Good evening everyone. It is 6:30 p.m. Members of council are assembled. When
you're ready to begin. >> Thank you very much. Good evening
everyone. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the council of the
Tanosaging Shores. Welcome all members. Everyone in the gallery, everyone
watching via the live stream. We're glad everybody's with us. Second item on the
agenda is the land acknowledgement and councelor Dvinsky has that this evening.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you, we acknowledge that we are meeting on the
traditional lands and treaty territory of the Sagino Ojiway nation, which
consists of the Chipoas of Sagin and the Chipoas of Nayash unseated First Nation.
We understand this land holds immense significance to the people of Sagin,
Ojiway Nation. We appreciate those who live and work alongside us today and who
continue the traditions of their ancestors as stewards of the land we are
privileged to inhabit. We thank them for the contributions they have made in both
caring for the land and in shaping this community. We commit to truth and
reconciliation. To acknowledging the truth about what
happened to indigenous peoples because of colonization and to reconciliation
which begins with each and every one of us. As a local government and public
organization, we are dedicated to learning about indigenous culture, to
fostering a better relationship with First Nations and their people, and we
commit ourselves to actions that move us forward on a path to healing along with
the Sagin Ojiway nation. >> Thank you. Third item on the agenda is
disclosure of interest. Asking a member if you have one of those you'd like to
declare. Council Grace. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, um I'm declaring a
conflict of interest on uh items 7.1, 13.1,
and 13.2. They relate to the draft plan of
subdivision S-2025-004,
the local official plan and zoning bylaw amendments, and the related proposed
bylaws. I own property which is located directly
across the street from the proposed development and the new street entrance.
» Thank you. Any further declarations? I have one like to declare a pinary
interest with respect to agenda item 11.2.1
the uh notice of the motion on the highway 21 speed limit. I'm declaring
that peerary interest because I am a shareholder in a business that owns
property along that section of highway 21. All right. If there's no further
declarations, of course, you can declare when any time if you need to. Uh, no
additions, deletions, or amendments. So, we're on to the minutes. I have a
resolution that council adopt the minutes of the regular council meeting
of August 10th, 2026 as presented as a mover and secondary, the vice deputy
mayor and councelor Grace. Discussion to the minutes. Seeing none, councelor
Grace. Sorry. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just wanted
to I know I've the clerk has confirmed this, but um I just wanted to confirm
again that the complete designation application for the 160 L heritage
designation um will be attached uh to the published
minutes. Thanks >> the clerk.
» Thank you, Mayor Sharbano. The complete application for that heritage
designation will appear on the HTML version of the approved minutes.
» Okay. Any further questions or comments of the minutes? Seeing none, all in
favor? That is carried. Okay. So, that moves us on then to item seven, reports
of municipal officers. Uh few reports there. First one is 7.1 draft plan of
subdivision S-20225-004 local official plan amendment L-2025-016
and zoning bylaw amendment Z-20225-027 uh recommendation with respect to SKG
holdings/chantry crossing. So we'll turn that to the planner uh Karina Smith.
» Thank you through you mayor Charbano. Uh I'm presenting the applications tonight
on behalf of the planner, Julie Steeper, who is not available to attend this
evening. Uh a draft plan of subdivision application has been submitted to create
a residential subdivision. Um that subdivision would consist of 33 single
detached lots and 18 townhouse lots fronting on proposed extensions of
Albert Street and Emerald Drive. There are also blocks proposed for highway
commercial, walkway, storm water management, open space, um, reserve and
highway widening purposes. The draft plan of subdivision and the related
local official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment were previously
presented at a public meeting held in April of this year. The draft plan of
subdivision has undergone just one minor revision relating to the culde-sac bulb
and the alignment of the rail trail uh in proximity to that bulb. Those changes
are minor uh but overall the lot fabric as well as the proposed road layout is
generally consistent with what was presented at the public meeting.
The local official plan amendment uh has been submitted to amend the boundaries
of the existing designation in the town's official plan to align with the
proposed lot layout in the draft plan of subdivision. The subject lands are
currently designated highway, commercial, residential, and open space.
And the proposed official plan amendment would maintain those designations, but
again would align the boundaries of those designations with the proposed lot
and block fabric. The zoning bylaw amendment seeks to
reszone uh the property from highway commercial with a holding provision,
residential first density with a holding provision and open space also with a
holding provision. Uh the proposed zoning would introduce residential third
density to allow for the townhouse blocks. The proposed single family units
would be in the residential first density special zone and the highway
commercial would also have a special um highway HC37
zone as well. The open space does not have any proposed special provisions.
The applications before council this evening have considered comments from
the public. We did receive over 60 comments from members of the community
uh which included um uh various uh concerns with respect to flooding, storm
water management, traffic and other issues. We also received comments from
agencies on the applications and those are included in the agenda package for
you this evening. We would note that the town town staff as well as their
consulting engineer did flag outstanding concerns particularly with respect to
hydro geology and storm water management and also concerns with respect to uh
traffic and the noise barrier. For that reason, we are seeking and recommending
to council this evening that the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw
amendment be approved. Uh and that uh council support in principle approval of
the draft plan of subdivision. That draft plan of subdivision would report
would then be written and taken to county council as the county is the
approval body for the draft plan of subdivision. We anticipated there may be
some further uh adjustments to the language in the conditions and we've
been working diligently with town staff and the applicant to refine the language
of those conditions. Um I would note um upon my review in preparation for the
meeting this evening. There was not a condition included with respect to an
updated and final transportation report and so we will be looking to add that
before we take a report re uh a report forward to county council. That
concludes my presentation for this evening, but I'm happy to answer any
questions that council may have. >> Okay. Thank you. There is a resolution
that council adopt bylaw 83-2026 for local official plan amendment L-2025-016
by SKG Holdings Incorporated and that it be forwarded to Bruce County for
approval. That council approves zoning bylaw amendment Z-20225-027
by SKG Holdings Incorporated and bylaw 84-2026.
and that council support in principle county of Bruce approval of draft plan
of subdivision S-20225-00004 by SKG Holdings Incorporated in
accordance with the draft plan attached and subject to resolution through count
conditions of draft approval of outstanding issues relating to servicing
storm water management hydrogeeology geotechnical conditions and noise is
there mover and seconder for that resolution moved by Alpen seconded by
Matt discussion
the deputy mayor and then council Man,
» thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you. I have a number of questions. I'm um very
concerned though about moving forward with something um at the moment that
there's there's an awful lot of unanswered questions and and to be
completed, to be received, to be reviewed um kinds of language in this.
And um in my opinion, it would be more appropriate for us to see a lot more
already decided or determined or or at least presented in a form that um we can
then have a discussion about it. So, I'm I'm um not um at the moment um prepared
to to support the motion that that has been put on the floor because I I do
think there's an awful lot of unanswered questions and um the information that we
have from the town's engineering consultant um doesn't give me a great
deal of confidence either in that um you know, they often in their their report
um said, you know, we don't have this we can't comment on this and so
but I do have some questions um and um what was not clear from the drawing so
I'll I'll just run through them um going from this the special um condition
on the R1 um zoning is about a couple of things but one of them is reduction in
the size of the lots the what's required at the moment is 450 square meters um is
the required lot size the um document suggests that it's going going down to
400 square meters. What is that in terms of dimensions? They they look um to me
to all be um fairly similar in size, but even the town's engineers said that the
drawing should have very specific lot sizes indicated. Um which led me to
think that maybe they're not all the same size. What's the general size of
the lots for the R1 um parcel? Um is it 50 by 100? Is it 40 by 80? What what's
the size of those lots? the planner.
» Yes, thank you for the question through you, Mayor Charbano. So, the dimensions
of the lots uh for the single family, they are in the range of 13.5 to peers
up to 14 14.3 in some locations in terms of their frontage and depths vary from
30 m um in some locations up to 37 I'm seeing in some locations.
Deputy Mayor, >> thank you for that. Um, I also was
concerned when I read in the report that um, there was a comment from SA about
um, comp compensatory I'm probably saying that the word wrong, compensatory
planting areas um, to um, take into account the potential for lost trees.
And the municipal response that that there were no lands available for this
kind of surprised me. Um, do we not have land somewhere in the entirety of Sagine
Shores? I, you know, Helwell Park has a huge area that has some trees in it. I I
know it's over the size um that was mentioned here. Um, Lamont has a lot of
land. Um, you know, there's other um parks in town that could handle trees.
Uh there used to be a tree farm out near the landfill. I get what was meant by
the statement that there are no municipal lands available for
compensatory plantings comp whatever that word is
» the manager of development services. >> Thank you. And through you may sharel.
So I I I think in general the idea that the town um should supply lands to
offset tree removal to facilitate private development is maybe um
something that staff were indicating that uh we would not want to potentially
set a precedent that this is this is what the town needs to do is supply
land. So if there's tree removal, the preference is that the developer find um
another private source to be able to plant those trees. There were
discussions that happened internally for where there would be an appropriate spot
to do tree compensation um and with our park staff and the the facilities
manager. I don't believe that there were lands that were identified that would be
suitable to account for the number of trees that would be required.
» The deputy mayor. >> Well, thank you for that. That's not at
all the impression I got from the report. So, that's that's good
additional information to have. I wanted to ask um about the Pete removal that's
that's talked about in the report. Where where does that go? How is how is Pete
that is somehow um not desirable to leave somewhere? Where does it go? And
how how how is it disposed of or is it is it usable in some other fashion? Um
I'm just curious where where this pete would go.
» Planner. >> Yes. Thank you for the question. So I I
don't have a good answer for you on on where that material would go. Uh my
understanding is that there are fill transport regulations in the province in
terms of the movement of fill material. So whether it would be regulated under
that process, I'm not entirely certain, but I but I could look into that if that
is information that you were looking for.
» Mayor, >> um thank you for that. I also wanted to
ask a question about um the references in the report to noise walls. Um, you
know, I'm a fan of of BMS with trees, and you know, we had some success with
um that sort of addition to projects um throughout Sing Shores, most notably in
Southampton near this with um the um the western side of the Tim Hortons
property. Um nice burm got got installed there and and the trees have grown up.
It's um I think it's doing what the intention was. Um, in this report though
that we've got before us, what's suggested as as um a good noise wall or
or the noise wall that's um being included is a double thick wood fence.
Um there's nothing in this though to tell me how that's better than a burm.
So who who ultimately makes the decision on what's appropriate for noise
mitigation or for appropriate separation in particular between um abudding uses
that are distinct and difference foram different for example the commercial lot
that that would back on to residential units. um our zoning and and other
documents say there needs to be some sort of buffer there. Is is a double
thick wood fence um equivalent to a a a burm? There's no mention in the report
of a height. So, I'm just curious, you know, what what are the pros and cons of
both of them? Why is why is the report suggesting double thick wood fences over
BMS and plantings? >> The planner.
» Uh yes, through you, Mayor Sharpeno. So, my understanding is that the the noise
wall, the the double fence is what's being proposed, as well as um air
conditioning for the unit so that they may be able to close their their windows
um adjacent to any properties that are adjacent or within that buffer area of
the highway. Um the details on what the final mitigation measure might be are
still subject to discussion. So despite the fact that this report has identified
that noise wall and the additional mitigation measures as well as warning
clauses to be included in the subdivision agreement for for future
land owners um those um mitigation measures may be amended through the
detailed design process. So um if there is a desire or further need to
understand why a wall has been chosen versus uh some other mitigation like a
burm and and retention of the existing trees on the lot. uh that can be refined
through the final uh submission of the noise report to the satisfaction of the
town and its consulting engineer. >> The premier
» um thank you. I just have a couple of couple more in um the planning report
from the county. Just would like clarification on um under the density
category. Um, and and in the future, could we have numbered pages to make it
a little easier? If we're we're going to be asking questions, we can refer to a a
page. Perhaps that might be helpful in some regard, but the density section,
which I don't know what page it's on. Um it refers to in one part it says um D um
the residential portion of all developments that will be serviced with
municipal sewer and water to achieve a min minimum density of 15 units per
gross hectare with the layout the density of the entire development meets
this target. Then when I jump down to the next paragraph, it's the proposed
residential development will have a density of 18.35
units per gross developable hectar. So my question is what's the difference
between per gross hectar and per gross developable hectar? Um because our bylaw
um is looking at a minimum density per gross hectar. I I am just curious what
this developable Hector means, but also with the layout, the density of the
entire development meets this target. Is that referring to the entire because
this is phase two of a subdivision plan. So is that sentence referring to that
the whole phase one phase 2 combination um meets the target or is it just
referring to phase two >> the bladder?
Thank you for the question. So the density, the terminology gross hector or
gross developable Hector that they're essentially the same. Um and I think
you've made note of that before. So we will be uh paying closer attention to
that when we do prepare further reports for council. Um the density uh is based
on 15 units per gross hectare is the minimum as you noted for fully serviced
uh areas. Um the 18.35 uh excludes uh the natural um the storm
water management ponds specifically. Um the density that you'll note on the
draft plan of subdivision is actually 17 or just over 17 units per hectare. And
so um that also excluded um the the hazard land or what would be the storm
water management block in this case as well as the walkways and highway
widenings reserves and right ofways.
