

[4:15:01] are here to observe and listen to comments tonight only.

[4:15:05] Council will not be taking any action or make a

[4:15:08] decision on the proposal tonight. At the end of the

[4:15:11] public meeting staff will respond to questions or comments that

[4:15:15] have answers available at the time. All other responses or

[4:15:19] answers will be provided by staff at a later date.

[4:15:23] The authority to approve and PAST minor zoning bylaw amendments

[4:15:28] has been delegated to the commissioner of planning. Provided any

[4:15:33] concerns raised by the public or staff. Regarding the review

[4:15:37] process are resolved to the satisfaction of the commissioner. So

[4:15:43] with the towns representative from the Planning Department, just cover

[4:15:47] him please come forward to explain the proposal. Thank you,

[4:15:55] Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Mayor Councillor, staff and members

[4:15:59] of the public. The purpose of this evening stashed story

[4:16:01] public meeting is to present an overview of the zoning

[4:16:04] bylaw amendment application submitted by first Gulf Corporation on behalf

[4:16:08] of 1st Gulf Halton Steeles Limited and Sun Life Assurance

[4:16:11] Company of Canada. The Soning by - law amendment application

[4:16:14] pertains to the property location. In the Premier Gateway Employment

[4:16:21] Area of Halton Halls. So the subject property is

[4:16:30] located on the west side of ninth line north of

[4:16:33] Steels Avenue and the Premier Gateway Employment Area. The lands

[4:16:36] have approximate area of 41. 72 hectares are just over

[4:16:41] 103 acres with approximately 462 metres of frontage along steels

[4:16:46] avenue and 512 metres along ninth line. The northern portion

[4:16:50] of the site includes the tributary of the 16 -

[4:16:53] mile creek and the lands are currently vacant. With regards

[4:16:56] to the neighbourhood context surrounding land uses to the subject

[4:17:00] lands include agricultural lands approved for future industrial development and

[4:17:05] single detached dwellings along nightline. Agricultural lands to the east,

[4:17:11] approved for future industrial development. To the south single detached

[4:17:14] dwellings and an institutional use, which contains a church and

[4:17:19] a cemetery. And additional agricultural lands approved for future industrial

[4:17:23] development across deals avenue. And to the West is agricultural

[4:17:28] lands approved for future industrial development and the continuation of

[4:17:33] the tributary of the 16 mile creek. So this is

[4:17:40] the development proposal before you the application seeks to obtain

[4:17:44] the necessary land use permissions to construct five multi -

[4:17:47] unit industrial warehouse buildings at 14829 STEALS Avenue in the

[4:17:52] Premier Gateway Employment Area. Although the end users have not

[4:17:55] been determined, the intended uses of the property include building

[4:18:00] the intended uses proposed industrial buildings include but are not

[4:18:03] limited to warehouse. Warehousing wholesaling distribution and accessory office uses.

[4:18:10] Uh, the five buildings are shown as being divided into

[4:18:12] 18 leasing units total on the submitted plan. However, each

[4:18:16] building can be organised to accommodate more or fewer units

[4:18:19] depending on the need for prospective tenants. The applicants are

[4:18:23] proposing 245 loading spaces and 271 commercial vehicle waiting spaces.

[4:18:29] It is important to note that while the transportation impacts

[4:18:32] CETI proposes six access points to the site to access

[4:18:35] points off steels avenue and four access points off ninth

[4:18:39] line, the updated development concept presented on the slide includes

[4:18:42] only four access points to the site which was addressing

[4:18:45] comments received from staff.

[4:18:55] So policy context here, this is the Halton Hale Hale's

[4:18:59] official plan designation. So under the town's official plan, the

[4:19:02] property is located within the Premier Gateway employment area phase

[4:19:05] 2B secondary plan area. Um, under OPA 50 was approved

[4:19:09] by the Ontario Land Tribunal. The plans identify the subject

[4:19:13] property is being designated prestige industrial area, which permits a

[4:19:17] wide range of employment related uses, including manufacturing assembly, processing

[4:19:22] warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution facilities located primarily within the buildings.

[4:19:28] Under the secondary plan, the subject site is designated as

[4:19:31] prestige industrial area and natural heritage system. Uh, the property

[4:19:36] is also subject to a residential special policy area overlay,

[4:19:40] uh, which applies to the lands where there is existing

[4:19:42] residential uses, which might not develop in the short term.

[4:19:45] Policies that apply to the residential special policy area overlay

[4:19:48] include the requirements for landscaping and other buffering to be

[4:19:51] provided along the boundary of the site proposed for development

[4:19:55] adjacent to the existing residential uses. So Halton Hale zoning

[4:20:02] bylaws, subject property is zoned agricultural A and environmental protection

[4:20:07] one EP1 under the zoning bylaw 2010 - 0050 as

[4:20:12] amended, which does not permit industrial uses. The applicant is

[4:20:15] proposing to rezone the property zone agricultural to a site

[4:20:19] - specific for a one corridor prestige industrial M7 zone

[4:20:23] to facilitate the proposed development. Sites - specific provisions regarding

[4:20:27] the number of commercial vehicle waiting spaces and maximum building

[4:20:30] height is required. The EP - 1 zone at the

[4:20:34] northwest corner of the property would remain and be expanded

[4:20:37] to acknowledge the tributary of the 16 - mile creek

[4:20:40] and the required associated buffers. As mentioned in the previous

[4:20:44] slides, the lands are included within the phase 2B of

[4:20:47] the Premier Gateway Employment Area. On June 1st of this

[4:20:51] year, a public meeting was held to discuss the phase

[4:20:53] 2B draft zoning by - law amendment, which would establish

[4:20:56] zoning permissions to implement the phase 2B Secondary Plan. While

[4:21:01] the approval of the phase 2B zoning by - law

[4:21:03] amendment would permit industrial warehouse on the site, a site

[4:21:06] - specific zoning by - law amendment would still be

[4:21:08] required to abstain. Site - specific provisions for the proposed

[4:21:11] development. Um. I have on the back. Note that once

[4:21:19] the phase 2 be zoning by law amendment is in

[4:21:21] effect, the subject application could be considered a minor zoning

[4:21:24] bylaw amendment given the application would only seek to vary

[4:21:27] standards of the phase 2B bylaw rather than implement new

[4:21:30] zoning permissions for the lands. Uh, as per By -

[4:21:34] law 2022 - 0039 Council has delegated authority to approve

[4:21:39] and past minor zoning by - law amendments to the

[4:21:41] commissioner of planning, provided that any concerns identified through the

[4:21:45] public consultation and technical review process have been resolved to

[4:21:48] the satisfaction of the commissioner. So comments from agency and

[4:21:57] department. So this submission materials were circulated to town department

[4:22:02] and external agencies for review. These slides outline the comments

[4:22:07] identified to staff by to date. So the first is

[4:22:11] Ministry of Transportation or MTO. Lands are located within the

[4:22:15] study area for Highway 413 and are currently subject to

[4:22:18] the corridor protection overlay identified in the town's official plan.

[4:22:22] However, MTO has since finalised the environmental assessment for the

[4:22:26] Highway 413 route and have confirmed that the property is

[4:22:29] located outside the future corridor and MTO permit control area.

[4:22:35] Ministry of Energy and Minds. So ERO posting 025 -

[4:22:40] 1133, which pertains to refining the Protection Corridor for future

[4:22:45] electricity, uh, transmission infrastructure in the northwest greater Toronto area

[4:22:51] has revised the narrow area of interest or the NAI.

[4:22:56] Identified under the provincial planning statement. The updated NAI may

[4:23:00] impose additional constraints on the subject lands, potentially future, or

[4:23:05] further limiting the development opportunities for the clarification from the

[4:23:09] province will be required to be determined whether development may

[4:23:12] proceed within these areas. Development Engineering staff require a separate

[4:23:19] functional site servicing report in the next submission. Uh, this

[4:23:23] report must address the proposed development site grading and Storm

[4:23:26] Sewer layout and provide sufficient details to confirm that the

[4:23:29] development is viable and will function appropriately within the intended

[4:23:33] property. And zoning comments, a draft by law is proposing

[4:23:38] a site - specific requirement for a maximum building height

[4:23:41] of 15 metres. However, the proposed elevation drawings indicated a

[4:23:45] maximum height of 15. 5 metres. Therefore a site -

[4:23:48] specific requirement for maximum building height should be increased to

[4:23:50] 15. 6 metres. Uh, the propose all appears to meet

[4:23:55] the definition of an industrial mall under the town zoning

[4:23:59] by - law. The required parking rate for an industrial

[4:24:02] mall is one space per 40 square metres of gross

[4:24:04] floor area. So as a result, a site - specific

[4:24:06] parking rate would be required. So further review and discussion

[4:24:10] will be necessary for that. And if a road widening

[4:24:14] is required along ninth line, the proposed exterior side yard

[4:24:18] setback and planting strip may not comply with the minimum

[4:24:20] bylaw requirements. Therefore, for the review and discussion for a

[4:24:24] site - specific provision may also be required. Uh, Halton

[4:24:30] region comments. So the region is currently undertaking a detailed

[4:24:33] design project to extend water and wastewater services along steels

[4:24:36] avenue. However, full municipal serving Singh is not yet available

[4:24:40] for these lands. The submitted report does not demonstrate whether

[4:24:44] sufficient infrastructure capacity exists to support the proposed development. So

[4:24:48] additional analysis is required to confirm servicing feasibility for the

[4:24:51] development. Along ninth line, the two proposed full access driveways

[4:24:57] are spaced 130 metres apart as indicated in the traffic

[4:25:01] impact study. As part of the first submission and do

[4:25:04] not meet the Halton regions required minimum spacing of 400

[4:25:07] metres. The layout should be revised to provide one full

[4:25:10] axis, signalize entrance in one restricted access entrance. Uh, the

[4:25:16] submitted concept plan does not identify the centre line of

[4:25:19] STOEOS ANUR nine flying, so both steals Avenue in ninth

[4:25:22] line are planned to be widened as per the approved

[4:25:24] regional capital budget. As such, staff are unable to confirm

[4:25:27] if the proposed development plans provide and protect for the

[4:25:31] planned of both deals avenue and ninth line. And conservation

[4:25:37] Halton comments to support confirmation of the limited between the

[4:25:43] development and the non - developable zones. This submitted geotechnical

[4:25:46] investigation report should be updated to provide preliminary conclusions relating

[4:25:50] to the proposed store modern management pond outlet. And conservation

[4:25:56] Halton recommends that the full extent of conservation Halton regulated

[4:26:01] area be zoned for protection and placed into public ownership

[4:26:05] where appropriate. Parks and open space, um, the northwest portion

[4:26:10] of building fives parking and internal road network appears to

[4:26:13] be within the significant woodland buffer. Um, justification must be

[4:26:18] provided in the appropriate studies. Otherwise, uh, revision to the

[4:26:22] site plan to remove any development within the buffer may

[4:26:25] be required. And landscape plans should incorporate appropriate buffer screening

[4:26:31] landscaping site design elements, um, for the site. Um, planning

[4:26:39] stuff have received one request for additional information from the

[4:26:41] public and no comments or concerns have been received to

[4:26:44] date. Uh, the purpose of this public meeting is to

[4:26:47] obtain additional comments and feedback from the community. Any additional

[4:26:50] comments received from the public will also be reviewed, evaluated

[4:26:54] and included in a final recommendation report. Next steps, uh,

[4:27:00] following the statutory public meeting, planning staff will await a

[4:27:02] second submission from the applicant to address the comments and

[4:27:06] issues identified by town department and external agencies from our

[4:27:09] initial review. Staff will also await and consider any comments

[4:27:13] provided from the public members of the public are encouraged

[4:27:16] to provide oral comments at the public meeting or written

[4:27:18] comments to be by August 3rd, which is three weeks

[4:27:20] following this meeting for consideration. And once staff have completed

[4:27:25] our review of the proposal, we will, and summarize and

[4:27:28] address any concerns in a final recommendation report regarding the

[4:27:32] disposition of the matter. And thank you that concludes my

[4:27:38] presentation. Thank you. I will now call on the applicant

[4:27:44] if they wish to provide any further information and detail

[4:27:48] on the proposal.

[4:27:59] Online. Okay. Uh, Nicole. I, good evening. Um, thank you

[4:28:08] Madam Mayor and thank you Jessica for the presentation. Um,

[4:28:12] my name is Nuko Gwadnoli. I work for first golf.

[4:28:17] As Jessica had indicated, uh, in her presentation, uh, the

[4:28:21] purpose of our application, uh, was followed by both first

[4:28:24] golf and sunlife, uh, essentially to bring the lines and

[4:28:27] two conformity with the secondary plan, uh, which would ultimately

[4:28:31] unlock the property to be the first development, um, under

[4:28:34] construction within the phase two B lands. Um, as I

[4:28:38] also noted earlier in my delegation, uh, this afternoon, uh,

[4:28:43] there were some challenges that we had faced over the

[4:28:45] last couple of years, uh, just including a collector Road

[4:28:48] and the narrow era of interest regarding 413, um, which

[4:28:52] we were able to overcome with staff. Uh, that ultimately

[4:28:56] led us to filing this rezoning application. Uh, we are

[4:29:00] aware of the comments identified in Jessica's presentation and a

[4:29:04] resubmission will be submitted in the upcoming weeks, uh, just

[4:29:07] to address, uh, those comments. And ideally bring forward a

[4:29:12] positive staff report, uh, to conclude this recealing application. And

[4:29:16] at this time I'm available to answer any questions that

[4:29:20] there may be from the public. Thank you very much.

