[0:07] Good evening everyone. It is 6:30 p.m. Members of council are assembled. When

[0:11] you're ready to begin. >> Thank you very much. Good evening

[0:13] everyone. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the council of the

[0:16] Tanosaging Shores. Welcome all members. Everyone in the gallery, everyone

[0:20] watching via the live stream. We're glad everybody's with us. Second item on the

[0:23] agenda is the land acknowledgement and councelor Dvinsky has that this evening.

[0:27] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you, we acknowledge that we are meeting on the

[0:32] traditional lands and treaty territory of the Sagino Ojiway nation, which

[0:37] consists of the Chipoas of Sagin and the Chipoas of Nayash unseated First Nation.

[0:44] We understand this land holds immense significance to the people of Sagin,

[0:49] Ojiway Nation. We appreciate those who live and work alongside us today and who

[0:55] continue the traditions of their ancestors as stewards of the land we are

[1:00] privileged to inhabit. We thank them for the contributions they have made in both

[1:05] caring for the land and in shaping this community. We commit to truth and

[1:11] reconciliation. To acknowledging the truth about what

[1:15] happened to indigenous peoples because of colonization and to reconciliation

[1:21] which begins with each and every one of us. As a local government and public

[1:26] organization, we are dedicated to learning about indigenous culture, to

[1:32] fostering a better relationship with First Nations and their people, and we

[1:37] commit ourselves to actions that move us forward on a path to healing along with

[1:43] the Sagin Ojiway nation. >> Thank you. Third item on the agenda is

[1:48] disclosure of interest. Asking a member if you have one of those you'd like to

[1:50] declare. Council Grace. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, um I'm declaring a

[1:55] conflict of interest on uh items 7.1, 13.1,

[2:03] and 13.2. They relate to the draft plan of

[2:07] subdivision S-2025-004,

[2:12] the local official plan and zoning bylaw amendments, and the related proposed

[2:18] bylaws. I own property which is located directly

[2:22] across the street from the proposed development and the new street entrance.

[2:28] » Thank you. Any further declarations? I have one like to declare a pinary

[2:32] interest with respect to agenda item 11.2.1

[2:36] the uh notice of the motion on the highway 21 speed limit. I'm declaring

[2:41] that peerary interest because I am a shareholder in a business that owns

[2:44] property along that section of highway 21. All right. If there's no further

[2:48] declarations, of course, you can declare when any time if you need to. Uh, no

[2:52] additions, deletions, or amendments. So, we're on to the minutes. I have a

[2:55] resolution that council adopt the minutes of the regular council meeting

[2:57] of August 10th, 2026 as presented as a mover and secondary, the vice deputy

[3:01] mayor and councelor Grace. Discussion to the minutes. Seeing none, councelor

[3:05] Grace. Sorry. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just wanted

[3:09] to I know I've the clerk has confirmed this, but um I just wanted to confirm

[3:14] again that the complete designation application for the 160 L heritage

[3:21] designation um will be attached uh to the published

[3:26] minutes. Thanks >> the clerk.

[3:30] » Thank you, Mayor Sharbano. The complete application for that heritage

[3:34] designation will appear on the HTML version of the approved minutes.

[3:38] » Okay. Any further questions or comments of the minutes? Seeing none, all in

[3:41] favor? That is carried. Okay. So, that moves us on then to item seven, reports

[3:48] of municipal officers. Uh few reports there. First one is 7.1 draft plan of

[3:53] subdivision S-20225-004 local official plan amendment L-2025-016

[4:00] and zoning bylaw amendment Z-20225-027 uh recommendation with respect to SKG

[4:06] holdings/chantry crossing. So we'll turn that to the planner uh Karina Smith.

[4:12] » Thank you through you mayor Charbano. Uh I'm presenting the applications tonight

[4:17] on behalf of the planner, Julie Steeper, who is not available to attend this

[4:21] evening. Uh a draft plan of subdivision application has been submitted to create

[4:25] a residential subdivision. Um that subdivision would consist of 33 single

[4:30] detached lots and 18 townhouse lots fronting on proposed extensions of

[4:35] Albert Street and Emerald Drive. There are also blocks proposed for highway

[4:40] commercial, walkway, storm water management, open space, um, reserve and

[4:46] highway widening purposes. The draft plan of subdivision and the related

[4:50] local official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment were previously

[4:54] presented at a public meeting held in April of this year. The draft plan of

[4:59] subdivision has undergone just one minor revision relating to the culde-sac bulb

[5:04] and the alignment of the rail trail uh in proximity to that bulb. Those changes

[5:09] are minor uh but overall the lot fabric as well as the proposed road layout is

[5:15] generally consistent with what was presented at the public meeting.

[5:19] The local official plan amendment uh has been submitted to amend the boundaries

[5:23] of the existing designation in the town's official plan to align with the

[5:28] proposed lot layout in the draft plan of subdivision. The subject lands are

[5:33] currently designated highway, commercial, residential, and open space.

[5:40] And the proposed official plan amendment would maintain those designations, but

[5:45] again would align the boundaries of those designations with the proposed lot

[5:50] and block fabric. The zoning bylaw amendment seeks to

[5:54] reszone uh the property from highway commercial with a holding provision,

[6:00] residential first density with a holding provision and open space also with a

[6:05] holding provision. Uh the proposed zoning would introduce residential third

[6:11] density to allow for the townhouse blocks. The proposed single family units

[6:16] would be in the residential first density special zone and the highway

[6:21] commercial would also have a special um highway HC37

[6:26] zone as well. The open space does not have any proposed special provisions.

[6:31] The applications before council this evening have considered comments from

[6:36] the public. We did receive over 60 comments from members of the community

[6:41] uh which included um uh various uh concerns with respect to flooding, storm

[6:49] water management, traffic and other issues. We also received comments from

[6:54] agencies on the applications and those are included in the agenda package for

[6:59] you this evening. We would note that the town town staff as well as their

[7:04] consulting engineer did flag outstanding concerns particularly with respect to

[7:08] hydro geology and storm water management and also concerns with respect to uh

[7:14] traffic and the noise barrier. For that reason, we are seeking and recommending

[7:19] to council this evening that the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw

[7:22] amendment be approved. Uh and that uh council support in principle approval of

[7:28] the draft plan of subdivision. That draft plan of subdivision would report

[7:33] would then be written and taken to county council as the county is the

[7:37] approval body for the draft plan of subdivision. We anticipated there may be

[7:42] some further uh adjustments to the language in the conditions and we've

[7:46] been working diligently with town staff and the applicant to refine the language

[7:51] of those conditions. Um I would note um upon my review in preparation for the

[7:55] meeting this evening. There was not a condition included with respect to an

[7:59] updated and final transportation report and so we will be looking to add that

[8:03] before we take a report re uh a report forward to county council. That

[8:08] concludes my presentation for this evening, but I'm happy to answer any

[8:12] questions that council may have. >> Okay. Thank you. There is a resolution

[8:16] that council adopt bylaw 83-2026 for local official plan amendment L-2025-016

[8:22] by SKG Holdings Incorporated and that it be forwarded to Bruce County for

[8:25] approval. That council approves zoning bylaw amendment Z-20225-027

[8:30] by SKG Holdings Incorporated and bylaw 84-2026.

[8:34] and that council support in principle county of Bruce approval of draft plan

[8:37] of subdivision S-20225-00004 by SKG Holdings Incorporated in

[8:42] accordance with the draft plan attached and subject to resolution through count

[8:45] conditions of draft approval of outstanding issues relating to servicing

[8:49] storm water management hydrogeeology geotechnical conditions and noise is

[8:53] there mover and seconder for that resolution moved by Alpen seconded by

[8:57] Matt discussion

[9:02] the deputy mayor and then council Man,

[9:09] » thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you. I have a number of questions. I'm um very

[9:14] concerned though about moving forward with something um at the moment that

[9:20] there's there's an awful lot of unanswered questions and and to be

[9:24] completed, to be received, to be reviewed um kinds of language in this.

[9:29] And um in my opinion, it would be more appropriate for us to see a lot more

[9:35] already decided or determined or or at least presented in a form that um we can

[9:41] then have a discussion about it. So, I'm I'm um not um at the moment um prepared

[9:47] to to support the motion that that has been put on the floor because I I do

[9:51] think there's an awful lot of unanswered questions and um the information that we

[9:57] have from the town's engineering consultant um doesn't give me a great

[10:03] deal of confidence either in that um you know, they often in their their report

[10:08] um said, you know, we don't have this we can't comment on this and so

[10:12] but I do have some questions um and um what was not clear from the drawing so

[10:19] I'll I'll just run through them um going from this the special um condition

[10:24] on the R1 um zoning is about a couple of things but one of them is reduction in

[10:30] the size of the lots the what's required at the moment is 450 square meters um is

[10:36] the required lot size the um document suggests that it's going going down to

[10:40] 400 square meters. What is that in terms of dimensions? They they look um to me

[10:45] to all be um fairly similar in size, but even the town's engineers said that the

[10:50] drawing should have very specific lot sizes indicated. Um which led me to

[10:56] think that maybe they're not all the same size. What's the general size of

[10:59] the lots for the R1 um parcel? Um is it 50 by 100? Is it 40 by 80? What what's

[11:08] the size of those lots? the planner.

[11:13] » Yes, thank you for the question through you, Mayor Charbano. So, the dimensions

[11:16] of the lots uh for the single family, they are in the range of 13.5 to peers

[11:22] up to 14 14.3 in some locations in terms of their frontage and depths vary from

[11:31] 30 m um in some locations up to 37 I'm seeing in some locations.

[11:38] Deputy Mayor, >> thank you for that. Um, I also was

[11:44] concerned when I read in the report that um, there was a comment from SA about

[11:50] um, comp compensatory I'm probably saying that the word wrong, compensatory

[11:57] planting areas um, to um, take into account the potential for lost trees.

[12:01] And the municipal response that that there were no lands available for this

[12:06] kind of surprised me. Um, do we not have land somewhere in the entirety of Sagine

[12:13] Shores? I, you know, Helwell Park has a huge area that has some trees in it. I I

[12:19] know it's over the size um that was mentioned here. Um, Lamont has a lot of

[12:24] land. Um, you know, there's other um parks in town that could handle trees.

[12:29] Uh there used to be a tree farm out near the landfill. I get what was meant by

[12:34] the statement that there are no municipal lands available for

[12:37] compensatory plantings comp whatever that word is

[12:43] » the manager of development services. >> Thank you. And through you may sharel.

[12:48] So I I I think in general the idea that the town um should supply lands to

[12:54] offset tree removal to facilitate private development is maybe um

[12:58] something that staff were indicating that uh we would not want to potentially

[13:02] set a precedent that this is this is what the town needs to do is supply

[13:06] land. So if there's tree removal, the preference is that the developer find um

[13:11] another private source to be able to plant those trees. There were

[13:15] discussions that happened internally for where there would be an appropriate spot

[13:18] to do tree compensation um and with our park staff and the the facilities

[13:24] manager. I don't believe that there were lands that were identified that would be

[13:27] suitable to account for the number of trees that would be required.

[13:30] » The deputy mayor. >> Well, thank you for that. That's not at

[13:34] all the impression I got from the report. So, that's that's good

[13:37] additional information to have. I wanted to ask um about the Pete removal that's

[13:42] that's talked about in the report. Where where does that go? How is how is Pete

[13:48] that is somehow um not desirable to leave somewhere? Where does it go? And

[13:53] how how how is it disposed of or is it is it usable in some other fashion? Um

[13:58] I'm just curious where where this pete would go.

[14:02] » Planner. >> Yes. Thank you for the question. So I I

[14:07] don't have a good answer for you on on where that material would go. Uh my

[14:11] understanding is that there are fill transport regulations in the province in

[14:16] terms of the movement of fill material. So whether it would be regulated under

[14:19] that process, I'm not entirely certain, but I but I could look into that if that

[14:23] is information that you were looking for.

[14:26] » Mayor, >> um thank you for that. I also wanted to

[14:30] ask a question about um the references in the report to noise walls. Um, you

[14:35] know, I'm a fan of of BMS with trees, and you know, we had some success with

[14:40] um that sort of addition to projects um throughout Sing Shores, most notably in

[14:45] Southampton near this with um the um the western side of the Tim Hortons

[14:49] property. Um nice burm got got installed there and and the trees have grown up.

[14:55] It's um I think it's doing what the intention was. Um, in this report though

[15:00] that we've got before us, what's suggested as as um a good noise wall or

[15:04] or the noise wall that's um being included is a double thick wood fence.

[15:12] Um there's nothing in this though to tell me how that's better than a burm.

[15:18] So who who ultimately makes the decision on what's appropriate for noise

[15:23] mitigation or for appropriate separation in particular between um abudding uses

[15:29] that are distinct and difference foram different for example the commercial lot

[15:34] that that would back on to residential units. um our zoning and and other

[15:39] documents say there needs to be some sort of buffer there. Is is a double

[15:44] thick wood fence um equivalent to a a a burm? There's no mention in the report

[15:51] of a height. So, I'm just curious, you know, what what are the pros and cons of

[15:56] both of them? Why is why is the report suggesting double thick wood fences over

[16:01] BMS and plantings? >> The planner.

[16:04] » Uh yes, through you, Mayor Sharpeno. So, my understanding is that the the noise

[16:09] wall, the the double fence is what's being proposed, as well as um air

[16:14] conditioning for the unit so that they may be able to close their their windows

[16:19] um adjacent to any properties that are adjacent or within that buffer area of

[16:24] the highway. Um the details on what the final mitigation measure might be are

[16:30] still subject to discussion. So despite the fact that this report has identified

[16:34] that noise wall and the additional mitigation measures as well as warning

[16:38] clauses to be included in the subdivision agreement for for future

[16:42] land owners um those um mitigation measures may be amended through the

[16:47] detailed design process. So um if there is a desire or further need to

[16:52] understand why a wall has been chosen versus uh some other mitigation like a

[16:57] burm and and retention of the existing trees on the lot. uh that can be refined

[17:02] through the final uh submission of the noise report to the satisfaction of the

[17:07] town and its consulting engineer. >> The premier

[17:11] » um thank you. I just have a couple of couple more in um the planning report

[17:16] from the county. Just would like clarification on um under the density

[17:22] category. Um, and and in the future, could we have numbered pages to make it

[17:28] a little easier? If we're we're going to be asking questions, we can refer to a a

[17:32] page. Perhaps that might be helpful in some regard, but the density section,

[17:36] which I don't know what page it's on. Um it refers to in one part it says um D um

[17:44] the residential portion of all developments that will be serviced with

[17:47] municipal sewer and water to achieve a min minimum density of 15 units per

[17:51] gross hectare with the layout the density of the entire development meets

[17:57] this target. Then when I jump down to the next paragraph, it's the proposed

[18:01] residential development will have a density of 18.35

[18:05] units per gross developable hectar. So my question is what's the difference

[18:12] between per gross hectar and per gross developable hectar? Um because our bylaw

[18:18] um is looking at a minimum density per gross hectar. I I am just curious what

[18:24] this developable Hector means, but also with the layout, the density of the

[18:30] entire development meets this target. Is that referring to the entire because

[18:35] this is phase two of a subdivision plan. So is that sentence referring to that

[18:40] the whole phase one phase 2 combination um meets the target or is it just

[18:46] referring to phase two >> the bladder?

[18:52] Thank you for the question. So the density, the terminology gross hector or

[18:56] gross developable Hector that they're essentially the same. Um and I think

[19:00] you've made note of that before. So we will be uh paying closer attention to

[19:04] that when we do prepare further reports for council. Um the density uh is based

[19:09] on 15 units per gross hectare is the minimum as you noted for fully serviced

[19:14] uh areas. Um the 18.35 uh excludes uh the natural um the storm

[19:22] water management ponds specifically. Um the density that you'll note on the

[19:27] draft plan of subdivision is actually 17 or just over 17 units per hectare. And

[19:32] so um that also excluded um the the hazard land or what would be the storm

[19:38] water management block in this case as well as the walkways and highway

[19:43] widenings reserves and right ofways.

[19:47] » The deputy mayor. >> So the um the other question about with

[19:52] the layout the density of the entire development meets this target. It's just

[19:57] this particular application or is it looking at the entire development which

[20:02] did include or does include phase one >> the planner?

[20:06] » Yes, thank you for that followup. Um, so it would be just for this this proposal,

[20:12] not the original uh phase one. >> Deputy mayor,

[20:16] » I'll just I'll just mention one more. I I had um I have a couple more, but I'll

[20:20] let other people because maybe they'll come up with them. I I was a little bit

[20:24] concerned that in the documents um a street that's Island Street is

[20:30] continually referred to as Island Drive. Um just a little clarification point

[20:35] there. And at one point there's a reference to some place called Subway

[20:39] Drive. I'm not too sure where that is in Southampton, but I'm pretty confident

[20:44] it's it's not in this part of Southampton. But um you know it's uh it

[20:50] it just is concerning when there's there's type typo errors like that that

[20:56] um um really shouldn't happen. Anyway, thank you Mr. Mayor.