» The deputy mayor. >> So the um the other question about with
the layout the density of the entire development meets this target. It's just
this particular application or is it looking at the entire development which
did include or does include phase one >> the planner?
» Yes, thank you for that followup. Um, so it would be just for this this proposal,
not the original uh phase one. >> Deputy mayor,
» I'll just I'll just mention one more. I I had um I have a couple more, but I'll
let other people because maybe they'll come up with them. I I was a little bit
concerned that in the documents um a street that's Island Street is
continually referred to as Island Drive. Um just a little clarification point
there. And at one point there's a reference to some place called Subway
Drive. I'm not too sure where that is in Southampton, but I'm pretty confident
it's it's not in this part of Southampton. But um you know it's uh it
it just is concerning when there's there's type typo errors like that that
um um really shouldn't happen. Anyway, thank you Mr. Mayor.
» Thank you council man. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor and through you. Um
I have a question regarding the hydrogeeological
environmental assessment. So um my understanding is that there's been phase
one hydrogeeological environmental assessment completed and that there is
still a phase two outstanding uh and we're being asked to
um approve a draft subdivision agreement pending
uh successful completion of the phase 2 environmental assessment. Now in here it
talks about the building types. Is the site the phase 2 environmental
assessment dependent on whether the homes that are going to be built are on
slab or whether they have basement and if they're on slab does that negate the
need for the second phase EA on the hydraological
conditions >> the planner.
» Thank you through Mayor Sharponos. So their applicant has submitted an updated
phase one assessment as you've noted. They've also submitted a draft phase 2
assessment which has been circulated to to town to the town and the consulting
engineer who's doing the peer review for the town. Um that document we've
included a condition in the proposed conditions of draft approval which would
require finalization of that document. I understand in speaking with the
proponent that document is is ready to be submitted in its final form. Um but
that that the town did have some outstanding comments and concerns that
uh we will review before that report is finalized and so we are looking to
include that as a condition of of draft approval and uh that be to the
satisfaction of the town >> councelor.
So it it it's going to we're going to get the phase 2 report to our
satisfaction irregardless of the building types that are going to be
there. >> The planner.
» Yes. Thank you for the follow-up. Um, so yes, there there is also a condition
included in the proposed conditions that would require all development to be slab
on grade because of the high groundwater conditions. The phase 2 report is
required regardless because there is residential uses proposed that will be
on the ground floor. >> Okay, further questions? Uh, councelor
Dinsky.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you, most of my questions have been answered.
Not to my satisfaction, but they've been answered. Um,
I'm in agreement with the deputy mayor. I read this report. Granted, I did it
between 1 and 2 in the morning one night when I couldn't sleep. But I read this
report and
it was one draft approval after another draft approval after this after that.
And I thought I came up with 12. Now I could be wrong, but I thought I came up
with 12 different things that hadn't been done yet.
And I think we have to do the right thing. And the right thing may be
allowing this uh subdivision to go ahead, but not in my eyes not the way it
is right now. Uh because there are too many as uh the deputy mayor said
unanswered questions and uh I simply
I simply can't uh do that. I've looked at it again when I came here at six and
and looked at it again and it's still one after another an issue a report
something is outstanding. So I can't at this time
support this application. I would much rather us have far more information than
we have. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Helpin.
» Thank you mayor and through you. Um and one of the proposed conditions of draft
approval condition 13 states about the slab on grade buildings etc. But at the
end of it it says the cost to design and construct improvements to the downstream
storm drainage systems as approved by the town of so shores are solely respons
are the sole responsibility of the owner. What do we have any idea what
those downstream improvements
would mean? And I believe this is into catchment drain 12.
» The planner.
» Uh thank you through you, Mayor Sharbonos. So um I don't know the
specific details in terms of what upgrades are required but there are
substantial flooding issues that are still to be addressed to the
satisfaction of the town and the consulting engineer to ensure that um
the current municipal infrastructure and any proposed upgrades are able to
accommodate that storm water management um in the downstream location. So I I
can't give you specifics at this point. Um but that is a condition uh for that
to be addressed and to be covered by the applicant.
» The counselor. >> Uh thank you Marin through you. Uh I I
really support this development. I I think I like what they're doing with the
um with the rail trail. I I like how they're transferring land to us. I like
how they're uh the tree retention. I think it is a wellthoughtout and I I
want to say that like it's I'm sorry for the difficulty in
redoing this draft plan now because it was certainly easier to do 20 years ago
than it is today with the added regulation. But my my biggest fear is
the is the storm water management and and where that's going to go. And you
know, just at our last council meeting, we, you know, we we talked about
catchment 12, and there's $2.28 million worth of work to do to bring that up to
grade. Um there's
uh I I really support this, but I I'm unfortunately I feel like I need to see
a few more of these reports finalized. The the groundwater level and the storm
water management issue. Thank you. Thank you. Further comments the vice deputy
mayor. >> Yep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um I just
um [clears throat] was wondering through you to the planner. We talked about the
environmental assessment phase two. Um how long have we had that that plan? And
where are we at with the review of the environmental assessment? Um when do we
expect when do we expect that to be um firmed up?
» The planner Uh yes, thank you for the question. So
the environmental site assessment phase 2 was received on um the draft report on
May the 8th. Um we we have not received the final version and it has been
circulated for town staff review as well as the the peerreview consultant and so
there are comments um that that are available and included in the package
with respect to that assessment.
payment >> to the plan. Are you you haven't
received the final version from the from the developer or you haven't seen the
final version because of the delays with staff reviewing it. Where's the delay?
» The planner. >> Yes, thank you. Um so, so I can't speak
entirely for where that delay might have occurred. I know we have been working
diligently with town staff and and the consultant um for the applicant to
resolve outstanding concerns. >> Deputy mayor.
» Yeah. I just you know I I think one of the things
this council's been trying work so hard to do is to speed up the planning
process. And I just think that we're, you know, they just I I I don't think we
need to be approving willy-nilly or half-hazardly. I I don't I don't I I'm
not suggesting that, but when I hear a report May,
three 3 4 months ago, um seems to be a long time. And I I just think that um
you know, this this this plan was approved some 20 years ago and lapsed.
And I guess the question, how many years ago did this plan lapse? Was it 10 years
ago, 12 years ago? When when when did the original plan of subdivision lapse?
» The planner?
» Uh yes, thank you. So the original uh approval was in 2004 and it lapsed in
2015. So under the current planning act that
does allow for um lapsed subdivisions to be potentially deemed not to have lapsed
but there are certain criteria that do need to be met and this subdivision did
not meet that criteria. >> Basically mayor um so I think you know
there's there's a lot of good marriage with this dating back 15 20 years ago
and there's still a lot of marriage today. I I like the idea of the the rail
trail work that's that's going on the s rail trail association back this 100%.
Um, I understand there's some progress being made with the traffic flow from
Adelaide Street out on on Elbert Street. I I thought at one point we received a
grant for some some work on the intersection there, but um I just asked
that question today and staff are still getting back to me. Um I did receive one
response, but um I thought we had moved a little further ahead with with the
intersection changes there. We listened to the public. We applied for funding
and I think there's some good work happening behind the scenes. Um,
you know, I think from a inter land tribunal standpoint, we we went through
this with marketry too and um didn't support that. Of course, land tribunal
um came along and supported it and approved it and I I just wondering if um
you know I I'm not sure where this votes going to go on this. I guess what I'm
hearing from council, you just need more information. There's a lot of un undone
work yet. And I and um you know, I hope we can get that sooner than later
because I don't think we should hold up this planning process any any further.
At least um [snorts] let's just try and get it moved along. But I I guess my
question to staff back to staff again, Mr. mayor would be um
when [clears throat] when do you see this you know there's there's servicing
there's storm water management the hydro geology assessment phase two
environmental assessment geotechnical conditions when will we receive that
completed information are we at the mercy of the developer to get that
[clears throat] right that information to us I'm just trying to get I'm trying
to understand how much they're not giving to us versus how how how much we
need to speed the process up a little longer from a staffing standpoint. So,
I'm a little confused with what's what's missing. I I I kind of like the
approving principle because I think this is forthcoming this information. I don't
think we should hold up any further. But when will we see something again back at
this table? Would it be a month, two months? Is it the new council? When will
when is this coming back? >> The planner.
» Uh thank you for the question. So just on your earlier comment with respect to
um when when you might uh see this
application again, it's provided on whether or not or how council decides on
the application this evening. So uh if council were to approve the amendments
and to support in principle the draft plan of subdivision, uh the next step
would be for this uh draft plan of subdivision application to be brought
forward to county council for a decision. And if that was also a
favorable decision, then um this item would likely return to this council uh
with the agreement. But I perhaps would turn that over to to the manager for the
town. >> Manager.
» Uh thank you. And through you, Mayor Sherno. Uh yes, that's correct. If it
advances to a draft approval, the next time this would return to council would
be with a draft uh subdivision agreement for consideration.
Deputy Mayor, >> just just one last comment. Um I I am
going to support this. Um and and it may not be enough votes to to move this
through, but you know, it's it's a it's support in principle. And what we're
saying to the developers is that we're subject to resolutions through condition
draft approval of outstanding issues relating to servicing, storm water
management, hydro geology, tech, geotechnical conditions, and noise. They
know they have to provide that. They know they have to provide that and um I
think we need to send the message back to the developers which is a great plan
and council help said so and I think I councelor deinskills will say this is a
great development maybe not just yet but I think we shouldn't be delaying this
any further and um I think we need to be supporting in principle so I will be
supporting the resolution >> thank you very much councelor stack
» I'm shrinking suddenly um I just a couple process questions I think I ask a
similar question every time. But so for this, if we were to not approve the um
effectively get when we get down to the bylaw, we don't approve the bylaw and we
say no, we want to go back and have the conditions for draft approval met before
we come back. How is it possible to just go right into the subdivision agreement?
Like what what I'm trying to understand is are we actually materially delaying
them by asking them to complete what we have already said we are going to
require completion before we approve the final plan
» the planner.
» Uh thank you for the question. So if this council this evening decided to
defer the application um that would be a time delay for the applicant. So their
their amendment specifically um would would wait until a report is brought
back to this council um with more refinements potentially to the
conditions of draft approval. And so that that would be at least a month
delay to bring that back to to the next council meeting. Um again that would
then push out the timeline with respect to a follow-up report to county council
as well. It's
» probably more of a statement than a question, but I think um and I'm
probably sounding like my mother, which is a different thing. Like you have to
learn, you've managed to wait since or that the developers managed to wait from
2015 to today, so 11 years to bring this back. I think we've seen a lot of
concerns from residents about some of the outstanding issues around the
environmental assessment, drainage issues, all all manner of issues that
have been um raised by several residents. So I just I am struggling um
I'm struggling to approve this not because I just to be clear not because I
actually have a objection to the development itself. Um I think the rail
trail discussion is very good. I ran that trail the other day. I thought okay
this would be great to protect. I think there's a lot of opportunity um for
noise barriers. I think that development makes sense in the community. But I I do
think we should recognize that where folks have raised concerns. And I think,
you know, we all know when it comes to flooding and drainage, people get
particularly concerned. And I know that there's been some concerns raised um
about the environmental assessment because it, you know, there are some
concerns about localized I think the fuel whatever that was underground that
there are some concerns there. I just the only reason I'm not going to I'm
just being candid is the only reason I'm not going to support this. I just think
like let's finish some of the more material issues out so that people can
feel more comfortable that the town's completed its due diligence. So when you
tell us that the reports have been submitted, I'm just struggling with why
it's being brought to us without reviewing and finalizing the reports
like the reports that the developer had to provide.
» Bler >> um just as a as a followup um to that
point and I believe another member of council had raised a question about
delays in the process. So with the most recent large resubmission for this
application to address comments from from the county town and other agencies,
the applicant had indicated in their response matrix that they had provided
certain studies with that submission which in fact they were not provided and
had not been finalized. So there was a delay there and that is why we also had
recommended that some of those reports including the hydrogeeological
assessment um be um moved forward with uh conditions of draft approval.
» Hen sorry so sorry just so we're clear
because I'm hearing some commentary in in the gallery here.
So just so I'm clear, the developer did not submit a complete package in the
original application. Is that is that what you're saying?
» The planner. >> Yes. Thank you. So um I haven't been
part of all of those discussions, but my understanding was that um there was
material and information provided to address the comments that have been
provided by uh agencies through the through the original round of comments.
Um but it was not a full resubmission um which would include a finalized report.
» Councelor Stack. Okay. Councelor Helpin. >> Thank you. Mayor and through you. Um is
it possible that there's three recommendations there. Is it possible
that the third recommendation that we vote on that and we because I would
accept this a council support in principle the county approved the draft
plan by etc. I I won't uh read the whole thing, but we're
approving it in principle, but we're just not passing the bylaw yet. And
would that allow it to move forward or would you like me to read that for
the record? Do you have any comments of that the
planner? >> Uh so thank you for the question. So, in
response, uh, we would be looking for the amendments to to move forward, uh,
before we would take a report to county council on the subdivision, um, simply
because, uh, we are looking to make sure the appropriate permissions are in place
to facilitate that future land division. >> Yeah. To be clear, you can't do the you
can't do the draft plan subdivision without amending the zoning and the
official plan, right? One has to follow the other.
the council helping. >> Um
I'm going to think for a second. Thank you.