[4:29:26] Um, so now I will invite any resident or person

[4:29:31] who has questions requires for the clarification. Or information or

[4:29:35] wishes to present their views on the proposal to come

[4:29:38] forward to speak. As a reminder at the end of

[4:29:41] the public meeting staff will respond to questions or comments

[4:29:45] that have answers available at this time. Are there any

[4:29:50] registered speakers. Oh, yes sir. Would you come forward? Yes.

[4:29:55] Come ahead. Madam Mayor and Council members. My name's Henry

[4:30:02] Alley. I'm with St. Stevens Ankle and Church. I've been

[4:30:05] the former People's Warns for many years. It's the White

[4:30:09] Church at the bottom of ninth line, or mountain view.

[4:30:12] And steals Avenue. And our concern is water and sewage.

[4:30:17] I know all the development's going to be to the

[4:30:19] north. But we've always been hoping in our lifetime there.

[4:30:24] We're over 189 years old. Um, that we would get

[4:30:28] some water from the city somewhere and sewage probably get

[4:30:32] through. We've got gas now, but we're looking for some

[4:30:36] kind of, uh, indication that might come across the road

[4:30:40] or it might just stay, as we've heard in the

[4:30:42] past, it's all going to stay on the north side

[4:30:44] of steals and not cutting across the side, the south

[4:30:47] side. So that's my main concern. That's the main concern

[4:30:50] to most of the people at the church. It's just,

[4:30:52] and the church itself, and the rectory. And of course

[4:30:57] the cemetery doesn't use any water except for watering and

[4:30:59] stuff like that. So anyway, so that's my concern. And,

[4:31:04] uh, thank you for listening to me for a second.

[4:31:08] Well, thank you very much for those comments as a

[4:31:10] neighbour. Yes. Okay. Is there anyone else in the gallery

[4:31:16] who wishes to speak. Thank you, DMA and councillors. They're

[4:31:23] with. I'm from Main Street North Gedstone. I have question

[4:31:26] first question to the applicant. I know it's zoned institutional,

[4:31:31] but have they made any considerations in building office space

[4:31:34] or there. Because a lot of that area has become

[4:31:38] warehouses. Just wait hoses, which is not going to create

[4:31:41] any jobs. Obviously the town makes a lot of property

[4:31:43] access and development charges, but employment wise that is not

[4:31:47] big benefit. So my question to the applicant is, are

[4:31:50] they considering to build some kind of office spaces which

[4:31:53] would invite some big clients that can create some good

[4:31:57] hyping skill jobs over there. And if they are considering

[4:32:01] like that, are the expecting some kind of support from

[4:32:04] the town. Curiosity, my next question, or should I just

[4:32:09] wait for? Yes. Yeah. Add your next question, please. My

[4:32:12] next question is for the town staff. This particular development

[4:32:16] is huge, which is going to bring in a lot

[4:32:18] of revenue in the form of development charges to start

[4:32:20] with. So the town has calculated in numbers. And can

[4:32:25] they also tell us how the funds is going to

[4:32:27] completely use like because what I've absurd over the past

[4:32:29] three years. There is a lot of dollar points. I

[4:32:32] just being collected. But there is no clarity on whether

[4:32:37] a hundred percent of the development judges is being spent

[4:32:39] on municipal infrastructure. Valid injust or not. I've been complaining

[4:32:43] about municipal services, especially water. I think has been done.

[4:32:47] I know that the Halton region is spending some money

[4:32:49] and expanding ninth line into four lane road. And there's

[4:32:52] municipal services also being part of the proposal. But I

[4:32:55] don't see any proposal in bringing in Munsper water. Uh,

[4:32:59] the lake water to just or not. So I want

[4:33:01] to understand the funds that is being connected from this

[4:33:04] development, how that is being spent and where the allocation

[4:33:07] is going on. Thank you. Thank. You. Anything anyone else

[4:33:15] wants to add. Okay. Thank you. Um, do staff have

[4:33:23] any comments about any of the questions that were asked.

[4:33:32] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, we just had a quick

[4:33:35] comment that the region is targeting 2028 for servicing for

[4:33:38] that area. Um, but all other comments would be addressed

[4:33:41] in our recommendation. Thank you. All right. Does the proponent

[4:33:51] have anything for further to add. Did you have anything

[4:34:00] to add. Hi Madame Mayor? Sorry

[4:34:10] about that. Takes a second to connect here in my

[4:34:13] laptop, uh, appreciate the questions in the comments, um, I

[4:34:18] will continue to leave it to staff to just discuss

[4:34:20] servicing for the area. Um, but in terms of the

[4:34:24] actual uses itself, um, as it stands, we have been

[4:34:28] actively in discussions with various large - scale, uh, industrial

[4:34:32] users. Uh, the land is designated as prestige industrial. Um,

[4:34:37] so that's what has been considered for the property. What

[4:34:41] I will say is the zoning does also permit standalone

[4:34:45] office. So shoot in the future, there be, uh, attendant

[4:34:49] interested in the property. Um, I'm sure that's something that

[4:34:51] we could take a look into, uh, once it gets

[4:34:54] to a site plan application stage, um, but as it

[4:34:58] stands, uh, right now it's just large scale industrial users.

[4:35:02] That we're considering. All right. Thank you. Okay.

[4:35:17] Yes. Did you want to come forward again? Uh. It

[4:35:21] was what a follow - up question, I think. Not

[4:35:24] that, but in general, I have a concern regarding these

[4:35:28] lands, everything being industrial. That's just going to add more

[4:35:33] truck traffic. Right from employment point of view. This is

[4:35:36] a question to the town. Are we considering zoning specific

[4:35:39] properties to office space. Because I've looked at states and

[4:35:44] Ms. Saga Road where there's a lot of office space

[4:35:46] in Brampton, Miss Saga, which is generating more revenue, more

[4:35:50] six figure salary jobs. At I did work in Law

[4:35:53] - Blast, there were some time. I know that area

[4:35:55] very well. So it's a town doing an efforts because

[4:35:58] I see the town spending money in inverting businesses or

[4:36:01] Germany. Even funding some of the travel and interactions. But

[4:36:06] I don't see any town policies in inviting Canadian companies

[4:36:10] to create office spaces, not even zoning policies. There is

[4:36:13] no money being spent on zoning changes. Right. You just

[4:36:16] have to allow the zoning to build office spaces. Does

[4:36:19] the town has any plan to create good jobs in

[4:36:21] the town? If yes, I would like to see some

[4:36:23] details. Thank you. All right. And I think staff can

[4:36:28] follow up afterwards with you on, on that answer. Yeah.

[4:36:34] Okay. Um, I think then we've heard from staff and

[4:36:39] the proponent and follow up questions. And so I would

[4:36:43] now declare this public meeting closed. As mentioned earlier, a

[4:36:47] Council will take no action on this proposal tonight. And

[4:36:51] if you wish to receive further information regarding the proposal,

[4:36:55] please contact the planner Jessica Rahim following the meeting. A

[4:37:00] business card containing her contact information can be found when

[4:37:04] you exit the Council Chambers. So that's good. Let's see.

[4:37:13] We haven't moved by Councillor Keane. Second of my Councillor

[4:37:15] Norris that report PD 2026074 dated June 26, 2026 regarding

[4:37:23] a public meeting for a proposed temporary use zoning bylaw

[4:37:27] amendment. To extend a microbrew reviews for an additional three

[4:37:32] years at one Elgin Street, Georgetown, we received. And that

[4:37:36] further that all agency in public comment be referred to

[4:37:41] staff for further report regarding the disposition of this matter.

[4:37:46] All in favor. That's carried.

[4:37:58] And we haven't moved by Councillor Brass. Second of my

[4:38:01] Councillor Kinbaum that report PDE 2026 071 regarding a public

[4:38:06] meeting for a proposed official plan amendment to allow for

[4:38:10] a severance to divide the 160 hectare, 400 acre parcel

[4:38:16] into two lots at 16768, 22nd Side Road to squeezing

[4:38:23] be received. And further that all agency in public comments

[4:38:27] be referred to staff for consideration as part of the

[4:38:31] review of the development proposal. With the intention that a

[4:38:35] recommendation report be brought forward to Council for disposition of

[4:38:39] this matter at a later date, went staff have completed

[4:38:43] their evaluation of the applications. All in favor. That's carried.

[4:38:59] And we have it moved by Councillor Brass. Second of

[4:39:02] our Councillor Kinbaum that report PD 2026062 dated June 29,

[4:39:08] 2026 regarding a public meeting. For Pro Posed zoning bylaw

[4:39:14] amendment. To permit five multi - unit industrial buildings at

[4:39:19] 14829 steals Avenue Premier Gateway area be received. And further

[4:39:26] that all agency and public comments be referred to staff

[4:39:29] for further report. Regarding the disposition of this matter. All

[4:39:34] in favor. That's carried.

[4:39:46] And now finishing our public meetings, we are going to

[4:39:50] return to general committee. It has been moved by Councillor

[4:39:54] Keene, second of our Councillor Brass that we do now

[4:39:58] return to general committee. And Councillor Rabano. You're on again.

[4:40:07] All in favor. That's carried.

[4:41:00] All right. Thank you very much. And we're back into

[4:41:03] general committee. Uh, we have two, uh, two outstanding items

[4:41:08] in the, uh, in the delegation and presentation. And then

[4:41:11] I believe we have three, uh, three items in the

[4:41:14] rest of the reports. So, uh, the first thing that

[4:41:18] we'll do is we'll do the item F. We'll deal

[4:41:22] with item F. And that's Jennifer Reynolds Halton Hills pickleball

[4:41:26] association. Um, she's delegating regarding building communities. Yeah. Uh, building

[4:41:34] communities strong fun. Eighth line park expansion expression of interest.

[4:41:39] Um, submission. So, um, Jennifer.

[4:41:59] Jennifer. You have the floor. We can't hear you.

[4:42:36] You're not muted. Is there something else that you need

[4:42:39] to turn on there. Jennifer?

[4:42:56] Can you hear me now? Yes, we can loud and

[4:43:00] clear. Okay. Just remind you that we have five minutes.

[4:43:04] Okay. Yes. I know it's been a long day. Thank

[4:43:06] you Chair Albano. And thank you members of Council for

[4:43:10] allowing me to be a delegate. I'd also like to

[4:43:14] just thank staff for having the memorandum on tonight's agenda.

[4:43:18] I know it's being a bit of a piece of

[4:43:21] work hitting that done. I'm speaking on behalf of the

[4:43:24] Halton Hills pickleball association. And as the acting chair of

[4:43:27] the Halton Hills Sports Coalition. As previously reported to Council,

[4:43:32] the coalition includes several sports looking for additional indoor playing

[4:43:36] space. Tennis Badmenton Volleyball basketball soccer baseball football flag football

[4:43:42] cricket and pickleball representing over 7, 000 participants. We also

[4:43:47] have two DOM providers providing guidance and needed technical advice.

[4:43:51] I'd like to comment on two main points in the

[4:43:54] memorandum. Point number one, the existing Afeline Park concept or

[4:43:59] an amended version, including a two dome solution. We developed

[4:44:03] a two dome solution to address several sporting needs at

[4:44:06] the eight line park. One dome over the proposed courts

[4:44:10] facility and gym facility flooring. And one over the existing

[4:44:15] soccer field with the requirement for TURF acknowledged as part

[4:44:18] of the added expense. We believe that a phase project

[4:44:23] of that nature would be able to be ready to

[4:44:25] meet the application criteria. We have met with town staff

[4:44:29] most recently on June 15. At that time we strongly

[4:44:33] supported staff moving forward with a full application to the

[4:44:36] federal funding program to meet the July 15th deadline date.

[4:44:40] The coalition offered support subject matter expert services, a willingness

[4:44:45] to assist in any way possible to advance the two

[4:44:48] DOM solution and to not miss the window under the

[4:44:51] building community strong fund. The EOI on the agenda tonight

[4:44:56] is the same concept approved by Council in 2024. And

[4:45:00] while providing needed indoor hardcourt opportunities, it still falls short

[4:45:05] in terms of satisfying many more unmet needs in the

[4:45:08] community. It is also not clear what the outcome may

[4:45:12] be within EOI. Is there another round of funding available.

[4:45:17] The eighth line part project recommends moving and redeveloping the

[4:45:21] existing soccer pitch, which will provide no net new capacity.

[4:45:26] The two DOM solution we propose would address many more

[4:45:29] needs. Stuff led us to believe there are constraints to

[4:45:32] amending the eighth line park design to meet the criteria

[4:45:35] that would include the two DOM solution. We would argue

[4:45:39] that while challenging, it does not appear impossible. We provided

[4:45:43] some suggested solutions that included FACE tendering, giving, given the

[4:45:50] municipal election later this fall. Reassessing the potential impact on

[4:45:54] the Gellert community centre. It's planned expansion location appears to

[4:45:59] be east and somewhat south of the existing soccer field.

[4:46:03] We're not sure how that would be impacted. And also

[4:46:07] in relation to funding confirmation for the community centre expansion.