[21:00] » Thank you council man. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor and through you. Um

[21:06] I have a question regarding the hydrogeeological

[21:10] environmental assessment. So um my understanding is that there's been phase

[21:15] one hydrogeeological environmental assessment completed and that there is

[21:20] still a phase two outstanding uh and we're being asked to

[21:25] um approve a draft subdivision agreement pending

[21:32] uh successful completion of the phase 2 environmental assessment. Now in here it

[21:38] talks about the building types. Is the site the phase 2 environmental

[21:44] assessment dependent on whether the homes that are going to be built are on

[21:48] slab or whether they have basement and if they're on slab does that negate the

[21:53] need for the second phase EA on the hydraological

[22:00] conditions >> the planner.

[22:03] » Thank you through Mayor Sharponos. So their applicant has submitted an updated

[22:08] phase one assessment as you've noted. They've also submitted a draft phase 2

[22:12] assessment which has been circulated to to town to the town and the consulting

[22:16] engineer who's doing the peer review for the town. Um that document we've

[22:21] included a condition in the proposed conditions of draft approval which would

[22:25] require finalization of that document. I understand in speaking with the

[22:29] proponent that document is is ready to be submitted in its final form. Um but

[22:34] that that the town did have some outstanding comments and concerns that

[22:38] uh we will review before that report is finalized and so we are looking to

[22:42] include that as a condition of of draft approval and uh that be to the

[22:47] satisfaction of the town >> councelor.

[22:51] So it it it's going to we're going to get the phase 2 report to our

[22:54] satisfaction irregardless of the building types that are going to be

[22:58] there. >> The planner.

[23:02] » Yes. Thank you for the follow-up. Um, so yes, there there is also a condition

[23:06] included in the proposed conditions that would require all development to be slab

[23:10] on grade because of the high groundwater conditions. The phase 2 report is

[23:15] required regardless because there is residential uses proposed that will be

[23:18] on the ground floor. >> Okay, further questions? Uh, councelor

[23:24] Dinsky.

[23:27] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you, most of my questions have been answered.

[23:33] Not to my satisfaction, but they've been answered. Um,

[23:38] I'm in agreement with the deputy mayor. I read this report. Granted, I did it

[23:44] between 1 and 2 in the morning one night when I couldn't sleep. But I read this

[23:49] report and

[23:52] it was one draft approval after another draft approval after this after that.

[23:59] And I thought I came up with 12. Now I could be wrong, but I thought I came up

[24:06] with 12 different things that hadn't been done yet.

[24:12] And I think we have to do the right thing. And the right thing may be

[24:18] allowing this uh subdivision to go ahead, but not in my eyes not the way it

[24:23] is right now. Uh because there are too many as uh the deputy mayor said

[24:30] unanswered questions and uh I simply

[24:36] I simply can't uh do that. I've looked at it again when I came here at six and

[24:43] and looked at it again and it's still one after another an issue a report

[24:50] something is outstanding. So I can't at this time

[24:58] support this application. I would much rather us have far more information than

[25:04] we have. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Helpin.

[25:09] » Thank you mayor and through you. Um and one of the proposed conditions of draft

[25:14] approval condition 13 states about the slab on grade buildings etc. But at the

[25:20] end of it it says the cost to design and construct improvements to the downstream

[25:26] storm drainage systems as approved by the town of so shores are solely respons

[25:30] are the sole responsibility of the owner. What do we have any idea what

[25:35] those downstream improvements

[25:39] would mean? And I believe this is into catchment drain 12.

[25:46] » The planner.

[25:57] » Uh thank you through you, Mayor Sharbonos. So um I don't know the

[26:01] specific details in terms of what upgrades are required but there are

[26:05] substantial flooding issues that are still to be addressed to the

[26:09] satisfaction of the town and the consulting engineer to ensure that um

[26:13] the current municipal infrastructure and any proposed upgrades are able to

[26:17] accommodate that storm water management um in the downstream location. So I I

[26:23] can't give you specifics at this point. Um but that is a condition uh for that

[26:28] to be addressed and to be covered by the applicant.

[26:32] » The counselor. >> Uh thank you Marin through you. Uh I I

[26:37] really support this development. I I think I like what they're doing with the

[26:42] um with the rail trail. I I like how they're transferring land to us. I like

[26:47] how they're uh the tree retention. I think it is a wellthoughtout and I I

[26:52] want to say that like it's I'm sorry for the difficulty in

[26:58] redoing this draft plan now because it was certainly easier to do 20 years ago

[27:04] than it is today with the added regulation. But my my biggest fear is

[27:10] the is the storm water management and and where that's going to go. And you

[27:16] know, just at our last council meeting, we, you know, we we talked about

[27:20] catchment 12, and there's $2.28 million worth of work to do to bring that up to

[27:25] grade. Um there's

[27:30] uh I I really support this, but I I'm unfortunately I feel like I need to see

[27:36] a few more of these reports finalized. The the groundwater level and the storm

[27:42] water management issue. Thank you. Thank you. Further comments the vice deputy

[27:47] mayor. >> Yep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um I just

[27:51] um [clears throat] was wondering through you to the planner. We talked about the

[27:55] environmental assessment phase two. Um how long have we had that that plan? And

[28:02] where are we at with the review of the environmental assessment? Um when do we

[28:08] expect when do we expect that to be um firmed up?

[28:13] » The planner Uh yes, thank you for the question. So

[28:17] the environmental site assessment phase 2 was received on um the draft report on

[28:23] May the 8th. Um we we have not received the final version and it has been

[28:29] circulated for town staff review as well as the the peerreview consultant and so

[28:35] there are comments um that that are available and included in the package

[28:39] with respect to that assessment.

[28:43] payment >> to the plan. Are you you haven't

[28:45] received the final version from the from the developer or you haven't seen the

[28:51] final version because of the delays with staff reviewing it. Where's the delay?

[28:59] » The planner. >> Yes, thank you. Um so, so I can't speak

[29:04] entirely for where that delay might have occurred. I know we have been working

[29:08] diligently with town staff and and the consultant um for the applicant to

[29:14] resolve outstanding concerns. >> Deputy mayor.

[29:19] » Yeah. I just you know I I think one of the things

[29:23] this council's been trying work so hard to do is to speed up the planning

[29:28] process. And I just think that we're, you know, they just I I I don't think we

[29:33] need to be approving willy-nilly or half-hazardly. I I don't I don't I I'm

[29:38] not suggesting that, but when I hear a report May,

[29:44] three 3 4 months ago, um seems to be a long time. And I I just think that um

[29:50] you know, this this this plan was approved some 20 years ago and lapsed.

[29:55] And I guess the question, how many years ago did this plan lapse? Was it 10 years

[30:00] ago, 12 years ago? When when when did the original plan of subdivision lapse?

[30:06] » The planner?

[30:14] » Uh yes, thank you. So the original uh approval was in 2004 and it lapsed in

[30:20] 2015. So under the current planning act that

[30:24] does allow for um lapsed subdivisions to be potentially deemed not to have lapsed

[30:30] but there are certain criteria that do need to be met and this subdivision did

[30:34] not meet that criteria. >> Basically mayor um so I think you know

[30:39] there's there's a lot of good marriage with this dating back 15 20 years ago

[30:43] and there's still a lot of marriage today. I I like the idea of the the rail

[30:47] trail work that's that's going on the s rail trail association back this 100%.

[30:51] Um, I understand there's some progress being made with the traffic flow from

[30:55] Adelaide Street out on on Elbert Street. I I thought at one point we received a

[31:01] grant for some some work on the intersection there, but um I just asked

[31:05] that question today and staff are still getting back to me. Um I did receive one

[31:10] response, but um I thought we had moved a little further ahead with with the

[31:15] intersection changes there. We listened to the public. We applied for funding

[31:18] and I think there's some good work happening behind the scenes. Um,

[31:23] you know, I think from a inter land tribunal standpoint, we we went through

[31:29] this with marketry too and um didn't support that. Of course, land tribunal

[31:35] um came along and supported it and approved it and I I just wondering if um

[31:42] you know I I'm not sure where this votes going to go on this. I guess what I'm

[31:45] hearing from council, you just need more information. There's a lot of un undone

[31:49] work yet. And I and um you know, I hope we can get that sooner than later

[31:53] because I don't think we should hold up this planning process any any further.

[31:57] At least um [snorts] let's just try and get it moved along. But I I guess my

[32:03] question to staff back to staff again, Mr. mayor would be um

[32:08] when [clears throat] when do you see this you know there's there's servicing

[32:12] there's storm water management the hydro geology assessment phase two

[32:16] environmental assessment geotechnical conditions when will we receive that

[32:21] completed information are we at the mercy of the developer to get that

[32:26] [clears throat] right that information to us I'm just trying to get I'm trying

[32:29] to understand how much they're not giving to us versus how how how much we

[32:34] need to speed the process up a little longer from a staffing standpoint. So,

[32:38] I'm a little confused with what's what's missing. I I I kind of like the

[32:43] approving principle because I think this is forthcoming this information. I don't

[32:47] think we should hold up any further. But when will we see something again back at

[32:53] this table? Would it be a month, two months? Is it the new council? When will

[32:57] when is this coming back? >> The planner.

[33:00] » Uh thank you for the question. So just on your earlier comment with respect to

[33:06] um when when you might uh see this

[33:10] application again, it's provided on whether or not or how council decides on

[33:15] the application this evening. So uh if council were to approve the amendments

[33:20] and to support in principle the draft plan of subdivision, uh the next step

[33:24] would be for this uh draft plan of subdivision application to be brought

[33:28] forward to county council for a decision. And if that was also a

[33:32] favorable decision, then um this item would likely return to this council uh

[33:37] with the agreement. But I perhaps would turn that over to to the manager for the

[33:42] town. >> Manager.

[33:46] » Uh thank you. And through you, Mayor Sherno. Uh yes, that's correct. If it

[33:49] advances to a draft approval, the next time this would return to council would

[33:54] be with a draft uh subdivision agreement for consideration.

[33:59] Deputy Mayor, >> just just one last comment. Um I I am

[34:04] going to support this. Um and and it may not be enough votes to to move this

[34:09] through, but you know, it's it's a it's support in principle. And what we're

[34:13] saying to the developers is that we're subject to resolutions through condition

[34:18] draft approval of outstanding issues relating to servicing, storm water

[34:22] management, hydro geology, tech, geotechnical conditions, and noise. They

[34:26] know they have to provide that. They know they have to provide that and um I

[34:30] think we need to send the message back to the developers which is a great plan

[34:34] and council help said so and I think I councelor deinskills will say this is a

[34:39] great development maybe not just yet but I think we shouldn't be delaying this

[34:43] any further and um I think we need to be supporting in principle so I will be

[34:48] supporting the resolution >> thank you very much councelor stack

[34:53] » I'm shrinking suddenly um I just a couple process questions I think I ask a

[34:58] similar question every time. But so for this, if we were to not approve the um

[35:05] effectively get when we get down to the bylaw, we don't approve the bylaw and we

[35:09] say no, we want to go back and have the conditions for draft approval met before

[35:14] we come back. How is it possible to just go right into the subdivision agreement?

[35:19] Like what what I'm trying to understand is are we actually materially delaying

[35:23] them by asking them to complete what we have already said we are going to

[35:27] require completion before we approve the final plan

[35:31] » the planner.

[35:36] » Uh thank you for the question. So if this council this evening decided to

[35:40] defer the application um that would be a time delay for the applicant. So their

[35:45] their amendment specifically um would would wait until a report is brought

[35:50] back to this council um with more refinements potentially to the

[35:55] conditions of draft approval. And so that that would be at least a month

[35:59] delay to bring that back to to the next council meeting. Um again that would

[36:04] then push out the timeline with respect to a follow-up report to county council

[36:08] as well. It's

[36:12] » probably more of a statement than a question, but I think um and I'm

[36:17] probably sounding like my mother, which is a different thing. Like you have to

[36:19] learn, you've managed to wait since or that the developers managed to wait from

[36:24] 2015 to today, so 11 years to bring this back. I think we've seen a lot of

[36:29] concerns from residents about some of the outstanding issues around the

[36:33] environmental assessment, drainage issues, all all manner of issues that

[36:37] have been um raised by several residents. So I just I am struggling um

[36:44] I'm struggling to approve this not because I just to be clear not because I

[36:48] actually have a objection to the development itself. Um I think the rail

[36:52] trail discussion is very good. I ran that trail the other day. I thought okay

[36:56] this would be great to protect. I think there's a lot of opportunity um for

[36:59] noise barriers. I think that development makes sense in the community. But I I do

[37:04] think we should recognize that where folks have raised concerns. And I think,

[37:09] you know, we all know when it comes to flooding and drainage, people get

[37:13] particularly concerned. And I know that there's been some concerns raised um

[37:17] about the environmental assessment because it, you know, there are some

[37:21] concerns about localized I think the fuel whatever that was underground that

[37:26] there are some concerns there. I just the only reason I'm not going to I'm

[37:30] just being candid is the only reason I'm not going to support this. I just think

[37:32] like let's finish some of the more material issues out so that people can

[37:35] feel more comfortable that the town's completed its due diligence. So when you

[37:38] tell us that the reports have been submitted, I'm just struggling with why

[37:42] it's being brought to us without reviewing and finalizing the reports

[37:47] like the reports that the developer had to provide.

[37:50] » Bler >> um just as a as a followup um to that

[37:54] point and I believe another member of council had raised a question about

[37:58] delays in the process. So with the most recent large resubmission for this

[38:03] application to address comments from from the county town and other agencies,

[38:08] the applicant had indicated in their response matrix that they had provided

[38:12] certain studies with that submission which in fact they were not provided and

[38:16] had not been finalized. So there was a delay there and that is why we also had

[38:20] recommended that some of those reports including the hydrogeeological

[38:24] assessment um be um moved forward with uh conditions of draft approval.

[38:33] » Hen sorry so sorry just so we're clear

[38:37] because I'm hearing some commentary in in the gallery here.

[38:42] So just so I'm clear, the developer did not submit a complete package in the

[38:47] original application. Is that is that what you're saying?

[38:49] » The planner. >> Yes. Thank you. So um I haven't been

[38:54] part of all of those discussions, but my understanding was that um there was

[38:57] material and information provided to address the comments that have been

[39:01] provided by uh agencies through the through the original round of comments.

[39:07] Um but it was not a full resubmission um which would include a finalized report.

[39:13] » Councelor Stack. Okay. Councelor Helpin. >> Thank you. Mayor and through you. Um is

[39:20] it possible that there's three recommendations there. Is it possible

[39:25] that the third recommendation that we vote on that and we because I would

[39:28] accept this a council support in principle the county approved the draft

[39:32] plan by etc. I I won't uh read the whole thing, but we're

[39:38] approving it in principle, but we're just not passing the bylaw yet. And

[39:43] would that allow it to move forward or would you like me to read that for

[39:48] the record? Do you have any comments of that the

[39:52] planner? >> Uh so thank you for the question. So, in

[39:57] response, uh, we would be looking for the amendments to to move forward, uh,

[40:02] before we would take a report to county council on the subdivision, um, simply

[40:07] because, uh, we are looking to make sure the appropriate permissions are in place

[40:11] to facilitate that future land division. >> Yeah. To be clear, you can't do the you

[40:17] can't do the draft plan subdivision without amending the zoning and the

[40:20] official plan, right? One has to follow the other.

[40:25] the council helping. >> Um

[40:30] I'm going to think for a second. Thank you.

[40:34] » And the deputy mayor,

[40:38] » I don't know how um to to ask for a deferral rather than a vote at this

[40:44] stage, but um I really do think that there's key information that's missing.

[40:49] Um, and as councelor Stack said, you know, the the due diligence um aspect, I

[40:54] think we need to have complete confidence that that we've received what

[41:00] we should receive um when we're making decisions that potentially impact not

[41:05] just um potential new residents of town or or people buying a new house in town,

[41:10] moving around, but also existing neighborhoods and infrastructure under

[41:15] the ground. And I just um you know even the imprincipal part if some of the

[41:20] reports that come in have information that requires a real redirect or

[41:25] rethinking or redesign. Um you know that then what happens is it going to just be

[41:32] oh well let's just work through this and figure it out. Um when you know we

[41:37] should have had that information up front. I'm concerned um that um any kind

[41:43] of cost element that the town is is um going to be involved with um because we

[41:50] are often involved with development proposals with some taxpayer funded

[41:54] aspects. Um in the absence of complete information and and a a really defined

[42:00] um sense of storm water management and other um technical things with

[42:05] infrastructure. um there's potential there for things to

[42:09] come up that um you know if we if we just waited and got the information up

[42:15] front so that there was a clear understanding I think that that would be

[42:18] very helpful to our staff but also be um good messaging to the community that um

[42:25] everything's been thought about everything's been considered

[42:27] everything's been reviewed everything's been questioned and then a decision was

[42:32] rendered I just think there's a lot of information still missing so I will not

[42:36] be supporting um the way that the motion was worded up front. Um I would um I I

[42:43] think the development, you know, has some good points in that it's a

[42:47] continuation of something from a number of years ago and um makes sense because

[42:52] it's um you know, there's existing infrastructure there. There were roads

[42:55] planned through that area. Um albeit there's been some adjustments there. So,

[42:59] the development itself is is um quite possibly a very good idea, but I just

[43:05] don't think that we have what we need um to ensure that the town um is in good

[43:13] shape in terms of taxpayer funded expenses, but also just in terms of our

[43:17] own long-term plan with with the way we manage services um in the community.