» And the deputy mayor,
» I don't know how um to to ask for a deferral rather than a vote at this
stage, but um I really do think that there's key information that's missing.
Um, and as councelor Stack said, you know, the the due diligence um aspect, I
think we need to have complete confidence that that we've received what
we should receive um when we're making decisions that potentially impact not
just um potential new residents of town or or people buying a new house in town,
moving around, but also existing neighborhoods and infrastructure under
the ground. And I just um you know even the imprincipal part if some of the
reports that come in have information that requires a real redirect or
rethinking or redesign. Um you know that then what happens is it going to just be
oh well let's just work through this and figure it out. Um when you know we
should have had that information up front. I'm concerned um that um any kind
of cost element that the town is is um going to be involved with um because we
are often involved with development proposals with some taxpayer funded
aspects. Um in the absence of complete information and and a a really defined
um sense of storm water management and other um technical things with
infrastructure. um there's potential there for things to
come up that um you know if we if we just waited and got the information up
front so that there was a clear understanding I think that that would be
very helpful to our staff but also be um good messaging to the community that um
everything's been thought about everything's been considered
everything's been reviewed everything's been questioned and then a decision was
rendered I just think there's a lot of information still missing so I will not
be supporting um the way that the motion was worded up front. Um I would um I I
think the development, you know, has some good points in that it's a
continuation of something from a number of years ago and um makes sense because
it's um you know, there's existing infrastructure there. There were roads
planned through that area. Um albeit there's been some adjustments there. So,
the development itself is is um quite possibly a very good idea, but I just
don't think that we have what we need um to ensure that the town um is in good
shape in terms of taxpayer funded expenses, but also just in terms of our
own long-term plan with with the way we manage services um in the community.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Of course, you asked um how
you could um proceed with a deferral and a motion to defer is how you would do
that. So, I would entertain that at any time if that's what council wish to do.
Although, I would say if council wish to do that, I would um specifically
set out what things you're deferring, what you're waiting for. Um I assume
this hydrogeeological assessment or sorry, pardon me, the geote technical
investigation report would be one of those things. I don't know what else.
But I would say in fairness to the applicant, um if you're doing a
deferral, then you should identify what of the what information you're looking
for um to have brought back um in order for council to have what it thinks it
needs to make a decision on this. Is there further discussion?
Councelor Duck, >> I don't know if this is a point of
order, but we do have, I believe, the proponent in the room who keeps making
comments. Can we can we hear from him rather than having this?
» No, we can't hear from members of the public. We're not in the public meeting
setting at this time. We can talk to the planner. You can ask questions of the
planner, the deputy mayor. >> Order. Come to order, please. Come to
order. It's not a public meeting. We're we're
uh going to proceed in normal process. We can talk to the planner if we want.
Well, I'm sorry about that, but that isn't the case. The deputy mayor.
» Um I'm I'm doing this on the fly, so I might might miss something. So, I'll um
hope that a colleague if they if they notice that I missed something, but I
would move that um um this item be deferred pending. Um uh there's comments
in the report pending uh storm water considerations being fully addressed to
the satisfaction of the town. Um that a
concerns regarding the absence of a hydro hydrogeeological assessment um be
addressed to the satisfaction of the town. that um
complete information regarding um the situation with Pete and its removal be
provided um and the submission of a geotechnical investigation and report um
be submitted. Also, there was one more here. Uh, that the submission of a final
phase 2 environmental site assessment be provided to the satisfaction of the town
of Sagging Shores. I'm sure I missed a couple, but those were the ones that
were very specifically mentioned in the planning report as as being of concern
to the town and not being completely addressed.
» All right. Well, that's Do you have that, the clerk? You have that recorded?
All right, it's moved by the deputy mayor. Is there a seconder for the
deferral at this stage, seconded by councelor Demenky? We'll wait for the
language here.
So I have a resolution. This is it. The council defer consideration of
» Can you refresh? >> Oh, I have to refresh. Sorry.
No. Okay. So here I see it. So the
resolution uh moved by the deputy mayor, second by council Dinsky is that council
defer consideration of draft plan of subdivision application S-20225.004
local official plan amendment application L-225-016
and zoning by amendment application Z-2025-027
SKG holdings/chantry crossing and directed the following information be
submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of the town prior to the
applications being brought back to council. storm water management
considerations and supporting information, a hydraological a
hydrogeeological assessment, complete information regarding the pete uh
including its proposed removal, a geotechnical submission and supporting
report and a phase three environmental site assessment
discussion. The deputy mayor and then councelor stack and then councelor May.
» You did say storm water management there up front. Okay, thank you.
Okay, I have councelor stack and then councelor May.
» Sorry, I just wanted to clarify. So, I'm sure I'm just slow today. So, some
of the items that uh the deputy mayor indicated is basis for deferral. I just
can um can the planner just confirm those were those have the final versions
of those have been submitted to the town or have not been submitted?
» The planner. >> Yes. So for some of those reports uh for
example the storm water management report there is a preliminary storm
water management report uh there are town staff comments on that but it is
typical through the draft plan of subdivision process that a final report
would be prepared as a condition of approval. So that would be an example
where it's fairly standard to have to have a final storm water management
report submitted at a detailed design stage. uh the hydrogeeological report
town staff um as well as the the phase two and and I just wanted to clarify in
the deferral it's phase two report instead of phase three um the that uh
report my understanding is ready to be submitted by the proponent um but uh
would still need to be reviewed by town staff so we have included it as well as
a condition of approval so all of the items I believe that um that uh that
have been noted in the deferral ederal request are uh included as conditions of
draft approval. Um should council opt not to defer the application and instead
endorse the the draft plan of subdivision in principle.
» Council stack. >> So could so just to maybe a discussion
about the amendment. I'm I'm if the standard sort of the drainage items are
pretty standard to come in through the the next phase. I'm a bit more reticent
to include in our condition like our deferral things that are pretty
standard. I think where I would say is can we narrow can we further narrow the
scope so we're not unduly delaying this. So I think the hydro geology would be
the the issue that concerns me the most just for discussion.
» Any comments for clarification any of that?
Are there items here? Clarify for us. Are there items here that are um that we
would normally have at this stage of the process that we don't have uh items that
have been listed? I mean, I think that's what council's coming down to here.
There's a question about what should we have normally when we're when council's
making a decision at this moment um that we don't have if anything um and which
of these things would we normally uh only uh be considering after approval
and at as a condition? Can you clarify that for us uh the planner?
» Uh yes, thank you. So um there are often situations where we do have the
necessary report. So in for example the applicant has made a resubmission. There
are comments um for example from the consulting engineer doing peer review on
behalf of the town where there are outstanding issues that are still to be
resolved. And so we've had um through the county planner a recommendation that
those matters um could be addressed through the preparation of a final
report which is how we've had it worded in the conditions. So so we are
comfortable providing the recommendation to council today that these matters can
be addressed through final report to be submitted through the conditions of
draft approval. Um and so I use the example of storm water management that
is a typical um we at the start of the process we do get a preliminary report
and then as a condition of approval there is a final report. Now storm water
conditions on this site I would say or or or maybe um town staff have expressed
a concern with how infrastructure is going to handle that storm water and
where that storm water is going and ensuring that it has properly taken into
account existing development that's already there. things like that. And so
there are issues that are still to be resolved, but they can be provided
through a final report and a condition of approval. I would note um that if
council does um decide to defer the applications this evening, um the the
applicant has been in a position that they are able to appeal the applications
for non-decision. Um they're already in that position and so I'll just flag that
that that would be a potential risk uh to the applications if they are
deferred. >> Okay. Councelor Halpin. Sorry, pardon
me. Councelor Matt and Halpin. Sorry about that.
» Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you, um I I don't see myself supporting
the deferral. um backed up by the last comment that I
just heard, but it seems to me that that the developer and I'm getting that
impression somewhere that the developer has submitted all of the required
documentation and all the reports and the studies that are required and that
they are at some stage of being reviewed and approved and peer reviewed by town
staff or consultants and uh and I don't I don't see that we wouldn't be able to
satisfy the requirements of the bylaw. When we get the final approval and some
of these aren't done to our satisfaction at that time, council will have the
ability to not approve the final draft subdivision. But there are the the
process as it's been laid out is is one that we've seen before with draft plan
subdivisions where uh some of the reviews haven't been maybe totally
complete but and especially backed up by the fact that this was an approved
subdivision previously. So a lot of those things would have had to have been
done 20 years ago when this was approved the first time. So, I'm confident that
that the developer has completed all the steps that he needs to do, and it's just
a matter of the the staff and the developer
reviewing and getting their eyes dotted and tees crossed in order for this to
proceed to the county level. And then finally, it will come back here. And at
that point, we will be insistent or whoever's sitting here will be insistent
that everything is complete, everything's final, everything is done
to the satisfaction of the town. So, I won't be supporting the deferral and I
will be supporting the original motion, which is to approve the draft plan of
subdivision. Thank you. >> I just want to clarify the process there
because um so plans of subdivision receive final approval at the county
level, right? they don't come back to the town. So, it'll be it'll go from
here because they're the approval authority for a plan of subdivision that
the county council is. So, um so there's no this is the last decision that this
council will make everything from this point forward assuming we do this. We're
recommending in principle that the county approves approval authority
approve the draft plan subdivision. County council won't even take up a cons
of subdivision without such a motion having been passed by the lower tier
council. But they are the f they are the decision maker. Um from this point
forward um implementation will fall to staff. So at that point enforcement of
the draft of the con the conditions that are now in draft or the d the conditions
of draft approval will be undertaken by uh town staff primarily just for clarity
about how this all goes. Okay. Is that clear enough?
Yeah, I think it is clear. But um will when it gets to county council,
will county does county council give it the same level of scrutiny that we
apparently are here today or do they kind of take our word for it that if the
town's passed it, it must be okay? Well, my experience, county counselors
are diligent about their work. They also uh do um pay close attention to the
recommendations of lower tier councils with respect to things happening in
their municipalities give a great deal of difference generally to lower tier
councils unless there's some kind of um very obvious problem.
Uh the [clears throat] council helping then deputy mayor.
» Thank you, mayor. through you. I I'm I'm not supportive of the length of [snorts]
the list of reasons for deferment. There there's only one thing that I'm
concerned about and that's the storm water management plan. And perhaps I
shouldn't be, but but so what does it look like if it comes back to to us that
it's that line that scares me so much about the downstream infrastructure
required? what what happens or what's the likelihood of that happening? It
just that's the only thing I'm really uncomfortable with because it just seems
so open-ended, you know, like if there is. So, what
does it look like if they say, "Oh, well, we we've got to do um um you know,
we we we have to do upgrades to drain 12." Like, what does that look like or
what happens then? the planner.
» Uh yes, thank you uh through you, Mayor Charbano. So um if the draft plan of
subdivision were to be approved with the the conditions before you today, the
applicant would then start working towards addressing those conditions. So
for example, um to address the storm water management, they would need to
provide a final storm water management report and with and within that report,
it would provide recommendations that are required to to implement their their
plan. If that report was not to the satisfaction of town staff and its
consulting engineer, then town staff would not be able to write what we refer
to as a clearance letter. So any agency uh and the municipality who are listed
as clearance agencies in the conditions of draft approval are required to submit
a letter to the county indicating how the conditions have been addressed and
if they're satisfied that that final approval can be given. If for some
reason storm water couldn't be addressed, um there was not an
appropriate resolution, then there would be no clearance letter from the
municipality and the county would not be able to recommend final approval, in
which case the applicant would not be able to create the lots. However, they
would still have the the designations and the zoning in place. So so they
could come back and and submit um another application at another time.
» Okay. Thank you. So, this would be the last time that this comes before
council, but it's not the last time that it receives the scrutiny of the town of
Sine Shores. Is that a correct statement to say?
» Yes, thank you. That that is correct. The detailed design is where you get
into the very detailed engineering drawings and submissions and um
resolving any outstanding comments or concerns that had been provided by by
town staff, their engineer and uh the applicable agencies.
» Council Coin, >> uh thank you. It is this list of things
that need to be finished up. That's what kind of scared me away. Is this list
bigger than a lot of lists or or or like uh is it common to have this many things
that we're waiting for the final on the planner?
» I don't know if I can necessarily answer that question. Uh each each file is
different um and dependent on on the site conditions um and the issues that
are being brought forward. >> Yep. Council Helen.
» Thank you, Mayor. Through you and last one. I I won't support the deferment as
it stands. Thank you. >> Okay. The deputy mayor.