[4:46:11] We offer fundraising support Council is aware that pickleball has

[4:46:16] already made a commitment and the potential for additional funds

[4:46:19] to address additional costs that could include turf and the

[4:46:23] grade beam at some future date. We talked about temporary

[4:46:27] washrooms for a seasonal dome. We're aware that that happens

[4:46:30] in other locations. And we also thought the second dome

[4:46:35] in terms of consultation in the neighbourhood would really not

[4:46:38] have a lot of visual impact A at seasonal and

[4:46:41] nature and B it would be protected by existing vegetation

[4:46:45] in the eighth line, uh, Birming. A domatrophalgar sports park,

[4:46:49] which is an option and also likely needed requires additional

[4:46:53] servicing, including natural gas, which we understand is not currently

[4:46:57] provided to that location. Putting the potential to accelerate that

[4:47:01] project further away in terms of timing. Point number two,

[4:47:06] an expression of interest versus a full application to the

[4:47:08] building community strong fund. It raises questions on project readiness.

[4:47:13] If staff felt that most of the criteria for a

[4:47:16] full application submission could be met, the outstanding question is

[4:47:20] whether the town is prepared to make a financial commitment

[4:47:23] to any project advanced under the federal program. And if

[4:47:27] a provincial program is also announced with the municipality being

[4:47:32] a position to leverage funding. And if so, in what

[4:47:35] time frame. What is the potential outcome by submitting an

[4:47:39] EOI at this time? What if there is not a

[4:47:42] second round of funding. We acknowledge the importance of all

[4:47:46] of the projects that have been identified as priorities, including

[4:47:49] the act and indoor pool and the Gellert community centre,

[4:47:53] all requiring a financial commitment from Council. However, we support

[4:47:56] the eight line park in full or in a phased

[4:47:59] approach as the most shovel - ready project. We can

[4:48:02] conclude by continuing to support all opportunities to expand indoor

[4:48:07] facilities for sport and recreation going forward and encourage the

[4:48:11] town to make ongoing investment as needed, particularly to leverage

[4:48:15] funding from other levels of government. Thank you very much.

[4:48:19] Thank you. You just a couple of seconds over the

[4:48:22] five - minute period. Good job. Uh, we do have

[4:48:26] some questions. Um, from councillors, um, Council Bryce. Ms. Thank

[4:48:33] you, Chair O'Bennel. Thank you, Jennifer, for your delegation and

[4:48:38] your patients. And I do have a couple of questions.

[4:48:41] And the first, Jennifer would be, you, you touched on

[4:48:44] it briefly. And, um, about, excuse me, about picking book

[4:48:49] pickleballs, uh, commitment to helping fund this. And the possibility

[4:48:54] of the coalition doing the same. Can you give us

[4:48:56] an idea of, uh, the level of commitment of the

[4:49:00] coalition and what dollars they could potentially bring to the

[4:49:03] table or is it too early to, uh, to tell

[4:49:06] us that? Uh, count it through you, Mr. Chair to

[4:49:08] Council Brass. I think it's too early on behalf of

[4:49:11] the coalition because we talked about it and we talked

[4:49:14] about the idea, which is why we all came together

[4:49:17] of working collectively with some kind of fundraising target. Uh,

[4:49:22] you know that Halton Hall's pickleball association has made a

[4:49:25] commitment of 250, 000 dollars We stand by that. We

[4:49:30] could potentially commit more depending on circumstances. I do know

[4:49:36] on behalf of the Georgetown soccer club that their fundraising

[4:49:39] is likely going to be directed to their more immediate

[4:49:42] project, which is, I think working, uh, with the potential

[4:49:45] for the hide house project. That was my last communication

[4:49:49] with them, uh, but clearly talking to flag football and

[4:49:53] football, uh, and bad menton. There's an interest. We don't

[4:49:57] have a number, uh, Councillor Brass, but, uh, and, and

[4:50:01] to be honest, we don't really have a pro checked

[4:50:03] yet. So it's, it would be difficult to rally everybody

[4:50:06] around, uh, on that particular point. Right. Okay. I know

[4:50:12] that's early days in that. So thank you, but I'm

[4:50:14] glad to hear that the level of interest there for,

[4:50:16] for fundraising. That's great. Uh, thank you, Chair. That's it

[4:50:19] for now. But I will have some comments when the

[4:50:21] report comes forward, please. All right. Thank you very much

[4:50:24] Council Brass. Anyone else. So, um, without the, no objections

[4:50:32] and we'll bring that item up, which is CSE 2026

[4:50:38] 010. That's a memorandum. It's okay. All right. So my

[4:50:43] random is on the floor. Any discussion on the memorandum.

[4:50:48] Council Bras. Thank you, Chair Obano. Uh, I do, uh,

[4:50:55] actually after having many discussions with staff. And Ms. Reynolds

[4:51:00] and other sports groups. And the pros and cons and

[4:51:03] the complexities of options and the difficulties around, some of

[4:51:08] them. Uh, you know, one thing is certain though, is

[4:51:12] that opportunity is knocking here. And, uh, the federal government

[4:51:16] seems to be, um, willing to dole out some dollars.

[4:51:20] And, uh, I would hate to lose that opportunity. For

[4:51:23] either a one dome or a two dorm solution. And

[4:51:27] also being cognizant of some provincial program that's yet to

[4:51:31] be identified that we don't have the parameters of yet,

[4:51:35] but perhaps would be able to piggyback on this project

[4:51:37] as well. And, uh, given that the coalition is looking

[4:51:42] to fundraise and maybe get creative, uh, coupled with potentially

[4:51:48] a fundraising group or some sponsorship opportunities. Uh, I would

[4:51:51] like to put amendment on the floor to amend a

[4:51:55] report. To direct staff to look at a two dome

[4:51:59] solution. And potentially schedule a special counsel meeting in advance.

[4:52:08] To look at the finances should the federal government find

[4:52:13] the EOI acceptable or to have interest in it. So

[4:52:17] that we have something scheduled and be ready to go

[4:52:19] and answer that very tough question on the funding. And

[4:52:25] maybe some other things would come to light by then.

[4:52:27] So. I'll put that on the floor to amend the

[4:52:29] report to include a two DOM solution. And to pre

[4:52:33] - schedule a special counsel meeting to review the finances.

[4:52:39] Thank you, Councillor Brass. So we have an amendment on

[4:52:43] the memorandum. So

[4:52:53] the memorandum stays at SOB directions to staff to look

[4:52:57] at that two dome solution. Thank you for the correction

[4:53:04] chair al - Bannel. That's fine with me. All right.

[4:53:07] So, um, we do have an amendment and a direction

[4:53:12] for staff. And I will vote on the amendment. Oh,

[4:53:19] sorry. Well, no, I, I think my question was answered

[4:53:24] because I was going to ask, um, whether or not

[4:53:28] the proposal changes the memorandum. And I'm gathering it doesn't.

[4:53:35] That we would still submit the expression of interest. And

[4:53:40] should the federal government come back and say, yes, tell

[4:53:44] us more. Than there would be a direction to staff

[4:53:50] to look at the potential for a two dome solution.

[4:53:55] No. Oh, okay. So I need more than, yes. Mr.

[4:54:00] Mills. Thank you, Chair and Councillor Brass. If I get

[4:54:05] this wrong, please correct me, but my understanding is the

[4:54:08] direction would, uh, pertain to the submission of the EOI

[4:54:13] and that the EOI would be modified to include a

[4:54:16] two dome solution. And then if the federal government comes

[4:54:20] back positively on that, uh, with us, then we would

[4:54:23] schedule prior to, um, the last date in August that

[4:54:28] we can schedule Council meetings, uh, to come back with

[4:54:31] financing options for council is consideration. Is that, did I

[4:54:35] get that correct. Through the chair that is bang on,

[4:54:38] although I would add that perhaps scheduling a special county

[4:54:41] meeting now would be of interest that we could always

[4:54:43] cancel if we don't need. Thank you. All right. We're

[4:54:49] all clear then. Oh, Coach Kimball. Just a general comment

[4:54:56] here. I'm not sure exactly what details are on the

[4:54:59] table here, but I think in general, it's a prudent

[4:55:01] step. An expression of interest costs as little commits as

[4:55:06] to nothing and keeps Halton Hills in a running for

[4:55:08] substantial federal funding. We should always be pursuing opportunities to

[4:55:12] bring outside dollars into our community and reduce the burden

[4:55:16] on local taxpayers. There, Lawler. I guess my question to

[4:55:25] staff is given the deadline. Is it possible to change

[4:55:32] the EOI as it's currently constituted. Is there time to

[4:55:40] make this, um, two DOM solution. Um, as part of

[4:55:45] the proposal. That it would be needed to be done

[4:55:49] in a day. So can you fill us in on

[4:55:52] that a little bit. So through the chair to the

[4:55:55] mayor, there is no deadline on the expression of interest.

[4:55:59] The deadline only pertains to a full application. And that

[4:56:02] was July 15th. I see. Okay. And so we don't

[4:56:07] really have a submission date necessarily on the EOI. Through

[4:56:12] the chair to the mayor, that's correct. All right. Sure.

[4:56:15] Thank you. All right. So we have Councillor Bras. Thank

[4:56:20] you, Chair Obano. I'll further to that, Heather. Can you

[4:56:24] give us an idea of the soonest date that we

[4:56:27] could submit that EOI with the amended judome solution. And

[4:56:31] do you want me to put that date in the

[4:56:32] direction to staff. The sooner we get that in, the

[4:56:36] better, obviously. So through the chair to the Councillor, staff

[4:56:41] would be working on modifying the costing and just modifying

[4:56:45] the actual proposal to show the demand for the two

[4:56:49] DOM solution. Um, so, but a two to three week

[4:56:54] turnaround. Yeah. Is what it is. Okay. Thank you.

[4:57:06] Okay. Are there any other questions. So we have the

[4:57:09] amendment on the floor. We need to vote on that.

[4:57:11] And then we'll receive the memory. Oh, a direction of

[4:57:17] staff. So all in favor. You have one more question.

[4:57:21] Yes. Thank you, Chair about it. I just want to

[4:57:23] make sure to include that we schedule a special counsel

[4:57:26] meeting in advance. Okay. So all in favor, not amendment.

[4:57:33] Direct. Car. And then, um, to receive the memorandum. All

[4:57:39] in favor. Uh, hands up again. Okay. Carrie. Thank you.

[4:57:53] All right. Uh, and then item H is the other,

[4:57:57] um, uh, the delegation and it's regarding the exceptionary request

[4:58:01] from the noise by law. Uh, at

[4:58:09] 13434, 20 second side road. And it's an item report

[4:58:16] number admin 2026 024. H.

[4:58:30] The report is B 92B. A Zimbob.

[4:58:42] 9 to be.

[4:58:52] Oh, have you got the report now? Okay. All right.

[4:58:56] So, um, uh, just me del Wally. She's online. She'll

[4:59:02] be making a presentation regarding this item. Just meet if

[4:59:10] you're online. Can you hear us? I can hear you,

[4:59:13] Chair. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead.

[4:59:16] Proceed. You have five minutes. Okay. Thank you so much

[4:59:18] for that. We have an engagement party on August 15th

[4:59:22] starting at 6 p. m. And we filled out this

[4:59:25] application because we believe it might go over time until

[4:59:30] 1231 a. m. It is a party of 100 people.

[4:59:35] And since it's quite a bit of people, it's too

[4:59:38] much for our house. So we plan to put a

[4:59:41] tent outside. We have hired a DJ to host the

[4:59:45] event and he will be bringing two speakers. And they

[4:59:50] will be facing our neighbour and we have already talked

[4:59:54] to him. And he has no issue with it, but

[4:59:58] just to be on the safe side, we have built

[5:00:01] out this application. There will also be a dance floor

[5:00:06] installed. And the party will end at 1. 8. That

[5:00:14] is it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there

[5:00:17] any questions for just me. Council Somerville. Yes, thank you.

[5:00:24] It's to the delegation. Thank you for being here tonight.

[5:00:27] And for waiting out a very long meeting for all

[5:00:30] of us. But, um, it's just a concern I have

[5:00:34] as one of the councillors for the areas. We've been

[5:00:37] consistent on the time of allowing it till 11 p.

[5:00:41] m. on a lot of other applications. And I'm just

[5:00:45] wondering if that would be satisfactory to you if we

[5:00:48] did allow that, um, the, um, 211 p. m. Is

[5:00:56] it possible to push it by one hour? We can

[5:01:00] do 12, we can send everyone home at midnight. With

[5:01:05] 1 a. m. to a lady. In my mind. And

[5:01:10] if you're a neighbour getting the noise, they would even

[5:01:13] say that midnight is a bit late, um, no, I

[5:01:18] just wondered if, uh, the flexibility of that on, on

[5:01:22] your end, because I know you're straight as a very

[5:01:24] private street where you're located down on the private part

[5:01:27] of 22nd side road. That's why I wanted to find

[5:01:30] out. Yes. And before we decided on hosting this party,

[5:01:34] we did talk to our neighbours and they so far

[5:01:37] have shown no concern. But just to cover everything and

[5:01:41] make sure there is no complaint in the future, that

[5:01:44] is why we filled out this application. Okay. Thank you.

[5:01:47] And again, thank you for being here tonight. Thank you.

[5:01:51] Thank you Council Sarah. Uh, Councillor Kimball. Uh, thank you

[5:01:56] Mr. Chair. I propose an amendment to, uh, 12 PM

[5:02:01] to midnight. Since that seemed to be agreeable to the

[5:02:06] resident. When we bring the report forward, you can propose

[5:02:11] the amendment. We're right now. We just have a conversation

[5:02:13] with. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mayor. Yes. I'd just

[5:02:21] like to confirm, have you talked to all your neighbours.