[43:22] Thank you. >> Thank you. Of course, you asked um how

[43:26] you could um proceed with a deferral and a motion to defer is how you would do

[43:31] that. So, I would entertain that at any time if that's what council wish to do.

[43:34] Although, I would say if council wish to do that, I would um specifically

[43:40] set out what things you're deferring, what you're waiting for. Um I assume

[43:45] this hydrogeeological assessment or sorry, pardon me, the geote technical

[43:48] investigation report would be one of those things. I don't know what else.

[43:52] But I would say in fairness to the applicant, um if you're doing a

[43:56] deferral, then you should identify what of the what information you're looking

[44:00] for um to have brought back um in order for council to have what it thinks it

[44:08] needs to make a decision on this. Is there further discussion?

[44:15] Councelor Duck, >> I don't know if this is a point of

[44:19] order, but we do have, I believe, the proponent in the room who keeps making

[44:24] comments. Can we can we hear from him rather than having this?

[44:28] » No, we can't hear from members of the public. We're not in the public meeting

[44:31] setting at this time. We can talk to the planner. You can ask questions of the

[44:33] planner, the deputy mayor. >> Order. Come to order, please. Come to

[44:39] order. It's not a public meeting. We're we're

[44:44] uh going to proceed in normal process. We can talk to the planner if we want.

[44:49] Well, I'm sorry about that, but that isn't the case. The deputy mayor.

[44:55] » Um I'm I'm doing this on the fly, so I might might miss something. So, I'll um

[45:02] hope that a colleague if they if they notice that I missed something, but I

[45:06] would move that um um this item be deferred pending. Um uh there's comments

[45:14] in the report pending uh storm water considerations being fully addressed to

[45:19] the satisfaction of the town. Um that a

[45:30] concerns regarding the absence of a hydro hydrogeeological assessment um be

[45:36] addressed to the satisfaction of the town. that um

[45:44] complete information regarding um the situation with Pete and its removal be

[45:51] provided um and the submission of a geotechnical investigation and report um

[45:57] be submitted. Also, there was one more here. Uh, that the submission of a final

[46:05] phase 2 environmental site assessment be provided to the satisfaction of the town

[46:10] of Sagging Shores. I'm sure I missed a couple, but those were the ones that

[46:16] were very specifically mentioned in the planning report as as being of concern

[46:21] to the town and not being completely addressed.

[46:24] » All right. Well, that's Do you have that, the clerk? You have that recorded?

[46:30] All right, it's moved by the deputy mayor. Is there a seconder for the

[46:34] deferral at this stage, seconded by councelor Demenky? We'll wait for the

[46:38] language here.

[47:01] So I have a resolution. This is it. The council defer consideration of

[47:06] » Can you refresh? >> Oh, I have to refresh. Sorry.

[47:14] No. Okay. So here I see it. So the

[47:19] resolution uh moved by the deputy mayor, second by council Dinsky is that council

[47:23] defer consideration of draft plan of subdivision application S-20225.004

[47:28] local official plan amendment application L-225-016

[47:31] and zoning by amendment application Z-2025-027

[47:35] SKG holdings/chantry crossing and directed the following information be

[47:39] submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of the town prior to the

[47:42] applications being brought back to council. storm water management

[47:45] considerations and supporting information, a hydraological a

[47:48] hydrogeeological assessment, complete information regarding the pete uh

[47:53] including its proposed removal, a geotechnical submission and supporting

[47:57] report and a phase three environmental site assessment

[48:01] discussion. The deputy mayor and then councelor stack and then councelor May.

[48:08] » You did say storm water management there up front. Okay, thank you.

[48:12] Okay, I have councelor stack and then councelor May.

[48:16] » Sorry, I just wanted to clarify. So, I'm sure I'm just slow today. So, some

[48:22] of the items that uh the deputy mayor indicated is basis for deferral. I just

[48:27] can um can the planner just confirm those were those have the final versions

[48:32] of those have been submitted to the town or have not been submitted?

[48:35] » The planner. >> Yes. So for some of those reports uh for

[48:41] example the storm water management report there is a preliminary storm

[48:44] water management report uh there are town staff comments on that but it is

[48:50] typical through the draft plan of subdivision process that a final report

[48:54] would be prepared as a condition of approval. So that would be an example

[48:58] where it's fairly standard to have to have a final storm water management

[49:02] report submitted at a detailed design stage. uh the hydrogeeological report

[49:08] town staff um as well as the the phase two and and I just wanted to clarify in

[49:13] the deferral it's phase two report instead of phase three um the that uh

[49:19] report my understanding is ready to be submitted by the proponent um but uh

[49:24] would still need to be reviewed by town staff so we have included it as well as

[49:28] a condition of approval so all of the items I believe that um that uh that

[49:34] have been noted in the deferral ederal request are uh included as conditions of

[49:38] draft approval. Um should council opt not to defer the application and instead

[49:44] endorse the the draft plan of subdivision in principle.

[49:48] » Council stack. >> So could so just to maybe a discussion

[49:52] about the amendment. I'm I'm if the standard sort of the drainage items are

[49:57] pretty standard to come in through the the next phase. I'm a bit more reticent

[50:02] to include in our condition like our deferral things that are pretty

[50:06] standard. I think where I would say is can we narrow can we further narrow the

[50:09] scope so we're not unduly delaying this. So I think the hydro geology would be

[50:13] the the issue that concerns me the most just for discussion.

[50:19] » Any comments for clarification any of that?

[50:23] Are there items here? Clarify for us. Are there items here that are um that we

[50:29] would normally have at this stage of the process that we don't have uh items that

[50:35] have been listed? I mean, I think that's what council's coming down to here.

[50:39] There's a question about what should we have normally when we're when council's

[50:44] making a decision at this moment um that we don't have if anything um and which

[50:51] of these things would we normally uh only uh be considering after approval

[50:56] and at as a condition? Can you clarify that for us uh the planner?

[51:03] » Uh yes, thank you. So um there are often situations where we do have the

[51:09] necessary report. So in for example the applicant has made a resubmission. There

[51:14] are comments um for example from the consulting engineer doing peer review on

[51:18] behalf of the town where there are outstanding issues that are still to be

[51:22] resolved. And so we've had um through the county planner a recommendation that

[51:28] those matters um could be addressed through the preparation of a final

[51:33] report which is how we've had it worded in the conditions. So so we are

[51:37] comfortable providing the recommendation to council today that these matters can

[51:41] be addressed through final report to be submitted through the conditions of

[51:45] draft approval. Um and so I use the example of storm water management that

[51:50] is a typical um we at the start of the process we do get a preliminary report

[51:56] and then as a condition of approval there is a final report. Now storm water

[52:00] conditions on this site I would say or or or maybe um town staff have expressed

[52:06] a concern with how infrastructure is going to handle that storm water and

[52:10] where that storm water is going and ensuring that it has properly taken into

[52:14] account existing development that's already there. things like that. And so

[52:18] there are issues that are still to be resolved, but they can be provided

[52:21] through a final report and a condition of approval. I would note um that if

[52:26] council does um decide to defer the applications this evening, um the the

[52:31] applicant has been in a position that they are able to appeal the applications

[52:35] for non-decision. Um they're already in that position and so I'll just flag that

[52:39] that that would be a potential risk uh to the applications if they are

[52:43] deferred. >> Okay. Councelor Halpin. Sorry, pardon

[52:47] me. Councelor Matt and Halpin. Sorry about that.

[52:50] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you, um I I don't see myself supporting

[52:57] the deferral. um backed up by the last comment that I

[53:02] just heard, but it seems to me that that the developer and I'm getting that

[53:07] impression somewhere that the developer has submitted all of the required

[53:12] documentation and all the reports and the studies that are required and that

[53:16] they are at some stage of being reviewed and approved and peer reviewed by town

[53:22] staff or consultants and uh and I don't I don't see that we wouldn't be able to

[53:30] satisfy the requirements of the bylaw. When we get the final approval and some

[53:34] of these aren't done to our satisfaction at that time, council will have the

[53:40] ability to not approve the final draft subdivision. But there are the the

[53:46] process as it's been laid out is is one that we've seen before with draft plan

[53:51] subdivisions where uh some of the reviews haven't been maybe totally

[53:55] complete but and especially backed up by the fact that this was an approved

[54:00] subdivision previously. So a lot of those things would have had to have been

[54:05] done 20 years ago when this was approved the first time. So, I'm confident that

[54:10] that the developer has completed all the steps that he needs to do, and it's just

[54:15] a matter of the the staff and the developer

[54:20] reviewing and getting their eyes dotted and tees crossed in order for this to

[54:25] proceed to the county level. And then finally, it will come back here. And at

[54:30] that point, we will be insistent or whoever's sitting here will be insistent

[54:34] that everything is complete, everything's final, everything is done

[54:38] to the satisfaction of the town. So, I won't be supporting the deferral and I

[54:44] will be supporting the original motion, which is to approve the draft plan of

[54:48] subdivision. Thank you. >> I just want to clarify the process there

[54:52] because um so plans of subdivision receive final approval at the county

[54:57] level, right? they don't come back to the town. So, it'll be it'll go from

[55:02] here because they're the approval authority for a plan of subdivision that

[55:05] the county council is. So, um so there's no this is the last decision that this

[55:09] council will make everything from this point forward assuming we do this. We're

[55:14] recommending in principle that the county approves approval authority

[55:16] approve the draft plan subdivision. County council won't even take up a cons

[55:23] of subdivision without such a motion having been passed by the lower tier

[55:26] council. But they are the f they are the decision maker. Um from this point

[55:30] forward um implementation will fall to staff. So at that point enforcement of

[55:37] the draft of the con the conditions that are now in draft or the d the conditions

[55:41] of draft approval will be undertaken by uh town staff primarily just for clarity

[55:47] about how this all goes. Okay. Is that clear enough?

[55:52] Yeah, I think it is clear. But um will when it gets to county council,

[55:57] will county does county council give it the same level of scrutiny that we

[56:02] apparently are here today or do they kind of take our word for it that if the

[56:08] town's passed it, it must be okay? Well, my experience, county counselors

[56:12] are diligent about their work. They also uh do um pay close attention to the

[56:18] recommendations of lower tier councils with respect to things happening in

[56:21] their municipalities give a great deal of difference generally to lower tier

[56:25] councils unless there's some kind of um very obvious problem.

[56:31] Uh the [clears throat] council helping then deputy mayor.

[56:35] » Thank you, mayor. through you. I I'm I'm not supportive of the length of [snorts]

[56:40] the list of reasons for deferment. There there's only one thing that I'm

[56:45] concerned about and that's the storm water management plan. And perhaps I

[56:49] shouldn't be, but but so what does it look like if it comes back to to us that

[56:56] it's that line that scares me so much about the downstream infrastructure

[57:01] required? what what happens or what's the likelihood of that happening? It

[57:07] just that's the only thing I'm really uncomfortable with because it just seems

[57:11] so open-ended, you know, like if there is. So, what

[57:15] does it look like if they say, "Oh, well, we we've got to do um um you know,

[57:21] we we we have to do upgrades to drain 12." Like, what does that look like or

[57:29] what happens then? the planner.

[57:33] » Uh yes, thank you uh through you, Mayor Charbano. So um if the draft plan of

[57:38] subdivision were to be approved with the the conditions before you today, the

[57:42] applicant would then start working towards addressing those conditions. So

[57:46] for example, um to address the storm water management, they would need to

[57:49] provide a final storm water management report and with and within that report,

[57:53] it would provide recommendations that are required to to implement their their

[57:58] plan. If that report was not to the satisfaction of town staff and its

[58:03] consulting engineer, then town staff would not be able to write what we refer

[58:07] to as a clearance letter. So any agency uh and the municipality who are listed

[58:13] as clearance agencies in the conditions of draft approval are required to submit

[58:18] a letter to the county indicating how the conditions have been addressed and

[58:22] if they're satisfied that that final approval can be given. If for some

[58:26] reason storm water couldn't be addressed, um there was not an

[58:30] appropriate resolution, then there would be no clearance letter from the

[58:34] municipality and the county would not be able to recommend final approval, in

[58:39] which case the applicant would not be able to create the lots. However, they

[58:43] would still have the the designations and the zoning in place. So so they

[58:48] could come back and and submit um another application at another time.

[58:55] » Okay. Thank you. So, this would be the last time that this comes before

[58:59] council, but it's not the last time that it receives the scrutiny of the town of

[59:04] Sine Shores. Is that a correct statement to say?

[59:09] » Yes, thank you. That that is correct. The detailed design is where you get

[59:13] into the very detailed engineering drawings and submissions and um

[59:17] resolving any outstanding comments or concerns that had been provided by by

[59:21] town staff, their engineer and uh the applicable agencies.

[59:27] » Council Coin, >> uh thank you. It is this list of things

[59:36] that need to be finished up. That's what kind of scared me away. Is this list

[59:40] bigger than a lot of lists or or or like uh is it common to have this many things

[59:47] that we're waiting for the final on the planner?

[59:54] » I don't know if I can necessarily answer that question. Uh each each file is

[59:57] different um and dependent on on the site conditions um and the issues that

[1:00:02] are being brought forward. >> Yep. Council Helen.

[1:00:07] » Thank you, Mayor. Through you and last one. I I won't support the deferment as

[1:00:11] it stands. Thank you. >> Okay. The deputy mayor.

[1:00:16] » Um thank you and through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh

[1:00:21] thanks Councelor Halpin for that. I was making it up on the fly. Um in the uh

[1:00:26] report that we received there is an indication in there about um related to

[1:00:31] storm water management and master servicing and that sort of thing that

[1:00:36] the plan plans that exist didn't take into

[1:00:40] account this project specifically that it's it's a little bit different. I

[1:00:45] really um don't think that um you know the information that the planner just

[1:00:51] provided about um how there's um the potential for an appeal and that you

[1:00:58] know that timeliness passed that wasn't in anything that we received. So I'm I'm

[1:01:01] a little bit concerned that that's just gets dropped into the conversation. it

[1:01:06] seems um a little bit desperate um in some ways and I would hope that any

[1:01:11] developer hoping um to have a good project in our community um respects

[1:01:17] public input and counselor input enough to recognize that you know ultimately we

[1:01:23] want what's good for the community. Um they I think want what's good for the

[1:01:27] community too and expect to make a little bit of profit from it or a lot of

[1:01:31] profit as as the case may be. But I I would like to believe that a a developer

[1:01:36] would not put the threat um over anybody on on council or planning staff that

[1:01:42] well, I'll just take this out on appeal. So that that that took me by surprise

[1:01:46] when that was said um because I do think that there's some merit to the whole

[1:01:52] project. I really think that that there's some fundamental information

[1:01:56] missing um from what we're seeing before us. this is the last time we're going to

[1:02:00] see this and ultimately, you know, our staff then have to quote unquote figure

[1:02:06] it out. Um, and um, sometimes I think we should be providing them with a little

[1:02:12] more substantial um, information or support or a decision that then gives

[1:02:18] them the the impetus um, or the the confidence to follow through with some

[1:02:23] things. There's an awful lot of unanswered questions. And when an

[1:02:26] engineering firm, Burnside, that we hired to provide us with advice, when

[1:02:31] their report tells us that this is missing, that they can't comment on this

[1:02:35] because there's not enough information, I think we should take that seriously. I

[1:02:39] respect what the planner said though about, you know, that it's typical that

[1:02:43] there are some um things that aren't completely finished. However, there's an

[1:02:48] awful lot that was mentioned to us as not being finished. So um if if it would

[1:02:54] um you know be helpful um even just getting the deferral on the basis of

[1:02:59] storm water management that would be okay with me too. Um but I just think

[1:03:03] that that there are enough unanswered questions here that a slight pause to

[1:03:08] enable some of these reviews to take place to have some questions answered

[1:03:12] will give our staff the ability to better represent the town's interest in

[1:03:17] the process and that they won't have to figure it out. that there will be some

[1:03:22] information before them that they can then make good decisions using that

[1:03:25] information as well. So, um I don't think we should be afraid of of a that

[1:03:30] the timeline has passed on going for an appeal. I would like to believe that a

[1:03:35] developer who's been listening and I think has obviously listened because

[1:03:39] there have been some adjustments made that they have um an interest in um

[1:03:45] respecting the community enough to um to take take a little little um

[1:03:51] interruption I guess in the process to have a slight delay to get some other

[1:03:55] information before the people that it matters to have us receive information

[1:03:59] that should matter to us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So if if there's a way that I can

[1:04:04] shorten the um the uh request to defer down to just the storm water management

[1:04:10] situation, I will do that. Um in respect of what councelor um Halpin has said,

[1:04:15] » you're the mover, so you can do that as long as the secondary agrees.

