[0:07] Good evening everyone. It is 6:30 p.m.
Members of council are assembled. When
[0:11] you're ready to begin.
>> Thank you very much. Good evening
[0:13] everyone. I'd like to call to order this
regular meeting of the council of the
[0:16] Tanosaging Shores. Welcome all members.
Everyone in the gallery, everyone
[0:20] watching via the live stream. We're glad
everybody's with us. Second item on the
[0:23] agenda is the land acknowledgement and
councelor Dvinsky has that this evening.
[0:27] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you, we
acknowledge that we are meeting on the
[0:32] traditional lands and treaty territory
of the Sagino Ojiway nation, which
[0:37] consists of the Chipoas of Sagin and the
Chipoas of Nayash unseated First Nation.
[0:44] We understand this land holds immense
significance to the people of Sagin,
[0:49] Ojiway Nation. We appreciate those who
live and work alongside us today and who
[0:55] continue the traditions of their
ancestors as stewards of the land we are
[1:00] privileged to inhabit. We thank them for
the contributions they have made in both
[1:05] caring for the land and in shaping this
community. We commit to truth and
[1:11] reconciliation.
To acknowledging the truth about what
[1:15] happened to indigenous peoples because
of colonization and to reconciliation
[1:21] which begins with each and every one of
us. As a local government and public
[1:26] organization, we are dedicated to
learning about indigenous culture, to
[1:32] fostering a better relationship with
First Nations and their people, and we
[1:37] commit ourselves to actions that move us
forward on a path to healing along with
[1:43] the Sagin Ojiway nation.
>> Thank you. Third item on the agenda is
[1:48] disclosure of interest. Asking a member
if you have one of those you'd like to
[1:50] declare. Council Grace.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, um I'm declaring a
[1:55] conflict of interest on uh items 7.1,
13.1,
[2:03] and 13.2.
They relate to the draft plan of
[2:07] subdivision S-2025-004,
[2:12] the local official plan and zoning bylaw
amendments, and the related proposed
[2:18] bylaws.
I own property which is located directly
[2:22] across the street from the proposed
development and the new street entrance.
[2:28] » Thank you. Any further declarations? I
have one like to declare a pinary
[2:32] interest with respect to agenda item
11.2.1
[2:36] the uh notice of the motion on the
highway 21 speed limit. I'm declaring
[2:41] that peerary interest because I am a
shareholder in a business that owns
[2:44] property along that section of highway
21. All right. If there's no further
[2:48] declarations, of course, you can declare
when any time if you need to. Uh, no
[2:52] additions, deletions, or amendments. So,
we're on to the minutes. I have a
[2:55] resolution that council adopt the
minutes of the regular council meeting
[2:57] of August 10th, 2026 as presented as a
mover and secondary, the vice deputy
[3:01] mayor and councelor Grace. Discussion to
the minutes. Seeing none, councelor
[3:05] Grace. Sorry.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just wanted
[3:09] to I know I've the clerk has confirmed
this, but um I just wanted to confirm
[3:14] again that the complete designation
application for the 160 L heritage
[3:21] designation
um will be attached uh to the published
[3:26] minutes. Thanks
>> the clerk.
[3:30] » Thank you, Mayor Sharbano. The complete
application for that heritage
[3:34] designation will appear on the HTML
version of the approved minutes.
[3:38] » Okay. Any further questions or comments
of the minutes? Seeing none, all in
[3:41] favor? That is carried. Okay. So, that
moves us on then to item seven, reports
[3:48] of municipal officers. Uh few reports
there. First one is 7.1 draft plan of
[3:53] subdivision S-20225-004
local official plan amendment L-2025-016
[4:00] and zoning bylaw amendment Z-20225-027
uh recommendation with respect to SKG
[4:06] holdings/chantry crossing. So we'll turn
that to the planner uh Karina Smith.
[4:12] » Thank you through you mayor Charbano. Uh
I'm presenting the applications tonight
[4:17] on behalf of the planner, Julie Steeper,
who is not available to attend this
[4:21] evening. Uh a draft plan of subdivision
application has been submitted to create
[4:25] a residential subdivision. Um that
subdivision would consist of 33 single
[4:30] detached lots and 18 townhouse lots
fronting on proposed extensions of
[4:35] Albert Street and Emerald Drive. There
are also blocks proposed for highway
[4:40] commercial, walkway, storm water
management, open space, um, reserve and
[4:46] highway widening purposes. The draft
plan of subdivision and the related
[4:50] local official plan amendment and zoning
bylaw amendment were previously
[4:54] presented at a public meeting held in
April of this year. The draft plan of
[4:59] subdivision has undergone just one minor
revision relating to the culde-sac bulb
[5:04] and the alignment of the rail trail uh
in proximity to that bulb. Those changes
[5:09] are minor uh but overall the lot fabric
as well as the proposed road layout is
[5:15] generally consistent with what was
presented at the public meeting.
[5:19] The local official plan amendment uh has
been submitted to amend the boundaries
[5:23] of the existing designation in the
town's official plan to align with the
[5:28] proposed lot layout in the draft plan of
subdivision. The subject lands are
[5:33] currently designated highway,
commercial, residential, and open space.
[5:40] And the proposed official plan amendment
would maintain those designations, but
[5:45] again would align the boundaries of
those designations with the proposed lot
[5:50] and block fabric.
The zoning bylaw amendment seeks to
[5:54] reszone uh the property from highway
commercial with a holding provision,
[6:00] residential first density with a holding
provision and open space also with a
[6:05] holding provision. Uh the proposed
zoning would introduce residential third
[6:11] density to allow for the townhouse
blocks. The proposed single family units
[6:16] would be in the residential first
density special zone and the highway
[6:21] commercial would also have a special um
highway HC37
[6:26] zone as well. The open space does not
have any proposed special provisions.
[6:31] The applications before council this
evening have considered comments from
[6:36] the public. We did receive over 60
comments from members of the community
[6:41] uh which included um uh various uh
concerns with respect to flooding, storm
[6:49] water management, traffic and other
issues. We also received comments from
[6:54] agencies on the applications and those
are included in the agenda package for
[6:59] you this evening. We would note that the
town town staff as well as their
[7:04] consulting engineer did flag outstanding
concerns particularly with respect to
[7:08] hydro geology and storm water management
and also concerns with respect to uh
[7:14] traffic and the noise barrier. For that
reason, we are seeking and recommending
[7:19] to council this evening that the
official plan amendment and zoning bylaw
[7:22] amendment be approved. Uh and that uh
council support in principle approval of
[7:28] the draft plan of subdivision. That
draft plan of subdivision would report
[7:33] would then be written and taken to
county council as the county is the
[7:37] approval body for the draft plan of
subdivision. We anticipated there may be
[7:42] some further uh adjustments to the
language in the conditions and we've
[7:46] been working diligently with town staff
and the applicant to refine the language
[7:51] of those conditions. Um I would note um
upon my review in preparation for the
[7:55] meeting this evening. There was not a
condition included with respect to an
[7:59] updated and final transportation report
and so we will be looking to add that
[8:03] before we take a report re uh a report
forward to county council. That
[8:08] concludes my presentation for this
evening, but I'm happy to answer any
[8:12] questions that council may have.
>> Okay. Thank you. There is a resolution
[8:16] that council adopt bylaw 83-2026 for
local official plan amendment L-2025-016
[8:22] by SKG Holdings Incorporated and that it
be forwarded to Bruce County for
[8:25] approval. That council approves zoning
bylaw amendment Z-20225-027
[8:30] by SKG Holdings Incorporated and bylaw
84-2026.
[8:34] and that council support in principle
county of Bruce approval of draft plan
[8:37] of subdivision S-20225-00004
by SKG Holdings Incorporated in
[8:42] accordance with the draft plan attached
and subject to resolution through count
[8:45] conditions of draft approval of
outstanding issues relating to servicing
[8:49] storm water management hydrogeeology
geotechnical conditions and noise is
[8:53] there mover and seconder for that
resolution moved by Alpen seconded by
[8:57] Matt discussion
[9:02] the deputy mayor and then council Man,
[9:09] » thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you. I
have a number of questions. I'm um very
[9:14] concerned though about moving forward
with something um at the moment that
[9:20] there's there's an awful lot of
unanswered questions and and to be
[9:24] completed, to be received, to be
reviewed um kinds of language in this.