» Um thank you and through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh
thanks Councelor Halpin for that. I was making it up on the fly. Um in the uh
report that we received there is an indication in there about um related to
storm water management and master servicing and that sort of thing that
the plan plans that exist didn't take into
account this project specifically that it's it's a little bit different. I
really um don't think that um you know the information that the planner just
provided about um how there's um the potential for an appeal and that you
know that timeliness passed that wasn't in anything that we received. So I'm I'm
a little bit concerned that that's just gets dropped into the conversation. it
seems um a little bit desperate um in some ways and I would hope that any
developer hoping um to have a good project in our community um respects
public input and counselor input enough to recognize that you know ultimately we
want what's good for the community. Um they I think want what's good for the
community too and expect to make a little bit of profit from it or a lot of
profit as as the case may be. But I I would like to believe that a a developer
would not put the threat um over anybody on on council or planning staff that
well, I'll just take this out on appeal. So that that that took me by surprise
when that was said um because I do think that there's some merit to the whole
project. I really think that that there's some fundamental information
missing um from what we're seeing before us. this is the last time we're going to
see this and ultimately, you know, our staff then have to quote unquote figure
it out. Um, and um, sometimes I think we should be providing them with a little
more substantial um, information or support or a decision that then gives
them the the impetus um, or the the confidence to follow through with some
things. There's an awful lot of unanswered questions. And when an
engineering firm, Burnside, that we hired to provide us with advice, when
their report tells us that this is missing, that they can't comment on this
because there's not enough information, I think we should take that seriously. I
respect what the planner said though about, you know, that it's typical that
there are some um things that aren't completely finished. However, there's an
awful lot that was mentioned to us as not being finished. So um if if it would
um you know be helpful um even just getting the deferral on the basis of
storm water management that would be okay with me too. Um but I just think
that that there are enough unanswered questions here that a slight pause to
enable some of these reviews to take place to have some questions answered
will give our staff the ability to better represent the town's interest in
the process and that they won't have to figure it out. that there will be some
information before them that they can then make good decisions using that
information as well. So, um I don't think we should be afraid of of a that
the timeline has passed on going for an appeal. I would like to believe that a
developer who's been listening and I think has obviously listened because
there have been some adjustments made that they have um an interest in um
respecting the community enough to um to take take a little little um
interruption I guess in the process to have a slight delay to get some other
information before the people that it matters to have us receive information
that should matter to us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So if if there's a way that I can
shorten the um the uh request to defer down to just the storm water management
situation, I will do that. Um in respect of what councelor um Halpin has said,
» you're the mover, so you can do that as long as the secondary agrees.
» Well, I then I will do that. >> All right. So that's just an amendment
made by the mover and secondary to the motion on the floor and we'll get the
vice deputy mayor. >> I be brief. I don't think anyone's
saying we're not respecting public input. I think we had a really really
good public meeting here and the room was full and lots was said and I think
the developers have gone back and made some very positive changes this
development. So I don't think anyone's saying we're not respecting public
input. I think we've really respected respected public input. I think they
have listened. So I think they've done some good things with adjusting the uh
the development. I I you know the arguments presented tonight I I'm
wondering and I kind of agree with that statement with the interior land
tribunal. I'm not sure this will stand stand up to the test of time with the
arguments being made, but um I you know I I think the planner as Karine I think
you've done a really good job as the planner with this recommendation and you
know I I go back I go right back to um I won't be supporting the deferral but I I
go right back to that council support in principle
subject to resolution through condition of draft approval of an outstanding
issues and I agree as council may everything you said subject to
resolution through conditions of draft approval. So, I think I've done a really
good job with the report. I think there's room to make sure the developer
gets to the county, to the town what we're requesting. And um so I I I just
think we're delaying delaying delaying. We don't need to delay. I really uh so I
won't be supporting the I won't be supporting the deferral. Will be
supporting the recommendation. >> Okay. Councelor Stack.
Um, I hate admitting this, but I think I
might be changing my mind uh on the fly. And I think the reason is um
so when we did the the Market Street uh vote almost four years ago, uh we ended
up in in front of the land tribunal, we were unsuccessful. And I think what just
causes me a bit of consternation and why I'm pausing on my original position is,
you know, that comment that has been made and now we've sort of articulated
potential legal positions about the strength of our argument on the public
record which is not putting us in a great spot. Um
so I think on that basis I'm going to avoid the I'm
going to take a fairly risk informed decision and say let's you know I think
we will have to follow the process which does not suggest that they are not
without obligation to comply with the final conditions and I think the one
question I had is going back to sort of the drainage issue if they if they are
unable to demonstrate that they can I don't know address the drain drainage
concerns appropriately. That is is that the basis upon which the
county can according to the planning act deny the the final plan of subdivision?
» Planner, >> sorry, could you just uh ask that
question again please? So if and I'll if they don't if at in
the end the developer does not meet the drainage conditions such that the
existing infrastructure can't can't support it or whatever they can't meet
the they can't address the issues raised in the in the report before us and so we
can't sign we can't provide the clear the town can't provide the clearance
letter and that goes to the county. the lack of a clearance letter. Can someone
confirm to me that that's a legal basis upon which the county can decline a a
subdivision approval? >> The planner.
» Uh yes, through you. So, uh if we don't get the required clearance agency
letters, then then we would not be recommending um final approval of the
application.
» Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Cal. >> Sorry, I'm going to be just a bit
pnikity. The planning act entitles the county to say no when the conditions the
the conditions are not met. >> The planner?
» Yes, that's correct. >> Could I just clarify that though?
Because to be clear, um like what happens is the draft plan subdivision
goes to county council. County council approves the draft plan with the
conditions. then the condition then the applicant um does the work and then
their business isn't with the county anymore. It's with the town like in
terms of clearing those conditions at least the ones that are subject are
overseen by the town. Right. It's not just to be clear like
it's not as like I think councelor Sack was was trying was asking and maybe I'm
not saying what you're say what you were saying councelor stack so correct me if
I'm wrong but that somehow this that these clearance letters would impact
decision-m by county council but that isn't the case because all of that
happens after approval by the county approval authority and then the
implementation of the conditions happens downstream from there in a staff to to
applicant basis. Am I right about that? Uh yes, thank you, Mayor Charbano. So um
for final approval, the county does um provide sign off um or a clearance that
would allow the applicant to create the lots. So if we don't get that final
clearance letter from from the town or other agencies listed in the conditions,
um which would include a final agreement uh being entered into between the the
proponent and the town, um then we could potentially bring that back to county
council. Right now that is a delegated um staff exercise for final approval.
» Just to be clear though that that happens after council county council
approved the draft plan and it happens at the staff level the county staff
level and the town staff level unless there's some major problem. Sorry
councelor stag. >> Yeah. So that generally aligns with with
what I think I heard the first time. When you say we could direct direct it
back to county council rather than staff. Is that
pos? Is that what I heard? >> The planner.
» Uh, yes. I'll have to look that up because I quite honestly haven't been
through that that situation before. But that is my understanding is that um if
it wasn't able to be resolved at the staff level, then we would bring that
back to county council. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Dinsky. Sorry,
Council Dinsky. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you. Just
a couple of clarifications here. So the deputy mayor said and I've seconded that
we defer the drainage
issue. If that doesn't pass, does that mean
approval in principle passes or do we have to have a a a vote on that?
» No. this. So there's we your council is currently considering a motion to defer
the entire application pending um further information on the storm water
management question. Should that pass, it will be deferred. Should it fail,
then we'll go back to considering the main question.
Is there is that clear enough, council? >> Yeah, just hold on for a second.
Uh oh. Oh, yes. I'm fine. I'm fine.
» All right. Is there any further comments or questions before we consider the
deferral? I um just wanted to uh comment. I think um
now [clears throat] I'm kind of lost. I've lost my train of thought. I'm
thinking about too many things. I think the uh the question um
to me comes down to um you know in this draft plan of um subdivision there's I I
don't know I guess I'm lost trying to think trying to get to where I was where
I was where my mind was at but now I forgot. Sorry about that. Um
yeah, I guess that's the question like condition 12 um in here. Uh what happens
if the recommendation can't be um can't be carried out without changing the
plan? I mean that's what it comes down to for me, right? So if we get these
hydrogeeological or geotechnical investigation, storm water management
studies and we find um at at some point downstream, pardon the pun, that um
you know this thing isn't going to work the way it's laid out, the way the
subdivision is designed, the way it's been approved. Um you know what happens
at that point? I guess at that point the applicant, the developer has to come
back and make revisions to this plan, right? Like that's where we're at.
That's to me like it's a little confusing because we have this plan in
front of us. It's contingent on some information that we don't yet have.
That's not wholly unusual, but there are some things about this that may be a
little different from what we've seen before. Um, if if that were to happen
and those contingencies arose and changes had to be made to what we're
considering approving tonight, what would happen then? Would would it be
then on town staff or county staff to make changes or does it come back to
council to change the plan the planner?
» Yes, thank you mayor Sharono for the question. So uh if through uh detailed
design so if the draft plan of subdivision was draft approved by the
county and the applicant needed to make some adjustments to the lot lines or the
blocks for example then that would be a revision to the draft plan of
subdivision. So it would it be dependent on the extent of the proposed changes.
So there are two streams. Um one is a major revision which would come back to
town council. Um and then there are minor revisions so minor adjustments to
lot lines and things like that which is a staff level um recommendation.
So I guess that's the point for me like as long as it's understood by the
applicant u by the community by council that you know if we if if the work that
is yet to be done identifies issues that cannot be resolved within the context of
this plan then then the applicant is going to have to come back and go
through this process all over again to revise this plan. It seems risky to me
for the applicant to hopefully they understand that and have
a solid enough understanding based on the information in hand that that won't
be the case. But that's it is a bit of a risk that exists and that and that has
to be understood by everyone. Um and I assume that it is. I guess that is that
that's that's a fair enough description of everybody's understanding the
planner. Yes, that would be typical. Uh in in the
case of detailed design where there are changes, then there would need to be a
revision to the draft plan of subdivision. And again, dependent on the
the scope of the changes, it would be a major or minor revision and potentially
would trigger further amendments as well. So, it may come back to town
council for a zoning bylaw amendment if you know setbacks or something were
impacted uh because of this realignment of of boundaries. And I think also it
needs to be made clear that you know as councelor Halpin pointed out in
condition 13 the final sentence there cost to design and construct
improvements to the downstream stormed drainage is is at this point at least
not totally and completely understood what that might look like. Um so it has
to be understood today by council by the applicant that that could be a very
costly project. We don't know what it we don't necessarily exactly know what it
will look like and I have to and to be clear like the town of Saging Chores is
not going to absorb any of that cost and uh and it's going to be firm in its
negotiating position on that. Uh right. So I think again although we don't fully
understand necessarily sitting here today what that will look like, it's
required in here and the town is going to be firm in holding the line and and
requiring those items. I suppose that's just a statement that I'm making, but
these are some of the things I just um it's an unusual situation we're in
because we have a bit of a we have a bit of a split brain here between our county
planner and the position of the town. And that's why we're struggling a bit
here because we've read from the town some concern and the planners are
recommending approval and we're that's why council is trying to mediate between
those two positions and find the right spot. And I think it just has to be
clear like the town's concerns are legitimate concerns. I'm not sure their
concerns are with the overall development, but they are with the
potential challenges that come with having to do this uh with making this
approval without some of the information that they feel they need. So, um I think
we're protected in this draft uh in these conditions of draft approval, but
but it has to be understood by all that the town is going to um you know, it's
going to uphold these conditions and and if it and if the worst happens and uh
some of these um things we don't know yet turn out to require major changes to
this plan of subdivision, then um it's just not going to get those signoffs and
it's going to end up have to come back here to get changed. So that has to be
well understood. Um all right those are my comments. Uh do you have a comment?
Yeah the director. >> Yeah just a brief comment just in terms
of and I know in terms of the deferral motion in terms of storm water
management plan but um hydro geological studies geotechnical studies are often
required to complete the storm water management plan. So I would suggest in
terms of if you're moving forward with that motion that you incorporate
hydrogeeological and the geotechnical to inform the storm water management plan
if that's clear. >> Okay. Yeah. The deputy mayor and council
Dinsky agree to that. Okay. I'll reread it once the
clerk has updated it. What are the two things?
» Hydrogen.
Let me just or do you have something? Is it specific
to the revisions the clerk is making to the motion? The deputy mayor.
Should the motion fail, um, if are all of these reports that are are
indicated as, you know, the owner that the owner submit this, that the owner
submit that, that the owner do this, will all of those reports eventually
show up on the public information that is available about this application?
Will that will that all be updated as those things are received?
» The planner, >> uh, thank you for the question. So, if
the reports are submitted before the county takes a report to county council
for a decision on the subdivision, then they will be posted online. But we after
a decision is rendered on an application, we typically remove all of
the materials from the website. So, anything that is submitted uh through
should the subdivision be approved, anything that is submitted in response
to conditions of approval uh would not be posted on on the website.
» Okay. We're going to consider this motion to defer now. I just Is the
wording together there? I don't know why it's
I may have to read it off yours. I'm not seeing it there. All right. So, one more
time. This is the motion to defer. Then the council defer consideration of draft
plan of plan of subdivision application S2025.004
local official plan amendment L-225.016 and zoning bylaw amendment Z-2025.027
027 SKG Holdings and direct that the following information be submitted and
reviewed to the satisfaction of the town prior to the applications being brought
back to council. Hydrogeeological and geotechnical studies to inform the storm
water management considerations and supporting information. It has been
moved and seconded. So I'll ask all in favor [clears throat]
opposed. That's defeated. All right. So now we're
back to the main question. Uh and the main question is already
moved and seconded by uh Halpen and Mette. Uh any further questions or
comments uh to the resolution? I might go ahead councelor Helpin.