[1:04:18] » Well, I then I will do that. >> All right. So that's just an amendment

[1:04:23] made by the mover and secondary to the motion on the floor and we'll get the

[1:04:26] vice deputy mayor. >> I be brief. I don't think anyone's

[1:04:30] saying we're not respecting public input. I think we had a really really

[1:04:33] good public meeting here and the room was full and lots was said and I think

[1:04:38] the developers have gone back and made some very positive changes this

[1:04:41] development. So I don't think anyone's saying we're not respecting public

[1:04:44] input. I think we've really respected respected public input. I think they

[1:04:48] have listened. So I think they've done some good things with adjusting the uh

[1:04:51] the development. I I you know the arguments presented tonight I I'm

[1:04:56] wondering and I kind of agree with that statement with the interior land

[1:05:00] tribunal. I'm not sure this will stand stand up to the test of time with the

[1:05:04] arguments being made, but um I you know I I think the planner as Karine I think

[1:05:08] you've done a really good job as the planner with this recommendation and you

[1:05:12] know I I go back I go right back to um I won't be supporting the deferral but I I

[1:05:17] go right back to that council support in principle

[1:05:23] subject to resolution through condition of draft approval of an outstanding

[1:05:27] issues and I agree as council may everything you said subject to

[1:05:31] resolution through conditions of draft approval. So, I think I've done a really

[1:05:34] good job with the report. I think there's room to make sure the developer

[1:05:37] gets to the county, to the town what we're requesting. And um so I I I just

[1:05:46] think we're delaying delaying delaying. We don't need to delay. I really uh so I

[1:05:51] won't be supporting the I won't be supporting the deferral. Will be

[1:05:56] supporting the recommendation. >> Okay. Councelor Stack.

[1:06:00] Um, I hate admitting this, but I think I

[1:06:03] might be changing my mind uh on the fly. And I think the reason is um

[1:06:09] so when we did the the Market Street uh vote almost four years ago, uh we ended

[1:06:15] up in in front of the land tribunal, we were unsuccessful. And I think what just

[1:06:19] causes me a bit of consternation and why I'm pausing on my original position is,

[1:06:24] you know, that comment that has been made and now we've sort of articulated

[1:06:28] potential legal positions about the strength of our argument on the public

[1:06:32] record which is not putting us in a great spot. Um

[1:06:37] so I think on that basis I'm going to avoid the I'm

[1:06:42] going to take a fairly risk informed decision and say let's you know I think

[1:06:46] we will have to follow the process which does not suggest that they are not

[1:06:50] without obligation to comply with the final conditions and I think the one

[1:06:55] question I had is going back to sort of the drainage issue if they if they are

[1:07:01] unable to demonstrate that they can I don't know address the drain drainage

[1:07:05] concerns appropriately. That is is that the basis upon which the

[1:07:10] county can according to the planning act deny the the final plan of subdivision?

[1:07:17] » Planner, >> sorry, could you just uh ask that

[1:07:22] question again please? So if and I'll if they don't if at in

[1:07:28] the end the developer does not meet the drainage conditions such that the

[1:07:32] existing infrastructure can't can't support it or whatever they can't meet

[1:07:37] the they can't address the issues raised in the in the report before us and so we

[1:07:42] can't sign we can't provide the clear the town can't provide the clearance

[1:07:46] letter and that goes to the county. the lack of a clearance letter. Can someone

[1:07:50] confirm to me that that's a legal basis upon which the county can decline a a

[1:07:57] subdivision approval? >> The planner.

[1:08:02] » Uh yes, through you. So, uh if we don't get the required clearance agency

[1:08:08] letters, then then we would not be recommending um final approval of the

[1:08:12] application.

[1:08:16] » Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Cal. >> Sorry, I'm going to be just a bit

[1:08:18] pnikity. The planning act entitles the county to say no when the conditions the

[1:08:27] the conditions are not met. >> The planner?

[1:08:31] » Yes, that's correct. >> Could I just clarify that though?

[1:08:34] Because to be clear, um like what happens is the draft plan subdivision

[1:08:40] goes to county council. County council approves the draft plan with the

[1:08:44] conditions. then the condition then the applicant um does the work and then

[1:08:49] their business isn't with the county anymore. It's with the town like in

[1:08:53] terms of clearing those conditions at least the ones that are subject are

[1:08:56] overseen by the town. Right. It's not just to be clear like

[1:09:01] it's not as like I think councelor Sack was was trying was asking and maybe I'm

[1:09:06] not saying what you're say what you were saying councelor stack so correct me if

[1:09:08] I'm wrong but that somehow this that these clearance letters would impact

[1:09:12] decision-m by county council but that isn't the case because all of that

[1:09:15] happens after approval by the county approval authority and then the

[1:09:20] implementation of the conditions happens downstream from there in a staff to to

[1:09:24] applicant basis. Am I right about that? Uh yes, thank you, Mayor Charbano. So um

[1:09:30] for final approval, the county does um provide sign off um or a clearance that

[1:09:38] would allow the applicant to create the lots. So if we don't get that final

[1:09:42] clearance letter from from the town or other agencies listed in the conditions,

[1:09:46] um which would include a final agreement uh being entered into between the the

[1:09:50] proponent and the town, um then we could potentially bring that back to county

[1:09:55] council. Right now that is a delegated um staff exercise for final approval.

[1:10:00] » Just to be clear though that that happens after council county council

[1:10:04] approved the draft plan and it happens at the staff level the county staff

[1:10:08] level and the town staff level unless there's some major problem. Sorry

[1:10:12] councelor stag. >> Yeah. So that generally aligns with with

[1:10:16] what I think I heard the first time. When you say we could direct direct it

[1:10:20] back to county council rather than staff. Is that

[1:10:24] pos? Is that what I heard? >> The planner.

[1:10:29] » Uh, yes. I'll have to look that up because I quite honestly haven't been

[1:10:33] through that that situation before. But that is my understanding is that um if

[1:10:38] it wasn't able to be resolved at the staff level, then we would bring that

[1:10:41] back to county council. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Dinsky. Sorry,

[1:10:47] Council Dinsky. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you. Just

[1:10:52] a couple of clarifications here. So the deputy mayor said and I've seconded that

[1:10:59] we defer the drainage

[1:11:03] issue. If that doesn't pass, does that mean

[1:11:08] approval in principle passes or do we have to have a a a vote on that?

[1:11:13] » No. this. So there's we your council is currently considering a motion to defer

[1:11:17] the entire application pending um further information on the storm water

[1:11:22] management question. Should that pass, it will be deferred. Should it fail,

[1:11:25] then we'll go back to considering the main question.

[1:11:30] Is there is that clear enough, council? >> Yeah, just hold on for a second.

[1:11:35] Uh oh. Oh, yes. I'm fine. I'm fine.

[1:11:43] » All right. Is there any further comments or questions before we consider the

[1:11:46] deferral? I um just wanted to uh comment. I think um

[1:11:55] now [clears throat] I'm kind of lost. I've lost my train of thought. I'm

[1:11:57] thinking about too many things. I think the uh the question um

[1:12:04] to me comes down to um you know in this draft plan of um subdivision there's I I

[1:12:16] don't know I guess I'm lost trying to think trying to get to where I was where

[1:12:19] I was where my mind was at but now I forgot. Sorry about that. Um

[1:12:25] yeah, I guess that's the question like condition 12 um in here. Uh what happens

[1:12:32] if the recommendation can't be um can't be carried out without changing the

[1:12:39] plan? I mean that's what it comes down to for me, right? So if we get these

[1:12:42] hydrogeeological or geotechnical investigation, storm water management

[1:12:47] studies and we find um at at some point downstream, pardon the pun, that um

[1:12:56] you know this thing isn't going to work the way it's laid out, the way the

[1:13:00] subdivision is designed, the way it's been approved. Um you know what happens

[1:13:05] at that point? I guess at that point the applicant, the developer has to come

[1:13:11] back and make revisions to this plan, right? Like that's where we're at.

[1:13:16] That's to me like it's a little confusing because we have this plan in

[1:13:20] front of us. It's contingent on some information that we don't yet have.

[1:13:24] That's not wholly unusual, but there are some things about this that may be a

[1:13:29] little different from what we've seen before. Um, if if that were to happen

[1:13:35] and those contingencies arose and changes had to be made to what we're

[1:13:40] considering approving tonight, what would happen then? Would would it be

[1:13:45] then on town staff or county staff to make changes or does it come back to

[1:13:50] council to change the plan the planner?

[1:13:55] » Yes, thank you mayor Sharono for the question. So uh if through uh detailed

[1:14:00] design so if the draft plan of subdivision was draft approved by the

[1:14:03] county and the applicant needed to make some adjustments to the lot lines or the

[1:14:09] blocks for example then that would be a revision to the draft plan of

[1:14:13] subdivision. So it would it be dependent on the extent of the proposed changes.

[1:14:19] So there are two streams. Um one is a major revision which would come back to

[1:14:24] town council. Um and then there are minor revisions so minor adjustments to

[1:14:29] lot lines and things like that which is a staff level um recommendation.

[1:14:35] So I guess that's the point for me like as long as it's understood by the

[1:14:40] applicant u by the community by council that you know if we if if the work that

[1:14:49] is yet to be done identifies issues that cannot be resolved within the context of

[1:14:54] this plan then then the applicant is going to have to come back and go

[1:14:59] through this process all over again to revise this plan. It seems risky to me

[1:15:05] for the applicant to hopefully they understand that and have

[1:15:11] a solid enough understanding based on the information in hand that that won't

[1:15:13] be the case. But that's it is a bit of a risk that exists and that and that has

[1:15:17] to be understood by everyone. Um and I assume that it is. I guess that is that

[1:15:24] that's that's a fair enough description of everybody's understanding the

[1:15:28] planner. Yes, that would be typical. Uh in in the

[1:15:32] case of detailed design where there are changes, then there would need to be a

[1:15:36] revision to the draft plan of subdivision. And again, dependent on the

[1:15:40] the scope of the changes, it would be a major or minor revision and potentially

[1:15:44] would trigger further amendments as well. So, it may come back to town

[1:15:48] council for a zoning bylaw amendment if you know setbacks or something were

[1:15:52] impacted uh because of this realignment of of boundaries. And I think also it

[1:15:58] needs to be made clear that you know as councelor Halpin pointed out in

[1:16:01] condition 13 the final sentence there cost to design and construct

[1:16:05] improvements to the downstream stormed drainage is is at this point at least

[1:16:10] not totally and completely understood what that might look like. Um so it has

[1:16:16] to be understood today by council by the applicant that that could be a very

[1:16:21] costly project. We don't know what it we don't necessarily exactly know what it

[1:16:25] will look like and I have to and to be clear like the town of Saging Chores is

[1:16:29] not going to absorb any of that cost and uh and it's going to be firm in its

[1:16:35] negotiating position on that. Uh right. So I think again although we don't fully

[1:16:40] understand necessarily sitting here today what that will look like, it's

[1:16:44] required in here and the town is going to be firm in holding the line and and

[1:16:49] requiring those items. I suppose that's just a statement that I'm making, but

[1:16:52] these are some of the things I just um it's an unusual situation we're in

[1:16:56] because we have a bit of a we have a bit of a split brain here between our county

[1:17:01] planner and the position of the town. And that's why we're struggling a bit

[1:17:05] here because we've read from the town some concern and the planners are

[1:17:08] recommending approval and we're that's why council is trying to mediate between

[1:17:12] those two positions and find the right spot. And I think it just has to be

[1:17:17] clear like the town's concerns are legitimate concerns. I'm not sure their

[1:17:21] concerns are with the overall development, but they are with the

[1:17:26] potential challenges that come with having to do this uh with making this

[1:17:31] approval without some of the information that they feel they need. So, um I think

[1:17:36] we're protected in this draft uh in these conditions of draft approval, but

[1:17:41] but it has to be understood by all that the town is going to um you know, it's

[1:17:46] going to uphold these conditions and and if it and if the worst happens and uh

[1:17:52] some of these um things we don't know yet turn out to require major changes to

[1:17:57] this plan of subdivision, then um it's just not going to get those signoffs and

[1:18:02] it's going to end up have to come back here to get changed. So that has to be

[1:18:04] well understood. Um all right those are my comments. Uh do you have a comment?

[1:18:12] Yeah the director. >> Yeah just a brief comment just in terms

[1:18:15] of and I know in terms of the deferral motion in terms of storm water

[1:18:20] management plan but um hydro geological studies geotechnical studies are often

[1:18:24] required to complete the storm water management plan. So I would suggest in

[1:18:28] terms of if you're moving forward with that motion that you incorporate

[1:18:31] hydrogeeological and the geotechnical to inform the storm water management plan

[1:18:37] if that's clear. >> Okay. Yeah. The deputy mayor and council

[1:18:40] Dinsky agree to that. Okay. I'll reread it once the

[1:18:47] clerk has updated it. What are the two things?

[1:18:52] » Hydrogen.

[1:19:05] Let me just or do you have something? Is it specific

[1:19:09] to the revisions the clerk is making to the motion? The deputy mayor.

[1:19:17] Should the motion fail, um, if are all of these reports that are are

[1:19:24] indicated as, you know, the owner that the owner submit this, that the owner

[1:19:29] submit that, that the owner do this, will all of those reports eventually

[1:19:33] show up on the public information that is available about this application?

[1:19:38] Will that will that all be updated as those things are received?

[1:19:43] » The planner, >> uh, thank you for the question. So, if

[1:19:47] the reports are submitted before the county takes a report to county council

[1:19:52] for a decision on the subdivision, then they will be posted online. But we after

[1:19:56] a decision is rendered on an application, we typically remove all of

[1:19:59] the materials from the website. So, anything that is submitted uh through

[1:20:04] should the subdivision be approved, anything that is submitted in response

[1:20:08] to conditions of approval uh would not be posted on on the website.

[1:20:14] » Okay. We're going to consider this motion to defer now. I just Is the

[1:20:18] wording together there? I don't know why it's

[1:20:22] I may have to read it off yours. I'm not seeing it there. All right. So, one more

[1:20:25] time. This is the motion to defer. Then the council defer consideration of draft

[1:20:29] plan of plan of subdivision application S2025.004

[1:20:32] local official plan amendment L-225.016 and zoning bylaw amendment Z-2025.027

[1:20:38] 027 SKG Holdings and direct that the following information be submitted and

[1:20:42] reviewed to the satisfaction of the town prior to the applications being brought

[1:20:45] back to council. Hydrogeeological and geotechnical studies to inform the storm

[1:20:50] water management considerations and supporting information. It has been

[1:20:53] moved and seconded. So I'll ask all in favor [clears throat]

[1:20:58] opposed. That's defeated. All right. So now we're

[1:21:02] back to the main question. Uh and the main question is already

[1:21:07] moved and seconded by uh Halpen and Mette. Uh any further questions or

[1:21:12] comments uh to the resolution? I might go ahead councelor Helpin.

[1:21:20] » Thank you Marin through you. I you know my my big concern was about just the

[1:21:26] amount of things that are left and my other big concern was what safeguard

[1:21:32] does the town have and after listening you know I I you know that if this

[1:21:40] doesn't come back as the mayor said our staff will be diligent if this stuff

[1:21:45] doesn't come back and that can stop it. Okay. So, it's not like if we advance

[1:21:52] this that we've given up any safeguards. We we haven't uh we haven't said that

[1:21:57] we're not going to enforce the letter of the law and make sure every I is dotted

[1:22:03] and every te is crossed and everything is met. So,

[1:22:08] there there's just a lot of them on the list though for me this time. Okay.

[1:22:12] Thank you. >> Thank you for the further comments. I

[1:22:15] might just comment that I think it's a a good development. uh in a you know uh a

[1:22:21] location that has been planned uh to be developed for a very long time. Uh and

[1:22:26] uh they've uh made some adjustments here. It's a good opportunity for us to

[1:22:31] um get municipal ownership over the rail trail there which I think is very

[1:22:35] positive thing. Um and they've made some adjustments to make the development make

[1:22:40] a little more sense I think than the than it did the last time it was um

[1:22:45] draft plan approved. So I think it it works a little better and um completes

[1:22:49] this uh uh long planned uh area of Southampton. So um so I think it'll be a

[1:22:56] good development and um and as councelor Halpin noted, I don't think although

[1:23:01] council and the town have sort of just spent uh an hour and a half struggling

[1:23:06] about uh some of the questions here, I really think it comes down to the risk.