[9:29] And um in my opinion, it would be more
appropriate for us to see a lot more
[9:35] already decided or determined or or at
least presented in a form that um we can
[9:41] then have a discussion about it. So, I'm
I'm um not um at the moment um prepared
[9:47] to to support the motion that that has
been put on the floor because I I do
[9:51] think there's an awful lot of unanswered
questions and um the information that we
[9:57] have from the town's engineering
consultant um doesn't give me a great
[10:03] deal of confidence either in that um you
know, they often in their their report
[10:08] um said, you know, we don't have this we can't comment on this and so
[10:12] but I do have some questions um and um
what was not clear from the drawing so
[10:19] I'll I'll just run through them um
going from this the special um condition
[10:24] on the R1 um zoning is about a couple of
things but one of them is reduction in
[10:30] the size of the lots the what's required
at the moment is 450 square meters um is
[10:36] the required lot size the um document
suggests that it's going going down to
[10:40] 400 square meters. What is that in terms
of dimensions? They they look um to me
[10:45] to all be um fairly similar in size, but
even the town's engineers said that the
[10:50] drawing should have very specific lot
sizes indicated. Um which led me to
[10:56] think that maybe they're not all the
same size. What's the general size of
[10:59] the lots for the R1 um parcel? Um is it
50 by 100? Is it 40 by 80? What what's
[11:08] the size of those lots? the planner.
[11:13] » Yes, thank you for the question through
you, Mayor Charbano. So, the dimensions
[11:16] of the lots uh for the single family,
they are in the range of 13.5 to peers
[11:22] up to 14 14.3 in some locations in terms
of their frontage and depths vary from
[11:31] 30 m um in some locations up to 37 I'm
seeing in some locations.
[11:38] Deputy Mayor,
>> thank you for that. Um, I also was
[11:44] concerned when I read in the report that
um, there was a comment from SA about
[11:50] um, comp compensatory I'm probably
saying that the word wrong, compensatory
[11:57] planting areas um, to um, take into
account the potential for lost trees.
[12:01] And the municipal response that that
there were no lands available for this
[12:06] kind of surprised me. Um, do we not have
land somewhere in the entirety of Sagine
[12:13] Shores? I, you know, Helwell Park has a
huge area that has some trees in it. I I
[12:19] know it's over the size um that was
mentioned here. Um, Lamont has a lot of
[12:24] land. Um, you know, there's other um
parks in town that could handle trees.
[12:29] Uh there used to be a tree farm out near
the landfill. I get what was meant by
[12:34] the statement that there are no
municipal lands available for
[12:37] compensatory
plantings comp whatever that word is
[12:43] » the manager of development services.
>> Thank you. And through you may sharel.
[12:48] So I I I think in general the idea that
the town um should supply lands to
[12:54] offset tree removal to facilitate
private development is maybe um
[12:58] something that staff were indicating
that uh we would not want to potentially
[13:02] set a precedent that this is this is
what the town needs to do is supply
[13:06] land. So if there's tree removal, the
preference is that the developer find um
[13:11] another private source to be able to
plant those trees. There were
[13:15] discussions that happened internally for
where there would be an appropriate spot
[13:18] to do tree compensation um and with our
park staff and the the facilities
[13:24] manager. I don't believe that there were
lands that were identified that would be
[13:27] suitable to account for the number of
trees that would be required.
[13:30] » The deputy mayor.
>> Well, thank you for that. That's not at
[13:34] all the impression I got from the
report. So, that's that's good
[13:37] additional information to have. I wanted
to ask um about the Pete removal that's
[13:42] that's talked about in the report. Where
where does that go? How is how is Pete
[13:48] that is somehow um not desirable to
leave somewhere? Where does it go? And
[13:53] how how how is it disposed of or is it
is it usable in some other fashion? Um
[13:58] I'm just curious where where this pete
would go.
[14:02] » Planner.
>> Yes. Thank you for the question. So I I
[14:07] don't have a good answer for you on on
where that material would go. Uh my
[14:11] understanding is that there are fill
transport regulations in the province in
[14:16] terms of the movement of fill material.
So whether it would be regulated under
[14:19] that process, I'm not entirely certain,
but I but I could look into that if that
[14:23] is information that you were looking
for.
[14:26] » Mayor,
>> um thank you for that. I also wanted to
[14:30] ask a question about um the references
in the report to noise walls. Um, you
[14:35] know, I'm a fan of of BMS with trees,
and you know, we had some success with
[14:40] um that sort of addition to projects um
throughout Sing Shores, most notably in
[14:45] Southampton near this with um the um the
western side of the Tim Hortons
[14:49] property. Um nice burm got got installed
there and and the trees have grown up.
[14:55] It's um I think it's doing what the
intention was. Um, in this report though
[15:00] that we've got before us, what's
suggested as as um a good noise wall or
[15:04] or the noise wall that's um being
included is a double thick wood fence.
[15:12] Um there's nothing in this though to
tell me how that's better than a burm.
[15:18] So who who ultimately makes the decision
on what's appropriate for noise
[15:23] mitigation or for appropriate separation
in particular between um abudding uses
[15:29] that are distinct and difference foram
different for example the commercial lot
[15:34] that that would back on to residential
units. um our zoning and and other
[15:39] documents say there needs to be some
sort of buffer there. Is is a double
[15:44] thick wood fence um equivalent to a a a
burm? There's no mention in the report
[15:51] of a height. So, I'm just curious, you
know, what what are the pros and cons of
[15:56] both of them? Why is why is the report
suggesting double thick wood fences over
[16:01] BMS and plantings?
>> The planner.
[16:04] » Uh yes, through you, Mayor Sharpeno. So,
my understanding is that the the noise
[16:09] wall, the the double fence is what's
being proposed, as well as um air
[16:14] conditioning for the unit so that they
may be able to close their their windows
[16:19] um adjacent to any properties that are
adjacent or within that buffer area of
[16:24] the highway. Um the details on what the
final mitigation measure might be are
[16:30] still subject to discussion. So despite
the fact that this report has identified
[16:34] that noise wall and the additional
mitigation measures as well as warning
[16:38] clauses to be included in the
subdivision agreement for for future
[16:42] land owners um those um mitigation
measures may be amended through the
[16:47] detailed design process. So um if there
is a desire or further need to
[16:52] understand why a wall has been chosen
versus uh some other mitigation like a
[16:57] burm and and retention of the existing
trees on the lot. uh that can be refined
[17:02] through the final uh submission of the
noise report to the satisfaction of the
[17:07] town and its consulting engineer.
>> The premier
[17:11] » um thank you. I just have a couple of
couple more in um the planning report
[17:16] from the county. Just would like
clarification on um under the density
[17:22] category. Um, and and in the future,
could we have numbered pages to make it
[17:28] a little easier? If we're we're going to
be asking questions, we can refer to a a
[17:32] page. Perhaps that might be helpful in
some regard, but the density section,
[17:36] which I don't know what page it's on. Um
it refers to in one part it says um D um
[17:44] the residential portion of all
developments that will be serviced with
[17:47] municipal sewer and water to achieve a
min minimum density of 15 units per
[17:51] gross hectare with the layout the
density of the entire development meets
[17:57] this target. Then when I jump down to
the next paragraph, it's the proposed
[18:01] residential development will have a
density of 18.35
[18:05] units per gross developable hectar. So
my question is what's the difference
[18:12] between per gross hectar and per gross
developable hectar? Um because our bylaw
[18:18] um is looking at a minimum density per
gross hectar. I I am just curious what
[18:24] this developable Hector means, but also
with the layout, the density of the
[18:30] entire development meets this target. Is
that referring to the entire because
[18:35] this is phase two of a subdivision plan.
So is that sentence referring to that
[18:40] the whole phase one phase 2 combination
um meets the target or is it just
[18:46] referring to phase two
>> the bladder?
[18:52] Thank you for the question. So the
density, the terminology gross hector or
[18:56] gross developable Hector that they're
essentially the same. Um and I think
[19:00] you've made note of that before. So we
will be uh paying closer attention to
[19:04] that when we do prepare further reports
for council. Um the density uh is based
[19:09] on 15 units per gross hectare is the
minimum as you noted for fully serviced
[19:14] uh areas. Um the 18.35
uh excludes uh the natural um the storm
[19:22] water management ponds specifically. Um
the density that you'll note on the
[19:27] draft plan of subdivision is actually 17
or just over 17 units per hectare. And
[19:32] so um that also excluded um the the
hazard land or what would be the storm
[19:38] water management block in this case as
well as the walkways and highway
[19:43] widenings
reserves and right ofways.
[19:47] » The deputy mayor.
>> So the um the other question about with
[19:52] the layout the density of the entire
development meets this target. It's just
[19:57] this particular application or is it
looking at the entire development which
[20:02] did include or does include phase one
>> the planner?
[20:06] » Yes, thank you for that followup. Um, so
it would be just for this this proposal,
[20:12] not the original uh phase one.
>> Deputy mayor,
[20:16] » I'll just I'll just mention one more. I
I had um I have a couple more, but I'll
[20:20] let other people because maybe they'll
come up with them. I I was a little bit
[20:24] concerned that in the documents um a
street that's Island Street is
[20:30] continually referred to as Island Drive.