[5:02:27] About this and did you propose a time. To them.

[5:02:32] We have talked to our next door neighbours because the

[5:02:35] rest of the houses are very, um, a little bit

[5:02:38] more separated. And we have no backdoor neighbours, but we

[5:02:41] were hoping once this application does get approved, we will

[5:02:44] be letting, um, the other four neighbours on the street

[5:02:48] know that we will be throwing a party. But we

[5:02:50] have only talked to our next or neighbours who are

[5:02:53] in close approximately to us. Thank you. Are there any

[5:03:00] other questions. If not, we'll bring thee a report forward

[5:03:04] and we can discuss the report. And the objections to

[5:03:09] that. Council Kimbalm, you had, uh, you had an amendment

[5:03:15] to the, uh, there. That's correct. Go ahead. To move

[5:03:19] the, uh, to, to, to change the, the, um, date

[5:03:25] at the time from one a. m. to midnight. It

[5:03:29] feels like it's been typed right now. Tw amendment. To

[5:03:37] midnight from 1 a. m. Okay.

[5:03:46] So, um, the amendment to change it to, uh, 12

[5:03:52] rather than one o'clock. We'll vote on the amendment. Only

[5:03:58] favor. Okay. And, uh, on the report, only fever. And

[5:04:07] it's carried.

[5:04:18] All right. Uh, we're now back to, um, so all

[5:04:21] the delegations and presentations are being completed. It's complete. I'm

[5:04:26] not going back to report item C. Which is the,

[5:04:32] um, CES 2026. And it's the, uh. Corporate emergency service

[5:04:41] report dated July 13, 2026 regarding distribution and funding 2025

[5:04:47] final operating budget position. I believe the Council Bryce held

[5:04:52] that report. Council Brass. Thank you, uh, chair. I don't

[5:05:00] have it in front of me. Is that the, is

[5:05:01] that the one with the surplus? Cause the hell too.

[5:05:04] Oh, thank you very much. So, uh, through you chair

[5:05:08] to staff, uh, one question, I have several questions. First

[5:05:14] one would be that, uh, very little from savings in

[5:05:21] other departments. And I wondered what corporate revenue was. And

[5:05:27] with that answer, if then one component of corporate revenue,

[5:05:32] what was the breakdown. Through the chair to the Councillor.

[5:05:39] So the primary drivers of, uh, the corporate revenue liner,

[5:05:44] um, penalty and interest revenue. And supplemental tax revenue. Um,

[5:05:51] I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but if

[5:05:54] I remember correctly penalty and interest is about 800, 000

[5:05:57] of it. And, uh, 300 or so, um, supplementary revenue

[5:06:02] for taxes. Through you, Chair, the treasure. Is the, would

[5:06:09] some of that be the automated camera for the tickets

[5:06:12] that we had? Or is that not included in this?

[5:06:14] That's not included in this number. So other penalties. So

[5:06:18] like on your taxes. So yeah. Okay. And I see

[5:06:23] some of the, um, funds when automatically to library reserve

[5:06:29] fund, et cetera. So some of that, uh, surplus obligatory

[5:06:35] elsewhere. Yeah. Through the Chair to the Councillor. In our

[5:06:39] reserve and reserve fund policy, uh, the library surplus is

[5:06:42] transferred to the library reserve. Great. And through the chair,

[5:06:48] uh, the remaining 1. 1 million. Uh, that, that's being

[5:06:52] recommended to go to the tax stabilization fund. Does it

[5:06:57] need to go to the tax stabilization fund or does

[5:07:00] can Council give direction on that money to go elsewhere?

[5:07:06] Through the chair to the Councillor, I would say meat

[5:07:10] does it have to go there. No. The caveat being,

[5:07:14] um, that's kind of a slippery slope to deviate from

[5:07:17] that. Um, for the reserve and reserve fund policy, uh,

[5:07:22] gives the treasurer discretion to direct that the monies to

[5:07:26] whichever reserve necessary. So based on balance and so on

[5:07:30] and so forth, um, historically deficits have been funded from

[5:07:34] the tax rate stabilization reserves. So it's suiting that we

[5:07:37] would send a surplus to the same place. Um, in

[5:07:41] addition to that Council in the last several meetings has

[5:07:45] approved reports that are going to draw or have the

[5:07:50] potential to rock quite substantially on the tax rate stabilization

[5:07:53] reserve. So, um, we have to be mindful of that

[5:07:56] as well. In addition, our, our reserve financial indicator has

[5:08:04] significantly declined since, uh, 2019. Um, we are on an

[5:08:11] upward trend now, but we're definitely not out of the

[5:08:13] woods and we aren't where we were in 2019 and

[5:08:17] we're far below what the average is for a municipality

[5:08:19] of our size. So I would just caution that if

[5:08:21] that is the will of council, uh, it may not

[5:08:24] be in the best financial interest of the town. Through

[5:08:28] the chair to the treasurer, I'm not suggesting that's the

[5:08:31] will of Council. Just trying to understand the mechanisms and

[5:08:34] the liberty that Council has on this money. And so

[5:08:39] having said that, uh, if Council has some discretion, for

[5:08:44] example, not the will of Council, but for example, could

[5:08:47] Council direct this surplus to, if our EOI was, uh,

[5:08:56] accepted or if the federal government says, great, put a

[5:08:59] plan in quickly what your funding source. Could somewhere all

[5:09:02] of this money be directed to, to help fund that

[5:09:05] UI. Through the chair to the Councillor, uh, yes, I

[5:09:11] would, my recommendation would be to leave it as is,

[5:09:14] send it the tax rate stabilization reserve in the future.

[5:09:17] If we have to make funding decisions, um, if Council

[5:09:22] decided to use some of the tax rate stabilization to

[5:09:25] reserve to fund that project, that could be a recommendation

[5:09:29] of Council. PON. One final question chair to the treasure.

[5:09:34] And maybe the CIO. If we're going to schedule a

[5:09:36] special counsel meeting in anticipation of a positive reply by

[5:09:40] the feds, what it makes sense to hold off on

[5:09:43] this decision until that meeting in case it needs to

[5:09:47] be part of the funding conversation. I know you said

[5:09:52] we could take it from that fun, but that's another

[5:09:54] step we would maybe we could avoid. Threw it. Through

[5:09:59] the chair to the Councillor. Not really because it holds

[5:10:03] up the whole entire year end of the municipality. So

[5:10:05] this is the distribution of the surplus. So until these

[5:10:09] entries are made, we can't close the 2025 fiscal year.

[5:10:14] So our audit is done. You've approved our financial statements.

[5:10:17] Um, this money has to go somewhere. So you have

[5:10:21] to send it to reserves if you're not allocating it

[5:10:24] to a project at this point. So Council would also

[5:10:28] have to make the decision to spend it. So I

[5:10:31] think you're safe to send it to the reserve. And

[5:10:33] in the future, that money is going to be there

[5:10:35] and less count as otherwise spent that money. Okay. Through

[5:10:43] the chair. Mr. Mills. Yep. Yeah. Thank you. And through

[5:10:48] the chair to the council, just building on our treasurer's

[5:10:50] comments. I think what we have to realise is the

[5:10:52] overall funding strategy, if we were successful, uh, to move

[5:10:56] on to the full application for the eighth line park

[5:10:59] and the two dome solution would be significantly more than

[5:11:01] the amount we're putting into the tax rate stabilization through

[5:11:04] this report. So it'll be a multiple. There'll be lots

[5:11:07] of components that, uh, our treasure will have to put

[5:11:10] together in order to get to what our overall funding

[5:11:12] commitment would be, which would be the entire amount of

[5:11:17] the project minus what the federal contribution would be. Um,

[5:11:22] notwithstanding the fact that we know that there could be

[5:11:25] or likely is external monies from the sports groups available.

[5:11:29] We would have to show the government as part of

[5:11:32] the application that we're backstopping the entire amount until the

[5:11:36] agreements with those, uh, with those entities as to the

[5:11:39] funding. So when you look at the overall project, um,

[5:11:43] the funding strategy would at least an approval stage, uh,

[5:11:47] for the application would need to be our, the town's

[5:11:51] hundred percent. So it could be part of the tax

[5:11:53] rate stabilization, but there may be other elements as our

[5:11:57] treasurer and his team go through the financing options that

[5:12:00] he may lay out for Council. And just to reiterate

[5:12:04] what Joey said, by putting it in tax rate stabilization

[5:12:07] now, it does not preclude the removal of tax of

[5:12:11] it from tax rate stabilization in the future. So you're

[5:12:13] not, you're not precluding. You're not precluding that action by

[5:12:19] approving this report today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[5:12:25] That fully satisfies my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Council

[5:12:28] Bryce. Uh, we have two other speakers. Councillor Kimball. Thank

[5:12:33] you, Mr. Chair. I think this is sound fiscal management.

[5:12:37] One time surpluses should strengthen our reserves, not fund, ongoing

[5:12:41] spending. Building the tax rate stabilization reserve helps protect taxpayers

[5:12:47] and improves the towns long - term financial resilience. Thank

[5:12:52] you, Council Count. And, uh, and Councillor Keena had a

[5:12:56] question. Thank you, Chair. And following on the same theme,

[5:12:59] just so we know we're talking about here. Um, what

[5:13:01] are the actual numbers? What's in the tax rate stabilization

[5:13:04] fund now. Uh, and you said it's below where you

[5:13:09] would recommend we should be for a municipality of our

[5:13:12] size. And what would that number look like, I don't

[5:13:15] mind. Through the chair to the Councillor. It's just over

[5:13:21] 10 million, uh, right now. And, uh, it should be

[5:13:26] in the area of, uh, 10 to 20 percent of

[5:13:29] our annual budget. So yeah, so about 15 to 20

[5:13:34] million. That's very helpful. Thank you. All right. Are there

[5:13:40] any other questions. There are none. The reports on the

[5:13:43] table. We need a move or two. So moved by

[5:13:46] Councillor Bryce holy in favor. Carried.

[5:14:23] All right. We have two more items. One on this

[5:14:27] area. And then one on the consent item. Council Keane,

[5:14:31] you held F report F. Thank you, Chair. I did.

[5:14:39] This is the Green asset management report. I want to

[5:14:42] some clarification on this. If you don't mind straight to

[5:14:45] the commissioners of Walski. My memory serves me correctly. When

[5:14:50] we originally were presented with this report, our memo, whatever

[5:14:54] it was, uh, for approval or acceptance a few months

[5:14:58] ago, there was a pretty clear statement made at that

[5:15:01] time. And I consulted with other Councillors who seemed to

[5:15:05] recall the same thing. We were told that there was

[5:15:07] absolutely no financial implications to what we were proving at

[5:15:10] that time. Is that correct? Was that what we were

[5:15:15] told. Through the Chair of the Council? I've already called

[5:15:18] Collecting at the time Council just received a status update

[5:15:21] on the report on the project. And today you're receiving

[5:15:24] the actual report for seeking council's in principle approval of

[5:15:28] the report. And there is no financial implications today also.

[5:15:33] Okay. So maybe I'm misreading it because I don't recall

[5:15:36] seeing this in the original. Sort of status report or

[5:15:39] whatever it was that we approved originally where it's pretty

[5:15:42] clear recommendation that we endorse scenario two. So - called

[5:15:48] sustained scenario. Which will very clearly, it says right here,

[5:15:52] Scenario 2 would require an additional investment of about 800,

[5:15:56] 000 dollars annually. Recognises Halloween's financial position. A lot of

[5:16:02] current cancer view prior to the Affordable Actional Effective Approach.

[5:16:05] Arguably the Council Direct staff to develop a tenure implementation

[5:16:07] plan. So that's 10 times 800, 000. Eventually, right? Um,

[5:16:14] and the report to Council later date, an interim to

[5:16:16] maintain momentum and infusible actions will be considered as part

[5:16:18] of the 2027 budget as appropriate. That concerns me. That

[5:16:23] sounds like there ask. For the 2027 budget. In and

[5:16:28] around the 800, 000 dollar level. Am I wrong to.

[5:16:32] Have my radar up on that one? 33, I changed

[5:16:36] that Councillor. No, excellent question. So no, I do not

[5:16:38] anticipate that Council will CN - 800, asking the budget

[5:16:41] What we are doing with Townstaff is looking for any

[5:16:43] opportunities through other efficiencies or allocation of resources where we

[5:16:47] can continue to advance the plan. If it's approved by

[5:16:50] Councilman Principal today, why are we developed a 10 year

[5:16:53] plan for that scenario too that would come back to

[5:16:56] Council with recommendations about how to implement that 10 year

[5:16:59] plan? So no, I do not foresee at 800, 000

[5:17:02] dollar ask for 2027. I'd feel a lot more comfortable

[5:17:06] with that number was removed from this report then. If

[5:17:08] that's okay. I think it's very specific. And I can

[5:17:10] see things changing when the budget comes to us with

[5:17:15] a new Council. Which will be dealing with. Also just

[5:17:21] for. Additional commentary. Scenario 2 sustained. Seems to me translates

[5:17:30] into people. We'll just continue with the status quo. And

[5:17:32] if that's the case, how come we're looking at an

[5:17:34] additional almost millions of dollars if we're not changing anything.