[1:23:11] You know, it's the applicant who's taking the risk here, not the

[1:23:13] municipality. the applicant is wants to advance this uh wants it here today.

[1:23:18] It's here today. Um the unanswered questions, they have to answer them and

[1:23:22] if they and if they aren't answered to the satisfaction of the subdivision

[1:23:26] agreement, um the subdivision can't go ahead. And so it's it's really more

[1:23:30] their risk than ours in my view. But um but I wish them the best because I hope

[1:23:34] the development uh proceeds in accordance with all these rules because

[1:23:37] I think it'll be a good development. So, um, if there's nothing further, then all

[1:23:43] in favor and opposed. That's carried. Thank you.

[1:23:48] All right. So, now we're on to item seven. Oh, sorry about that. Yes. Get

[1:23:52] counselor Grace back.

[1:24:26] Okay, now we're on item 7.2, community improvement plan development charges

[1:24:30] review, and we'll turn that over to our planning policy coordinator.

[1:24:35] » Thank you. Thank you and through you, Mayor Shero. To provide a brief

[1:24:38] background on this file, an initial public meeting was held on May 19th,

[1:24:42] 2026, where the draft supplementary housing CIP update was presented and

[1:24:47] discussed. Following this, at the June 8th, 2026 Council meeting, a draft

[1:24:52] update to the DC bylaw was considered. At that time, direction was given to

[1:24:57] remove all discretionary exemptions from the town's DC bylaw and to incorporate

[1:25:01] those exemptions into the CIP. Following this direction, a review of the existing

[1:25:07] incentive programs was conducted by Sierra Planning and Management.

[1:25:11] The intention of this staff report, the consultant's memo and presentation

[1:25:15] attached is to provide an update on the scope and rationale of the planned

[1:25:18] changes to the community improvement plan prior to further draft amendments

[1:25:23] being prepared. We have consultants online from Sierra Planning and

[1:25:26] Management, Jonathan Hack, and Lindseay Cudmore. And I'll now turn it over to

[1:25:30] Lindsay online to walk through the incentives review in more detail.

[1:25:35] » Great. Thank you, Jordan. Uh, good evening, Mayor Charbano and members of

[1:25:39] council. Tonight, I'll provide a highle overview of the community improvement

[1:25:45] plan review being undertaken in response to the town's new development charge

[1:25:49] bylaw. Uh the purpose of today's presentation is really to summarize what

[1:25:53] has changed uh identify where potential incentive gap incentive gaps may um

[1:25:59] exist and to outline areas that we believe warrant further consideration

[1:26:04] through the CIP review process. Next slide please.

[1:26:12] So, the purpose of the re review um the new development charge bylaw removed

[1:26:17] several discretionary exemptions that um lower development costs for certain

[1:26:23] types of projects. Um subsequently, council directed staff to review whether

[1:26:28] the CIP should uh respond to these um exemptions that were lost. and our

[1:26:34] review really identifies what's already covered elsewhere and where some of the

[1:26:39] um gaps exist. Um gaps remain. Um a key outcome of our review is that the focus

[1:26:46] has really we've been able to narrow it to um industrial and commercial core

[1:26:52] development specifically. I can go through the the next few slides sort of

[1:26:56] detail that a bit more. Um but just a note on this slide here, we wanted to

[1:27:00] reiterate that any future uh incentives provided through new or modified CIP

[1:27:06] programs will um you know have an obligation require a municipal funding

[1:27:10] commitment to be able to fund them. Next slide please.

[1:27:18] So what's changed? Um so in a bit more detail here um on the left we're

[1:27:25] providing um the exemptions that were in the

[1:27:29] former DC bylaw um and detailing how it's covered now. Um so most housing

[1:27:35] related exemptions continue to receive support either through the development

[1:27:39] charges act with um the exemptions and reductions in place there as well as

[1:27:45] through the proposed um half programs um that we've developed um that were

[1:27:51] brought at the May 19th council meeting. Um vacant building redevelopment

[1:27:56] exemption remains in the DC bylaw with a few um language changes. Uh, industrial

[1:28:02] development no longer has broad relief beyond the legislative expansion

[1:28:07] provisions, although there are incentives offered for innovation parks

[1:28:11] specifically. Um, commercial core, meaning non-residential and mixed use

[1:28:17] projects specifically, no longer have uh equivalent relief as part of the new DC

[1:28:22] bylaw. Um, and so there's two key gaps there, industrial and commercial core

[1:28:28] development. Next slide, please.

[1:28:35] So just looking at the housing exemptions in a little bit more detail,

[1:28:38] we just wanted to sort of remind everyone about what is being provided in

[1:28:44] the halffunded um proposed programs that have been

[1:28:49] developed. Um so this the table on this slide really demonstrates why housing is

[1:28:53] not part of um you know our review going forward. We're not considering any

[1:28:58] additional exemptions related to housing in the um in a CIP amendment um because

[1:29:04] affordable housing additional h residential units and rental housing

[1:29:10] purpose-built rental housing um continue to benefit from DC provisions whether

[1:29:15] it's exempt full exemptions or um discounts reductions. Um and then the

[1:29:22] proposed half programs provide additional support on top of uh the DC

[1:29:27] um provisions. Therefore, uh we're recommending there's no short-term

[1:29:32] replacement incentives required for housing related incentives. Um and just

[1:29:36] to note that the half funding currently extends to December 4th, 2028. So, um

[1:29:44] just sort of in the short term, we're not not considering that for inclusion.

[1:29:49] Next slide, please.

[1:29:53] » [sighs and gasps] >> So potential gaps. So just um to sort of

[1:29:57] summarize the key conclusions of our review that were provided in a bit more

[1:30:01] detail in the uh touched memo as well. Um

[1:30:05] one of the key gaps we note is industrial development outside of that

[1:30:09] in uh occurring or potential to occur in innovation park. So the other existing

[1:30:16] employment lands that exist within the town. um while we understand they may be

[1:30:21] you know fairly built out there's opportunity for redevelopment

[1:30:25] reinvestment um expansion and that type of thing um

[1:30:29] as well as commercial core development being the second gap so both again both

[1:30:34] loss review through the new CIP or the new DC bylaw that was put into place and

[1:30:39] approved um and there's no equivalent support provided through um the

[1:30:44] development charges act or or half funding which is housing focused

[1:30:49] » [gasps] >> So the the review will really focus, you

[1:30:52] know, less about housing, more about economic development downtown as well as

[1:30:56] um in the employment areas. Um and future options that we're considering

[1:31:01] are uh you know potentially to include a multiream

[1:31:06] DC grant program that already exists in the CIP, but just sort of you know

[1:31:12] fleshing that out a bit more potentially by sector or location oriented. Um we'll

[1:31:19] also take a look at um whether there's any merits of um detail detailing a bit

[1:31:25] more the tax increment equivalent grant that is also provided for within the

[1:31:29] existing CIP. Um and having looked at what remains

[1:31:35] covered elsewhere, the review really comes to down to those two areas that no

[1:31:39] longer have um coverage that where council may wish to consider uh a CIP

[1:31:45] response in that regard. Next slide, please.

[1:31:52] So again, today's update is really intended to establish the direction uh

[1:31:56] for the amendment process um based on council's feedback today. Our next step

[1:32:01] will be to prepare the draft amendment uh for consideration and then bring

[1:32:06] those um bring that forward through the statutory PL public meeting um process

[1:32:12] in September. Um and at that point, it being a public meeting, um council will

[1:32:18] have the opportunity to review the proposed programs

[1:32:22] um their structure and any associated funding implications that may be um

[1:32:27] required before making any decisions. Um so that concludes my presentation. Um

[1:32:34] we'd be happy to answer any questions tonight. Thank you. Thank you. There is

[1:32:39] a resolution that council receive the community improvement plan development

[1:32:41] charges review update report for information is removed and seconded for

[1:32:45] that moved by the deputy mayor seconded by councelor Mette. Discussion we'll

[1:32:50] start with Halpin and then come to Grace.

[1:32:53] » Thank you Marin through you. Um, just for the the general public in that,

[1:32:58] could we define commercial, core, and non-residential and mixeduse

[1:33:01] development? Would would that like be downtown stores or or what what exactly

[1:33:06] would that involve the consultant?

[1:33:12] » Yes, thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yes, commercial core. So, that's um

[1:33:18] based on the uh official plan designation, but within that it really

[1:33:23] focuses on commercial. So, I mean, you know, non-residential, it's ultimately

[1:33:27] commercial. Um whether it's, you know, existing

[1:33:32] um commercial there. There's, you know, new commercial sites that potentially

[1:33:37] could be developed. Um it it's it's basically commercial is what what what

[1:33:44] the um reference is there. The mixeduse reference would ultimately be commercial

[1:33:49] at ground floor with residential above. Um, however, the incentives that we'd be

[1:33:54] looking at would focus on the commercial pon component of that development.

[1:33:59] » Yeah. So, if I could, uh, mayor, um, I do support DC breaks for this. I I think

[1:34:06] it's important for us to support our downtowns and and to do anything we can

[1:34:10] to make it easier for them to develop. But I but I do have a question. If a

[1:34:15] vacant building is being redeveloped, um, do they have to pay any DC charges?

[1:34:23] Like, let's say a a storefront that's been empty for several years or

[1:34:27] something and now they want to redevelop it. Do things like that have to pay a DC

[1:34:33] charge? >> The consultant?

[1:34:38] » Yes. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Um the the

[1:34:44] current the new DC bylaw maintains um

[1:34:50] the exemption that was in place previously for vacant buildings for

[1:34:54] redevelopment. Um I I believe maybe someone from the

[1:34:59] town could clarify what the language change was, but from what I understand

[1:35:02] it, it's just sort of a little bit more um provided some additional uh structure

[1:35:08] to what those requirements might be. >> I'll just clarify that DCS would be owed

[1:35:15] on commercial development that represents additional square footage or

[1:35:20] expansion. So it's only that component that would trigger DC charges.

[1:35:25] the counselor. >> Uh, thank you. Oh, okay. Just I'm sorry,

[1:35:31] one more question. For the vacant building, how long does a vacant

[1:35:34] building have to be empty to qualify for for anything like that?

[1:35:42] The treasur. So again, I'll just speak specifically

[1:35:47] to when DC's are triggered. And a vacant building could be vacant for

[1:35:55] I'm not sure that there's a time period on it. It would more have more to do

[1:36:00] with if there's expanding footprint. >> Thank you. Okay, the deputy mayor.

[1:36:09] » I thought councelor Grace was next. >> Oh, sorry, Council Grace. I have my back

[1:36:12] turned to you and saw your hand. Council Green.

[1:36:14] » It's okay. I've been out of the room for a while.

[1:36:17] » Um just uh to go to the vacant properties question. Um and one of the

[1:36:24] charts talks about um the offering incentives

[1:36:29] for vacant building redevelopment. Um which I think is a great idea.

[1:36:36] I'm and I know a number of residents are still are continue to be frustrated

[1:36:44] by the fact that we have some vacant properties in our downtown area that

[1:36:51] appear not to respond to incentives or anything. And I don't know if um what we

[1:37:00] could do um to encourage

[1:37:06] um the development of those properties or

[1:37:10] the willingness of those owners to um to develop their properties. But that

[1:37:17] that's something I'd like to have happen either in this or some other means.

[1:37:24] Uh, you mentioned um, Lindsay that um, and I had a question in particular that

[1:37:30] I submitted to staff about offering DC exemptions for properties in Innovation

[1:37:37] Park. Um, and that we have a rubric that we use. Um,

[1:37:45] I didn't see that specifically mentioned in the written report, but I know you've

[1:37:49] addressed it in your comments here. Um that's something that you're continu

[1:37:55] you're recommending that we continue >> the consultant.

[1:38:02] » Yes, thank you. Um yes, that that is something that we will be taking into

[1:38:07] consideration. The town has developed and approved um the

[1:38:13] uh a scoring matrix for Innovation Park specifically. Um, so we can use that as

[1:38:19] a basis um, going forward looking at potential for development charge um,

[1:38:26] reductions and how those might apply to other employment lands within the town.

[1:38:31] Um, so yeah, incorporating that and making it clear that those exist under

[1:38:38] the existing DC um, or under the existing CIP, sorry, um, is something

[1:38:44] that we can address. Grace

[1:38:48] » and that would be based on this rubric of ultimately how much value we consider

[1:38:55] that industrial development to be for the community right I mean could it

[1:39:01] range from like a 25% reduction to a perhaps 100% reduction

[1:39:09] » the consultant >> thank you Mr. Mayor um through you Mr.

[1:39:13] Mary, yes, we're going to look at all of that. So, um yeah, the the scoring

[1:39:18] that's in place at present is um you know, based on the the target sector and

[1:39:23] the type of sector that the business is in, how many employees it brings in, um

[1:39:28] you know, the construction costs, um sustainability considerations, all of

[1:39:33] that. Um if the town wishes to, you know, maintain that type of scoring,

[1:39:38] then uh we can incorporate it. um as well as look at um you know what what it

[1:39:44] might mean for other other you know reinvestment insights and that type of

[1:39:48] thing as well. >> Grace,

[1:39:53] » thank you. Uh I have one more and that is um a question about the ARU does an

[1:39:59] additional residential unit grant program. Um

[1:40:05] when I sent this question um the response was my question was can we

[1:40:12] include a design requirement in the housing accelerator funded CIP

[1:40:18] inventives incentives. Um, the reason that I included that is because we have

[1:40:25] had some um 4unit

[1:40:30] residential buildings going up that we up until now because of provincial site

[1:40:37] plan control um

[1:40:41] regulations don't allow us to exercise any kind of

[1:40:45] site plan control on units on on developments. that have uh 10 or fewer

[1:40:54] uh residential dwellings within that. And as a result, we have ended up with a

[1:41:01] couple of developments that essentially look like small

[1:41:05] apartment buildings within a an established

[1:41:09] uh residential area that they just don't fit. Um, so do is there a potential

[1:41:17] would we have to get past a conflict with the provincial regulation or are we

[1:41:22] able do we have the power within this um community improvement plan to be able

[1:41:29] to exercise our our own design requirements.

[1:41:37] » Thank you Mr. R. Um I I you had discussed this as well and about the

[1:41:44] town approved um pre-approved designs for ARUS I believe you're referring to

[1:41:51] uh whether adding that as a stipulation or a you know um

[1:41:57] eligibility criteria as it were you know if your design is follows these you know

[1:42:03] the town approved um designs then you would be elible eligible for CIP

[1:42:10] funding. Um I'm not sure about the legislative

[1:42:15] requirements. Maybe I could ask John to weigh in on that, but um I guess

[1:42:20] including it as you know if they want the CIP funding from half for for that

[1:42:26] type of unit, putting that stipulation would I guess, you know, would limit

[1:42:33] them to have to uh include that design, right?

[1:42:37] » Yeah. I can uh if it's helpful and I apologize for my uh situation. I'm sat

[1:42:43] in a car um and uh but just just joining in online. So just to add to what

[1:42:50] Lindsay has said, if I understand the the question correctly that can you put

[1:42:54] in additional design criteria for ARUS to make sure it works well and in the

[1:43:00] public interest. I think absolutely you can if you cast your mind back to the

[1:43:05] half program funded CIP that we developed we were fairly

[1:43:12] uh I say non-prescriptive I know you have the guidelines for you know sorry

[1:43:15] the template designs but we were we tried to reduce the level of

[1:43:19] prescription for further aspects such as universal

[1:43:23] design for an for example because to do that you may end up creating further

[1:43:30] limit MITs to take up of the ARU program and I recognize that those goals are

[1:43:36] laudable themselves but our experience with CIPs is you can work with the

[1:43:42] applicant to move it in the direction that you want. CIPs are quite flexible

[1:43:47] in that way. I don't think you want to put in rigid rules about exactly those

[1:43:53] things because it's going to it will have no doubt but to restrict the number

[1:43:57] of uh applications that you get and at this point when you have the funding

[1:44:02] ahead of you and only two years in which to spend it I think you know be be a

[1:44:08] little bit less prescriptive but prepared to uh engage with applicants

[1:44:13] using the the CIP as the uh as the tool. It's both a carrot and a stick in that

[1:44:19] regard. So I I don't think it will be a problem. Certainly you can instruct

[1:44:22] staff that they should look for those issues. But one of the key metrics is to

[1:44:27] make sure you do get applications in. It's about creating supply and working

[1:44:32] with the developers to meet the needs. And if those needs involve universal

[1:44:37] design as an example and accessibility, then that is uh that's a goal that

[1:44:42] should be pursued. >> Those are Greece. Um, thank you. I I

[1:44:48] wasn't um suggesting that um

[1:44:54] to for us to require that the applicants follow the exact

[1:45:01] designs that have been created. But to be consistent

[1:45:06] or complement um the character which we haven't fully

[1:45:14] defined um in my opinion but um the general character of

[1:45:22] what our town looks like um what's I think we have some guidelines on that

[1:45:27] that are available and um I'm just thinking of you you know, permanent

[1:45:34] constructions that now um are wildly out of place in some

[1:45:43] um residential areas, unfortunately. They're there and there's nothing we can

[1:45:48] do about it. Now, if there's some way we could um

[1:45:53] as you say, carrot and stick somehow um um lead people to consider designs that

[1:46:02] are are more complimentary to retaining the character of our community. Thank

[1:46:07] you. >> Okay, the deputy mayor.