Um just a little clarification point
[20:35] there. And at one point there's a
reference to some place called Subway
[20:39] Drive. I'm not too sure where that is in
Southampton, but I'm pretty confident
[20:44] it's it's not in this part of
Southampton. But um you know it's uh it
[20:50] it just is concerning when there's
there's type typo errors like that that
[20:56] um um really shouldn't happen. Anyway,
thank you Mr. Mayor.
[21:00] » Thank you council man.
>> Thank you Mr. Mayor and through you. Um
[21:06] I have a question regarding the
hydrogeeological
[21:10] environmental assessment. So um my
understanding is that there's been phase
[21:15] one hydrogeeological environmental
assessment completed and that there is
[21:20] still a phase two outstanding
uh and we're being asked to
[21:25] um approve a draft subdivision agreement
pending
[21:32] uh successful completion of the phase 2
environmental assessment. Now in here it
[21:38] talks about the building types. Is the
site the phase 2 environmental
[21:44] assessment dependent on whether the
homes that are going to be built are on
[21:48] slab or whether they have basement and
if they're on slab does that negate the
[21:53] need for the second phase
EA on the hydraological
[22:00] conditions
>> the planner.
[22:03] » Thank you through Mayor Sharponos. So
their applicant has submitted an updated
[22:08] phase one assessment as you've noted.
They've also submitted a draft phase 2
[22:12] assessment which has been circulated to
to town to the town and the consulting
[22:16] engineer who's doing the peer review for
the town. Um that document we've
[22:21] included a condition in the proposed
conditions of draft approval which would
[22:25] require finalization of that document. I
understand in speaking with the
[22:29] proponent that document is is ready to
be submitted in its final form. Um but
[22:34] that that the town did have some
outstanding comments and concerns that
[22:38] uh we will review before that report is
finalized and so we are looking to
[22:42] include that as a condition of of draft
approval and uh that be to the
[22:47] satisfaction of the town
>> councelor.
[22:51] So it it it's going to we're going to
get the phase 2 report to our
[22:54] satisfaction irregardless of the
building types that are going to be
[22:58] there.
>> The planner.
[23:02] » Yes. Thank you for the follow-up. Um, so
yes, there there is also a condition
[23:06] included in the proposed conditions that
would require all development to be slab
[23:10] on grade because of the high groundwater
conditions. The phase 2 report is
[23:15] required regardless because there is
residential uses proposed that will be
[23:18] on the ground floor.
>> Okay, further questions? Uh, councelor
[23:24] Dinsky.
[23:27] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you,
most of my questions have been answered.
[23:33] Not to my satisfaction, but they've been
answered. Um,
[23:38] I'm in agreement with the deputy mayor.
I read this report. Granted, I did it
[23:44] between 1 and 2 in the morning one night
when I couldn't sleep. But I read this
[23:49] report
and
[23:52] it was one draft approval after another
draft approval after this after that.
[23:59] And I thought I came up with 12. Now I
could be wrong, but I thought I came up
[24:06] with 12 different things that hadn't
been done yet.
[24:12] And I think we have to do the right
thing. And the right thing may be
[24:18] allowing this uh subdivision to go
ahead, but not in my eyes not the way it
[24:23] is right now. Uh because there are too
many as uh the deputy mayor said
[24:30] unanswered questions
and uh I simply
[24:36] I simply can't uh do that. I've looked
at it again when I came here at six and
[24:43] and looked at it again and it's still
one after another an issue a report
[24:50] something is outstanding.
So I can't at this time
[24:58] support this application. I would much
rather us have far more information than
[25:04] we have. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Helpin.
[25:09] » Thank you mayor and through you. Um and
one of the proposed conditions of draft
[25:14] approval condition 13 states about the
slab on grade buildings etc. But at the
[25:20] end of it it says the cost to design and
construct improvements to the downstream
[25:26] storm drainage systems as approved by
the town of so shores are solely respons
[25:30] are the sole responsibility of the
owner. What do we have any idea what
[25:35] those downstream
improvements
[25:39] would mean? And I believe this is into
catchment drain 12.
[25:46] » The planner.
[25:57] » Uh thank you through you, Mayor
Sharbonos. So um I don't know the
[26:01] specific details in terms of what
upgrades are required but there are
[26:05] substantial flooding issues that are
still to be addressed to the
[26:09] satisfaction of the town and the
consulting engineer to ensure that um
[26:13] the current municipal infrastructure and
any proposed upgrades are able to
[26:17] accommodate that storm water management
um in the downstream location. So I I
[26:23] can't give you specifics at this point.
Um but that is a condition uh for that
[26:28] to be addressed and to be covered by the
applicant.
[26:32] » The counselor.
>> Uh thank you Marin through you. Uh I I
[26:37] really support this development. I I
think I like what they're doing with the
[26:42] um with the rail trail. I I like how
they're transferring land to us. I like
[26:47] how they're uh the tree retention. I
think it is a wellthoughtout and I I
[26:52] want to say that like it's I'm sorry for
the difficulty in
[26:58] redoing this draft plan now because it
was certainly easier to do 20 years ago
[27:04] than it is today with the added
regulation. But my my biggest fear is
[27:10] the is the storm water management and
and where that's going to go. And you
[27:16] know, just at our last council meeting,
we, you know, we we talked about
[27:20] catchment 12, and there's $2.28 million
worth of work to do to bring that up to
[27:25] grade. Um
there's
[27:30] uh I I really support this, but I I'm
unfortunately I feel like I need to see
[27:36] a few more of these reports finalized.
The the groundwater level and the storm
[27:42] water management issue. Thank you. Thank
you. Further comments the vice deputy
[27:47] mayor.
>> Yep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um I just
[27:51] um [clears throat] was wondering through
you to the planner. We talked about the
[27:55] environmental assessment phase two. Um
how long have we had that that plan? And
[28:02] where are we at with the review of the
environmental assessment? Um when do we
[28:08] expect when do we expect that to be um
firmed up?
[28:13] » The planner
Uh yes, thank you for the question. So
[28:17] the environmental site assessment phase
2 was received on um the draft report on
[28:23] May the 8th. Um we we have not received
the final version and it has been
[28:29] circulated for town staff review as well
as the the peerreview consultant and so
[28:35] there are comments um that that are
available and included in the package
[28:39] with respect to that assessment.
[28:43] payment
>> to the plan. Are you you haven't
[28:45] received the final version from the from
the developer or you haven't seen the
[28:51] final version because of the delays with
staff reviewing it. Where's the delay?
[28:59] » The planner.
>> Yes, thank you. Um so, so I can't speak
[29:04] entirely for where that delay might have
occurred. I know we have been working
[29:08] diligently with town staff and and the
consultant um for the applicant to
[29:14] resolve outstanding concerns.
>> Deputy mayor.
[29:19] » Yeah. I just
you know I I think one of the things
[29:23] this council's been trying work so hard
to do is to speed up the planning
[29:28] process. And I just think that we're,
you know, they just I I I don't think we
[29:33] need to be approving willy-nilly or
half-hazardly. I I don't I don't I I'm
[29:38] not suggesting that, but when I hear a
report May,
[29:44] three 3 4 months ago, um seems to be a
long time. And I I just think that um
[29:50] you know, this this this plan was
approved some 20 years ago and lapsed.
[29:55] And I guess the question, how many years
ago did this plan lapse? Was it 10 years
[30:00] ago, 12 years ago? When when when did
the original plan of subdivision lapse?
[30:06] » The planner?
[30:14] » Uh yes, thank you. So the original uh
approval was in 2004 and it lapsed in
[30:20] 2015.
So under the current planning act that
[30:24] does allow for um lapsed subdivisions to
be potentially deemed not to have lapsed
[30:30] but there are certain criteria that do
need to be met and this subdivision did
[30:34] not meet that criteria.
>> Basically mayor um so I think you know
[30:39] there's there's a lot of good marriage
with this dating back 15 20 years ago
[30:43] and there's still a lot of marriage
today. I I like the idea of the the rail
[30:47] trail work that's that's going on the s
rail trail association back this 100%.
[30:51] Um, I understand there's some progress
being made with the traffic flow from
[30:55] Adelaide Street out on on Elbert Street.
I I thought at one point we received a
[31:01] grant for some some work on the
intersection there, but um I just asked
[31:05] that question today and staff are still
getting back to me. Um I did receive one
[31:10] response, but um I thought we had moved
a little further ahead with with the
[31:15] intersection changes there. We listened
to the public. We applied for funding
[31:18] and I think there's some good work
happening behind the scenes. Um,
[31:23] you know, I think from a inter land
tribunal standpoint, we we went through
[31:29] this with marketry too and um didn't
support that. Of course, land tribunal
[31:35] um came along and supported it and
approved it and I I just wondering if um
[31:42] you know I I'm not sure where this votes
going to go on this. I guess what I'm
[31:45] hearing from council, you just need more
information. There's a lot of un undone
[31:49] work yet. And I and um you know, I hope
we can get that sooner than later
[31:53] because I don't think we should hold up
this planning process any any further.