» Thank you Marin through you. I you know my my big concern was about just the
amount of things that are left and my other big concern was what safeguard
does the town have and after listening you know I I you know that if this
doesn't come back as the mayor said our staff will be diligent if this stuff
doesn't come back and that can stop it. Okay. So, it's not like if we advance
this that we've given up any safeguards. We we haven't uh we haven't said that
we're not going to enforce the letter of the law and make sure every I is dotted
and every te is crossed and everything is met. So,
there there's just a lot of them on the list though for me this time. Okay.
Thank you. >> Thank you for the further comments. I
might just comment that I think it's a a good development. uh in a you know uh a
location that has been planned uh to be developed for a very long time. Uh and
uh they've uh made some adjustments here. It's a good opportunity for us to
um get municipal ownership over the rail trail there which I think is very
positive thing. Um and they've made some adjustments to make the development make
a little more sense I think than the than it did the last time it was um
draft plan approved. So I think it it works a little better and um completes
this uh uh long planned uh area of Southampton. So um so I think it'll be a
good development and um and as councelor Halpin noted, I don't think although
council and the town have sort of just spent uh an hour and a half struggling
about uh some of the questions here, I really think it comes down to the risk.
You know, it's the applicant who's taking the risk here, not the
municipality. the applicant is wants to advance this uh wants it here today.
It's here today. Um the unanswered questions, they have to answer them and
if they and if they aren't answered to the satisfaction of the subdivision
agreement, um the subdivision can't go ahead. And so it's it's really more
their risk than ours in my view. But um but I wish them the best because I hope
the development uh proceeds in accordance with all these rules because
I think it'll be a good development. So, um, if there's nothing further, then all
in favor and opposed. That's carried. Thank you.
All right. So, now we're on to item seven. Oh, sorry about that. Yes. Get
counselor Grace back.
Okay, now we're on item 7.2, community improvement plan development charges
review, and we'll turn that over to our planning policy coordinator.
» Thank you. Thank you and through you, Mayor Shero. To provide a brief
background on this file, an initial public meeting was held on May 19th,
2026, where the draft supplementary housing CIP update was presented and
discussed. Following this, at the June 8th, 2026 Council meeting, a draft
update to the DC bylaw was considered. At that time, direction was given to
remove all discretionary exemptions from the town's DC bylaw and to incorporate
those exemptions into the CIP. Following this direction, a review of the existing
incentive programs was conducted by Sierra Planning and Management.
The intention of this staff report, the consultant's memo and presentation
attached is to provide an update on the scope and rationale of the planned
changes to the community improvement plan prior to further draft amendments
being prepared. We have consultants online from Sierra Planning and
Management, Jonathan Hack, and Lindseay Cudmore. And I'll now turn it over to
Lindsay online to walk through the incentives review in more detail.
» Great. Thank you, Jordan. Uh, good evening, Mayor Charbano and members of
council. Tonight, I'll provide a highle overview of the community improvement
plan review being undertaken in response to the town's new development charge
bylaw. Uh the purpose of today's presentation is really to summarize what
has changed uh identify where potential incentive gap incentive gaps may um
exist and to outline areas that we believe warrant further consideration
through the CIP review process. Next slide please.
So, the purpose of the re review um the new development charge bylaw removed
several discretionary exemptions that um lower development costs for certain
types of projects. Um subsequently, council directed staff to review whether
the CIP should uh respond to these um exemptions that were lost. and our
review really identifies what's already covered elsewhere and where some of the
um gaps exist. Um gaps remain. Um a key outcome of our review is that the focus
has really we've been able to narrow it to um industrial and commercial core
development specifically. I can go through the the next few slides sort of
detail that a bit more. Um but just a note on this slide here, we wanted to
reiterate that any future uh incentives provided through new or modified CIP
programs will um you know have an obligation require a municipal funding
commitment to be able to fund them. Next slide please.
So what's changed? Um so in a bit more detail here um on the left we're
providing um the exemptions that were in the
former DC bylaw um and detailing how it's covered now. Um so most housing
related exemptions continue to receive support either through the development
charges act with um the exemptions and reductions in place there as well as
through the proposed um half programs um that we've developed um that were
brought at the May 19th council meeting. Um vacant building redevelopment
exemption remains in the DC bylaw with a few um language changes. Uh, industrial
development no longer has broad relief beyond the legislative expansion
provisions, although there are incentives offered for innovation parks
specifically. Um, commercial core, meaning non-residential and mixed use
projects specifically, no longer have uh equivalent relief as part of the new DC
bylaw. Um, and so there's two key gaps there, industrial and commercial core
development. Next slide, please.
So just looking at the housing exemptions in a little bit more detail,
we just wanted to sort of remind everyone about what is being provided in
the halffunded um proposed programs that have been
developed. Um so this the table on this slide really demonstrates why housing is
not part of um you know our review going forward. We're not considering any
additional exemptions related to housing in the um in a CIP amendment um because
affordable housing additional h residential units and rental housing
purpose-built rental housing um continue to benefit from DC provisions whether
it's exempt full exemptions or um discounts reductions. Um and then the
proposed half programs provide additional support on top of uh the DC
um provisions. Therefore, uh we're recommending there's no short-term
replacement incentives required for housing related incentives. Um and just
to note that the half funding currently extends to December 4th, 2028. So, um
just sort of in the short term, we're not not considering that for inclusion.
Next slide, please.
» [sighs and gasps] >> So potential gaps. So just um to sort of
summarize the key conclusions of our review that were provided in a bit more
detail in the uh touched memo as well. Um
one of the key gaps we note is industrial development outside of that
in uh occurring or potential to occur in innovation park. So the other existing
employment lands that exist within the town. um while we understand they may be
you know fairly built out there's opportunity for redevelopment
reinvestment um expansion and that type of thing um
as well as commercial core development being the second gap so both again both
loss review through the new CIP or the new DC bylaw that was put into place and
approved um and there's no equivalent support provided through um the
development charges act or or half funding which is housing focused
» [gasps] >> So the the review will really focus, you
know, less about housing, more about economic development downtown as well as
um in the employment areas. Um and future options that we're considering
are uh you know potentially to include a multiream
DC grant program that already exists in the CIP, but just sort of you know
fleshing that out a bit more potentially by sector or location oriented. Um we'll
also take a look at um whether there's any merits of um detail detailing a bit
more the tax increment equivalent grant that is also provided for within the
existing CIP. Um and having looked at what remains
covered elsewhere, the review really comes to down to those two areas that no
longer have um coverage that where council may wish to consider uh a CIP
response in that regard. Next slide, please.
So again, today's update is really intended to establish the direction uh
for the amendment process um based on council's feedback today. Our next step
will be to prepare the draft amendment uh for consideration and then bring
those um bring that forward through the statutory PL public meeting um process
in September. Um and at that point, it being a public meeting, um council will
have the opportunity to review the proposed programs
um their structure and any associated funding implications that may be um
required before making any decisions. Um so that concludes my presentation. Um
we'd be happy to answer any questions tonight. Thank you. Thank you. There is
a resolution that council receive the community improvement plan development
charges review update report for information is removed and seconded for
that moved by the deputy mayor seconded by councelor Mette. Discussion we'll
start with Halpin and then come to Grace.
» Thank you Marin through you. Um, just for the the general public in that,
could we define commercial, core, and non-residential and mixeduse
development? Would would that like be downtown stores or or what what exactly
would that involve the consultant?
» Yes, thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yes, commercial core. So, that's um
based on the uh official plan designation, but within that it really
focuses on commercial. So, I mean, you know, non-residential, it's ultimately
commercial. Um whether it's, you know, existing
um commercial there. There's, you know, new commercial sites that potentially
could be developed. Um it it's it's basically commercial is what what what
the um reference is there. The mixeduse reference would ultimately be commercial
at ground floor with residential above. Um, however, the incentives that we'd be
looking at would focus on the commercial pon component of that development.
» Yeah. So, if I could, uh, mayor, um, I do support DC breaks for this. I I think
it's important for us to support our downtowns and and to do anything we can
to make it easier for them to develop. But I but I do have a question. If a
vacant building is being redeveloped, um, do they have to pay any DC charges?
Like, let's say a a storefront that's been empty for several years or
something and now they want to redevelop it. Do things like that have to pay a DC
charge? >> The consultant?
» Yes. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Um the the
current the new DC bylaw maintains um
the exemption that was in place previously for vacant buildings for
redevelopment. Um I I believe maybe someone from the
town could clarify what the language change was, but from what I understand
it, it's just sort of a little bit more um provided some additional uh structure
to what those requirements might be. >> I'll just clarify that DCS would be owed
on commercial development that represents additional square footage or
expansion. So it's only that component that would trigger DC charges.
the counselor. >> Uh, thank you. Oh, okay. Just I'm sorry,
one more question. For the vacant building, how long does a vacant
building have to be empty to qualify for for anything like that?
The treasur. So again, I'll just speak specifically
to when DC's are triggered. And a vacant building could be vacant for
I'm not sure that there's a time period on it. It would more have more to do
with if there's expanding footprint. >> Thank you. Okay, the deputy mayor.
» I thought councelor Grace was next. >> Oh, sorry, Council Grace. I have my back
turned to you and saw your hand. Council Green.
» It's okay. I've been out of the room for a while.
» Um just uh to go to the vacant properties question. Um and one of the
charts talks about um the offering incentives
for vacant building redevelopment. Um which I think is a great idea.
I'm and I know a number of residents are still are continue to be frustrated
by the fact that we have some vacant properties in our downtown area that
appear not to respond to incentives or anything. And I don't know if um what we
could do um to encourage
um the development of those properties or
the willingness of those owners to um to develop their properties. But that
that's something I'd like to have happen either in this or some other means.
Uh, you mentioned um, Lindsay that um, and I had a question in particular that
I submitted to staff about offering DC exemptions for properties in Innovation
Park. Um, and that we have a rubric that we use. Um,
I didn't see that specifically mentioned in the written report, but I know you've
addressed it in your comments here. Um that's something that you're continu
you're recommending that we continue >> the consultant.
» Yes, thank you. Um yes, that that is something that we will be taking into
consideration. The town has developed and approved um the
uh a scoring matrix for Innovation Park specifically. Um, so we can use that as
a basis um, going forward looking at potential for development charge um,
reductions and how those might apply to other employment lands within the town.
Um, so yeah, incorporating that and making it clear that those exist under
the existing DC um, or under the existing CIP, sorry, um, is something
that we can address. Grace
» and that would be based on this rubric of ultimately how much value we consider
that industrial development to be for the community right I mean could it
range from like a 25% reduction to a perhaps 100% reduction
» the consultant >> thank you Mr. Mayor um through you Mr.
Mary, yes, we're going to look at all of that. So, um yeah, the the scoring
that's in place at present is um you know, based on the the target sector and
the type of sector that the business is in, how many employees it brings in, um
you know, the construction costs, um sustainability considerations, all of
that. Um if the town wishes to, you know, maintain that type of scoring,
then uh we can incorporate it. um as well as look at um you know what what it
might mean for other other you know reinvestment insights and that type of
thing as well. >> Grace,
» thank you. Uh I have one more and that is um a question about the ARU does an
additional residential unit grant program. Um
when I sent this question um the response was my question was can we
include a design requirement in the housing accelerator funded CIP
inventives incentives. Um, the reason that I included that is because we have
had some um 4unit
residential buildings going up that we up until now because of provincial site
plan control um
regulations don't allow us to exercise any kind of
site plan control on units on on developments. that have uh 10 or fewer
uh residential dwellings within that. And as a result, we have ended up with a
couple of developments that essentially look like small
apartment buildings within a an established
uh residential area that they just don't fit. Um, so do is there a potential
would we have to get past a conflict with the provincial regulation or are we
able do we have the power within this um community improvement plan to be able
to exercise our our own design requirements.
» Thank you Mr. R. Um I I you had discussed this as well and about the
town approved um pre-approved designs for ARUS I believe you're referring to
uh whether adding that as a stipulation or a you know um
eligibility criteria as it were you know if your design is follows these you know
the town approved um designs then you would be elible eligible for CIP
funding. Um I'm not sure about the legislative
requirements. Maybe I could ask John to weigh in on that, but um I guess
including it as you know if they want the CIP funding from half for for that
type of unit, putting that stipulation would I guess, you know, would limit
them to have to uh include that design, right?