[1:46:12] » Um thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I wanted to just ask I know um somewhere in the

[1:46:18] report it suggests that something's going to be before council um September

[1:46:23] 21st a public meeting surrounding a CIP review. Couple questions. Um is the

[1:46:30] focus of the re review um on what's occurred because the report suggests

[1:46:37] that there's been no take up of CIP programs in recent years. So um is the

[1:46:42] the focus about that or is about is it about you know what we're expecting in

[1:46:48] the future? Um but beyond that I'm just the part that's about um the commercial

[1:46:57] core. You know we have a we've deferred um a discussion about the CPPS which is

[1:47:02] focused on the commercial core um areas of of both Port Agen and Southampton the

[1:47:07] former towns of Southampton and Port Agen. I just um it's very confusing um I

[1:47:14] think that um there's this overlap always um coming into play and

[1:47:23] ultimately you know have we realized anything have we got any affordable

[1:47:27] housing have we infilled any vacant lots have we you know infilled um someplace

[1:47:33] with with a little more density I my reading of of what was before us tonight

[1:47:38] would say that there's been no take up um what is the justific and I understand

[1:47:44] you know the funding element but why are we even continuing with this if if in

[1:47:49] the two years it's kind of been around because I think it's been two years

[1:47:54] there's been no uptake um what are what are we going to see on the 21st that

[1:48:00] makes this an important thing to keep talking about and spending money on

[1:48:04] » the director

[1:48:10] Thanks, Mayor. I think at this point in terms of having listened to the

[1:48:14] conversation, um there's a lot of things here being tabled uh and good

[1:48:18] conversation. Um and at this point, my suggestion might be in terms of that we

[1:48:25] go back and re revisit the scope of the work uh that uh was put forward. Um,

[1:48:32] we're hearing a lot of good conversation in in that and I think we're getting

[1:48:36] into a lot of different areas and I would suggest, you know, maybe we need

[1:48:39] to go back and look at that direction that council provided. Unfortunately, I

[1:48:44] don't have it right here in front of me. Um, but let's go back and look at the

[1:48:47] scope of that work. >> The CEO has her hand up. The CEO,

[1:48:54] » thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to draw council's

[1:48:58] attention to the staff report that accompanied tonight's presentation

[1:49:01] because it does outline the scope of work for council on this. So if council

[1:49:06] will remember the community improvement plan that came forward in May was the

[1:49:12] supplementary housing initiatives CIP. So again, the focus of that work is to

[1:49:18] enable the housing accelerator fund grants to get out the door uh in order

[1:49:23] to support all the supplementary housing pieces that were targeting to spend the

[1:49:28] half-funding grant on council at that meeting also heard about the DC bylaw

[1:49:34] update. And so there was a the recommendation that was passed that

[1:49:38] night is included in the staff report that council removed all the

[1:49:41] discretionary exemptions from the DC charges bylaw and ask staff to

[1:49:47] incorporate those discretionary exemptions into the CIP if it was

[1:49:51] possible. So, I just want to table with council and support what the director

[1:49:57] was saying that that's the scope of work that we're focused on right now and we

[1:50:02] want to target bringing those supplementary housing initiatives back

[1:50:06] to council in a timely way. So, that's why we're talking about September and

[1:50:11] that we would look at where the DC exemption list could be included where

[1:50:16] it makes sense. So, I hope that provides a little bit of clarity about what we're

[1:50:19] trying to do. I just want to make sure we're not going down different areas

[1:50:24] related to community improvement plans. We're really targeted on that

[1:50:28] supplementary housing piece and then where any discretionary exemptions can

[1:50:33] fit into that amendment. I

[1:50:35] » think the discussion that council had at that time was when we were discussing

[1:50:40] removing all the discretionary exemptions from the development charges

[1:50:43] bylaw, we wanted to make sure that nothing important was missed. uh that we

[1:50:47] weren't removing something that wasn't already covered by provincial

[1:50:52] legislation that we also valued. Right? So I think the purpose of this report is

[1:50:57] to understand that question, right? to look at what what's what's picked up by

[1:51:03] provincial legislation and then what's left over and then council can make the

[1:51:07] decision after that about whether we think those items which are left over

[1:51:11] which appear to be on the question of industrial um exemptions and on core

[1:51:17] commercial exemptions from my reading that's about all that those are the

[1:51:20] pieces that are left unressed um and I guess council then can have the

[1:51:24] discussion do we consider those important enough

[1:51:29] that we want to incorporate them into a CIP to carry them on outside of the

[1:51:34] development charges bylaw where they used to be picked up. So to me that's

[1:51:40] that's what we're talking about here. Is that does that conform with what staff's

[1:51:45] uh view of this discussion is just so that we're on the same page?

[1:51:50] Yes. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, um further discussion I don't know deputy mayor you

[1:51:55] were were you finished? Okay. Uh, councelor Help and then

[1:52:00] » thank you mayor and through you. One one cautionary

[1:52:04] note with this like some of the stuff isn't being taken up so it doesn't seem

[1:52:07] like it's going to cost us a lot of money but we have foregone a lot of

[1:52:10] revenue with um uh with our DCs for purpose-built housing and and it worked.

[1:52:18] It we we we doubled our supply. It wasn't this council. It was the previous

[1:52:22] council. They doubled the supply of rental units, but we we sure have

[1:52:28] foregone a lot of DC charges over the 3 million worth over the last

[1:52:34] four or so years. So that that's my one cautionary thing. Yet at the same time,

[1:52:39] I do want to support our downtowns as much as we can.

[1:52:43] » Thank you. Further comments? Yeah, I think and when we discussed it,

[1:52:49] when we were discussing the development charges bylaw and I I proposed a notion

[1:52:53] of wiping all these discretionary exemptions out of the bylaw and

[1:52:56] considering them as part of a CIP, my feeling at that time was that what was

[1:53:02] left wouldn't be all that significant. And I think that that's the case still.

[1:53:07] I think we need to clarify, make sure that we are covering off the work we're

[1:53:14] trying to do in places like Innovation Park. make sure that that we can

[1:53:19] adequately implement DC relief in accordance with the rubric that

[1:53:23] councelor Grace laid out was discussing. Um we need to be able to continue to do

[1:53:27] that. So we have to have that we have to have the policy framework in place

[1:53:30] either through a CIP or some other policy to be able to continue with that.

[1:53:34] That's critical I think. Um and you know the downtown core commercial program uh

[1:53:42] could be important but I would be interested to understand a little more

[1:53:45] clearly what exactly we were trying to achieve in the core commercial areas

[1:53:49] because the core commercial areas are essentially developed for the most part.

[1:53:53] Right? So what are we trying to encourage um in the core commercial

[1:53:58] areas? I understand this notion of of um moving vacant

[1:54:04] um commercial spaces out of vacancy into some kind of occupancy, but we've tried

[1:54:07] lots of things to incentivize that in the past without much success because in

[1:54:11] the because in the final analysis, it's none of these charges are the deciding

[1:54:15] factor in that. The deciding factor is some private interest. the inability to

[1:54:18] lease or the unwillingness to lease and all of that comes down to private

[1:54:23] financial considerations and generally isn't driven by development charges or

[1:54:28] taxation, right? Like that's not the that's not what an owner is thinking

[1:54:31] about when they're deciding how to use that property, right? Uh so so we have

[1:54:35] to be realistic about how much we can influence any that kind of decision with

[1:54:39] this kind of move. I think our we have a much more effect as councelor Halpin

[1:54:43] pointed out uh in the housing realm because the decision-m around building

[1:54:50] housing is much is driven to a much greater extent by um those DC charges

[1:54:55] which can amount to a fair bit of money. So anyway, um I guess all of that to say

[1:55:01] is I'm not uh I'm kind of satisfied with where we are at the moment. Uh apart

[1:55:08] from making sure that we have the uh exemptions in place or the capacity to

[1:55:12] implement a program to incentivize industrial development in places like

[1:55:16] Innovation Park, I think that's a piece we need to have. So we should pursue

[1:55:19] that. Um but that's the that's really all that's left from my perspective of

[1:55:24] of great importance. Um at this point, councelor Helvin,

[1:55:31] » thank you Mayor and through you. This Spruce the Bruce offers incentives for

[1:55:36] our commercial core as well, right through the the county. There's a pro uh

[1:55:40] program where uh commercial core stores and that can apply for funding and

[1:55:46] grants for sprucing up their storefronts. Is that correct?

[1:55:50] » That's right. But it's important to remember that the CIP is what makes that

[1:55:53] program possible, right? You can't municipalities can't bonus private

[1:55:58] interests without a mechanism like a community improvement plan to make it

[1:56:02] possible. So see so spruce the Bruce rests on the municipality having a

[1:56:08] community improvement plan to implement it. Yeah, councelor Helvin.

[1:56:14] » So thank you mayor. So does that mean like if we don't have a CIP for uh

[1:56:18] community improvement plan for downtown we can no longer take part of uh in

[1:56:22] spruce the Bruce as well? Well, that's a good point. I guess if it

[1:56:27] were targeted at the downtown, we would have to have a program in the CIP that

[1:56:30] would um cover off the incentives. I can turn that over to the uh consultant.

[1:56:36] They'll be greater experts on that than me. Uh what's say you to that?

[1:56:47] Sorry. Um I was on mute. I'll I'll answer that through your worship. Yes,

[1:56:52] exactly. You you obviously count counties are upper tier authorities.

[1:56:57] They are not permitted to undertake community improvement plans. What they

[1:57:00] can do and what the county does is have a stated policy of matching essentially

[1:57:06] the funding that is in lower tier CIPs and that's where the spruce spruce

[1:57:13] campaign is targeted. So to the extent you want to use those funds, you have to

[1:57:18] have a program that allows the municipality to essentially work with

[1:57:22] the upper tier offer of funding. So yes, you need to keep a program in place.

[1:57:27] » Yeah, it's a good point well made counselor help and that's important

[1:57:30] thing for us to consider. We want obviously our residents, our business

[1:57:34] owners build access to Bruce. So staff should pay careful attention to make

[1:57:38] sure that our CIP enables us to access all those programs. I would note too

[1:57:43] though I think the province just changed the rules around upper tier CIPs. I

[1:57:47] think the upper the upper tier can now uh implement a CIP.

[1:57:54] Um hard to keep up with all the provinces

[1:57:57] changes. So are there further are there further uh discussions on this? If not

[1:58:04] uh it's been moved and seconded. It's just to receive for information. Uh all

[1:58:09] in favor that is carried. Okay, so now we're on to 7.3 comments on proposed

[1:58:14] governance regulations for regional conservation authorities and the manager

[1:58:17] of planning and development. >> Thank you and through you Mur Sharbono.

[1:58:23] The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is seeking

[1:58:26] feedback on proposed regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act that

[1:58:29] would establish governance regul requirements for Ontario's future

[1:58:33] regional conservation authorities and the Ontario Provincial Conservation

[1:58:37] Agency. The proposed Lake Hiron Conservation Authority would encompass a

[1:58:42] significantly larger geographic area than the current Saging Valley

[1:58:46] Conservation Authority, including the town of Sagin Shores and all of Bruce

[1:58:50] County. Under the proposed regulations, Bruce County would appoint one member to

[1:58:54] the proposed Lake Hiron regional conservation authority board and Sagin

[1:58:58] Shores would no longer have direct representation. The staff report in

[1:59:02] front of you is broken down into the themes of representation and

[1:59:06] appointments, alternative governments arrang governance arrangements,

[1:59:10] maintaining local municipal input, and the Ontario Provincial Conservation

[1:59:14] Authority Board eligibility. Within each theme, an analysis of the

[1:59:18] proposed change is outlined along with a context specific to Sagging Shores. A

[1:59:23] number of comments to be forwarded to the province through the Environmental

[1:59:26] Registry of Ontario are included in the report and I'm happy to take any

[1:59:30] questions from council. >> Thank you. The resolution is the council

[1:59:33] endorse the comments in this report directing staff to forward them to the

[1:59:36] province through the environmental registry of Ontario and that council

[1:59:39] direct staff to provide a copy to the Sagi Valley Conservation Authority,

[1:59:42] Bruce County Council and the lower tier municipalities within Bruce County for

[1:59:45] consideration. Is there mover and secondary? Council me councelor Halpen.

[1:59:50] Uh discussion council me. Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor and through

[1:59:54] you. Um the the report that came out from the provincial government on the

[2:00:00] structure of the new conservation authority, the regional conservation

[2:00:04] authorities is is really manifesting exactly what we were afraid was going to

[2:00:09] happen is that these larger conservation authorities by population such as in our

[2:00:14] case York region and like Simco region uh are just going to um dominate the the

[2:00:23] boards the conservation authority authority boards and uh like I says we

[2:00:29] have we'll have one representative for Bruce County and not only will we only

[2:00:34] have one but it stipulates that that one representative cannot be a former member

[2:00:40] of the conservation authority so they don't they want to have minimal

[2:00:43] representation and they want to make sure that that representation has no

[2:00:48] previous knowledge of how conservation authorities work. So they want a green

[2:00:52] horn in there that they can manipulate. And uh and then it it goes nowhere to

[2:00:57] address the the assets that the different conservation authorities have.

[2:01:02] Like So Valley Conservation Authority has significant assets, not just liquid

[2:01:07] assets, but land assets. They own thousands of acres of of land.

[2:01:12] Conservation parks, Sogging Bluffs Conservation, Dairy Dale Conservation.

[2:01:16] There's lots of parks and and things that they manage that they're bringing

[2:01:20] to the table and they'll have one vote as to how those assets get consolidated

[2:01:25] or amalgamated or liquidated or however that it goes. Our our citizens of Bur

[2:01:32] County are going to be very poorly represented and that goes for not just

[2:01:37] Bruce County but all of the great county and Hiron County that are currently

[2:01:41] members of the Sagine Valley Conservation Board. Um, this is, like I

[2:01:46] said, it's just coming true, but we were totally afraid what was going to happen.

[2:01:50] And, uh, [sighs and gasps] and as was just recently pointed out by

[2:01:54] the mayor, the changes are coming so fast from this government is hard to

[2:01:57] keep up. And this is just, uh, just one more heavy-handed

[2:02:02] uh, in my opinion to, you know, they they promised they were going to reduce

[2:02:08] red tape for developers. Well, this is taken out a whole level of scrutiny that

[2:02:12] they're going to have to go through. So, it's really a shame. And so, I endorse

[2:02:15] the comments from the town. Uh, the conservation authority has their own

[2:02:20] sets of comments that they're feeding back on this. And, uh, I believe that,

[2:02:24] uh, everybody should read those, too. So, I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

[2:02:27] » I just wanted to clarify, um, your one comment, um, with respect to current or

[2:02:33] former authority members being appointed. That's that's to the Ontario

[2:02:37] Provincial Conservation Agency board, not to not to the Regional Conservation

[2:02:41] Authority. Right. So because what the government's trying to do there is

[2:02:44] create a regulator. So they don't want to appoint a member of a current

[2:02:48] conservation authority to oversee the conservation authorities. That's so

[2:02:52] that's just for clarity there. Uh further comments from the members.

[2:02:57] Councelor Halpin. >> Uh thank you mayor. um my colleague

[2:03:02] councelor Matt um expressed everything well and we're

[2:03:08] both on the Songing Valley Conservation Authority together and

[2:03:13] it it's leaving us with no seat at the table I feel like and the thing is is

[2:03:19] we're still going to be paying for this right like I mean we're going to be

[2:03:23] paying and supporting this without very much representation on the board and if

[2:03:28] you look at the size of the sogging Valley conservation the Sen Valley

[2:03:32] watershed how big that whed is and I guess it goes through Gray County a

[2:03:38] little bit so that what's that going to be maybe maybe two people

[2:03:44] representing that and I the Ford government has done some good things but

[2:03:51] it is consistently consolidating power making appointments and eroding the

[2:03:56] representation of smaller and rural municipalities.

[2:04:01] and I don't know what we can do about it,

[2:04:04] but that is my comments and it's a really good report and they're excellent

[2:04:09] comments and I fully endorse all your comments.

[2:04:12] » Thank you for the comments. Councelor Grace,

[2:04:16] » thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, I also had a question for Candace Counselor Halp and

[2:04:21] about costs and what our financial contribution

[2:04:26] may be because we do make a significant financial contribution now, but we don't

[2:04:31] know that information of course. Um the yeah the the 21 reps total for the

[2:04:40] regional um authority. Gray County gets two.