[31:57] At least um [snorts] let's just try and
get it moved along. But I I guess my
[32:03] question to staff back to staff again,
Mr. mayor would be um
[32:08] when [clears throat] when do you see
this you know there's there's servicing
[32:12] there's storm water management the hydro
geology assessment phase two
[32:16] environmental assessment geotechnical
conditions when will we receive that
[32:21] completed information are we at the
mercy of the developer to get that
[32:26] [clears throat] right that information
to us I'm just trying to get I'm trying
[32:29] to understand how much they're not
giving to us versus how how how much we
[32:34] need to speed the process up a little
longer from a staffing standpoint. So,
[32:38] I'm a little confused with what's what's
missing. I I I kind of like the
[32:43] approving principle because I think this
is forthcoming this information. I don't
[32:47] think we should hold up any further. But
when will we see something again back at
[32:53] this table? Would it be a month, two
months? Is it the new council? When will
[32:57] when is this coming back?
>> The planner.
[33:00] » Uh thank you for the question. So just
on your earlier comment with respect to
[33:06] um
when when you might uh see this
[33:10] application again, it's provided on
whether or not or how council decides on
[33:15] the application this evening. So uh if
council were to approve the amendments
[33:20] and to support in principle the draft
plan of subdivision, uh the next step
[33:24] would be for this uh draft plan of
subdivision application to be brought
[33:28] forward to county council for a
decision. And if that was also a
[33:32] favorable decision, then um this item
would likely return to this council uh
[33:37] with the agreement. But I perhaps would
turn that over to to the manager for the
[33:42] town.
>> Manager.
[33:46] » Uh thank you. And through you, Mayor
Sherno. Uh yes, that's correct. If it
[33:49] advances to a draft approval, the next
time this would return to council would
[33:54] be with a draft uh subdivision agreement
for consideration.
[33:59] Deputy Mayor,
>> just just one last comment. Um I I am
[34:04] going to support this. Um and and it may
not be enough votes to to move this
[34:09] through, but you know, it's it's a it's
support in principle. And what we're
[34:13] saying to the developers is that we're
subject to resolutions through condition
[34:18] draft approval of outstanding issues
relating to servicing, storm water
[34:22] management, hydro geology, tech,
geotechnical conditions, and noise. They
[34:26] know they have to provide that. They
know they have to provide that and um I
[34:30] think we need to send the message back
to the developers which is a great plan
[34:34] and council help said so and I think I
councelor deinskills will say this is a
[34:39] great development maybe not just yet but
I think we shouldn't be delaying this
[34:43] any further and um I think we need to be
supporting in principle so I will be
[34:48] supporting the resolution
>> thank you very much councelor stack
[34:53] » I'm shrinking suddenly um I just a
couple process questions I think I ask a
[34:58] similar question every time. But so for
this, if we were to not approve the um
[35:05] effectively get when we get down to the
bylaw, we don't approve the bylaw and we
[35:09] say no, we want to go back and have the
conditions for draft approval met before
[35:14] we come back. How is it possible to just
go right into the subdivision agreement?
[35:19] Like what what I'm trying to understand
is are we actually materially delaying
[35:23] them by asking them to complete what we
have already said we are going to
[35:27] require completion before we approve the
final plan
[35:31] » the planner.
[35:36] » Uh thank you for the question. So if
this council this evening decided to
[35:40] defer the application um that would be a
time delay for the applicant. So their
[35:45] their amendment specifically um would
would wait until a report is brought
[35:50] back to this council um with more
refinements potentially to the
[35:55] conditions of draft approval. And so
that that would be at least a month
[35:59] delay to bring that back to to the next
council meeting. Um again that would
[36:04] then push out the timeline with respect
to a follow-up report to county council
[36:08] as well.
It's
[36:12] » probably more of a statement than a
question, but I think um and I'm
[36:17] probably sounding like my mother, which
is a different thing. Like you have to
[36:19] learn, you've managed to wait since or
that the developers managed to wait from
[36:24] 2015 to today, so 11 years to bring this
back. I think we've seen a lot of
[36:29] concerns from residents about some of
the outstanding issues around the
[36:33] environmental assessment, drainage
issues, all all manner of issues that
[36:37] have been um raised by several
residents. So I just I am struggling um
[36:44] I'm struggling to approve this not
because I just to be clear not because I
[36:48] actually have a objection to the
development itself. Um I think the rail
[36:52] trail discussion is very good. I ran
that trail the other day. I thought okay
[36:56] this would be great to protect. I think
there's a lot of opportunity um for
[36:59] noise barriers. I think that development
makes sense in the community. But I I do
[37:04] think we should recognize that where
folks have raised concerns. And I think,
[37:09] you know, we all know when it comes to
flooding and drainage, people get
[37:13] particularly concerned. And I know that
there's been some concerns raised um
[37:17] about the environmental assessment
because it, you know, there are some
[37:21] concerns about localized I think the
fuel whatever that was underground that
[37:26] there are some concerns there. I just
the only reason I'm not going to I'm
[37:30] just being candid is the only reason I'm
not going to support this. I just think
[37:32] like let's finish some of the more
material issues out so that people can
[37:35] feel more comfortable that the town's
completed its due diligence. So when you
[37:38] tell us that the reports have been
submitted, I'm just struggling with why
[37:42] it's being brought to us without
reviewing and finalizing the reports
[37:47] like the reports that the developer had
to provide.
[37:50] » Bler
>> um just as a as a followup um to that
[37:54] point and I believe another member of
council had raised a question about
[37:58] delays in the process. So with the most
recent large resubmission for this
[38:03] application to address comments from
from the county town and other agencies,
[38:08] the applicant had indicated in their
response matrix that they had provided
[38:12] certain studies with that submission
which in fact they were not provided and
[38:16] had not been finalized. So there was a
delay there and that is why we also had
[38:20] recommended that some of those reports
including the hydrogeeological
[38:24] assessment um be um moved forward with
uh conditions of draft approval.
[38:33] » Hen
sorry so sorry just so we're clear
[38:37] because I'm hearing
some commentary in in the gallery here.
[38:42] So just so I'm clear, the developer did
not submit a complete package in the
[38:47] original application. Is that is that
what you're saying?
[38:49] » The planner.
>> Yes. Thank you. So um I haven't been
[38:54] part of all of those discussions, but my
understanding was that um there was
[38:57] material and information provided to
address the comments that have been
[39:01] provided by uh agencies through the
through the original round of comments.
[39:07] Um but it was not a full resubmission um
which would include a finalized report.
[39:13] » Councelor Stack. Okay. Councelor Helpin.
>> Thank you. Mayor and through you. Um is
[39:20] it possible that there's three
recommendations there. Is it possible
[39:25] that the third recommendation that we
vote on that and we because I would
[39:28] accept this a council support in
principle the county approved the draft
[39:32] plan by etc. I I won't
uh read the whole thing, but we're
[39:38] approving it in principle, but we're
just not passing the bylaw yet. And
[39:43] would that allow it to move forward
or would you like me to read that for
[39:48] the record?
Do you have any comments of that the
[39:52] planner?
>> Uh so thank you for the question. So, in
[39:57] response, uh, we would be looking for
the amendments to to move forward, uh,
[40:02] before we would take a report to county
council on the subdivision, um, simply
[40:07] because, uh, we are looking to make sure
the appropriate permissions are in place
[40:11] to facilitate that future land division.
>> Yeah. To be clear, you can't do the you
[40:17] can't do the draft plan subdivision
without amending the zoning and the
[40:20] official plan, right?
One has to follow the other.
[40:25] the council helping.
>> Um
[40:30] I'm going to think for a second. Thank
you.
[40:34] » And the deputy mayor,
[40:38] » I don't know how um to to ask for a
deferral rather than a vote at this
[40:44] stage, but um I really do think that
there's key information that's missing.