» Yeah. I can uh if it's helpful and I apologize for my uh situation. I'm sat
in a car um and uh but just just joining in online. So just to add to what
Lindsay has said, if I understand the the question correctly that can you put
in additional design criteria for ARUS to make sure it works well and in the
public interest. I think absolutely you can if you cast your mind back to the
half program funded CIP that we developed we were fairly
uh I say non-prescriptive I know you have the guidelines for you know sorry
the template designs but we were we tried to reduce the level of
prescription for further aspects such as universal
design for an for example because to do that you may end up creating further
limit MITs to take up of the ARU program and I recognize that those goals are
laudable themselves but our experience with CIPs is you can work with the
applicant to move it in the direction that you want. CIPs are quite flexible
in that way. I don't think you want to put in rigid rules about exactly those
things because it's going to it will have no doubt but to restrict the number
of uh applications that you get and at this point when you have the funding
ahead of you and only two years in which to spend it I think you know be be a
little bit less prescriptive but prepared to uh engage with applicants
using the the CIP as the uh as the tool. It's both a carrot and a stick in that
regard. So I I don't think it will be a problem. Certainly you can instruct
staff that they should look for those issues. But one of the key metrics is to
make sure you do get applications in. It's about creating supply and working
with the developers to meet the needs. And if those needs involve universal
design as an example and accessibility, then that is uh that's a goal that
should be pursued. >> Those are Greece. Um, thank you. I I
wasn't um suggesting that um
to for us to require that the applicants follow the exact
designs that have been created. But to be consistent
or complement um the character which we haven't fully
defined um in my opinion but um the general character of
what our town looks like um what's I think we have some guidelines on that
that are available and um I'm just thinking of you you know, permanent
constructions that now um are wildly out of place in some
um residential areas, unfortunately. They're there and there's nothing we can
do about it. Now, if there's some way we could um
as you say, carrot and stick somehow um um lead people to consider designs that
are are more complimentary to retaining the character of our community. Thank
you. >> Okay, the deputy mayor.
» Um thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I wanted to just ask I know um somewhere in the
report it suggests that something's going to be before council um September
21st a public meeting surrounding a CIP review. Couple questions. Um is the
focus of the re review um on what's occurred because the report suggests
that there's been no take up of CIP programs in recent years. So um is the
the focus about that or is about is it about you know what we're expecting in
the future? Um but beyond that I'm just the part that's about um the commercial
core. You know we have a we've deferred um a discussion about the CPPS which is
focused on the commercial core um areas of of both Port Agen and Southampton the
former towns of Southampton and Port Agen. I just um it's very confusing um I
think that um there's this overlap always um coming into play and
ultimately you know have we realized anything have we got any affordable
housing have we infilled any vacant lots have we you know infilled um someplace
with with a little more density I my reading of of what was before us tonight
would say that there's been no take up um what is the justific and I understand
you know the funding element but why are we even continuing with this if if in
the two years it's kind of been around because I think it's been two years
there's been no uptake um what are what are we going to see on the 21st that
makes this an important thing to keep talking about and spending money on
» the director
Thanks, Mayor. I think at this point in terms of having listened to the
conversation, um there's a lot of things here being tabled uh and good
conversation. Um and at this point, my suggestion might be in terms of that we
go back and re revisit the scope of the work uh that uh was put forward. Um,
we're hearing a lot of good conversation in in that and I think we're getting
into a lot of different areas and I would suggest, you know, maybe we need
to go back and look at that direction that council provided. Unfortunately, I
don't have it right here in front of me. Um, but let's go back and look at the
scope of that work. >> The CEO has her hand up. The CEO,
» thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to draw council's
attention to the staff report that accompanied tonight's presentation
because it does outline the scope of work for council on this. So if council
will remember the community improvement plan that came forward in May was the
supplementary housing initiatives CIP. So again, the focus of that work is to
enable the housing accelerator fund grants to get out the door uh in order
to support all the supplementary housing pieces that were targeting to spend the
half-funding grant on council at that meeting also heard about the DC bylaw
update. And so there was a the recommendation that was passed that
night is included in the staff report that council removed all the
discretionary exemptions from the DC charges bylaw and ask staff to
incorporate those discretionary exemptions into the CIP if it was
possible. So, I just want to table with council and support what the director
was saying that that's the scope of work that we're focused on right now and we
want to target bringing those supplementary housing initiatives back
to council in a timely way. So, that's why we're talking about September and
that we would look at where the DC exemption list could be included where
it makes sense. So, I hope that provides a little bit of clarity about what we're
trying to do. I just want to make sure we're not going down different areas
related to community improvement plans. We're really targeted on that
supplementary housing piece and then where any discretionary exemptions can
fit into that amendment. I
» think the discussion that council had at that time was when we were discussing
removing all the discretionary exemptions from the development charges
bylaw, we wanted to make sure that nothing important was missed. uh that we
weren't removing something that wasn't already covered by provincial
legislation that we also valued. Right? So I think the purpose of this report is
to understand that question, right? to look at what what's what's picked up by
provincial legislation and then what's left over and then council can make the
decision after that about whether we think those items which are left over
which appear to be on the question of industrial um exemptions and on core
commercial exemptions from my reading that's about all that those are the
pieces that are left unressed um and I guess council then can have the
discussion do we consider those important enough
that we want to incorporate them into a CIP to carry them on outside of the
development charges bylaw where they used to be picked up. So to me that's
that's what we're talking about here. Is that does that conform with what staff's
uh view of this discussion is just so that we're on the same page?
Yes. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, um further discussion I don't know deputy mayor you
were were you finished? Okay. Uh, councelor Help and then
» thank you mayor and through you. One one cautionary
note with this like some of the stuff isn't being taken up so it doesn't seem
like it's going to cost us a lot of money but we have foregone a lot of
revenue with um uh with our DCs for purpose-built housing and and it worked.
It we we we doubled our supply. It wasn't this council. It was the previous
council. They doubled the supply of rental units, but we we sure have
foregone a lot of DC charges over the 3 million worth over the last
four or so years. So that that's my one cautionary thing. Yet at the same time,
I do want to support our downtowns as much as we can.
» Thank you. Further comments? Yeah, I think and when we discussed it,
when we were discussing the development charges bylaw and I I proposed a notion
of wiping all these discretionary exemptions out of the bylaw and
considering them as part of a CIP, my feeling at that time was that what was
left wouldn't be all that significant. And I think that that's the case still.
I think we need to clarify, make sure that we are covering off the work we're
trying to do in places like Innovation Park. make sure that that we can
adequately implement DC relief in accordance with the rubric that
councelor Grace laid out was discussing. Um we need to be able to continue to do
that. So we have to have that we have to have the policy framework in place
either through a CIP or some other policy to be able to continue with that.
That's critical I think. Um and you know the downtown core commercial program uh
could be important but I would be interested to understand a little more
clearly what exactly we were trying to achieve in the core commercial areas
because the core commercial areas are essentially developed for the most part.
Right? So what are we trying to encourage um in the core commercial
areas? I understand this notion of of um moving vacant
um commercial spaces out of vacancy into some kind of occupancy, but we've tried
lots of things to incentivize that in the past without much success because in
the because in the final analysis, it's none of these charges are the deciding
factor in that. The deciding factor is some private interest. the inability to
lease or the unwillingness to lease and all of that comes down to private
financial considerations and generally isn't driven by development charges or
taxation, right? Like that's not the that's not what an owner is thinking
about when they're deciding how to use that property, right? Uh so so we have
to be realistic about how much we can influence any that kind of decision with
this kind of move. I think our we have a much more effect as councelor Halpin
pointed out uh in the housing realm because the decision-m around building
housing is much is driven to a much greater extent by um those DC charges
which can amount to a fair bit of money. So anyway, um I guess all of that to say
is I'm not uh I'm kind of satisfied with where we are at the moment. Uh apart
from making sure that we have the uh exemptions in place or the capacity to
implement a program to incentivize industrial development in places like
Innovation Park, I think that's a piece we need to have. So we should pursue
that. Um but that's the that's really all that's left from my perspective of
of great importance. Um at this point, councelor Helvin,
» thank you Mayor and through you. This Spruce the Bruce offers incentives for
our commercial core as well, right through the the county. There's a pro uh
program where uh commercial core stores and that can apply for funding and
grants for sprucing up their storefronts. Is that correct?
» That's right. But it's important to remember that the CIP is what makes that
program possible, right? You can't municipalities can't bonus private
interests without a mechanism like a community improvement plan to make it
possible. So see so spruce the Bruce rests on the municipality having a
community improvement plan to implement it. Yeah, councelor Helvin.
» So thank you mayor. So does that mean like if we don't have a CIP for uh
community improvement plan for downtown we can no longer take part of uh in
spruce the Bruce as well? Well, that's a good point. I guess if it
were targeted at the downtown, we would have to have a program in the CIP that
would um cover off the incentives. I can turn that over to the uh consultant.
They'll be greater experts on that than me. Uh what's say you to that?
Sorry. Um I was on mute. I'll I'll answer that through your worship. Yes,
exactly. You you obviously count counties are upper tier authorities.
They are not permitted to undertake community improvement plans. What they
can do and what the county does is have a stated policy of matching essentially
the funding that is in lower tier CIPs and that's where the spruce spruce
campaign is targeted. So to the extent you want to use those funds, you have to
have a program that allows the municipality to essentially work with
the upper tier offer of funding. So yes, you need to keep a program in place.
» Yeah, it's a good point well made counselor help and that's important
thing for us to consider. We want obviously our residents, our business
owners build access to Bruce. So staff should pay careful attention to make
sure that our CIP enables us to access all those programs. I would note too
though I think the province just changed the rules around upper tier CIPs. I
think the upper the upper tier can now uh implement a CIP.
Um hard to keep up with all the provinces
changes. So are there further are there further uh discussions on this? If not
uh it's been moved and seconded. It's just to receive for information. Uh all
in favor that is carried. Okay, so now we're on to 7.3 comments on proposed
governance regulations for regional conservation authorities and the manager
of planning and development. >> Thank you and through you Mur Sharbono.
The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is seeking
feedback on proposed regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act that
would establish governance regul requirements for Ontario's future
regional conservation authorities and the Ontario Provincial Conservation
Agency. The proposed Lake Hiron Conservation Authority would encompass a
significantly larger geographic area than the current Saging Valley
Conservation Authority, including the town of Sagin Shores and all of Bruce
County. Under the proposed regulations, Bruce County would appoint one member to
the proposed Lake Hiron regional conservation authority board and Sagin
Shores would no longer have direct representation. The staff report in
front of you is broken down into the themes of representation and
appointments, alternative governments arrang governance arrangements,
maintaining local municipal input, and the Ontario Provincial Conservation
Authority Board eligibility. Within each theme, an analysis of the
proposed change is outlined along with a context specific to Sagging Shores. A
number of comments to be forwarded to the province through the Environmental
Registry of Ontario are included in the report and I'm happy to take any
questions from council. >> Thank you. The resolution is the council
endorse the comments in this report directing staff to forward them to the
province through the environmental registry of Ontario and that council
direct staff to provide a copy to the Sagi Valley Conservation Authority,
Bruce County Council and the lower tier municipalities within Bruce County for
consideration. Is there mover and secondary? Council me councelor Halpen.
Uh discussion council me. Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor and through
you. Um the the report that came out from the provincial government on the
structure of the new conservation authority, the regional conservation
authorities is is really manifesting exactly what we were afraid was going to
happen is that these larger conservation authorities by population such as in our
case York region and like Simco region uh are just going to um dominate the the
boards the conservation authority authority boards and uh like I says we
have we'll have one representative for Bruce County and not only will we only
have one but it stipulates that that one representative cannot be a former member
of the conservation authority so they don't they want to have minimal
representation and they want to make sure that that representation has no
previous knowledge of how conservation authorities work. So they want a green
horn in there that they can manipulate. And uh and then it it goes nowhere to
address the the assets that the different conservation authorities have.
Like So Valley Conservation Authority has significant assets, not just liquid
assets, but land assets. They own thousands of acres of of land.
Conservation parks, Sogging Bluffs Conservation, Dairy Dale Conservation.
There's lots of parks and and things that they manage that they're bringing
to the table and they'll have one vote as to how those assets get consolidated
or amalgamated or liquidated or however that it goes. Our our citizens of Bur
County are going to be very poorly represented and that goes for not just
Bruce County but all of the great county and Hiron County that are currently
members of the Sagine Valley Conservation Board. Um, this is, like I
said, it's just coming true, but we were totally afraid what was going to happen.
And, uh, [sighs and gasps] and as was just recently pointed out by
the mayor, the changes are coming so fast from this government is hard to
keep up. And this is just, uh, just one more heavy-handed
uh, in my opinion to, you know, they they promised they were going to reduce
red tape for developers. Well, this is taken out a whole level of scrutiny that
they're going to have to go through. So, it's really a shame. And so, I endorse
the comments from the town. Uh, the conservation authority has their own
sets of comments that they're feeding back on this. And, uh, I believe that,
uh, everybody should read those, too. So, I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
» I just wanted to clarify, um, your one comment, um, with respect to current or
former authority members being appointed. That's that's to the Ontario
Provincial Conservation Agency board, not to not to the Regional Conservation
Authority. Right. So because what the government's trying to do there is
create a regulator. So they don't want to appoint a member of a current
conservation authority to oversee the conservation authorities. That's so
that's just for clarity there. Uh further comments from the members.
Councelor Halpin. >> Uh thank you mayor. um my colleague
councelor Matt um expressed everything well and we're
both on the Songing Valley Conservation Authority together and
it it's leaving us with no seat at the table I feel like and the thing is is
we're still going to be paying for this right like I mean we're going to be
paying and supporting this without very much representation on the board and if
you look at the size of the sogging Valley conservation the Sen Valley
watershed how big that whed is and I guess it goes through Gray County a
little bit so that what's that going to be maybe maybe two people
representing that and I the Ford government has done some good things but
it is consistently consolidating power making appointments and eroding the
representation of smaller and rural municipalities.
and I don't know what we can do about it,
but that is my comments and it's a really good report and they're excellent
comments and I fully endorse all your comments.