[5:17:37] If we're just doing what we're doing already. Which is

[5:17:38] scenario too. I just don't see what this eat in

[5:17:41] a thousand dollars is coming from and I don't like

[5:17:42] it, frankly. Thank you for the question again. Councillor, if

[5:17:49] I may, I'll ask Catherine to come up and maybe

[5:17:50] explain what the differences between scenario one and scenario two,

[5:17:54] because they are different and require different, uh, different actions.

[5:18:00] Thank you. Um, through the chair to the Councillor. Thank

[5:18:04] you for the question. So first scenario too, um, those

[5:18:08] are management activities that are required to maintain levels of

[5:18:14] service over the next 10 years and asset condition over

[5:18:18] the next 10 years. Um, in the face of threats,

[5:18:22] um, like environmental change, so invasive species, um, storm events

[5:18:28] as well as growth. Um, so there are some improvements

[5:18:32] that would be seen under scenario too. Um, but it's

[5:18:36] mostly that it's the 800, 000 is the average annual

[5:18:42] funding gap over the 10 years. Um, various management actions

[5:18:50] to address things like risk, um, and growth. And the,

[5:18:57] the GMP, like the plan itself, um, does include financial

[5:19:03] projection section that breaks down those costs by asset type,

[5:19:08] um, and by activity. Thank you for that. Um, yeah,

[5:19:14] I'm still not satisfied with that answer. I'm sorry. Um,

[5:19:19] there's no evidence that things are changing in such a

[5:19:21] way. And certainly not provided in this report that we

[5:19:23] need to put come up with the next year 800,

[5:19:25] 000 dollars to essentially maintain. It says maintain. Not enhance.

[5:19:30] Um, what we have now. So given the, what I

[5:19:36] see is some inconsistencies in this report and the implication

[5:19:38] that we're going to be being asked for to approve

[5:19:41] an 800, 000 dollar annual increase to our budget. When

[5:19:45] the things out there that we need a lot more.

[5:19:48] Right now, like a two dome solution, for example. I'd

[5:19:52] rather see money being allocated towards that. I'm going to

[5:19:54] propose that we defer this report until, uh, the next

[5:19:58] Council session. Uh, we, uh. We don't address it today.

[5:20:04] That's my motion is to propose a deferral, Mr. Chair.

[5:20:08] Thank you Council Keen. Are there any other questions. Council

[5:20:12] Kimbal? Just a matter of procedure, would I address to

[5:20:16] the deferral, would I speak to the, uh, original report.

[5:20:22] I think you could speak to the report right now.

[5:20:24] That's what we're doing. Yes, we haven't voted on the.

[5:20:27] Furest on the floor. Sorry. I speak to the pro.

[5:20:31] Yes. Speak on the two of the deferral and then

[5:20:33] we'll deal with the, with the report. Yeah. Thank you.

[5:20:36] Yeah. Um, when, when the, uh, the auditors were up

[5:20:40] here a while ago, they acknowledged that Canadian public sector

[5:20:43] accounting, uh, that they recognised that the, uh, the reliability

[5:20:50] of measuring national or natural capital within conventional financial statements

[5:20:58] that remained difficult. So I think before a committing an

[5:21:02] additional 800, 000 each year, I think, uh, we need

[5:21:06] to have a clear understanding exactly what taxpayers will receive,

[5:21:10] including specific projects, staff requirements and measurable results. So my

[5:21:14] question is if staff could now at this stage provided

[5:21:17] detailed breakdown of what the additional 800, 000 dollars annually

[5:21:22] would actually purchase and what measurable improvements residents should expect.

[5:21:30] Yeah. Stuff. Catherine. Through the chair to the Councillor. So

[5:21:36] the 800, 000 dollars, um, it is broken out in

[5:21:41] the green infrastructure asset management plan, um, it's done so

[5:21:45] in an even more detailed way, um, in a work

[5:21:48] sheet that the consultants used for their financial projections. Um,

[5:21:53] so that could be provided if desired. Um, but in

[5:21:57] terms of generally what activities we're looking at, um, there

[5:22:02] was a second attachment with the report that detailed examples

[5:22:06] of activities in scenario, um, too. So invasive species management

[5:22:12] more frequent pruning of mature trees. Um, so residents would

[5:22:16] see natural areas, um, improving in condition with invasive species

[5:22:22] being removed as well as over time healthier, more mature

[5:22:27] trees and less damage after storm events. Um, as some

[5:22:32] examples. And the intent of the report, like the 800,

[5:22:37] 000 dollar funding gap is highlighted. But, um, the intent

[5:22:45] isn't, um, for that to be an ask like associated

[5:22:48] with this report. It's, um, this report recommends that staff

[5:22:53] are directed to develop a 10 year implementation plan work

[5:22:58] plan that would each year be, um, considered through the

[5:23:02] annual budget process. And so, um, as the commissioner said,

[5:23:07] it wouldn't be the 800, 000 dollars up front There

[5:23:12] would be certain priorities item priority items phased in.

[5:23:22] Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah, I mean, um, I'm looking,

[5:23:28] maybe this is too premature. I mean, I'm looking for

[5:23:32] a tangible financial benefits for the town. I mean, I

[5:23:36] think we're maybe a risk of losing, of not seeing

[5:23:39] the force for the trees, much of the discussion is

[5:23:41] on tree planting and invasive species. But in order to

[5:23:46] justify for taxpayers, I need, we, I, I honestly believe

[5:23:50] we need to spell out, uh, exactly, uh, clearly what

[5:23:55] the tangible benefits are. So, um, leave it at that.

[5:24:00] And we can discuss it if when it comes up.

[5:24:03] Yeah. Um, commissioner Swallowski wants to, uh, add some comments

[5:24:08] to that. Thank you, Chairman, building on the question earlier

[5:24:12] from Councillor Kimbaum. Just a reminder that the asset management

[5:24:16] regulations in Ontario require us to consider green acid manage.

[5:24:19] Green acid management. And that's what's in front of Councillor

[5:24:21] today. So in order for us to be in full

[5:24:24] compliance, we need, uh, we're looking for councils approval, at

[5:24:27] least in principle of the report. The report presents three

[5:24:30] scenarios to Council. The details in terms of the questions

[5:24:33] you're asking Councillor in terms of the KPIs, the specific

[5:24:36] actions. That's what staff would go back and develop for

[5:24:39] the 10 year implementation plan. The reason we're asking for

[5:24:42] guidance around scenario three is that would shape the 10

[5:24:45] year action plan. When we bring the 10 year action

[5:24:47] plan and Council, you know, has other suggestions disagrees with

[5:24:50] it. That's would be the time where we would actually

[5:24:52] amend the details of how the plan would be developed,

[5:24:56] implemented and what the cost would be. But we really

[5:24:58] need to be in compliance with the regulations and the

[5:25:01] 10 year plan with the details that you're seeking would

[5:25:03] be the next step. The final comment. No, I agree

[5:25:09] with you. I think green infrastructure is really infrastructure. Uh,

[5:25:12] but it must be managed with the same financial discipline

[5:25:15] that we expect for prejudice and roads. I think before

[5:25:18] we commit substantial funds, um, we do need to know

[5:25:23] exactly how those funds will be allocated. I think that's

[5:25:27] our responsibility. Thank you. Thank you Council Campbell. Councillor Bras.

[5:25:36] Thank you, chair, through you to. Staff. In light of

[5:25:42] Councillor Keene's deferral. Proposal. I'm still confused. With what exactly

[5:25:51] the ask is since getting into this conversation. So, uh,

[5:25:56] I agree with Councillor Keene that when this was first

[5:25:59] brought to our attention not too long ago, the intent

[5:26:03] and asked was more of FYI and knowledge. Not we're

[5:26:07] going to need a monumental amount of money in a

[5:26:09] very short period of time. And is this report asking

[5:26:15] Council to commit any funds to this. Or not? Or

[5:26:19] not? So thank you, Councillor. Through this report. No, not

[5:26:25] directly. What we're seeking is to Council to, in principle,

[5:26:28] which was one of the requests from Council Had the

[5:26:29] Prior meeting when we discussed this, recognising the timing we're

[5:26:33] in this year is just in principle approval of the

[5:26:36] report, which is very technical. And then endorsement of staff

[5:26:40] to go away and develop an implementation plan with all

[5:26:43] the details that Councillor Kimball was asking for that would

[5:26:46] lay out a 10 year plan. And we would be

[5:26:47] back in front of Council, probably the new Council to

[5:26:50] say in order to implement scenario two, these are the

[5:26:53] specific actions. This specific annual budget request and see councils

[5:26:57] review in a provide that time. So today we are

[5:26:59] not seeking any budget approval from Council. We're seeking in

[5:27:03] principle providing the plan. And we're seeking direction to go

[5:27:06] away and develop a 10 year implementation plan that will

[5:27:08] have the budget and we'll have the actions attached to

[5:27:11] it. Okay. So to me, it sounds. Like money cloaked

[5:27:20] and mystery as well. So I have to agree that

[5:27:23] it sounds ambiguous on, I'm sorry, maybe I'm not, I

[5:27:27] didn't read it right or I'm not getting the correct

[5:27:29] explanation. But if we're agreeing to a framework to put

[5:27:33] together a plan that's going to be involved in the

[5:27:35] budget coming up, then that's asking to be asking Council

[5:27:38] for money. So it's, so it is asking Council for

[5:27:41] money, but it's about the question mark is how much

[5:27:44] money. And the 800, 000 is just highlighting what the

[5:27:48] current gap is. So I understand the hesitation in this.

[5:27:54] And is there a way to clean up the language.

[5:27:57] That would satisfy Council instead of the deferral? Or, I

[5:28:04] mean, I only got up to Councillor King. It's histopharal,

[5:28:07] but, uh, I'm equally as confused, quite be quite honest.

[5:28:16] I'll try to clarify Councillor through the chair. Please ask

[5:28:19] me any or Catherine additional questions. That would help out.

[5:28:22] But again, we're seeking the approval of the plan in

[5:28:25] principle because that will put us in compliance with the

[5:28:28] regulations, which require consideration of green assets, just like we

[5:28:31] have plans developed where our roads and bridges and playgrounds

[5:28:33] and parks that's already been approved by Council. And we

[5:28:36] have been developing plans to carry out that plan. Currently,

[5:28:40] we do not have a plan to manage our green

[5:28:42] assets. Our tree canopy and all our parks and so

[5:28:44] on. So that's what Council is approving or hopefully approving

[5:28:48] in principle today. We're not presenting today in front of

[5:28:51] Council In terms of what are the detailed actions that

[5:28:53] would be required to implement that plan? Because we need

[5:28:55] to go away and develop that plan in more detail.

[5:28:58] And it'll be a 10 year plan. And that's when

[5:28:59] we would come back with, this is the associated budget,

[5:29:03] but we are saying in the report that scenario two,

[5:29:06] which we're recommending as the scenario to be implemented, has

[5:29:09] an average annual cost of 800, 000 dollars That does

[5:29:12] not mean that that's the recombination will bring back, but

[5:29:14] it gives staff, our framework to work within because each

[5:29:17] of this scenarios has a different annual gap associated with

[5:29:20] it. And we are not planning to bring an 800,

[5:29:24] 000 dollar asks to the 2027 budget because we're not

[5:29:27] going to be in front of Council before. The end

[5:29:30] of this year with the 10 year plan. So that

[5:29:32] will be for the next Councillor Trump to consider the

[5:29:34] actual plan to implement. Thank you, Chair, through you. I'd

[5:29:38] be curious to hear from Councillor Keene if there's. An

[5:29:43] amendment to the language that would satisfy rather than a

[5:29:46] deferral, just like to hear that. That commentary, please. Go

[5:29:51] ahead, Council King. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Bryce.

[5:29:55] No, I mean, I'm not saying no, not ever. I'm

[5:29:58] just saying not tonight. Because they don't believe the specifics,

[5:30:03] particularly the Councillor Kimbalms are questioning, hard numbers, the same

[5:30:07] kind of accuracy that we see when we're dealing with

[5:30:09] grey assets. That's not in this report. I read it

[5:30:12] over for the consultants'report. It's a very nonspecific. The numbers

[5:30:16] don't, there are no numbers to add up. In terms

[5:30:18] of benefits or post a cost. And with all respect,

[5:30:22] Councillors - Zabolski, you say we're not being asked to

[5:30:25] endorse anything, but the language is very clear. It says

[5:30:27] right here, staff recommend the Council endorse scenario 2. With

[5:30:33] an estimated cost, blah, blah, blah, 800, 000. We approve

[5:30:36] this report. We're essentially giving you what you're recommending, approval

[5:30:41] of scenario too. I'm sorry. Deferret. Till the next council.

[5:30:49] You've heard some of the comments from councillors here. They

[5:30:51] don't appear to be satisfied. That the business case have

[5:30:54] been made for this. And. That's, but the reason for

[5:30:58] my deferral. And the other areas in this as well,

[5:31:00] but I mean, that's the main point. There's no reason

[5:31:03] we can't defer this. Until Council Returns. Through. Yes, go

[5:31:13] ahead, Catherine. Sorry through the chair. Um, so I just

[5:31:16] wanted to clarify one thing, which is that the green

[5:31:18] infrastructure asset management plan, um, it includes three management scenarios.

[5:31:25] And there is no recommendation in the plan itself for

[5:31:29] scenario two or for one over the other. It just

[5:31:32] gives us all the information we need to make informed

[5:31:35] decisions like other asset management plans. And so the staff

[5:31:39] recommendation, um, to endorse scenario two is based on, um,

[5:31:45] the fact that that scenario, um, you know, all three

[5:31:49] scenarios are associated with various implications for the residents and

[5:31:53] for the services that they derive from green assets and

[5:31:57] scenario, um, was the scenario that would allow those benefits

[5:32:02] that residents derived to be sustained. And so that was

[5:32:06] the scenario selected to be recommended in the staff report.