[40:49] Um, and as councelor Stack said, you
know, the the due diligence um aspect, I
[40:54] think we need to have complete
confidence that that we've received what
[41:00] we should receive um when we're making
decisions that potentially impact not
[41:05] just um potential new residents of town
or or people buying a new house in town,
[41:10] moving around, but also existing
neighborhoods and infrastructure under
[41:15] the ground. And I just um you know even
the imprincipal part if some of the
[41:20] reports that come in have information
that requires a real redirect or
[41:25] rethinking or redesign. Um you know that
then what happens is it going to just be
[41:32] oh well let's just work through this and
figure it out. Um when you know we
[41:37] should have had that information up
front. I'm concerned um that um any kind
[41:43] of cost element that the town is is um
going to be involved with um because we
[41:50] are often involved with development
proposals with some taxpayer funded
[41:54] aspects. Um in the absence of complete
information and and a a really defined
[42:00] um sense of storm water management and
other um technical things with
[42:05] infrastructure.
um there's potential there for things to
[42:09] come up that um you know if we if we
just waited and got the information up
[42:15] front so that there was a clear
understanding I think that that would be
[42:18] very helpful to our staff but also be um
good messaging to the community that um
[42:25] everything's been thought about
everything's been considered
[42:27] everything's been reviewed everything's
been questioned and then a decision was
[42:32] rendered I just think there's a lot of
information still missing so I will not
[42:36] be supporting um the way that the motion
was worded up front. Um I would um I I
[42:43] think the development, you know, has
some good points in that it's a
[42:47] continuation of something from a number
of years ago and um makes sense because
[42:52] it's um you know, there's existing
infrastructure there. There were roads
[42:55] planned through that area. Um albeit
there's been some adjustments there. So,
[42:59] the development itself is is um quite
possibly a very good idea, but I just
[43:05] don't think that we have what we need um
to ensure that the town um is in good
[43:13] shape in terms of taxpayer funded
expenses, but also just in terms of our
[43:17] own long-term plan with with the way we
manage services um in the community.
[43:22] Thank you.
>> Thank you. Of course, you asked um how
[43:26] you could um proceed with a deferral and
a motion to defer is how you would do
[43:31] that. So, I would entertain that at any
time if that's what council wish to do.
[43:34] Although, I would say if council wish to
do that, I would um specifically
[43:40] set out what things you're deferring,
what you're waiting for. Um I assume
[43:45] this hydrogeeological assessment or
sorry, pardon me, the geote technical
[43:48] investigation report would be one of
those things. I don't know what else.
[43:52] But I would say in fairness to the
applicant, um if you're doing a
[43:56] deferral, then you should identify what
of the what information you're looking
[44:00] for um to have brought back um in order
for council to have what it thinks it
[44:08] needs to make a decision on this.
Is there further discussion?
[44:15] Councelor Duck,
>> I don't know if this is a point of
[44:19] order, but we do have, I believe, the
proponent in the room who keeps making
[44:24] comments. Can we can we hear from him
rather than having this?
[44:28] » No, we can't hear from members of the
public. We're not in the public meeting
[44:31] setting at this time. We can talk to the
planner. You can ask questions of the
[44:33] planner, the deputy mayor.
>> Order. Come to order, please. Come to
[44:39] order.
It's not a public meeting. We're we're
[44:44] uh going to proceed in normal process.
We can talk to the planner if we want.
[44:49] Well, I'm sorry about that, but that
isn't the case. The deputy mayor.
[44:55] » Um I'm I'm doing this on the fly, so I
might might miss something. So, I'll um
[45:02] hope that a colleague if they if they
notice that I missed something, but I
[45:06] would move that um um this item be
deferred pending. Um uh there's comments
[45:14] in the report pending uh storm water
considerations being fully addressed to
[45:19] the satisfaction of the town. Um that a
[45:30] concerns regarding the absence of a
hydro hydrogeeological assessment um be
[45:36] addressed to the satisfaction of the
town. that um
[45:44] complete information regarding um the
situation with Pete and its removal be
[45:51] provided um and the submission of a
geotechnical investigation and report um
[45:57] be submitted. Also, there was one more
here. Uh, that the submission of a final
[46:05] phase 2 environmental site assessment be
provided to the satisfaction of the town
[46:10] of Sagging Shores. I'm sure I missed a
couple, but those were the ones that
[46:16] were very specifically mentioned in the
planning report as as being of concern
[46:21] to the town and not being completely
addressed.
[46:24] » All right. Well, that's Do you have
that, the clerk? You have that recorded?
[46:30] All right, it's moved by the deputy
mayor. Is there a seconder for the
[46:34] deferral at this stage, seconded by
councelor Demenky? We'll wait for the
[46:38] language here.
[47:01] So I have a resolution. This is it. The
council defer consideration of
[47:06] » Can you refresh?
>> Oh, I have to refresh. Sorry.
[47:14] No.
Okay. So here I see it. So the
[47:19] resolution uh moved by the deputy mayor,
second by council Dinsky is that council
[47:23] defer consideration of draft plan of
subdivision application S-20225.004
[47:28] local official plan amendment
application L-225-016
[47:31] and zoning by amendment application
Z-2025-027
[47:35] SKG holdings/chantry crossing and
directed the following information be
[47:39] submitted and reviewed to the
satisfaction of the town prior to the
[47:42] applications being brought back to
council. storm water management
[47:45] considerations and supporting
information, a hydraological a
[47:48] hydrogeeological assessment, complete
information regarding the pete uh
[47:53] including its proposed removal, a
geotechnical submission and supporting
[47:57] report and a phase three environmental
site assessment
[48:01] discussion. The deputy mayor and then
councelor stack and then councelor May.
[48:08] » You did say storm water management there
up front. Okay, thank you.
[48:12] Okay, I have councelor stack and then
councelor May.
[48:16] » Sorry, I just wanted to clarify. So,
I'm sure I'm just slow today. So, some
[48:22] of the items that uh the deputy mayor
indicated is basis for deferral. I just
[48:27] can um can the planner just confirm
those were those have the final versions
[48:32] of those have been submitted to the town
or have not been submitted?
[48:35] » The planner.
>> Yes. So for some of those reports uh for
[48:41] example the storm water management
report there is a preliminary storm
[48:44] water management report uh there are
town staff comments on that but it is
[48:50] typical through the draft plan of
subdivision process that a final report
[48:54] would be prepared as a condition of
approval. So that would be an example
[48:58] where it's fairly standard to have to
have a final storm water management
[49:02] report submitted at a detailed design
stage. uh the hydrogeeological report
[49:08] town staff um as well as the the phase
two and and I just wanted to clarify in
[49:13] the deferral it's phase two report
instead of phase three um the that uh
[49:19] report my understanding is ready to be
submitted by the proponent um but uh
[49:24] would still need to be reviewed by town
staff so we have included it as well as
[49:28] a condition of approval so all of the
items I believe that um that uh that
[49:34] have been noted in the deferral ederal
request are uh included as conditions of
[49:38] draft approval. Um should council opt
not to defer the application and instead
[49:44] endorse the the draft plan of
subdivision in principle.
[49:48] » Council stack.
>> So could so just to maybe a discussion
[49:52] about the amendment. I'm I'm if the
standard sort of the drainage items are
[49:57] pretty standard to come in through the
the next phase. I'm a bit more reticent
[50:02] to include in our condition like our
deferral things that are pretty
[50:06] standard. I think where I would say is
can we narrow can we further narrow the
[50:09] scope so we're not unduly delaying this.
So I think the hydro geology would be
[50:13] the the issue that concerns me the most
just for discussion.
[50:19] » Any
comments for clarification any of that?
[50:23] Are there items here? Clarify for us.
Are there items here that are um that we
[50:29] would normally have at this stage of the
process that we don't have uh items that
[50:35] have been listed? I mean, I think that's
what council's coming down to here.
[50:39] There's a question about what should we
have normally when we're when council's
[50:44] making a decision at this moment um that
we don't have if anything um and which
[50:51] of these things would we normally uh
only uh be considering after approval
[50:56] and at as a condition? Can you clarify
that for us uh the planner?
[51:03] » Uh yes, thank you. So um there are often
situations where we do have the
[51:09] necessary report. So in for example the
applicant has made a resubmission. There
[51:14] are comments um for example from the
consulting engineer doing peer review on
[51:18] behalf of the town where there are
outstanding issues that are still to be
[51:22] resolved. And so we've had um through
the county planner a recommendation that
[51:28] those matters um could be addressed
through the preparation of a final
[51:33] report which is how we've had it worded
in the conditions. So so we are
[51:37] comfortable providing the recommendation
to council today that these matters can
[51:41] be addressed through final report to be
submitted through the conditions of
[51:45] draft approval. Um and so I use the
example of storm water management that
[51:50] is a typical um we at the start of the
process we do get a preliminary report
[51:56] and then as a condition of approval
there is a final report. Now storm water
[52:00] conditions on this site I would say or
or or maybe um town staff have expressed
[52:06] a concern with how infrastructure is
going to handle that storm water and
[52:10] where that storm water is going and
ensuring that it has properly taken into
[52:14] account existing development that's
already there. things like that. And so
[52:18] there are issues that are still to be
resolved, but they can be provided
[52:21] through a final report and a condition
of approval. I would note um that if
[52:26] council does um decide to defer the
applications this evening, um the the
[52:31] applicant has been in a position that
they are able to appeal the applications
[52:35] for non-decision. Um they're already in
that position and so I'll just flag that
[52:39] that that would be a potential risk uh
to the applications if they are
[52:43] deferred.