» Thank you for the comments. Councelor Grace,
» thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, I also had a question for Candace Counselor Halp and
about costs and what our financial contribution
may be because we do make a significant financial contribution now, but we don't
know that information of course. Um the yeah the the 21 reps total for the
regional um authority. Gray County gets two.
Bruce County, Hiron County, Duffren and Wellington, and several other
municipalities each get one. Uh so as you're you're right, our eight
municipalities within Bruce County um not not all eight would be part of this.
Uh no, I guess they would. Yeah. So, eight municipalities within the county
end up getting one representative. Um, now the thing that I was when I was
reading this, I was thinking, okay, that's the way we do our representation
now is representation by population. So, on the Sin Valley Conservation
Authority, um, Sagin Shores gets two, Conarten gets
two, does handover get two? Um just just the two of us just
concarden and sagggin shores west gray. Yes. But
and I was first I was thinking well you know we are objecting we like it now
because we get two represented representatives but the effect is so
huge. I mean the devast devastation to our representative representative level
is so large that um it is a different I don't know whether they just did this
because they thought oh that's the way that it's been done um or whether
there's something more some other um motive behind whether this is just
laziness of how to organize this it's easy way out or whether uh so I'm
hopeful maybe that if someone is considering this and if we have strong
[snorts] enough advocates that perhaps they may consider other factors than
just simply representation by population.
» Thank you councelor Dinsky. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. And through you one
word sort of sums it up. It's outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous.
Um, considering the work that's been done by the Sin Valley Conservation
Authority, as Councelor May said, we knew there was a hint that this was
coming and sure enough, it's before us. Hopefully, we can change things uh
beforehand. May I suggest whoever we send this to that we send it to Lisa
Thompson as well and rattle her cage so she knows what we are dealing with. She
probably does, but it wouldn't hurt to remind her again. Thank you.
» Yep, we certainly can do that. The deputy mayor,
» I agree with everything that's been said. It's it's really interesting when
you look at the charts, too. Um, you know, Gray County was mentioned. Gray
County of course in the in the grouping with us um has two representatives, but
you know, just if you look at another region, the Eastern Lake Erie regional
CA Gray County um in this one, their population within that regulated area is
1,09. They get one one representative there.
Um it's it's like the the it makes no sense when you you really look at it in
terms of um how it how it it just looks it's not sensical at all. It's
nonsensical anyway. But um so thank you Candace for the report. It's um good to
send something but um I think we we all should
send more if or get other people to send comments as well.
Thank you. Further comments. I u met at Amal with the minister of natural
resources uh on this issue on behalf of the county of Bruce. uh Bruce County uh
took the position that the um regional conservation authority should separate
um uh essentially be divided in two to have uh the Simco region um separated
from the smaller rural because it's really having Simco having Barry and
Simco mixed in with us which is really what drowns out that rural um voice in
our area. I mean it's it's got this huge urban population where although we are
fast growing, we're not fast growing like Simco is fast growing. Uh and so um
you know most of the attention and most of the resources we felt would be
focused on Simco rather than on Bruce and Gray and the uh the watersheds
within our jurisdictions. Um so we made that suggestion to uh directly to the
minister and made the point I made the point to him. I led the delegation and
made the point to him that um you know it would uh you know if the government
values rural voices as they say they do then then um this is not a good
configuration for this uh for this new authority. I can tell you based on that
conversation there is no in there is there will be no uh uptake on any
suggestion uh that these boundaries should be adjusted um whatsoever. So I
mean the government's committed and that's I mean I heard that directly from
the minister. Uh so uh so this is how uh they're going to roll this out. Um
and I think this representation model is how it's going to be. um which is
unfortunate for the reasons everybody has said. I for one I believe that
conservation authorities are in need of reform. Um and I think there are
problems with the conservation authorities. I do like the notion of a
provincial regul provincial regulator to enforce consistency across the
conservation authorities because I find they are very inconsistent and I hear
that all the time. Um so reform is necessary. Sadly,
I don't see how this approach achieves the reform we need. I don't I don't
really understand how it the outcome will be better. What do we want? We we
want an outcome that's better for people who are trying to do things in our
watersheds, for our property owners, uh for people who are trying to build
affordable housing, people who are trying to make life, you know, do
something to make their own lives, make their own property better. um and to do
it in a way that that doesn't threaten the watershed or or get them too close
to a flooding condition, all those things. We want that to work better and
I don't exactly see understand how these changes do that. Um and also I worry
more than the representation piece. I worry that what will happen is um we'll
see money the money now that the county of Bruce will be paying going into this
larger regional authority and heading to Simco and that the focus will be in
Simco uh and not on investments here in our conservation areas in all those
assets council might just mentioned that the conservation authority owns and in
better services to people on the ground in our communities which is what we
want. though I guess the proof will be in the pudding. But I will report to you
that there is I receive I was it was not just a sense it was explicit that this
isn't going to change. Not to say we shouldn't make the point we should but
uh that was u the message that I received loud and clear.
All right. If there's nothing further uh you've heard the recommendation. It's
been moved and seconded. So all in favor that is carried. Okay. So, now we're on
to the consent agenda. I guess we're How much longer will we be
going on here? Maybe a little while longer. Why don't we take Let's take a
break here. We'll break until uh 8:50.
Okay, guys. Let's do it.
Okay. So, we are now on to the consent agenda. Only one item there. Uh there's
a resolution that item 10.1 be approved and received for information. Is remove
and secondary. Moved by Gray, seconded by Dinsky. Uh there's the one item there
then the bell communications tower. Anybody wish to speak to that in any
way? Uh the deputy mayor.
» Um thank you through I had a hard time uh reading the um the concurrence
package information. So perhaps this was in there um so I apologize if it was but
um the reference to barbed wire around the telecommunications tower. I
understand the need for safety and security. However, um it wasn't clear
from the drawing how close this was going to be to the sidewalk and is there
any potential whatsoever for any kind of um opportunity to put some landscaping
there so that >> the sound isn't on.
» Um sorry, >> hold on a second. I guess we have you're
hearing that from somebody that they're not hearing this.
Okay, >> deputy mayor here.
[laughter] >> I was just about to talk about barbed
wire. Um, so I I just was curious um how close to the sidewalk is this tower. It
wasn't I I couldn't figure that out from the map and um it was mentioned about
barb wire being around the installation. Um I understand for safety and security
that that that would be necessary. However, it's a pretty prominent
location um adjacent to the highway um in Port Elgen and in an area where, you
know, we're trying to get other businesses to do a little little um
aesthetic improvement along the highway. Is there any potential to encourage or
to require I realize it's on private property, but to require um some
consideration to the look? Um so, two question, well, three questions there.
How close to the sidewalk is it? Do we have any potential and um can we ask for
landscaping >> the manager?
» Thank you. And through you, Mayor Sharbano. Uh so there is a a plan
included in the concurrence package and what it's showing is that the the the
tower itself will be located in the center of what is the compound and there
is a distance um for the access which is showing at 7.28 m to the concrete
sidewalk. So that's the the answer to the distance of the the area to to the
existing sidewalk. In terms of um landscaping or any s sort of site design
considerations, this uh this poll is actually exempt from requiring a
building permit is exempt from meeting site plan control. And so while there
can be comments that are that are forwarded on um there wouldn't be any
necessarily requirements uh per se in terms of of what the final design will
look like. >> Good premier. Um would it be appropriate
then to um encourage um you know we we do have some design
guidelines and some some uh examples nearby where where things have happened
adjacent to the sidewalk, adjacent to the highway to to provide some
encouragement either to the property owner or to um the builder of the tower
themselves to to you know do what they can do to make it look a little more
attractive from the street. the manager.
» Um I can certainly um pass that along to the applicant.
» Okay. Any other comments on this one? Seeing none, then I this will consider
the resolution then on the consent agenda. It's been moved and seconded.
All in favor? That is carried. All right. So now we will move on to mo
motions and notices of motion. There are two notices there 11.1.1 and 11.1.2.
Those two items will be considered at the next council meeting and then we're
on to the one for consideration which I have interest in. So I'm going to turn
that to the deputy mayor.
Okay. Um we have a notice or a motion u moved by
councelor Halpen, seconded by councelor Grace. Um and it reads, "Whereas Highway
21 between Concession 10 in Port Elgen and South Street in Southampton is under
the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, MTO) and
whereas the Sin Rail Trail, SRT, is a yearround multi-use trail and designated
active transportation corridor built on a former railway line which directly
connects three communities within the town of Sagin Shores. And whereas the
SRT serves as a key active transportation connection between Port
Agen and Southampton with several access points along the corridor between
concession 10 and South Street that are regularly used by trail trail users. And
whereas the corridor is utilized by residents, daily commuters, visitors,
tourists, cyclists, pedestrians, and users of the SRT resulting in increased
interaction between active transportation users and high-speed
vehicular traffic. And whereas there are commercial
businesses, agricultural properties, and four partially controlled intersections
located along this section of Highway 21, generating regular vehicular
movements and additional conflict points for all road users, especially during
peak seasons. And whereas the Sagine Rail Trail Association has requested
that the speed limit on this section of highway 21 be reduced from 80 kilometers
per hour to 60 kilometers per hour due to safety concerns. Near. Now,
therefore, be it be it resolved that the council of the town of Sagging Shores
formally request that the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario review the
posted speed limit on Highway 21 between concession 10 in Port Algen and South
Street in Southampton and consider reducing the speed limit to 60
kilometers per hour and further that this resolution be circulated to the
honorable Pragmat uh Sarah, Minister of Transportation, the MTO West
region office, Lisa Thompson MPP for Hon Bruce and the Sagine Rail Trail
Association for information and support. Again, it's moved by councelor Halpin,
seconded by councelor Grace. Um, I will open it up for discussion. Councelor
Halpin first, then councelor Dinsky. >> Uh, thank you. [clears throat] Thank
you, Chair, and through you. I I really believe we need to support this. The
traffic continually increases as our community is growing. Something needs to
be done for safety. A lower speed limit will also benefit the cars entering and
exit exiting the many ways you can enter and exit Highway 21 in that section,
including of course County Road 3 junction. you know, um,
this is I know councelor Grace is going to discuss this more and has much to say
about this, but the town has a binder I' I've told about this thick on this file
to to try to move it forward. I just want to acknowledge and thank the Song
Rail Trail and Ken Mercer, the the chairman of the Rail Trail for
initiating this. this was his initiation he asked me to do and um and I'm just
looking for my colleagues support on this. Thank you
» councelor Dinsky.
» Thank you deputy mayor and through you uh to councelor Halpin. Councelor
Halpin, you were at the association of municipalities of Ontario last week. Did
you get a chance to talk to any MTO members about this uh about this notice
of motion?
» Um thank you chair through you. Uh no we did not. We made three delegations but
we did not make a delegation to the minister. I did see him there. he was
answering questions um during the question and answer period and uh but no
» councelor Grace. Uh thank you madame deputy mayor. Um I
do have some background comments um to support councelor Halpin's um
motion. The town has been working on this issue since before 2013.
I was a member of the rail trail association as a board uh council
representative um and wrote a motion which was passed
by council um to request that the MTO visit
uh and assess the conditions around um this section of road in early June 2017
they did visit they presented a summary of their findings ings uh which were
presented to council. Um their conclusions were first that a
speed limit of 80 kilometers an hour does not permit a pedestrian
signal or crossover. Um they indicated that they thought that
the 80 kilometer speed limit was appropriate because the area is zoned
agricultural. So the minimum driveway separation is far enough apart to permit
that speed limit. They also presented a psychological argument
uh saying that when one is driving out of town, drivers expect to drive 80
kilometers an hour because they think speed naturally increases out out of
town. and that if the speed was reduced to 60 kilometers an hour, this would
cause an extra hazard to trail users who expect slower speeds, but the drivers
won't slow down and that would give trail users a false sense of security.
So, that was the way it was left in 2017.
Um the MTO rejected our re the council requests and the rail trail requests for
some kind of added security uh safety measures.
In January 2023, uh I was part of a delegation to the MTO
at the Roma conference and we specifically ask the ministry to
consider some additional facts and change circumstances since 2017.
Um we argued that the 2017 ministry decision was based on their
understanding that the surrounding area is zoned agricultural. However, the
lands adjacent to the highway are also zoned agricultural, commercial, and
commercial recreational, and that this type of zoning has affected and increase
the number and placement of driveways and entrances with businesses like a
commercial nursery, garage, storage, the farm produce market, a number of
residences, and a campground. Other changes um the number in placement of
driveways since 2017. Um as of 2023, there were 15 entrances
to the highway between Bruce County Road 3 and the 10th concession. Of those 12
were commercial or residential and three were road entrances.
Uh also other changes, a storage facility entrance was immediately
adjacent to the a new one was immediately adjacent to the eastern rail
trail entrance and the Hibberry Farms entrance move farther to the south.