[5:32:11] However, if we were to amend the staff report, um,

[5:32:16] that language in the staff report specifically, um, the plan

[5:32:19] could still be approved, um, without approving that scenario specifically.

[5:32:28] I asked the question again. What's the rush. Just go

[5:32:31] back. We'll defer until the next meeting rework it, come

[5:32:34] back. You know, I just find an office suspicious that

[5:32:37] the Halton Hills today article from a climate corner ends

[5:32:41] with the following paragraph. Open the whole articles of a

[5:32:43] green asset management. And at the very end, it implors

[5:32:47] the citizens of our grid burger, a good Berke. If

[5:32:52] you're concerned about sustaining or enhancing our green infrastructure assets,

[5:32:55] contact your councillors and let them know that you support

[5:32:57] allocating money to do so. Wonderful. It's funny coincidence that,

[5:33:04] eh? Sounds like it was an agenda here to me.

[5:33:08] And I don't, it doesn't pass a smell test. Let's

[5:33:11] have a, um, Councillor Zabowski replied. Commissioner, not Councillor yet.

[5:33:19] But thank you. That's been a long night, long afternoon.

[5:33:23] If I can make a suggestion, Councillor or to Council

[5:33:25] and the chair, if you're building on what Catherine just

[5:33:28] said, if you, if Councillor to approve or approve the

[5:33:32] actual attachment, the report itself, the Green infrastructure, Estimate Plan

[5:33:37] in principle, without the second recommendation or the second part

[5:33:40] that says the specific scenario two, we would still have

[5:33:43] the plan and we can go away and develop a

[5:33:45] 10 year plan. And look at all the three sets.

[5:33:47] We can re - look at all the three scenarios

[5:33:49] and develop a plan that best fits without Council specifically

[5:33:52] improving scenario two. And the attachment itself, like after mentioned,

[5:33:55] doesn't recommend a specific scenario. It's downstaff that are recommending

[5:33:59] the specific scenario. So that way we meet our obligations.

[5:34:03] And Council is not committing to any specific scenario until

[5:34:06] you hear back from us in the term about an

[5:34:09] actual plan to implement. I still don't understand what the

[5:34:13] Russia is. Just clean this up and bring it back

[5:34:16] in the next meeting. If we're not, is there a

[5:34:19] deadline to comply with OREG - 155 - 18? And

[5:34:24] how many other communities of complied? Yes, Councillor, so through

[5:34:27] the chair, I believe by July 1st of next year,

[5:34:29] we have to have an annual report about implementation. And

[5:34:33] again, the attachment is the plan. The scenarios are there.

[5:34:37] But if you just approve the plan, we meet our

[5:34:40] requirements and we can go away and develop plan. There

[5:34:43] is no more edits or updates to be made to

[5:34:46] the attachment itself. Really where the work needs to happen

[5:34:49] is in the 10 year plan. If we don't have

[5:34:51] the plan approved, we can develop a 10 - year

[5:34:54] plan. So we'll be kind of stuck. We won't be

[5:34:56] any more work that we can undertake. So to be

[5:34:59] clear, we were talking about just approving the plan is

[5:35:01] that the consultants plan that we've been presented with. Not

[5:35:04] staff plan. That's correct. Councillor. So you would be in

[5:35:07] principle approving the attachment, the lengthy document that's attached. I'll

[5:35:12] vote to receive it. I'm not going to vote to

[5:35:15] approve it without staff giving their professional report attached to

[5:35:18] it. Sorry. So through the chair councillor, the staff report

[5:35:24] is our commentary on the professional consulting report. Which I've

[5:35:29] already pointed out has language in it, which I cannot

[5:35:31] accept. Okay, thank you. We got a list of speakers

[5:35:39] here. So just stick to the, uh, the people that

[5:35:42] actually had their hands up. So Councillor Hillston. Yes, Mr.

[5:35:47] Chair, thank you. You know, following the conversation. I mean,

[5:35:51] really we're coming near to the end of this Council

[5:35:54] term and Sturf need to have something to do for

[5:35:56] the next six months who are assigned to do this.

[5:35:59] And we need something by next July. So, I mean,

[5:36:03] looking at the clauses here. So, um, commissioner. So are

[5:36:12] you, are you saying so that in the second, so

[5:36:15] the first claw stays the same. The third clause stays

[5:36:21] the same, but it's the, and further that Council proved

[5:36:23] the green infrastructure asset management plan in principle. And then

[5:36:29] you, and then we stop. You take out the part

[5:36:33] about the 10 year inflammation implementation plan at that point?

[5:36:37] Or is I enough just having the first part of

[5:36:40] that clause. Thank you, Councillor, for the chair. I think

[5:36:43] the simplest thing from our perspective would be to delete

[5:36:45] the words for this, for the sustained scenario two, out

[5:36:50] of the Second Recommendation. That way you're approving the report

[5:36:53] and principle. And directing staff to report with a 10

[5:36:56] year implementation plan without endorsing a specific scenario. Right? So

[5:37:01] that's when we come back and you can see the

[5:37:05] specific actions. You can see the specific budget, but you

[5:37:07] are not telling us to build a plan around 800,

[5:37:09] 000 dollars our year. All right. Uh, thank you for

[5:37:12] that. So I think the furl on the floor. So,

[5:37:17] uh, so I won't support the deferral if there was

[5:37:20] an amendment to that like that, I would support that.

[5:37:24] Thank you. All right. So we're still dealing with the

[5:37:27] referral and there's more questions about that referral. And then

[5:37:31] we'll, we'll deal with other things that come up. Sorry,

[5:37:34] Mr. Chair. Just a point of procedure. Is it a

[5:37:36] referral or a deferral? I believe it was a deferral.

[5:37:40] Thank you. That's what I thought too. Thank you. Uh,

[5:37:43] Councillor Fogle. Here we go. I always have trouble finding

[5:37:51] the mic. Um, yeah. I think we need to, uh,

[5:37:58] allows Dov to move ahead. I mean, as that manager,

[5:38:01] the green assets are important and they do require looking

[5:38:04] after. I mean, even every lawn has to get looked

[5:38:07] after. Every tree has to be looked after. Just to

[5:38:11] maintain what we've got. It made it sound like, Oh,

[5:38:15] we don't need any money. We'll just keep what we've

[5:38:16] got. But these are living, growing things that within base

[5:38:21] of species and so on coming in. We're going to

[5:38:24] have to invest something and we know how, how much

[5:38:29] this functions to help the town function that doesn't exist.

[5:38:33] Then we've got a big problem, especially with floods. So,

[5:38:36] um, uh, I like the ideas that, uh, the commissioners

[5:38:41] brought forward to make it less specific around funding, but

[5:38:45] lots of proven principle the plan and let them get

[5:38:48] on with it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Fogle. Council

[5:38:53] Keen, you had a question before, but I believe that,

[5:38:55] uh, major comments or do you have an additional? I

[5:38:58] had you on the list. What other speakers? Okay. Thank

[5:39:03] you. Uh, Council Garnel.

[5:39:14] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you to staff.

[5:39:19] So. It's getting late. Um, but I'm wondering if we

[5:39:26] can just back a little bit and can you explain

[5:39:28] the intent of the provincial regulation? Like why is the

[5:39:32] province asking municipalities that we have to do this in

[5:39:35] the first place. Sure. Through the chair to the Councillor.

[5:39:42] Thank you. Um, so the intent of the green infrastructure

[5:39:45] asset management plan and the intent for green infrastructure to

[5:39:50] be included in the legislation is that green assets also

[5:39:55] require the same understanding to be able to make informed

[5:39:59] decisions about investing in them. Um, they're critical infrastructure from

[5:40:03] municipalities like grey assets. Um, and they like grey assets.

[5:40:11] Are, you know, they have risks associated with their service

[5:40:14] delivery. They provide critical services to residents. And, you know,

[5:40:21] they provide value to the community. And so it's important

[5:40:25] that we bring them into the same asset management framework

[5:40:29] as grey assets so that we can make, um, informed

[5:40:32] decisions about investing in them and ensure that we're protecting

[5:40:37] the assets as well as the services that they provide

[5:40:40] that are very important. And so in the report, I

[5:40:44] see that, um. There's some numbers here, like 140 million

[5:40:50] dollars in avoided Strawater Management costs every year. So if

[5:40:56] we don't do anything and we don't address this and

[5:41:00] the quality of those, um. Ecosystems that are managing that

[5:41:05] stormwater erode through, as you mentioned, invasive species, development, um,

[5:41:11] climate change, then it's going to end up costing us

[5:41:15] a lot more money in grey infrastructure. Or floods or

[5:41:20] emergency situations. Is that part of the philosophy behind this?

[5:41:25] Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you. Um, so going to

[5:41:31] the deferral, I don't, I don't see in the actual

[5:41:35] recommendation anywhere that says. 800, 000 dollars a year. Like

[5:41:40] that seems like it's stated further down in the report

[5:41:44] as this is what it might be. And my understanding

[5:41:47] is that the intent of the next step is for

[5:41:50] you to get a very clear MOPTO detail. Like the

[5:41:55] what Councillor Kimbalm was asking for. That's what would come

[5:41:58] to us in the second phase. Is that correct? Yes.

[5:42:03] Okay. That's correct. So I will not be supporting the

[5:42:07] deferral, but I would support the, if it, if it

[5:42:11] pleases Council and it's easier to accept going forward, I

[5:42:14] would be fine with the removal of the sustained scenario

[5:42:20] too. Um, and I wonder what kind of, like, I

[5:42:26] know that we're also behind, I believe, in passing this.

[5:42:30] Like we, the province wanted us to have something in

[5:42:34] place already. Is that correct? Yes. Let's correct. Okay. So

[5:42:39] if we wait again, until next Council term before new

[5:42:43] Council looks at this. Are there any, like that would

[5:42:47] put us even further behind with what the province has

[5:42:50] directed us to do. Yes. Okay. Um, thank you. And

[5:43:00] the last speaker that I have on my list is

[5:43:01] Councillor Norris. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I've

[5:43:08] been going through this over and over and over again

[5:43:11] and listening to all the comments as well. Um, before

[5:43:14] I get to my opinion on what we've been talking

[5:43:17] about, I want to scale or go down towards the

[5:43:21] bottom where we talked about public engagement. Public engagement has

[5:43:24] been conducted as follows the online survey, open house, PIC

[5:43:28] workshops, stakeholder meeting. At any time with the questions, and

[5:43:34] I'm not sure who should get this, whether it be

[5:43:36] commissioner or Catherine. Was there any time in the questions

[5:43:39] where the public understood that it was going to be

[5:43:45] around 800, 000 dollars a year just to move forward

[5:43:48] with what we're talking about here. Through the chair to

[5:43:53] the Councillor. Thank you for that question. Um, so in

[5:43:57] terms of our public survey, that was done early on

[5:43:59] in the process in May 2025. Um, and it had,

[5:44:06] I think 17 questions, um, in the public survey, 107

[5:44:11] people responded, um, and there was very widespread support for

[5:44:16] increased investment in green assets. Um, so there were questions

[5:44:20] about that. And, um, you know, we explain the context.

[5:44:26] And there was widespread support for that. Um, in our

[5:44:31] community workshop that we held in June, um, we also

[5:44:36] described that there would be increased investment required. Um, we

[5:44:40] didn't get into specific numbers. And with the open house,

[5:44:46] um, that was also held in June, um, which unfortunately

[5:44:49] wasn't as well attended. But, um, the poster boards were

[5:44:52] later put online as well. Um, we didn't include specific

[5:44:56] numbers in that is either, but we described that there

[5:45:00] would be increased investment required. Okay. Um, so no numbers,

[5:45:06] but that there would be increased on investment. I think

[5:45:09] I'm going to go back to the contentious part here

[5:45:13] with staff recommends to Council Endors Scenario 2. Um, I

[5:45:17] can't help but think that there needs to be a

[5:45:18] lot more before I would support using the word endorse.

[5:45:23] Um, in there, as I read through it, what I

[5:45:28] see is we're endorsing that. It's a 10 year implementing.

[5:45:32] Too late for that word implementation plan. And report back

[5:45:37] to Council Later Date in the interim to Main Momentum,

[5:45:40] any feasible actions will be considered as part of the

[5:45:43] 2027 budget. I'm not convinced that the majority of people

[5:45:48] in Halton Hills are even aware of this. I believe

[5:45:51] that there's certain element of people that were part of

[5:45:53] the online survey. You even said that the workshop wasn't

[5:45:58] that well - attended. I would like to see more

[5:46:00] details on what was said, uh, on the survey. Why

[5:46:06] we didn't get that many people in the workshop. But

[5:46:08] I'm going to have to agree with Councillor Keene here

[5:46:11] is I can't endorse scenario to, I need to see

[5:46:15] the wording drastically changed before I can support that. So

[5:46:20] either we do drastically change this report. Or I would

[5:46:25] agree with Councillor Keane that we need to defer this

[5:46:29] to a later time. So sorry, there's too many questions.

[5:46:33] And if I'm being asked on behalf of all of

[5:46:36] the residents in Halton Hills, I don't believe all of

[5:46:39] the residents in Halton Hills would be jumping. Um, through

[5:46:43] hoops to move forward with this. So I think we

[5:46:46] need to be clear. So thank you. Okay. Thank you.