>> Okay. Councelor Halpin. Sorry, pardon
[52:47] me. Councelor Matt and Halpin. Sorry
about that.
[52:50] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through
you, um I I don't see myself supporting
[52:57] the deferral.
um backed up by the last comment that I
[53:02] just heard, but it seems to me that that
the developer and I'm getting that
[53:07] impression somewhere that the developer
has submitted all of the required
[53:12] documentation and all the reports and
the studies that are required and that
[53:16] they are at some stage of being reviewed
and approved and peer reviewed by town
[53:22] staff or consultants and uh and I don't
I don't see that we wouldn't be able to
[53:30] satisfy the requirements of the bylaw.
When we get the final approval and some
[53:34] of these aren't done to our satisfaction
at that time, council will have the
[53:40] ability to not approve the final draft
subdivision. But there are the the
[53:46] process as it's been laid out is is one
that we've seen before with draft plan
[53:51] subdivisions where uh some of the
reviews haven't been maybe totally
[53:55] complete but and especially backed up by
the fact that this was an approved
[54:00] subdivision previously. So a lot of
those things would have had to have been
[54:05] done 20 years ago when this was approved
the first time. So, I'm confident that
[54:10] that the developer has completed all the
steps that he needs to do, and it's just
[54:15] a matter of the the staff and the
developer
[54:20] reviewing and getting their eyes dotted
and tees crossed in order for this to
[54:25] proceed to the county level. And then
finally, it will come back here. And at
[54:30] that point, we will be insistent or
whoever's sitting here will be insistent
[54:34] that everything is complete,
everything's final, everything is done
[54:38] to the satisfaction of the town. So, I
won't be supporting the deferral and I
[54:44] will be supporting the original motion,
which is to approve the draft plan of
[54:48] subdivision. Thank you.
>> I just want to clarify the process there
[54:52] because um so plans of subdivision
receive final approval at the county
[54:57] level, right? they don't come back to
the town. So, it'll be it'll go from
[55:02] here because they're the approval
authority for a plan of subdivision that
[55:05] the county council is. So, um so there's
no this is the last decision that this
[55:09] council will make everything from this
point forward assuming we do this. We're
[55:14] recommending in principle that the
county approves approval authority
[55:16] approve the draft plan subdivision.
County council won't even take up a cons
[55:23] of subdivision without such a motion
having been passed by the lower tier
[55:26] council. But they are the f they are the
decision maker. Um from this point
[55:30] forward um implementation will fall to
staff. So at that point enforcement of
[55:37] the draft of the con the conditions that
are now in draft or the d the conditions
[55:41] of draft approval will be undertaken by
uh town staff primarily just for clarity
[55:47] about how this all goes. Okay. Is that
clear enough?
[55:52] Yeah, I think it is clear. But um
will when it gets to county council,
[55:57] will county does county council give it
the same level of scrutiny that we
[56:02] apparently are here today or do they
kind of take our word for it that if the
[56:08] town's passed it, it must be okay?
Well, my experience, county counselors
[56:12] are diligent about their work. They also
uh do um pay close attention to the
[56:18] recommendations of lower tier councils
with respect to things happening in
[56:21] their municipalities give a great deal
of difference generally to lower tier
[56:25] councils unless there's some kind of um
very obvious problem.
[56:31] Uh the [clears throat] council helping
then deputy mayor.
[56:35] » Thank you, mayor. through you. I I'm I'm
not supportive of the length of [snorts]
[56:40] the list of reasons for deferment. There
there's only one thing that I'm
[56:45] concerned about and that's the storm
water management plan. And perhaps I
[56:49] shouldn't be, but but so what does it
look like if it comes back to to us that
[56:56] it's that line that scares me so much
about the downstream infrastructure
[57:01] required? what what happens or what's
the likelihood of that happening? It
[57:07] just that's the only thing I'm really
uncomfortable with because it just seems
[57:11] so open-ended,
you know, like if there is. So, what
[57:15] does it look like if they say, "Oh,
well, we we've got to do um um you know,
[57:21] we we we have to do upgrades to drain
12." Like, what does that look like or
[57:29] what happens then?
the planner.
[57:33] » Uh yes, thank you uh through you, Mayor
Charbano. So um if the draft plan of
[57:38] subdivision were to be approved with the
the conditions before you today, the
[57:42] applicant would then start working
towards addressing those conditions. So
[57:46] for example, um to address the storm
water management, they would need to
[57:49] provide a final storm water management
report and with and within that report,
[57:53] it would provide recommendations that
are required to to implement their their
[57:58] plan. If that report was not to the
satisfaction of town staff and its
[58:03] consulting engineer, then town staff
would not be able to write what we refer
[58:07] to as a clearance letter. So any agency
uh and the municipality who are listed
[58:13] as clearance agencies in the conditions
of draft approval are required to submit
[58:18] a letter to the county indicating how
the conditions have been addressed and
[58:22] if they're satisfied that that final
approval can be given. If for some
[58:26] reason storm water couldn't be
addressed, um there was not an
[58:30] appropriate resolution, then there would
be no clearance letter from the
[58:34] municipality and the county would not be
able to recommend final approval, in
[58:39] which case the applicant would not be
able to create the lots. However, they
[58:43] would still have the the designations
and the zoning in place. So so they
[58:48] could come back and and submit um
another application at another time.
[58:55] » Okay. Thank you. So, this would be the
last time that this comes before
[58:59] council, but it's not the last time that
it receives the scrutiny of the town of
[59:04] Sine Shores. Is that a correct statement
to say?
[59:09] » Yes, thank you. That that is correct.
The detailed design is where you get
[59:13] into the very detailed engineering
drawings and submissions and um
[59:17] resolving any outstanding comments or
concerns that had been provided by by
[59:21] town staff, their engineer and uh the
applicable agencies.
[59:27] » Council Coin,
>> uh thank you. It is this list of things
[59:36] that need to be finished up. That's what
kind of scared me away. Is this list
[59:40] bigger than a lot of lists or or or like
uh is it common to have this many things
[59:47] that we're waiting for the final on the
planner?
[59:54] » I don't know if I can necessarily answer
that question. Uh each each file is
[59:57] different um and dependent on on the
site conditions um and the issues that
[1:00:02] are being brought forward.
>> Yep. Council Helen.
[1:00:07] » Thank you, Mayor. Through you and last
one. I I won't support the deferment as
[1:00:11] it stands. Thank you.
>> Okay. The deputy mayor.
[1:00:16] » Um thank you and through you, Mr. Mayor.
Uh
[1:00:21] thanks Councelor Halpin for that. I was
making it up on the fly. Um in the uh
[1:00:26] report that we received there is an
indication in there about um related to
[1:00:31] storm water management and master
servicing and that sort of thing that
[1:00:36] the plan
plans that exist didn't take into
[1:00:40] account this project specifically that
it's it's a little bit different. I
[1:00:45] really um don't think that um you know
the information that the planner just
[1:00:51] provided about um how there's um the
potential for an appeal and that you
[1:00:58] know that timeliness passed that wasn't
in anything that we received. So I'm I'm
[1:01:01] a little bit concerned that that's just
gets dropped into the conversation. it
[1:01:06] seems um a little bit desperate um in
some ways and I would hope that any
[1:01:11] developer hoping um to have a good
project in our community um respects
[1:01:17] public input and counselor input enough
to recognize that you know ultimately we
[1:01:23] want what's good for the community. Um
they I think want what's good for the
[1:01:27] community too and expect to make a
little bit of profit from it or a lot of
[1:01:31] profit as as the case may be. But I I
would like to believe that a a developer
[1:01:36] would not put the threat um over anybody
on on council or planning staff that
[1:01:42] well, I'll just take this out on appeal.