[2:04:45] Bruce County, Hiron County, Duffren and Wellington, and several other

[2:04:49] municipalities each get one. Uh so as you're you're right, our eight

[2:04:54] municipalities within Bruce County um not not all eight would be part of this.

[2:05:00] Uh no, I guess they would. Yeah. So, eight municipalities within the county

[2:05:05] end up getting one representative. Um, now the thing that I was when I was

[2:05:11] reading this, I was thinking, okay, that's the way we do our representation

[2:05:16] now is representation by population. So, on the Sin Valley Conservation

[2:05:21] Authority, um, Sagin Shores gets two, Conarten gets

[2:05:26] two, does handover get two? Um just just the two of us just

[2:05:32] concarden and sagggin shores west gray. Yes. But

[2:05:39] and I was first I was thinking well you know we are objecting we like it now

[2:05:46] because we get two represented representatives but the effect is so

[2:05:54] huge. I mean the devast devastation to our representative representative level

[2:06:02] is so large that um it is a different I don't know whether they just did this

[2:06:08] because they thought oh that's the way that it's been done um or whether

[2:06:13] there's something more some other um motive behind whether this is just

[2:06:21] laziness of how to organize this it's easy way out or whether uh so I'm

[2:06:27] hopeful maybe that if someone is considering this and if we have strong

[2:06:35] [snorts] enough advocates that perhaps they may consider other factors than

[2:06:40] just simply representation by population.

[2:06:44] » Thank you councelor Dinsky. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. And through you one

[2:06:50] word sort of sums it up. It's outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous.

[2:06:56] Um, considering the work that's been done by the Sin Valley Conservation

[2:07:01] Authority, as Councelor May said, we knew there was a hint that this was

[2:07:07] coming and sure enough, it's before us. Hopefully, we can change things uh

[2:07:13] beforehand. May I suggest whoever we send this to that we send it to Lisa

[2:07:19] Thompson as well and rattle her cage so she knows what we are dealing with. She

[2:07:25] probably does, but it wouldn't hurt to remind her again. Thank you.

[2:07:31] » Yep, we certainly can do that. The deputy mayor,

[2:07:36] » I agree with everything that's been said. It's it's really interesting when

[2:07:40] you look at the charts, too. Um, you know, Gray County was mentioned. Gray

[2:07:44] County of course in the in the grouping with us um has two representatives, but

[2:07:50] you know, just if you look at another region, the Eastern Lake Erie regional

[2:07:54] CA Gray County um in this one, their population within that regulated area is

[2:08:01] 1,09. They get one one representative there.

[2:08:06] Um it's it's like the the it makes no sense when you you really look at it in

[2:08:12] terms of um how it how it it just looks it's not sensical at all. It's

[2:08:19] nonsensical anyway. But um so thank you Candace for the report. It's um good to

[2:08:27] send something but um I think we we all should

[2:08:31] send more if or get other people to send comments as well.

[2:08:36] Thank you. Further comments. I u met at Amal with the minister of natural

[2:08:41] resources uh on this issue on behalf of the county of Bruce. uh Bruce County uh

[2:08:48] took the position that the um regional conservation authority should separate

[2:08:54] um uh essentially be divided in two to have uh the Simco region um separated

[2:09:02] from the smaller rural because it's really having Simco having Barry and

[2:09:06] Simco mixed in with us which is really what drowns out that rural um voice in

[2:09:13] our area. I mean it's it's got this huge urban population where although we are

[2:09:16] fast growing, we're not fast growing like Simco is fast growing. Uh and so um

[2:09:22] you know most of the attention and most of the resources we felt would be

[2:09:25] focused on Simco rather than on Bruce and Gray and the uh the watersheds

[2:09:31] within our jurisdictions. Um so we made that suggestion to uh directly to the

[2:09:37] minister and made the point I made the point to him. I led the delegation and

[2:09:40] made the point to him that um you know it would uh you know if the government

[2:09:46] values rural voices as they say they do then then um this is not a good

[2:09:51] configuration for this uh for this new authority. I can tell you based on that

[2:09:56] conversation there is no in there is there will be no uh uptake on any

[2:10:01] suggestion uh that these boundaries should be adjusted um whatsoever. So I

[2:10:08] mean the government's committed and that's I mean I heard that directly from

[2:10:12] the minister. Uh so uh so this is how uh they're going to roll this out. Um

[2:10:19] and I think this representation model is how it's going to be. um which is

[2:10:26] unfortunate for the reasons everybody has said. I for one I believe that

[2:10:30] conservation authorities are in need of reform. Um and I think there are

[2:10:34] problems with the conservation authorities. I do like the notion of a

[2:10:37] provincial regul provincial regulator to enforce consistency across the

[2:10:42] conservation authorities because I find they are very inconsistent and I hear

[2:10:45] that all the time. Um so reform is necessary. Sadly,

[2:10:51] I don't see how this approach achieves the reform we need. I don't I don't

[2:10:57] really understand how it the outcome will be better. What do we want? We we

[2:11:02] want an outcome that's better for people who are trying to do things in our

[2:11:05] watersheds, for our property owners, uh for people who are trying to build

[2:11:09] affordable housing, people who are trying to make life, you know, do

[2:11:13] something to make their own lives, make their own property better. um and to do

[2:11:18] it in a way that that doesn't threaten the watershed or or get them too close

[2:11:22] to a flooding condition, all those things. We want that to work better and

[2:11:26] I don't exactly see understand how these changes do that. Um and also I worry

[2:11:31] more than the representation piece. I worry that what will happen is um we'll

[2:11:36] see money the money now that the county of Bruce will be paying going into this

[2:11:41] larger regional authority and heading to Simco and that the focus will be in

[2:11:45] Simco uh and not on investments here in our conservation areas in all those

[2:11:53] assets council might just mentioned that the conservation authority owns and in

[2:11:56] better services to people on the ground in our communities which is what we

[2:12:01] want. though I guess the proof will be in the pudding. But I will report to you

[2:12:05] that there is I receive I was it was not just a sense it was explicit that this

[2:12:11] isn't going to change. Not to say we shouldn't make the point we should but

[2:12:14] uh that was u the message that I received loud and clear.

[2:12:20] All right. If there's nothing further uh you've heard the recommendation. It's

[2:12:24] been moved and seconded. So all in favor that is carried. Okay. So, now we're on

[2:12:30] to the consent agenda. I guess we're How much longer will we be

[2:12:36] going on here? Maybe a little while longer. Why don't we take Let's take a

[2:12:39] break here. We'll break until uh 8:50.

[2:22:24] Okay, guys. Let's do it.

[2:23:11] Okay. So, we are now on to the consent agenda. Only one item there. Uh there's

[2:23:18] a resolution that item 10.1 be approved and received for information. Is remove

[2:23:22] and secondary. Moved by Gray, seconded by Dinsky. Uh there's the one item there

[2:23:27] then the bell communications tower. Anybody wish to speak to that in any

[2:23:30] way? Uh the deputy mayor.

[2:23:35] » Um thank you through I had a hard time uh reading the um the concurrence

[2:23:40] package information. So perhaps this was in there um so I apologize if it was but

[2:23:45] um the reference to barbed wire around the telecommunications tower. I

[2:23:50] understand the need for safety and security. However, um it wasn't clear

[2:23:56] from the drawing how close this was going to be to the sidewalk and is there

[2:24:02] any potential whatsoever for any kind of um opportunity to put some landscaping

[2:24:10] there so that >> the sound isn't on.

[2:24:16] » Um sorry, >> hold on a second. I guess we have you're

[2:24:18] hearing that from somebody that they're not hearing this.

[2:24:26] Okay, >> deputy mayor here.

[2:24:29] [laughter] >> I was just about to talk about barbed

[2:24:31] wire. Um, so I I just was curious um how close to the sidewalk is this tower. It

[2:24:37] wasn't I I couldn't figure that out from the map and um it was mentioned about

[2:24:42] barb wire being around the installation. Um I understand for safety and security

[2:24:47] that that that would be necessary. However, it's a pretty prominent

[2:24:51] location um adjacent to the highway um in Port Elgen and in an area where, you

[2:24:56] know, we're trying to get other businesses to do a little little um

[2:25:01] aesthetic improvement along the highway. Is there any potential to encourage or

[2:25:06] to require I realize it's on private property, but to require um some

[2:25:11] consideration to the look? Um so, two question, well, three questions there.

[2:25:17] How close to the sidewalk is it? Do we have any potential and um can we ask for

[2:25:23] landscaping >> the manager?

[2:25:27] » Thank you. And through you, Mayor Sharbano. Uh so there is a a plan

[2:25:31] included in the concurrence package and what it's showing is that the the the

[2:25:36] tower itself will be located in the center of what is the compound and there

[2:25:41] is a distance um for the access which is showing at 7.28 m to the concrete

[2:25:47] sidewalk. So that's the the answer to the distance of the the area to to the

[2:25:53] existing sidewalk. In terms of um landscaping or any s sort of site design

[2:25:59] considerations, this uh this poll is actually exempt from requiring a

[2:26:04] building permit is exempt from meeting site plan control. And so while there

[2:26:08] can be comments that are that are forwarded on um there wouldn't be any

[2:26:12] necessarily requirements uh per se in terms of of what the final design will

[2:26:18] look like. >> Good premier. Um would it be appropriate

[2:26:23] then to um encourage um you know we we do have some design

[2:26:29] guidelines and some some uh examples nearby where where things have happened

[2:26:35] adjacent to the sidewalk, adjacent to the highway to to provide some

[2:26:39] encouragement either to the property owner or to um the builder of the tower

[2:26:44] themselves to to you know do what they can do to make it look a little more

[2:26:49] attractive from the street. the manager.

[2:26:53] » Um I can certainly um pass that along to the applicant.

[2:26:58] » Okay. Any other comments on this one? Seeing none, then I this will consider

[2:27:03] the resolution then on the consent agenda. It's been moved and seconded.

[2:27:07] All in favor? That is carried. All right. So now we will move on to mo

[2:27:12] motions and notices of motion. There are two notices there 11.1.1 and 11.1.2.

[2:27:19] Those two items will be considered at the next council meeting and then we're

[2:27:24] on to the one for consideration which I have interest in. So I'm going to turn

[2:27:27] that to the deputy mayor.

[2:27:35] Okay. Um we have a notice or a motion u moved by

[2:27:42] councelor Halpen, seconded by councelor Grace. Um and it reads, "Whereas Highway

[2:27:47] 21 between Concession 10 in Port Elgen and South Street in Southampton is under

[2:27:52] the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, MTO) and

[2:27:56] whereas the Sin Rail Trail, SRT, is a yearround multi-use trail and designated

[2:28:02] active transportation corridor built on a former railway line which directly

[2:28:07] connects three communities within the town of Sagin Shores. And whereas the

[2:28:11] SRT serves as a key active transportation connection between Port

[2:28:15] Agen and Southampton with several access points along the corridor between

[2:28:19] concession 10 and South Street that are regularly used by trail trail users. And

[2:28:25] whereas the corridor is utilized by residents, daily commuters, visitors,

[2:28:30] tourists, cyclists, pedestrians, and users of the SRT resulting in increased

[2:28:35] interaction between active transportation users and high-speed

[2:28:39] vehicular traffic. And whereas there are commercial

[2:28:44] businesses, agricultural properties, and four partially controlled intersections

[2:28:49] located along this section of Highway 21, generating regular vehicular

[2:28:54] movements and additional conflict points for all road users, especially during

[2:29:00] peak seasons. And whereas the Sagine Rail Trail Association has requested

[2:29:04] that the speed limit on this section of highway 21 be reduced from 80 kilometers

[2:29:08] per hour to 60 kilometers per hour due to safety concerns. Near. Now,

[2:29:13] therefore, be it be it resolved that the council of the town of Sagging Shores

[2:29:18] formally request that the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario review the

[2:29:22] posted speed limit on Highway 21 between concession 10 in Port Algen and South

[2:29:28] Street in Southampton and consider reducing the speed limit to 60

[2:29:31] kilometers per hour and further that this resolution be circulated to the

[2:29:36] honorable Pragmat uh Sarah, Minister of Transportation, the MTO West

[2:29:43] region office, Lisa Thompson MPP for Hon Bruce and the Sagine Rail Trail

[2:29:48] Association for information and support. Again, it's moved by councelor Halpin,

[2:29:53] seconded by councelor Grace. Um, I will open it up for discussion. Councelor

[2:29:58] Halpin first, then councelor Dinsky. >> Uh, thank you. [clears throat] Thank

[2:30:04] you, Chair, and through you. I I really believe we need to support this. The

[2:30:10] traffic continually increases as our community is growing. Something needs to

[2:30:14] be done for safety. A lower speed limit will also benefit the cars entering and

[2:30:19] exit exiting the many ways you can enter and exit Highway 21 in that section,

[2:30:26] including of course County Road 3 junction. you know, um,

[2:30:32] this is I know councelor Grace is going to discuss this more and has much to say

[2:30:37] about this, but the town has a binder I' I've told about this thick on this file

[2:30:43] to to try to move it forward. I just want to acknowledge and thank the Song

[2:30:47] Rail Trail and Ken Mercer, the the chairman of the Rail Trail for

[2:30:52] initiating this. this was his initiation he asked me to do and um and I'm just

[2:30:59] looking for my colleagues support on this. Thank you

[2:31:05] » councelor Dinsky.

[2:31:09] » Thank you deputy mayor and through you uh to councelor Halpin. Councelor

[2:31:14] Halpin, you were at the association of municipalities of Ontario last week. Did

[2:31:19] you get a chance to talk to any MTO members about this uh about this notice

[2:31:27] of motion?

[2:31:37] » Um thank you chair through you. Uh no we did not. We made three delegations but

[2:31:43] we did not make a delegation to the minister. I did see him there. he was

[2:31:48] answering questions um during the question and answer period and uh but no

[2:31:57] » councelor Grace. Uh thank you madame deputy mayor. Um I

[2:32:04] do have some background comments um to support councelor Halpin's um

[2:32:10] motion. The town has been working on this issue since before 2013.

[2:32:18] I was a member of the rail trail association as a board uh council

[2:32:23] representative um and wrote a motion which was passed

[2:32:27] by council um to request that the MTO visit

[2:32:33] uh and assess the conditions around um this section of road in early June 2017

[2:32:41] they did visit they presented a summary of their findings ings uh which were

[2:32:48] presented to council. Um their conclusions were first that a

[2:32:54] speed limit of 80 kilometers an hour does not permit a pedestrian

[2:33:01] signal or crossover. Um they indicated that they thought that

[2:33:07] the 80 kilometer speed limit was appropriate because the area is zoned

[2:33:12] agricultural. So the minimum driveway separation is far enough apart to permit

[2:33:18] that speed limit. They also presented a psychological argument

[2:33:24] uh saying that when one is driving out of town, drivers expect to drive 80

[2:33:30] kilometers an hour because they think speed naturally increases out out of

[2:33:35] town. and that if the speed was reduced to 60 kilometers an hour, this would

[2:33:42] cause an extra hazard to trail users who expect slower speeds, but the drivers

[2:33:48] won't slow down and that would give trail users a false sense of security.

[2:33:54] So, that was the way it was left in 2017.

[2:33:58] Um the MTO rejected our re the council requests and the rail trail requests for

[2:34:07] some kind of added security uh safety measures.

[2:34:12] In January 2023, uh I was part of a delegation to the MTO

[2:34:18] at the Roma conference and we specifically ask the ministry to

[2:34:24] consider some additional facts and change circumstances since 2017.

[2:34:32] Um we argued that the 2017 ministry decision was based on their

[2:34:39] understanding that the surrounding area is zoned agricultural. However, the

[2:34:44] lands adjacent to the highway are also zoned agricultural, commercial, and

[2:34:49] commercial recreational, and that this type of zoning has affected and increase

[2:34:55] the number and placement of driveways and entrances with businesses like a

[2:35:00] commercial nursery, garage, storage, the farm produce market, a number of

[2:35:06] residences, and a campground. Other changes um the number in placement of

[2:35:12] driveways since 2017. Um as of 2023, there were 15 entrances

[2:35:20] to the highway between Bruce County Road 3 and the 10th concession. Of those 12

[2:35:27] were commercial or residential and three were road entrances.

[2:35:32] Uh also other changes, a storage facility entrance was immediately

[2:35:36] adjacent to the a new one was immediately adjacent to the eastern rail

[2:35:41] trail entrance and the Hibberry Farms entrance move farther to the south.

[2:35:46] Um to respond to the MTO's psychological arguments that drivers will still speed,

[2:35:53] but those using the crossings will expect slower speeds and will therefore

[2:35:58] be more vulnerable. Uh we argued that just to the north of Bruce County Road

[2:36:04] 3, the speed limit on Highway 21 lowers to 60 kilometers an hour for about half

[2:36:10] the distance between Southampton and Port Elgen. This is routinely enforced

[2:36:14] by the town's police force and generally respected by drivers. The 60 kilometer

[2:36:21] an hour speed limit on Highway 21 through Sagging First Nation is largely

[2:36:25] respected by drivers and on their roads. Bruce County has recently reduced the

[2:36:31] speed limit to 70 kilometers an hour for significant stretches in agricultural

[2:36:36] zones approaching and leaving hamlets and villages.