Um to respond to the MTO's psychological arguments that drivers will still speed,
but those using the crossings will expect slower speeds and will therefore
be more vulnerable. Uh we argued that just to the north of Bruce County Road
3, the speed limit on Highway 21 lowers to 60 kilometers an hour for about half
the distance between Southampton and Port Elgen. This is routinely enforced
by the town's police force and generally respected by drivers. The 60 kilometer
an hour speed limit on Highway 21 through Sagging First Nation is largely
respected by drivers and on their roads. Bruce County has recently reduced the
speed limit to 70 kilometers an hour for significant stretches in agricultural
zones approaching and leaving hamlets and villages.
uh also that the timing of the study in early June of 2017
uh was a time that didn't allow the MTO to see the period of busiest use of the
rail trail crossing as well as the increased use of the highway um from
2017 to 2023 because our permanent population
uh had grown 16% between 2016 and 2020. 21 and that we are a very popular
tourist destination and our seasonal population and visitors increase uh
those numbers as well. Um on uh the issue of driver
inconvenience that 60 kilometers an hour is too slow. Um my husband and I uh both
drove separately uh and timed the driving of the stretch at various speeds
60 and 80 kilometers an hour and we recorded multiple times a difference of
about 1 and a half minutes. Um
okay uh a resident recently suggested that we keep the speed the same. it
would be too dangerous to otherwise, but that the solution would be creating a
pedestrian crossover similar to the pedestrian activated uh crosses
crossovers in Southampton. I looked up the most recent edition of the Ontario
Traffic Manual, book 12, which was last published in July 2024.
And in its section on pedestrian crossovers, it says that quote,
"Pedestrian crossovers are intended for low to moderate volume low-speed
roadways, specifically 60 kilometers an hour or less posted speed. So unless the
speed is reduced, if there ever was a hope to be a pedestrian crossover, which
has been um routinely rejected by the MTO, uh that's the only way it would
ever be able to be done under the current traffic regulations.
Um, town staff continues to work with the
Ministry of Transportation to investigate various uh, solutions
including um, not just the speed limit but trail
signage. Uh, the question of pedestrian crossovers and shoulder paving. Um, as I
said, uh, the MTO has consistently rejected the solution of a pedestrian
crossover. Um, I do support the proposed motion. Thank you,
» Vice Deputy Mayor Matt, and then councelor Matt.
» Yeah, thank you, Deputy Mayor. And, um, I I like to take this a little I'm going
to support the motion, councelor Halpin and Grace. I think it's worth another
try. Um, I'm going to take this a little different direction. And I think as we
all know the the MTO's council Greece alluded to you know they determined
number of laneways that front on highway 21 does not meet that threshold allow
for speed limit change and that's that's been that's been their their stance. I
joined staff here in 2001 that's been their stance from last 25 years is
probably going to continue to be their stance. And I think I think we're
dreaming if we're thinking about an overhead pass for an underground tunnel.
I think we'll be waiting forever. I think you'll be waiting forever. And um
I I'm going to take it a little different direction and I the neighbors
may not like like to hear this but you know in um 2028 I think it is in the
10ear capital plan and just hear me out on this because I think this is
something I'd like staff to think about and council to think the future council
to think about in 2028. Um, I think there's pro in the tenure capital plan,
there's provisions uh for a controlled intersection at the intersection of
concession 10, highway 21. There's talk about that and I tell you why there
needs to be talk about that because you got a brand new public school coming in
off of cont concession 10 and and probably a Catholic school within the
next four or five years. There going to be a ton of traffic, ton of traffic
using concession 10. You're going to have to have a controlled intersection
at concession 10. Here's my thought. I believe that the MTO
should expropriate and they need to expropriate land on the west side of the
highway. And I say those property owners, we know who they are. There's
three of them, three major property owners.
But you talk to the MOT and take it in that direction. I think to get the speed
limit reduced from 80 to 60, I think you're going to be fighting that for a
long time. I think you're going to be fighting that for a very long time. And
there's going to be continue to be near accidents, serious accidents. And uh we
see we see them or we're driving along there. People trying to c just the other
day. It was close. There was a there was a there was a close situation. But I
think you need to take that the cyclists and the walkers off of the rail trail.
Move them 300 m. Turn left. When you if you if you picture coming north on the
rail trail in behind the plex, you know what I'm talking about on on Wellington
Water, Wellington Street, you turn left to the controlled intersection. You
cross safely with lights. You cross safely. There's going to be there going
to be lights there at that intersection. You cross safely at the intersection.
You go on the west side of the road. You talk to the MTO about about
expropriating and get it done. If they can't see their way to getting that
speed limit reduced from 80 to 60, then look at another way of doing it. And the
other way of doing it could be by moving all of those pedestrian cyclists on, you
know, you fill in the ditch on the west side of the road and you take those
those cyclist walkers right up to that rail trail. You eliminate eliminate that
section of trail where they have to cross that busy highway. It's going to
be a risk forever, folks. It is. And and I think we need to think outside the
box. I really do. I I I I mean that very sincerely. I think you need to think
outside the box, take the cyclist to the controlled
intersection, talk to the MO about expropriation and get it done. That's I
think the approach you need to I'll support the motion because I think you
put a lot of work into it. Try it again. I I I joined staff in 2001. I think this
is four or five times now that the M2 has been approached about reducing the
speed limit. I think you'll be waiting forever. I just don't think it's going
to get done. You're not going to see an overhead pass or a tunnel. Look at
another way of doing it and that's I think cross at the control intersection.
Anyways, that's my thought.
» Council Matt. >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
Councelor Grace and I agree on many things.
This is not one of them. Uh in 2017 we this the council of the day purposely
struck out the recommendation to go from six from 80 to 60 km an hour and we did
that after significant debate and careful thought
and um despite that it was represented at
Roma a couple of years ago that we had passed a resolution to that effect and
it was and you apologized and you did but you misunderstood how the motion
I don't think that changing the speed limit 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, 365 days a year for what are a few days in the summer when it's
difficult to cross that road is sound planning there. If you're going to try
and cross that road on Friday afternoon between 2 and 6:00 in the evening or a
lot of afternoons during rush hour, Bruce Power rush hour, and there is a
rush hour here now, you're going to have some trouble. But there are many times
you can cross that road, go try it on a Sunday morning at 8:00,
you you cross, you can walk across there, you can crawl across there, you
won't get hit by a car. So making permanent solutions to temporary
problems is not sound planning in my opinion.
Um I I drive that road. I don't drive it
every day, but I drive it fairly frequently. And if I see some cyclists
or walkers on the side of the road trying to cross, I slow down. My eyes
aren't as good as they used to be, but I can see people standing on the side of
the road, I'll slow down and I'll maybe even give them a wave across. even if it
means holding up some cars behind me. That's what conscientious drivers do. We
haven't, you know, knockwood, we have not had a serious bicycle pedestrian car
collision at that intersection. uh where our previous director of public
uh of engineering used to say when when plans are made around controlled
intersections and speed limits they use stat statistics and I can't get that
word out statistics say that if you have one accident it's an isolated event if
you have two it's a trend if you have three it's a problem when you have three
accidents at an intersection that's when they start looking at making changes for
solutions We're at zero. Thank god we're at zero
because usually between a [clears throat] bicycle and a car, the
bicycle or the pedestrian doesn't fair as well. But we haven't had the problem
because drivers are generally courteous and smart pedestrians and smart cyclists
don't go at the peak times of day, peak times of the summer. After Labor Day,
traffic drops right off except for maybe half an hour in the morning and half
hour in the evening. So, I don't I don't think that warrants it. I I agree with
the vice deputy mayor that the MTO is not going to support this anyway. We've
asked they've been asked lots of times. That just the the traffic counts don't
support it. The rural designation doesn't support it and the number of
driveways doesn't support it. So, I know it's going to pass because I can
see the nods around the room, but uh it's it it's futile and I won't be
supporting it, but uh good luck getting it done in the future.
» Couns Councelor Stack, [clears throat] >> thank you. So, maybe two things. So, I
um I use the rail trail a lot in the summer. I do find the one advantage of
the 80 kilometers is that I'm always in desperate need of a respiratory break at
that point. So I will say the traffic does help. Um however I I think the
issue is really it's kind of probability versus consequence here. So the
probability is perhaps at this point low that someone will get hurt or killed but
the consequence uh is high. And I think where my concern is is less about the
adults that cross the road. But I don't know if you've ever spoken to a 13 to
17year-old teenager for instance. Their attention spans and a awareness of their
surroundings is often not 10 out of 10. So I think from my perspective I think
it's a worthwhile issue to continue to raise just for the basis that we do have
a lot of kids using those paths. Um ideally with helmets and without their
cell phone in the hand but I've seen several instances of kids on bikes on e-
scooters on regular scooters crossing that road. So, I just think it's a
worthwhile exercise even if nothing comes of it because the MTO has its
views. I think um continuing to raise awareness of the potential risk is I
think worthwhile,
» councelor Halen.
» Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor and through you.
Uh, you know, councelor Matt, I I kind of supported you on that last time and
that was the wrong thing to do. It's the guy on the rail trail, I found out, but
[laughter] so I'm back here with hat in hand asking that this be done again. I
just want to mention that the rail trail on its own dime has
has started the engineering for paving the shoulders. They they are they are
working very hard at this and I I just want to tell you how passionate they are
about getting this crossing looked after and so they have the engineering in.
It's just a shame that Raul left when he did because he was really I felt like he
was really kind of championing this and and and making some headway with the MTO
and um so you know the rail trail has worked hard on this and councelor or
vice deputy mayor I I love your idea that is a really long-term idea but you
know that that is a good idea and thank you for that. And you know what?
You you you you just need sometimes to keep asking.
Going to AMO. Um I I went to a delegation once and they had no in their
face this first minute we walked in there. We went the next time and we
asked and they said, "Well," and then we went back and then we got the money. So,
you know, if if you don't keep asking, if we don't ask, we know it'll never
happen. So, thank you.
» Anyone else? >> Um, [clears throat] Vice Deputy May,
» I just want to say I I just want to plead with you one more time is
meet with the MTO. If they won't pass this speed limit this time, if this if
this fails again, talk to the MTO. the neighbors won't be too happy about it,
but talk about that 20 ft filling in the ditch and moving the trail on the west
side of the road crossing at a controlled intersection. Just want to
repeat that. I just think it's got a lot of merit.
I agree with you about the west side of the road. I would be curious to know if
the longerterm plan though is not a signal but a roundabout at concession 10
and the highway which sets up a an opportunity still but um a little
different. And I would I would also add um that heading in the other direction
on the east side of the road, you know, when when um we recently repaved
Carlile, we did put tiny um but there is definitely a little ashvault section off
the traveled portion of the road which has been increasingly used by cyclists.
But getting from where Carile hits County Road 3 across um in front of
basically um three four properties um Shane, Greg, um Everest, the church and
and the property at the corner. Um there was there was um no opportunity for that
either because that that seemed like a short stretch too and um because it
would enable a different route but without having to cross the highway. So,
I I agree with you about that, but is there any other comments at the moment?
Um, councelor Mette. >> Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just just
finally, um, they mentioned somebody mentioned ecooters and ebikes and this
this is where the accident's going to happen because these e- scooters and
ebikes have a great more potent great greater potential to speed into that
intersection and they're inattentive drivers who are driving because they're
soggy rail trail. Let's face it, it's lost its non-motorized status as far as
I'm concerned. These electric bicycles, they'll do 30 40 km an hour and you can
modify them to go faster than that and these scooters and everything else. Um,
that's if we have an accident, I think that's where it's going to be. It's
going to be one of these bikes. You got a, you know, young boy or young girl
riding a bicycle that they're not used to the speed and acceleration and and
and they're going to come up to an intersection like that. So hopefully
not, but that seems to be part of the problem too is even, you know, if you're
riding a bicycle or walking your dog on the rail trail, these bikes are going by
at a, you know, when you're going walking 40 km an hour is pretty fast. So
just that I point that out.
» Well, thank you. Seeing um no further comments, um we do have a
motion before us. Um again, moved by Councelor Halp and seconded by Councelor
Grace. Um, I'll call the question now. All those in favor?
Those opposed? That's carried.
And since the mayor has left the meeting, I will just continue along. Um,
item 13 on the agenda is bylaws. We have two bylaws before us. U bylaw uh 832026
local plan amendment L-2025-016
by SKG Holdings Incorporated and um bylaw 84-2026
zoning bylaw amendment Z-2025-027
by SKG Holdings Incorporated. Um, I have a recommendation that these uh two
bylaws are hereby read, passed, and sealed this 24th day of August the 20
August August 2026. Sorry. This 24th day of
August 2026. Um, can I have a mover and a second for that? Moved by Vice Deputy
Mermay, seconded by councelor Halpin. Any discussion to the two bylaws?
And um, note that councelor Grace did leave. All [clears throat] those in
favor? That's carried. Then we have a
confirmatory bylaw. I have a recommendation that bylaw 85-2026
being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the council of the town of Sagging
Shores. It's hereby read passed and sealed this 24th day of August 2026.
Moved by councelor Grace, seconded by councelor
Stack. Any discussion? All those in favor?
That's carried. Then I have a recommendation that this regular council
meeting of August 24th, 2026 hereby adjourns at 9:25 p.m. Moved by Vice
Deputy Mayor Matt, seconded by councelor Sack. All those in favor?
That's carried. >> [laughter]