So that that that took me by surprise
[1:01:46] when that was said um because I do think
that there's some merit to the whole
[1:01:52] project. I really think that that
there's some fundamental information
[1:01:56] missing um from what we're seeing before
us. this is the last time we're going to
[1:02:00] see this and ultimately, you know, our
staff then have to quote unquote figure
[1:02:06] it out. Um, and um, sometimes I think we
should be providing them with a little
[1:02:12] more substantial um, information or
support or a decision that then gives
[1:02:18] them the the impetus um, or the the
confidence to follow through with some
[1:02:23] things. There's an awful lot of
unanswered questions. And when an
[1:02:26] engineering firm, Burnside, that we
hired to provide us with advice, when
[1:02:31] their report tells us that this is
missing, that they can't comment on this
[1:02:35] because there's not enough information,
I think we should take that seriously. I
[1:02:39] respect what the planner said though
about, you know, that it's typical that
[1:02:43] there are some um things that aren't
completely finished. However, there's an
[1:02:48] awful lot that was mentioned to us as
not being finished. So um if if it would
[1:02:54] um you know be helpful um even just
getting the deferral on the basis of
[1:02:59] storm water management that would be
okay with me too. Um but I just think
[1:03:03] that that there are enough unanswered
questions here that a slight pause to
[1:03:08] enable some of these reviews to take
place to have some questions answered
[1:03:12] will give our staff the ability to
better represent the town's interest in
[1:03:17] the process and that they won't have to
figure it out. that there will be some
[1:03:22] information before them that they can
then make good decisions using that
[1:03:25] information as well. So, um I don't
think we should be afraid of of a that
[1:03:30] the timeline has passed on going for an
appeal. I would like to believe that a
[1:03:35] developer who's been listening and I
think has obviously listened because
[1:03:39] there have been some adjustments made
that they have um an interest in um
[1:03:45] respecting the community enough to um to
take take a little little um
[1:03:51] interruption I guess in the process to
have a slight delay to get some other
[1:03:55] information before the people that it
matters to have us receive information
[1:03:59] that should matter to us. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. So if if there's a way that I can
[1:04:04] shorten the um the uh request to defer
down to just the storm water management
[1:04:10] situation, I will do that. Um in respect
of what councelor um Halpin has said,
[1:04:15] » you're the mover, so you can do that as
long as the secondary agrees.
[1:04:18] » Well, I then I will do that.
>> All right. So that's just an amendment
[1:04:23] made by the mover and secondary to the
motion on the floor and we'll get the
[1:04:26] vice deputy mayor.
>> I be brief. I don't think anyone's
[1:04:30] saying we're not respecting public
input. I think we had a really really
[1:04:33] good public meeting here and the room
was full and lots was said and I think
[1:04:38] the developers have gone back and made
some very positive changes this
[1:04:41] development. So I don't think anyone's
saying we're not respecting public
[1:04:44] input. I think we've really respected
respected public input. I think they
[1:04:48] have listened. So I think they've done
some good things with adjusting the uh
[1:04:51] the development. I I you know the
arguments presented tonight I I'm
[1:04:56] wondering and I kind of agree with that
statement with the interior land
[1:05:00] tribunal. I'm not sure this will stand
stand up to the test of time with the
[1:05:04] arguments being made, but um I you know
I I think the planner as Karine I think
[1:05:08] you've done a really good job as the
planner with this recommendation and you
[1:05:12] know I I go back I go right back to um I
won't be supporting the deferral but I I
[1:05:17] go right back to
that council support in principle
[1:05:23] subject to resolution through condition
of draft approval of an outstanding
[1:05:27] issues and I agree as council may
everything you said subject to
[1:05:31] resolution through conditions of draft
approval. So, I think I've done a really
[1:05:34] good job with the report. I think
there's room to make sure the developer
[1:05:37] gets to the county, to the town what
we're requesting. And um so I I I just
[1:05:46] think we're delaying delaying delaying.
We don't need to delay. I really uh so I
[1:05:51] won't be supporting the I won't be
supporting the deferral. Will be
[1:05:56] supporting the recommendation.
>> Okay. Councelor Stack.
[1:06:00] Um,
I hate admitting this, but I think I
[1:06:03] might be changing my mind uh on the fly.
And I think the reason is um
[1:06:09] so when we did the the Market Street uh
vote almost four years ago, uh we ended
[1:06:15] up in in front of the land tribunal, we
were unsuccessful. And I think what just
[1:06:19] causes me a bit of consternation and why
I'm pausing on my original position is,
[1:06:24] you know, that comment that has been
made and now we've sort of articulated
[1:06:28] potential legal positions about the
strength of our argument on the public
[1:06:32] record which is not putting us in a
great spot. Um
[1:06:37] so I think
on that basis I'm going to avoid the I'm
[1:06:42] going to take a fairly risk informed
decision and say let's you know I think
[1:06:46] we will have to follow the process which
does not suggest that they are not
[1:06:50] without obligation to comply with the
final conditions and I think the one
[1:06:55] question I had is going back to sort of
the drainage issue if they if they are
[1:07:01] unable to demonstrate that they can I
don't know address the drain drainage
[1:07:05] concerns appropriately.
That is is that the basis upon which the
[1:07:10] county can according to the planning act
deny the the final plan of subdivision?
[1:07:17] » Planner,
>> sorry, could you just uh ask that
[1:07:22] question again please?
So if and I'll if they don't if at in
[1:07:28] the end the developer does not meet the
drainage conditions such that the
[1:07:32] existing infrastructure can't can't
support it or whatever they can't meet
[1:07:37] the they can't address the issues raised
in the in the report before us and so we
[1:07:42] can't sign we can't provide the clear
the town can't provide the clearance
[1:07:46] letter and that goes to the county. the
lack of a clearance letter. Can someone
[1:07:50] confirm to me that that's a legal basis
upon which the county can decline a a
[1:07:57] subdivision approval?
>> The planner.
[1:08:02] » Uh yes, through you. So, uh if we don't
get the required clearance agency
[1:08:08] letters, then then we would not be
recommending um final approval of the
[1:08:12] application.
[1:08:16] » Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Cal.
>> Sorry, I'm going to be just a bit
[1:08:18] pnikity. The planning act entitles the
county to say no when the conditions the
[1:08:27] the conditions are not met.
>> The planner?
[1:08:31] » Yes, that's correct.
>> Could I just clarify that though?
[1:08:34] Because to be clear, um like what
happens is the draft plan subdivision
[1:08:40] goes to county council. County council
approves the draft plan with the
[1:08:44] conditions. then the condition then the
applicant um does the work and then
[1:08:49] their business isn't with the county
anymore. It's with the town like in
[1:08:53] terms of clearing those conditions at
least the ones that are subject are
[1:08:56] overseen by the town. Right. It's not
just to be clear like
[1:09:01] it's not as like I think councelor Sack
was was trying was asking and maybe I'm
[1:09:06] not saying what you're say what you were
saying councelor stack so correct me if
[1:09:08] I'm wrong but that somehow this that
these clearance letters would impact
[1:09:12] decision-m by county council but that
isn't the case because all of that
[1:09:15] happens after approval by the county
approval authority and then the
[1:09:20] implementation of the conditions happens
downstream from there in a staff to to
[1:09:24] applicant basis. Am I right about that?
Uh yes, thank you, Mayor Charbano. So um
[1:09:30] for final approval, the county does um
provide sign off um or a clearance that
[1:09:38] would allow the applicant to create the
lots. So if we don't get that final
[1:09:42] clearance letter from from the town or
other agencies listed in the conditions,
[1:09:46] um which would include a final agreement
uh being entered into between the the
[1:09:50] proponent and the town, um then we could
potentially bring that back to county
[1:09:55] council. Right now that is a delegated
um staff exercise for final approval.
[1:10:00] » Just to be clear though that that
happens after council county council
[1:10:04] approved the draft plan and it happens
at the staff level the county staff
[1:10:08] level and the town staff level unless
there's some major problem. Sorry
[1:10:12] councelor stag.
>> Yeah. So that generally aligns with with
[1:10:16] what I think I heard the first time.
When you say we could direct direct it
[1:10:20] back to county council rather than
staff. Is that
[1:10:24] pos? Is that what I heard?
>> The planner.
[1:10:29] » Uh, yes. I'll have to look that up
because I quite honestly haven't been
[1:10:33] through that that situation before. But
that is my understanding is that um if
[1:10:38] it wasn't able to be resolved at the
staff level, then we would bring that
[1:10:41] back to county council.
>> Okay. Uh, councelor Dinsky. Sorry,
[1:10:47] Council Dinsky.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you. Just
[1:10:52] a couple of clarifications here. So the
deputy mayor said and I've seconded that
[1:10:59] we
defer the drainage
[1:11:03] issue.
If that doesn't pass, does that mean
[1:11:08] approval in principle passes or do we
have to have a a a vote on that?
[1:11:13] » No. this. So there's we your council is
currently considering a motion to defer
[1:11:17] the entire application pending um
further information on the storm water
[1:11:22] management question. Should that pass,
it will be deferred. Should it fail,
[1:11:25] then we'll go back to considering the
main question.
[1:11:30] Is there is that clear enough, council?
>> Yeah, just hold on for a second.
[1:11:35] Uh
oh. Oh, yes. I'm fine. I'm fine.
[1:11:43] » All right. Is there any further comments
or questions before we consider the
[1:11:46] deferral? I um just wanted to uh
comment. I think um
[1:11:55] now [clears throat] I'm kind of lost.