[5:46:51] All right. Thank you. I do have you on the

[5:46:54] list Council King, but Councillor Salmon was before you. So

[5:46:59] Councillor Salva. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I asked the

[5:47:03] question. I need some clarification because I want to make

[5:47:06] sure I have the language right. What was said between

[5:47:10] Catherine and Damian. So I wanted you had, I think

[5:47:13] Damian had said that we have to have the plan

[5:47:17] passed by next July. But then in Catherine's response to

[5:47:22] Councillor Garnot, sound like we are already behind. So I'm

[5:47:26] curious when by our provincial requirement is that we have

[5:47:29] a plan in place. Is it next July or is

[5:47:33] it something that we have to have done sooner. Catherine.

[5:47:38] Through the chair to the Councillor. So under OREG -

[5:47:43] 588 - 17 municipalities were required to have asset management

[5:47:48] plans for all assets, including green infrastructure that include current

[5:47:55] and proposed levels of service, state - of - the

[5:47:58] - infrastructure and financial strategy and lifecycle management strategies by

[5:48:05] July 1st, 2025. And so this plan includes all of

[5:48:10] those elements. Um, so that deadline has passed. And that's

[5:48:14] what, you know, this plan is working to meet. Um,

[5:48:18] but as the commissioner said, there are annual reports that

[5:48:24] need to be completed as well under that regulation. Um,

[5:48:30] that happened and need to be prepared by July as

[5:48:34] well. So that's what we're looking at for next year

[5:48:37] in July. It was the two July that threw me

[5:48:41] off. So I guess the other thing I would, I

[5:48:44] would ask is, you know, when we're looking at the

[5:48:47] report, I got to flip back over to, uh, eScribe

[5:48:51] now. I think it was kind of suggested. And I'm

[5:48:55] wondering instead of deferring it outright that we keep the,

[5:48:59] the very first part that's there. But after it says

[5:49:04] direct staff to report back with a phase 10 year

[5:49:07] implementation plan period. And stop there and drop the rest.

[5:49:12] I know that was kind of suggested. Because that does

[5:49:15] have where we improve it in principle. But it has

[5:49:18] the implementation plane coming back. And it would be to

[5:49:21] the next Council. So, um, either to Damian or to

[5:49:26] Catherine, if that would be acceptable to do it that

[5:49:29] way where we approve it in principle and we direct

[5:49:32] staff to report back with the phase 10 year implementation

[5:49:35] plan, if that would satisfy the requirements under those regulations

[5:49:41] and would allow us to keep moving before midnight. Through

[5:49:46] the Cheryl 2 Council, some of those, yes, it would.

[5:49:51] Okay. Thank you. That's something to consider. I don't know

[5:49:55] where I'm going to go on this yet, but I

[5:49:57] think that might be the way to go. You can

[5:49:59] see my hair is already standing up on edge. Um,

[5:50:02] but, uh, that might be the best way to go.

[5:50:05] And maybe that's something Councillor King could consider. I know

[5:50:07] he said he had some issues with it with, uh,

[5:50:10] that. But it's still the report. And we don't historically

[5:50:13] change what's in the staff report except for the recommendations

[5:50:17] that are there in contained. Thank you Council Somerville. Council

[5:50:22] Keen, you're next. Well, it's good timing. Dr. Councillor Somerville's

[5:50:28] recommendation. Could I just get the wording and where that

[5:50:31] is in the report, how that would be done. Some

[5:50:36] are, Vil. I'm flipping between two screens here to make

[5:50:45] sure I had better internet. I would have it that

[5:50:47] it would say that Council approved the green asset infrastructure

[5:50:52] asset management plan in principle. And direct staff to report

[5:50:56] back with a phase 10 year implementation plan. Period. And

[5:51:03] then the third operative clause would remain. So there would

[5:51:08] be a period after implementation plan. The rest would be

[5:51:12] struck. Then that allows the new Council would be able

[5:51:16] to have a look at it. And we've also approved

[5:51:20] it in principle and we can sort out the details

[5:51:22] down the road. So everything after. Further. Gets struck. After

[5:51:30] plan, 10 year implementation planned, then it would be struck

[5:51:34] after that. But the third, the third one would actually

[5:51:37] remain the third operative clause would remain. Cause it's required

[5:51:43] under the regulations. I know Mr.

[5:51:53] Chair, I'm not really speaking to the deferral, but it's

[5:51:55] just what I would suggest. Well, I'll remove the deferral.

[5:51:58] If we, I don't like this doing this on the

[5:51:59] fly. Right. Like it's late at night and we're being

[5:52:02] asked to deal with some pretty specific language. Right. So

[5:52:06] it'd be nice to see the wording. So we could

[5:52:07] sort of make a decision on it. If it's acceptable,

[5:52:10] we're withdraw the deferral. We, if you give us a

[5:52:15] few minutes, we'll get the warding. From Council of Somerville's

[5:52:19] recommendation or suggestion. Clarifying a question.

[5:52:29] Mr. Chair. All right. Um, we have another speaker first.

[5:52:34] And again, can I get back to you on that?

[5:52:35] Okay. Yeah. Council Garno. Thank you. Um, just a question

[5:52:41] to staff on this suggested wording. It also takes out

[5:52:44] the anti - consider any practical actions that may be

[5:52:47] advanced as part of the 2027 budget as appropriate. So

[5:52:52] understanding that some of this is the work on Fairy

[5:52:54] Lake. Some of it is other, other things that you

[5:52:58] may fall under funding for next year, if that's taken

[5:53:02] out of here, would you still be able to present

[5:53:05] an understanding that the way the budget works. Is that

[5:53:08] Council still votes on it. Just because it's included in

[5:53:11] the budget doesn't mean it is rubber stamped. So would

[5:53:16] staff still be able to propose projects related to green

[5:53:21] infrastructure asset management. In the 2027 budget that the 2027

[5:53:26] Council can vote on. At that time. Yeah, through the

[5:53:32] chair to the Councillor, that's a great question. Yeah, I

[5:53:33] don't believe it would preclude us from doing that because

[5:53:35] there's other projects that are fallen under the umbrella of

[5:53:39] green assets. Like you mentioned Fairy Lake, which is already

[5:53:41] something that's approved by Council. So yes, Fairy Lake touches

[5:53:44] on. This project, but, uh, by taking that out, I

[5:53:49] don't think it would percotheas from doing it. The way

[5:53:51] it's written in the second class, it's just tied into

[5:53:54] the second scenario. Essentially what it's saying is Councillor approved

[5:53:57] a plan and principle direct us to work with scenario

[5:54:00] two. And in the meantime, see if there appropriate for

[5:54:04] the 2027 budget, but the way that Councillor Somerville has

[5:54:07] proposed the amendment, we're fine. I have no concerns and

[5:54:11] it wouldn't preclude us from identifying anything relevant in that

[5:54:14] 2027 budget. That's not tied to a 10 year plan

[5:54:17] or a specific scenario. And just, just to be clear

[5:54:21] again, this is provincial regulation that we're complying with, right?

[5:54:24] So whether the population doesn't want us to do, like

[5:54:30] doesn't want to spend money on green infrastructure, the province

[5:54:36] is requiring municipalities to think about that in our long

[5:54:40] - range financial plans, because the province recognises the value

[5:54:43] of green infrastructure and the impact that it has on

[5:54:47] municipal finances. Is that correct. That's correct, Councillor. Thank you.

[5:54:56] Council Gamble. Just to clarifying a question. Did we remove

[5:55:00] the reference to the 800, 000 dollars. Is that now

[5:55:06] removed? Yeah, it was net, if I can speak for

[5:55:11] the chair. It was never in the recommendations Councillor. Okay.

[5:55:20] Um. My problem is that if we're approving things before

[5:55:27] we actually, I can, I can agree with it in

[5:55:30] principle, but the problem is if we're approving for things

[5:55:35] without knowing exactly what services projects or tangible outcomes, I

[5:55:41] mean, I find that difficult. I mean, if we're planting

[5:55:45] a whole lot of new trees, they would presumably create

[5:55:49] a whole new additional, um, ecosystem of financial obligations. So.

[5:55:56] I'm just, uh, I'm just afraid of a mission creep

[5:55:59] that we're committing to all these, um, without seeing a

[5:56:03] plan. It's difficult to commit to it. Because if we're

[5:56:07] committing to something, that'll actually increase our financial obligations down

[5:56:14] the road that is unsustainable. That would be a problem.

[5:56:20] All right. You can see the text on the screen.

[5:56:23] Sorry. Council King. Yeah. Chair, alone. I had a chance

[5:56:25] to read it. I'm satisfied with this change. It removes

[5:56:29] any reference to recommending scenario two. And it's, uh. Attend

[5:56:34] 800, 000 dollar price tag. And also eliminates any considering

[5:56:39] a practical actions in advance. With a budget. It just

[5:56:42] literally just, uh, producer report. So I'll remove my differral

[5:56:45] and I'll be prepared to support this recommendation. Thank you.

[5:56:51] All right. So we have the recommendation on the floor.

[5:56:55] Does everyone happy with, with, uh, with Councillor Samuel suggestion.

[5:57:00] Recommendation. All right. So, um, if everyone's okay with that,

[5:57:04] um, all in favor, new recommendation from Councillor Sonnenville. And

[5:57:10] that is carried. Thank you very much. That was quite

[5:57:13] a conversation.

[5:57:31] All right. Um, the last item that I, that I

[5:57:34] have here, which was under the, uh, consent item. And

[5:57:38] it's, uh. Eight point six, which is 2027, budget approach

[5:57:48] and process. And this is referring to the memorandum number

[5:57:53] CES. 2026 005 is to provide Council with overview of

[5:57:59] the approach and process being undertaken in the development of

[5:58:03] the towns 2027 budget. Council Garnel. Yes, thank you, Chair.

[5:58:11] It feels like perhaps a lifetime ago that I held

[5:58:13] this report. I actually have two questions. One is to

[5:58:20] the treasurer. And it's regarding the zero - based budgeting

[5:58:25] approach as well as the critical needs framework. And I'm

[5:58:29] wondering if you can tell us about these approaches and

[5:58:33] why staff are recommending we go in that direction this

[5:58:36] time. Through the chair to the Councillor. Great question. So,

[5:58:44] uh, we're looking at it from a different lens this

[5:58:48] year. So typically you would have your, uh, your base

[5:58:51] budget from the prior year. And you would, uh, review

[5:58:56] actual spending and see if you were in line with

[5:58:59] the budget and tweak where necessary. Um, which is a

[5:59:02] good approach, but also, uh, sometimes the needs of the

[5:59:05] municipality change. So we're kind of, uh, looking at the

[5:59:08] budget from the ground up this year to justify, uh,

[5:59:12] the expenses based on our current service needs, uh, ensure

[5:59:16] that, uh, what I would call base budget creep isn't

[5:59:20] happening and that spending is aligned with the Council priorities.

[5:59:25] And the current demand. It doesn't mean that we're rebuilding

[5:59:29] the entire budget from scratch. Uh, it just means we're

[5:59:32] taking a little bit more of a rigorous look at

[5:59:34] the programs and service levels. Um, to confirm that they

[5:59:37] deliver the value as an expected for the residents. With

[5:59:42] respect to the critical needs framework, uh, we're reviewing requests

[5:59:47] based on the legislative requirements, uh, health and safety obligations

[5:59:51] and core service needs and ensuring that they still align

[5:59:54] with, uh, the current Council priorities, uh, but understanding those

[5:59:58] Council priorities may change in the next term of Council

[6:00:01] when the Strategic plan is once again updated. And I'm

[6:00:07] very supportive of this approach. And I'm wondering when it's

[6:00:10] presented to Council, will you have a visual cue that

[6:00:14] these are, uh, legislative requirements. These are core services like

[6:00:19] something so that we can easily see which budget asks

[6:00:26] are in those different categories that you mentioned. We can

[6:00:30] take that back and ensure that we have some sort

[6:00:31] of, uh, information in the budget package that, uh, speaks

[6:00:35] to that. Okay. Thank you. And then, um, I have

[6:00:41] a question for the commissioner of transportation and public works.

[6:00:45] And this goes back to a conversation that Councillor Norris

[6:00:48] and Councillor Fogel and I had with residents on James

[6:00:51] Street regarding the redesign of a sidewalk and just confirming

[6:00:56] that that project will be considered in the budget process.

[6:01:03] Thank you through the chair to the Councillor. Uh, yeah,

[6:01:07] so that project has been identified by staff. It'll be

[6:01:10] considered as part of our capital planning program. Um, can't

[6:01:13] commit. It'll come forward necessarily this year, but it is

[6:01:16] identified in the needs, uh, within the municipality. So each

[6:01:20] year, each budget process will go through and look for

[6:01:22] opportunities to, um, when the right time would be and

[6:01:25] when that can be incorporated. So it's identified. It's in

[6:01:28] our plan, but we do have a very long list

[6:01:30] of needs within it. Thank you very much. Councillor

[6:01:40] Brass, you have a question. Yes. Thank you chair for

[6:01:45] you. I'm just, uh, I have a couple of questions.

[6:01:47] And the first would be to maybe, uh, commissioner Rahill.