[2:36:41] uh also that the timing of the study in early June of 2017

[2:36:47] uh was a time that didn't allow the MTO to see the period of busiest use of the

[2:36:53] rail trail crossing as well as the increased use of the highway um from

[2:36:59] 2017 to 2023 because our permanent population

[2:37:05] uh had grown 16% between 2016 and 2020. 21 and that we are a very popular

[2:37:13] tourist destination and our seasonal population and visitors increase uh

[2:37:18] those numbers as well. Um on uh the issue of driver

[2:37:24] inconvenience that 60 kilometers an hour is too slow. Um my husband and I uh both

[2:37:31] drove separately uh and timed the driving of the stretch at various speeds

[2:37:37] 60 and 80 kilometers an hour and we recorded multiple times a difference of

[2:37:43] about 1 and a half minutes. Um

[2:37:48] okay uh a resident recently suggested that we keep the speed the same. it

[2:37:55] would be too dangerous to otherwise, but that the solution would be creating a

[2:38:01] pedestrian crossover similar to the pedestrian activated uh crosses

[2:38:07] crossovers in Southampton. I looked up the most recent edition of the Ontario

[2:38:13] Traffic Manual, book 12, which was last published in July 2024.

[2:38:20] And in its section on pedestrian crossovers, it says that quote,

[2:38:25] "Pedestrian crossovers are intended for low to moderate volume low-speed

[2:38:31] roadways, specifically 60 kilometers an hour or less posted speed. So unless the

[2:38:39] speed is reduced, if there ever was a hope to be a pedestrian crossover, which

[2:38:44] has been um routinely rejected by the MTO, uh that's the only way it would

[2:38:50] ever be able to be done under the current traffic regulations.

[2:38:54] Um, town staff continues to work with the

[2:38:59] Ministry of Transportation to investigate various uh, solutions

[2:39:04] including um, not just the speed limit but trail

[2:39:09] signage. Uh, the question of pedestrian crossovers and shoulder paving. Um, as I

[2:39:16] said, uh, the MTO has consistently rejected the solution of a pedestrian

[2:39:22] crossover. Um, I do support the proposed motion. Thank you,

[2:39:29] » Vice Deputy Mayor Matt, and then councelor Matt.

[2:39:34] » Yeah, thank you, Deputy Mayor. And, um, I I like to take this a little I'm going

[2:39:38] to support the motion, councelor Halpin and Grace. I think it's worth another

[2:39:42] try. Um, I'm going to take this a little different direction. And I think as we

[2:39:46] all know the the MTO's council Greece alluded to you know they determined

[2:39:51] number of laneways that front on highway 21 does not meet that threshold allow

[2:39:56] for speed limit change and that's that's been that's been their their stance. I

[2:40:00] joined staff here in 2001 that's been their stance from last 25 years is

[2:40:06] probably going to continue to be their stance. And I think I think we're

[2:40:10] dreaming if we're thinking about an overhead pass for an underground tunnel.

[2:40:13] I think we'll be waiting forever. I think you'll be waiting forever. And um

[2:40:18] I I'm going to take it a little different direction and I the neighbors

[2:40:22] may not like like to hear this but you know in um 2028 I think it is in the

[2:40:30] 10ear capital plan and just hear me out on this because I think this is

[2:40:34] something I'd like staff to think about and council to think the future council

[2:40:37] to think about in 2028. Um, I think there's pro in the tenure capital plan,

[2:40:42] there's provisions uh for a controlled intersection at the intersection of

[2:40:47] concession 10, highway 21. There's talk about that and I tell you why there

[2:40:51] needs to be talk about that because you got a brand new public school coming in

[2:40:55] off of cont concession 10 and and probably a Catholic school within the

[2:40:59] next four or five years. There going to be a ton of traffic, ton of traffic

[2:41:03] using concession 10. You're going to have to have a controlled intersection

[2:41:06] at concession 10. Here's my thought. I believe that the MTO

[2:41:13] should expropriate and they need to expropriate land on the west side of the

[2:41:18] highway. And I say those property owners, we know who they are. There's

[2:41:21] three of them, three major property owners.

[2:41:24] But you talk to the MOT and take it in that direction. I think to get the speed

[2:41:28] limit reduced from 80 to 60, I think you're going to be fighting that for a

[2:41:32] long time. I think you're going to be fighting that for a very long time. And

[2:41:36] there's going to be continue to be near accidents, serious accidents. And uh we

[2:41:41] see we see them or we're driving along there. People trying to c just the other

[2:41:45] day. It was close. There was a there was a there was a close situation. But I

[2:41:50] think you need to take that the cyclists and the walkers off of the rail trail.

[2:41:57] Move them 300 m. Turn left. When you if you if you picture coming north on the

[2:42:02] rail trail in behind the plex, you know what I'm talking about on on Wellington

[2:42:06] Water, Wellington Street, you turn left to the controlled intersection. You

[2:42:12] cross safely with lights. You cross safely. There's going to be there going

[2:42:17] to be lights there at that intersection. You cross safely at the intersection.

[2:42:22] You go on the west side of the road. You talk to the MTO about about

[2:42:26] expropriating and get it done. If they can't see their way to getting that

[2:42:31] speed limit reduced from 80 to 60, then look at another way of doing it. And the

[2:42:36] other way of doing it could be by moving all of those pedestrian cyclists on, you

[2:42:42] know, you fill in the ditch on the west side of the road and you take those

[2:42:45] those cyclist walkers right up to that rail trail. You eliminate eliminate that

[2:42:50] section of trail where they have to cross that busy highway. It's going to

[2:42:53] be a risk forever, folks. It is. And and I think we need to think outside the

[2:42:58] box. I really do. I I I I mean that very sincerely. I think you need to think

[2:43:03] outside the box, take the cyclist to the controlled

[2:43:06] intersection, talk to the MO about expropriation and get it done. That's I

[2:43:12] think the approach you need to I'll support the motion because I think you

[2:43:16] put a lot of work into it. Try it again. I I I joined staff in 2001. I think this

[2:43:21] is four or five times now that the M2 has been approached about reducing the

[2:43:26] speed limit. I think you'll be waiting forever. I just don't think it's going

[2:43:30] to get done. You're not going to see an overhead pass or a tunnel. Look at

[2:43:33] another way of doing it and that's I think cross at the control intersection.

[2:43:38] Anyways, that's my thought.

[2:43:42] » Council Matt. >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[2:43:48] Councelor Grace and I agree on many things.

[2:43:54] This is not one of them. Uh in 2017 we this the council of the day purposely

[2:44:01] struck out the recommendation to go from six from 80 to 60 km an hour and we did

[2:44:06] that after significant debate and careful thought

[2:44:11] and um despite that it was represented at

[2:44:14] Roma a couple of years ago that we had passed a resolution to that effect and

[2:44:20] it was and you apologized and you did but you misunderstood how the motion

[2:44:25] I don't think that changing the speed limit 24 hours a day,

[2:44:31] 7 days a week, 365 days a year for what are a few days in the summer when it's

[2:44:39] difficult to cross that road is sound planning there. If you're going to try

[2:44:44] and cross that road on Friday afternoon between 2 and 6:00 in the evening or a

[2:44:50] lot of afternoons during rush hour, Bruce Power rush hour, and there is a

[2:44:53] rush hour here now, you're going to have some trouble. But there are many times

[2:44:58] you can cross that road, go try it on a Sunday morning at 8:00,

[2:45:02] you you cross, you can walk across there, you can crawl across there, you

[2:45:05] won't get hit by a car. So making permanent solutions to temporary

[2:45:11] problems is not sound planning in my opinion.

[2:45:15] Um I I drive that road. I don't drive it

[2:45:19] every day, but I drive it fairly frequently. And if I see some cyclists

[2:45:23] or walkers on the side of the road trying to cross, I slow down. My eyes

[2:45:28] aren't as good as they used to be, but I can see people standing on the side of

[2:45:30] the road, I'll slow down and I'll maybe even give them a wave across. even if it

[2:45:34] means holding up some cars behind me. That's what conscientious drivers do. We

[2:45:39] haven't, you know, knockwood, we have not had a serious bicycle pedestrian car

[2:45:45] collision at that intersection. uh where our previous director of public

[2:45:51] uh of engineering used to say when when plans are made around controlled

[2:45:56] intersections and speed limits they use stat statistics and I can't get that

[2:46:04] word out statistics say that if you have one accident it's an isolated event if

[2:46:09] you have two it's a trend if you have three it's a problem when you have three

[2:46:12] accidents at an intersection that's when they start looking at making changes for

[2:46:16] solutions We're at zero. Thank god we're at zero

[2:46:20] because usually between a [clears throat] bicycle and a car, the

[2:46:24] bicycle or the pedestrian doesn't fair as well. But we haven't had the problem

[2:46:29] because drivers are generally courteous and smart pedestrians and smart cyclists

[2:46:35] don't go at the peak times of day, peak times of the summer. After Labor Day,

[2:46:41] traffic drops right off except for maybe half an hour in the morning and half

[2:46:45] hour in the evening. So, I don't I don't think that warrants it. I I agree with

[2:46:50] the vice deputy mayor that the MTO is not going to support this anyway. We've

[2:46:54] asked they've been asked lots of times. That just the the traffic counts don't

[2:46:59] support it. The rural designation doesn't support it and the number of

[2:47:03] driveways doesn't support it. So, I know it's going to pass because I can

[2:47:07] see the nods around the room, but uh it's it it's futile and I won't be

[2:47:12] supporting it, but uh good luck getting it done in the future.

[2:47:19] » Couns Councelor Stack, [clears throat] >> thank you. So, maybe two things. So, I

[2:47:25] um I use the rail trail a lot in the summer. I do find the one advantage of

[2:47:30] the 80 kilometers is that I'm always in desperate need of a respiratory break at

[2:47:34] that point. So I will say the traffic does help. Um however I I think the

[2:47:39] issue is really it's kind of probability versus consequence here. So the

[2:47:43] probability is perhaps at this point low that someone will get hurt or killed but

[2:47:48] the consequence uh is high. And I think where my concern is is less about the

[2:47:53] adults that cross the road. But I don't know if you've ever spoken to a 13 to

[2:47:57] 17year-old teenager for instance. Their attention spans and a awareness of their

[2:48:02] surroundings is often not 10 out of 10. So I think from my perspective I think

[2:48:07] it's a worthwhile issue to continue to raise just for the basis that we do have

[2:48:11] a lot of kids using those paths. Um ideally with helmets and without their

[2:48:15] cell phone in the hand but I've seen several instances of kids on bikes on e-

[2:48:20] scooters on regular scooters crossing that road. So, I just think it's a

[2:48:24] worthwhile exercise even if nothing comes of it because the MTO has its

[2:48:27] views. I think um continuing to raise awareness of the potential risk is I

[2:48:32] think worthwhile,

[2:48:36] » councelor Halen.

[2:48:40] » Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor and through you.

[2:48:43] Uh, you know, councelor Matt, I I kind of supported you on that last time and

[2:48:48] that was the wrong thing to do. It's the guy on the rail trail, I found out, but

[2:48:52] [laughter] so I'm back here with hat in hand asking that this be done again. I

[2:48:58] just want to mention that the rail trail on its own dime has

[2:49:05] has started the engineering for paving the shoulders. They they are they are

[2:49:11] working very hard at this and I I just want to tell you how passionate they are

[2:49:16] about getting this crossing looked after and so they have the engineering in.

[2:49:23] It's just a shame that Raul left when he did because he was really I felt like he

[2:49:28] was really kind of championing this and and and making some headway with the MTO

[2:49:33] and um so you know the rail trail has worked hard on this and councelor or

[2:49:39] vice deputy mayor I I love your idea that is a really long-term idea but you

[2:49:46] know that that is a good idea and thank you for that. And you know what?

[2:49:53] You you you you just need sometimes to keep asking.

[2:49:59] Going to AMO. Um I I went to a delegation once and they had no in their

[2:50:05] face this first minute we walked in there. We went the next time and we

[2:50:09] asked and they said, "Well," and then we went back and then we got the money. So,

[2:50:13] you know, if if you don't keep asking, if we don't ask, we know it'll never

[2:50:18] happen. So, thank you.

[2:50:26] » Anyone else? >> Um, [clears throat] Vice Deputy May,

[2:50:34] » I just want to say I I just want to plead with you one more time is

[2:50:39] meet with the MTO. If they won't pass this speed limit this time, if this if

[2:50:43] this fails again, talk to the MTO. the neighbors won't be too happy about it,

[2:50:48] but talk about that 20 ft filling in the ditch and moving the trail on the west

[2:50:53] side of the road crossing at a controlled intersection. Just want to

[2:50:57] repeat that. I just think it's got a lot of merit.

[2:51:03] I agree with you about the west side of the road. I would be curious to know if

[2:51:08] the longerterm plan though is not a signal but a roundabout at concession 10

[2:51:13] and the highway which sets up a an opportunity still but um a little

[2:51:18] different. And I would I would also add um that heading in the other direction

[2:51:23] on the east side of the road, you know, when when um we recently repaved

[2:51:28] Carlile, we did put tiny um but there is definitely a little ashvault section off

[2:51:35] the traveled portion of the road which has been increasingly used by cyclists.

[2:51:39] But getting from where Carile hits County Road 3 across um in front of

[2:51:46] basically um three four properties um Shane, Greg, um Everest, the church and

[2:51:52] and the property at the corner. Um there was there was um no opportunity for that

[2:51:58] either because that that seemed like a short stretch too and um because it

[2:52:03] would enable a different route but without having to cross the highway. So,

[2:52:08] I I agree with you about that, but is there any other comments at the moment?

[2:52:13] Um, councelor Mette. >> Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just just

[2:52:17] finally, um, they mentioned somebody mentioned ecooters and ebikes and this

[2:52:25] this is where the accident's going to happen because these e- scooters and

[2:52:28] ebikes have a great more potent great greater potential to speed into that

[2:52:32] intersection and they're inattentive drivers who are driving because they're

[2:52:36] soggy rail trail. Let's face it, it's lost its non-motorized status as far as

[2:52:40] I'm concerned. These electric bicycles, they'll do 30 40 km an hour and you can

[2:52:46] modify them to go faster than that and these scooters and everything else. Um,

[2:52:51] that's if we have an accident, I think that's where it's going to be. It's

[2:52:55] going to be one of these bikes. You got a, you know, young boy or young girl

[2:52:59] riding a bicycle that they're not used to the speed and acceleration and and

[2:53:03] and they're going to come up to an intersection like that. So hopefully

[2:53:07] not, but that seems to be part of the problem too is even, you know, if you're

[2:53:11] riding a bicycle or walking your dog on the rail trail, these bikes are going by

[2:53:14] at a, you know, when you're going walking 40 km an hour is pretty fast. So

[2:53:20] just that I point that out.

[2:53:24] » Well, thank you. Seeing um no further comments, um we do have a

[2:53:30] motion before us. Um again, moved by Councelor Halp and seconded by Councelor

[2:53:34] Grace. Um, I'll call the question now. All those in favor?

[2:53:40] Those opposed? That's carried.

[2:53:45] And since the mayor has left the meeting, I will just continue along. Um,

[2:53:50] item 13 on the agenda is bylaws. We have two bylaws before us. U bylaw uh 832026

[2:53:57] local plan amendment L-2025-016

[2:54:02] by SKG Holdings Incorporated and um bylaw 84-2026

[2:54:10] zoning bylaw amendment Z-2025-027

[2:54:15] by SKG Holdings Incorporated. Um, I have a recommendation that these uh two

[2:54:21] bylaws are hereby read, passed, and sealed this 24th day of August the 20

[2:54:26] August August 2026. Sorry. This 24th day of

[2:54:30] August 2026. Um, can I have a mover and a second for that? Moved by Vice Deputy

[2:54:35] Mermay, seconded by councelor Halpin. Any discussion to the two bylaws?

[2:54:43] And um, note that councelor Grace did leave. All [clears throat] those in

[2:54:47] favor? That's carried. Then we have a

[2:54:51] confirmatory bylaw. I have a recommendation that bylaw 85-2026

[2:54:56] being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the council of the town of Sagging

[2:55:00] Shores. It's hereby read passed and sealed this 24th day of August 2026.

[2:55:06] Moved by councelor Grace, seconded by councelor

[2:55:11] Stack. Any discussion? All those in favor?

[2:55:15] That's carried. Then I have a recommendation that this regular council

[2:55:19] meeting of August 24th, 2026 hereby adjourns at 9:25 p.m. Moved by Vice

[2:55:25] Deputy Mayor Matt, seconded by councelor Sack. All those in favor?

[2:55:30] That's carried. >> [laughter]

Council Meeting - Planning

Transcript