[6:01:52] And that would be, uh, with the 2027 or with

[6:01:56] the new term coming up and some new councillors, et

[6:01:58] cetera. How much time will be allocated for members of

[6:02:03] Council to have meaningful discussions around the budget. And impactful

[6:02:09] way instead of, well, again, will it come to them

[6:02:12] pre - baked as usual, or will they actually have

[6:02:15] some input. Uh, through the chair, the Councillor, um, so

[6:02:23] the budget will be tabled under the Strong Mayor Powers

[6:02:27] framework, which, uh, requires the mayor to table it by

[6:02:31] February 1st of the year for the budget. With this

[6:02:37] being an election year, um, the timeline that we've put

[6:02:40] together will have a little bit of additional time from

[6:02:44] what we're used to seeing with the budget being before

[6:02:48] you in early December. So Council, the election will be

[6:02:52] at the end of, uh, October, uh, with meeting scheduled

[6:02:58] to tentatively take place with the incoming mayor, uh, post

[6:03:01] election. And then there'll be Council Orientation through the middle

[6:03:05] of, uh, November. Along with other meetings with, uh, senior

[6:03:10] staff and members of Council, which will then follow along

[6:03:15] to a budget workshop in the beginning of December. The

[6:03:18] hope is that we'll have the budget documentation ready for

[6:03:22] Council ahead of the Halliday break. So there's time to

[6:03:26] review over the holidays if time permits. Um, affording the

[6:03:30] mayor the opportunity to the table, the budget early in

[6:03:33] January. That would start the 30 day clock, which would,

[6:03:37] uh, bring us to the beginning of February for budget

[6:03:41] committee and the veto period would then take place in

[6:03:45] that early part of February until the budget was fully

[6:03:48] adopted. Council will have the opportunity to, uh, shorten the,

[6:03:53] uh, legislative periods, uh, at the beginning of December, but

[6:03:56] that will, uh, that will come at a later date.

[6:03:59] And it will just, uh, change when the budget becomes

[6:04:01] fully adopted, maybe to be a little bit earlier in

[6:04:04] February. But this is already going to be pushing the

[6:04:08] timelines, uh, quite a bit further than what you, uh,

[6:04:12] normally would see. Okay. And in previous, uh, budget years,

[6:04:20] some have expressed frustration at the short period of time

[6:04:23] in which to analyse a lot of information. Uh, and

[6:04:26] I believe, uh, I believe it was Councillor Somerville that

[6:04:29] made the suggestion at one point that the perhaps the

[6:04:34] capital budget be tabled prior to the operating budget. To

[6:04:38] give, cause I know the pressures in terms of getting

[6:04:41] bids out there, et cetera, for, for, for, for big

[6:04:44] projects. But under strong mayor power, is it possible to

[6:04:47] break them up and have different deadlines for both budgets

[6:04:50] and getting them in under the provincial requirement. Through the

[6:04:56] chair to the Councillor. It's a great question. Um, I

[6:04:59] would have to take it back with the team and

[6:05:01] look at, uh, what that would look like and report

[6:05:04] back to Council and see if it would make sense

[6:05:09] and or is, uh, able to be done. But, uh,

[6:05:12] at this time, I don't, uh, I don't know like

[6:05:15] what that would look like in a process standpoint. Okay.

[6:05:21] And then finally the, uh, the 6. 63 percent. I

[6:05:25] know it's early days, but this is the preliminary target.

[6:05:28] And can you advise. That's just what you're in the

[6:05:32] report. It says just to keep the lights on. But,

[6:05:35] uh, obvious question would be that it's double, that rate

[6:05:38] of inflation. And where is this number coming from. Uh,

[6:05:42] is that really the starting point or is there room

[6:05:44] for Council of 2027 to move the needle on this

[6:05:48] number. Through the chair to the Councillor. So, um, the

[6:05:55] 6. 63 percent is a very preliminary outlook. It's not,

[6:06:00] uh, not a proposed budget, not a recommended budget. Um,

[6:06:03] but it does reflect the pressures that are currently known

[6:06:06] at this stage. Um, they're not, uh, these are not

[6:06:10] inflationary. Some of it is inflationary. Yeah. But they're not

[6:06:14] fully inflationary, um, items. In addition to that, many of

[6:06:18] the cost drivers, they don't really align with the national

[6:06:22] inflation rate. Align with contractual obligations and other items like

[6:06:32] insurance. And utilities and so on and so forth. They

[6:06:36] go up at a different pace. Uh, you have your

[6:06:38] labour union. So QP and the fire negotiations or fire

[6:06:42] union, sorry. Um, the increases from those two labour, uh,

[6:06:47] bodies is much higher than that three percent. So three

[6:06:51] percent is a gauge on certain items, but it's not

[6:06:55] the end all be all. And then I would say

[6:06:58] that the several items in that 6. 63 percent that

[6:07:03] are based on prior commitments. So capital projects that have

[6:07:06] been approved in prior budgets. That's the operating side of

[6:07:09] them. Um. I'll leave it there. If that satisfier a

[6:07:16] question or do you want more? Yes. That part. Thank

[6:07:18] you, Chair. Just one more of you. Don't mind. Go

[6:07:20] ahead. Uh. Despawn another question on my head. And that

[6:07:23] would be if, if everything stayed the same, the region,

[6:07:27] uh, police, et cetera, the town at 66. 3. What

[6:07:31] would the blended rate come out to be to staff

[6:07:33] have that number. Through the chair to the councillor? Yeah.

[6:07:37] We have a, uh, we have that estimate. So based

[6:07:39] on what the region is projecting at this point and

[6:07:43] subject to change, uh, further in the budget process. They

[6:07:46] have, uh, a 5. 4 percent combined region and police

[6:07:51] impact. With our, uh, R6. If nothing

[6:08:01] were to change. Thank you, Joey. Thank you, Chair. Yes.

[6:08:07] Council or something else Council. Through the chair to the

[6:08:15] councillor. I just, uh, Mr. Mills. Thank you, sir. Um,

[6:08:19] just in addition to the thing that the, I'll call

[6:08:22] it the assumptions that we've used to provide that estimate.

[6:08:25] We did include also the, uh, the fire levy and

[6:08:29] the state of good repair levy, which I believe gets

[6:08:31] close to 1. 7. - ish percent. So that's in

[6:08:37] there already. So when you, when you look at sort

[6:08:40] of, if you took out those special levees, uh, then

[6:08:42] we're starting to get down into the four high fours.

[6:08:46] Uh, before we start to really get into that detailed

[6:08:49] analysis that, uh, that Councillor Garnell last about on the

[6:08:53] zero - based budgeting and they're looking at the critical

[6:08:55] elements, this is really, our goal was not, again, and

[6:08:59] I think Joey, sorry, the treasurer outlined it really well.

[6:09:03] This, this isn't a target in any way. This is

[6:09:05] just preliminary estimates based on what we know today. And.

[6:09:10] We felt it very important to be able to transparently

[6:09:14] show all of those numbers now so that there was

[6:09:16] no confusion later on. Thank you. Great Council Serumville. Well,

[6:09:26] it's four of a comment, Mr. Chair, and it was

[6:09:28] disappointment that you get to page five before it even

[6:09:31] mentions that the strong mayor's budget. It should have been

[6:09:36] in the title because that's how the budget process is.

[6:09:40] It's a lot of it is out of the hands

[6:09:41] of Council. And I do appreciate that the treasurer's response

[6:09:45] mentioned that, uh, I think that's an important part for

[6:09:49] anyone who is looking at the budget is that, uh,

[6:09:52] the budget process has changed dramatically. Into the undemocratic strong

[6:09:57] mayor powers that the province has instilled upon us in

[6:10:01] their infinite wisdom. Thank you Council Songhill. Madam Mayor. Yeah.

[6:10:10] Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. And I'm wondering if staff

[6:10:14] could describe a little bit more about the zero -

[6:10:16] based budgeting approach. I quite like this approach too. Um,

[6:10:21] it is probably more work than we've been used to

[6:10:27] in the last few years. And, um, it's my sense

[6:10:32] that it does, as you described, provide a bit of

[6:10:37] a ground up analysis of ensuring that the programs that

[6:10:42] were funding are truly delivering the kinds of services and

[6:10:48] so forth that we want. I'm wondering when staff do

[6:10:53] present the budget to Council. And I think this picks

[6:10:58] up a little bit on Councillor Brass'comment about the amount

[6:11:01] of time needed. To really delve into the budget with

[6:11:10] some vigour. Will staff be able to provide some comparative

[6:11:15] analysis about, um, uh, and rankings, perhaps, that show the

[6:11:24] cost of various programs. And what the impacts might be

[6:11:28] if we kept them in or took them out. And

[6:11:33] this could range anything from grass cutting to road paving

[6:11:39] to recreation programs to capital investments. Is that something when

[6:11:46] you're doing the zero - based budgeting approach. You would

[6:11:50] be able to share with Council. At some level. Through

[6:11:57] the chair to the mayor, um, great question a lot

[6:12:00] to unpack in that question. Um, we are going to

[6:12:03] have to take it back and think about it that

[6:12:05] a little bit. One of the comments I can make

[6:12:09] right now is, uh, we don't, uh, currently track things

[6:12:14] on, I shouldn't say track. It's the wrong word. We

[6:12:18] in a full program by program manner. We don't allocate

[6:12:21] overhead to programs in that manner. We're not set up

[6:12:24] to do so. Um, it's something that we've talked about

[6:12:28] and we're looking to move in somewhat of that direction.

[6:12:30] So we won't have all the information at our fingertips

[6:12:33] to be able to look at it from that lens.

[6:12:36] Um, but other than that, I would have to take

[6:12:38] it back and, uh, discuss that with the team. Well,

[6:12:42] and just, I mean, I'm conscious. Like switching budgeting systems,

[6:12:48] which is I think kind of what you're suggesting is

[6:12:51] a bit of a deal. Um, administratively. And, and while

[6:12:56] I said, I like the approach. I'm conscious that it's

[6:13:00] probably a significant amount of work. And, um, but by

[6:13:05] the same token, having some of that analysis available to

[6:13:09] members of Council to be able to really, you know,

[6:13:14] as we said, drill down and understand how, how various

[6:13:20] services and programs are ranked, whether it be legislated, whether

[6:13:25] it be risk management, whether it be insurance, whether it

[6:13:28] be, you know, program, whether it be high need demand,

[6:13:31] whether, you know, those are all the rankings that we,

[6:13:35] that we refer to. I guess I'm curious to know

[6:13:39] how much of that you might be able to share

[6:13:41] with Council as you're implementing this budgeting system.

[6:13:54] Through the chair of the mayor. Yeah, I can take

[6:13:57] that back with the team. It is, it's definitely more

[6:14:01] time consuming this time around. It is a different way

[6:14:06] of thinking about it. Where, like I said, we're not

[6:14:08] rebuilding the entire budget we're looking at certain programs in

[6:14:13] a different lens just to kind of check the way

[6:14:18] we're budgeting. And I'll leave it at that. Great. Looking

[6:14:23] forward to it. Thank you. I see no other questions.

[6:14:26] Council Garnot, you held this. Would you like to move

[6:14:29] this item. Councillor Nova's moved, only favor. Carried.

[6:14:42] All right, I need a motion to adjourn back to

[6:14:44] Councillarno, only favor. Done.

[6:17:24] All right. So you. May want to explain to those

[6:17:28] listening. At home. Because. We don't have another Council meet.

[6:17:37] Until after the election. Okay. So some of the items

[6:17:44] from general committee were identified as being time sensitive, needing

[6:17:48] immediate action by Council tonight. And in fact, every item

[6:17:52] was because of the timing of this agenda and the

[6:17:56] fact that this is our last formal meeting. Scheduled meeting

[6:18:03] before the election. So the details of these items can

[6:18:06] be found. In section 9 of today's agenda. And it

[6:18:10] has been moved by Councillor Hillson, seconded by Councillor Garneau.

[6:18:15] That the recommendations contained in the following immediate action item

[6:18:19] reports from Monday, June 22nd, 2026 general committee meeting are

[6:18:25] hereby adopted. Reported MIN 2026 - 023 as amended. Report

[6:18:33] at MIN 2026 - 024 as amended. Report CENS 2026

[6:18:40] - 017 is presented. CES 2026 - 018 is presented.

[6:18:48] CSE 2026 - 014 as presented. CSE 2026 - 015

[6:18:56] as amended. CSE 2026 - 027 as presented. CSE 2026

[6:19:04] - 028 is presented. PD - 2026 - 042 as

[6:19:11] presented. PD - 2026 - 054 as presented. PD -

[6:19:18] 2026 - 056 is presented. PD - 2026 - 057

[6:19:25] as presented. PD - 2026 - 060 is presented. PD

[6:19:32] - 2026 - 067 as presented. PD - 2026 -

[6:19:38] 069 as presented. PD - 2026 - 070 as presented.

[6:19:46] PD - 2026 - 072 is presented. PD - 2026

[6:19:52] - 075 as presented. PD - 2026 - 076 is

[6:19:58] presented PD - 2026 - 073 as amended. Mamosi -

[6:20:06] SE - 2026 - 010 as presented. MO - CSE

[6:20:14] - 026 - 005 as presented, all in favor. That

[6:20:22] is carried unanimously.

[6:20:34] Okay, so we now need to move into closed session.

[6:20:40] We still have a few items in order to address.

[6:20:45] And so could I have a motion. Councillor Kinbaum, all

[6:20:48] in favor. That is carried and will take a five

[6:20:53] - minute recess in order to switch screens and adjust

[6:20:59] our broadcast.

Council

Agenda

Transcript