I've lost my train of thought. I'm
[1:11:57] thinking about too many things. I think
the uh the question um
[1:12:04] to me comes down to um you know in this
draft plan of um subdivision there's I I
[1:12:16] don't know I guess I'm lost trying to
think trying to get to where I was where
[1:12:19] I was where my mind was at but now I
forgot. Sorry about that. Um
[1:12:25] yeah, I guess that's the question like
condition 12 um in here. Uh what happens
[1:12:32] if the recommendation can't be um can't
be carried out without changing the
[1:12:39] plan? I mean that's what it comes down
to for me, right? So if we get these
[1:12:42] hydrogeeological or geotechnical
investigation, storm water management
[1:12:47] studies and we find um at at some point
downstream, pardon the pun, that um
[1:12:56] you know this thing isn't going to work
the way it's laid out, the way the
[1:13:00] subdivision is designed, the way it's
been approved. Um you know what happens
[1:13:05] at that point? I guess at that point the
applicant, the developer has to come
[1:13:11] back and make revisions to this plan,
right? Like that's where we're at.
[1:13:16] That's to me like it's a little
confusing because we have this plan in
[1:13:20] front of us. It's contingent on some
information that we don't yet have.
[1:13:24] That's not wholly unusual, but there are
some things about this that may be a
[1:13:29] little different from what we've seen
before. Um, if if that were to happen
[1:13:35] and those contingencies arose and
changes had to be made to what we're
[1:13:40] considering approving tonight, what
would happen then? Would would it be
[1:13:45] then on town staff or county staff to
make changes or does it come back to
[1:13:50] council to change the plan
the planner?
[1:13:55] » Yes, thank you mayor Sharono for the
question. So uh if through uh detailed
[1:14:00] design so if the draft plan of
subdivision was draft approved by the
[1:14:03] county and the applicant needed to make
some adjustments to the lot lines or the
[1:14:09] blocks for example then that would be a
revision to the draft plan of
[1:14:13] subdivision. So it would it be dependent
on the extent of the proposed changes.
[1:14:19] So there are two streams. Um one is a
major revision which would come back to
[1:14:24] town council. Um and then there are
minor revisions so minor adjustments to
[1:14:29] lot lines and things like that which is
a staff level um recommendation.
[1:14:35] So I guess that's the point for me like
as long as it's understood by the
[1:14:40] applicant u by the community by council
that you know if we if if the work that
[1:14:49] is yet to be done identifies issues that
cannot be resolved within the context of
[1:14:54] this plan then then the applicant is
going to have to come back and go
[1:14:59] through this process all over again to
revise this plan. It seems risky to me
[1:15:05] for the applicant to
hopefully they understand that and have
[1:15:11] a solid enough understanding based on
the information in hand that that won't
[1:15:13] be the case. But that's it is a bit of a
risk that exists and that and that has
[1:15:17] to be understood by everyone. Um and I
assume that it is. I guess that is that
[1:15:24] that's that's a fair enough description
of everybody's understanding the
[1:15:28] planner.
Yes, that would be typical. Uh in in the
[1:15:32] case of detailed design where there are
changes, then there would need to be a
[1:15:36] revision to the draft plan of
subdivision. And again, dependent on the
[1:15:40] the scope of the changes, it would be a
major or minor revision and potentially
[1:15:44] would trigger further amendments as
well. So, it may come back to town
[1:15:48] council for a zoning bylaw amendment if
you know setbacks or something were
[1:15:52] impacted uh because of this realignment
of of boundaries. And I think also it
[1:15:58] needs to be made clear that you know as
councelor Halpin pointed out in
[1:16:01] condition 13 the final sentence there
cost to design and construct
[1:16:05] improvements to the downstream stormed
drainage is is at this point at least
[1:16:10] not totally and completely understood
what that might look like. Um so it has
[1:16:16] to be understood today by council by the
applicant that that could be a very
[1:16:21] costly project. We don't know what it we
don't necessarily exactly know what it
[1:16:25] will look like and I have to and to be
clear like the town of Saging Chores is
[1:16:29] not going to absorb any of that cost and
uh and it's going to be firm in its
[1:16:35] negotiating position on that. Uh right.
So I think again although we don't fully
[1:16:40] understand necessarily sitting here
today what that will look like, it's
[1:16:44] required in here and the town is going
to be firm in holding the line and and
[1:16:49] requiring those items. I suppose that's
just a statement that I'm making, but
[1:16:52] these are some of the things I just um
it's an unusual situation we're in
[1:16:56] because we have a bit of a we have a bit
of a split brain here between our county
[1:17:01] planner and the position of the town.
And that's why we're struggling a bit
[1:17:05] here because we've read from the town
some concern and the planners are
[1:17:08] recommending approval and we're that's
why council is trying to mediate between
[1:17:12] those two positions and find the right
spot. And I think it just has to be
[1:17:17] clear like the town's concerns are
legitimate concerns. I'm not sure their
[1:17:21] concerns are with the overall
development, but they are with the
[1:17:26] potential challenges that come with
having to do this uh with making this
[1:17:31] approval without some of the information
that they feel they need. So, um I think
[1:17:36] we're protected in this draft uh in
these conditions of draft approval, but
[1:17:41] but it has to be understood by all that
the town is going to um you know, it's
[1:17:46] going to uphold these conditions and and
if it and if the worst happens and uh
[1:17:52] some of these um things we don't know
yet turn out to require major changes to
[1:17:57] this plan of subdivision, then um it's
just not going to get those signoffs and
[1:18:02] it's going to end up have to come back
here to get changed. So that has to be
[1:18:04] well understood. Um all right those are
my comments. Uh do you have a comment?
[1:18:12] Yeah the director.
>> Yeah just a brief comment just in terms
[1:18:15] of and I know in terms of the deferral
motion in terms of storm water
[1:18:20] management plan but um hydro geological
studies geotechnical studies are often
[1:18:24] required to complete the storm water
management plan. So I would suggest in
[1:18:28] terms of if you're moving forward with
that motion that you incorporate
[1:18:31] hydrogeeological and the geotechnical to
inform the storm water management plan
[1:18:37] if that's clear.
>> Okay. Yeah. The deputy mayor and council
[1:18:40] Dinsky agree to that.
Okay. I'll reread it once the
[1:18:47] clerk has updated it.
What are the two things?
[1:18:52] » Hydrogen.
[1:19:05] Let me just
or do you have something? Is it specific
[1:19:09] to the revisions the clerk is making to
the motion? The deputy mayor.
[1:19:17] Should the motion fail, um, if
are all of these reports that are are
[1:19:24] indicated as, you know, the owner that
the owner submit this, that the owner
[1:19:29] submit that, that the owner do this,
will all of those reports eventually
[1:19:33] show up on the public information that
is available about this application?
[1:19:38] Will that will that all be updated as
those things are received?
[1:19:43] » The planner,
>> uh, thank you for the question. So, if
[1:19:47] the reports are submitted before the
county takes a report to county council
[1:19:52] for a decision on the subdivision, then
they will be posted online. But we after
[1:19:56] a decision is rendered on an
application, we typically remove all of
[1:19:59] the materials from the website. So,
anything that is submitted uh through
[1:20:04] should the subdivision be approved,
anything that is submitted in response
[1:20:08] to conditions of approval uh would not
be posted on on the website.
[1:20:14] » Okay. We're going to consider this
motion to defer now. I just Is the
[1:20:18] wording together there? I don't know why
it's
[1:20:22] I may have to read it off yours. I'm not
seeing it there. All right. So, one more
[1:20:25] time. This is the motion to defer. Then
the council defer consideration of draft
[1:20:29] plan of plan of subdivision application
S2025.004
[1:20:32] local official plan amendment L-225.016
and zoning bylaw amendment Z-2025.027
[1:20:38] 027 SKG Holdings and direct that the
following information be submitted and
[1:20:42] reviewed to the satisfaction of the town
prior to the applications being brought
[1:20:45] back to council. Hydrogeeological and
geotechnical studies to inform the storm
[1:20:50] water management considerations and
supporting information. It has been
[1:20:53] moved and seconded. So I'll ask all in
favor [clears throat]
[1:20:58] opposed.
That's defeated. All right. So now we're
[1:21:02] back to the main question.
Uh and the main question is already
[1:21:07] moved and seconded by uh Halpen and
Mette. Uh any further questions or
[1:21:12] comments uh to the resolution? I might
go ahead councelor Helpin.
[1:21:20] » Thank you Marin through you. I you know
my my big concern was about just the
[1:21:26] amount of things that are left and my
other big concern was what safeguard
[1:21:32] does the town have and after listening
you know I I you know that if this
[1:21:40] doesn't come back as the mayor said our
staff will be diligent if this stuff
[1:21:45] doesn't come back and that can stop it.
Okay. So, it's not like if we advance
[1:21:52] this that we've given up any safeguards.
We we haven't uh we haven't said that
[1:21:57] we're not going to enforce the letter of
the law and make sure every I is dotted
[1:22:03] and every te is crossed and everything
is met. So,
[1:22:08] there there's just a lot of them on the
list though for me this time. Okay.
[1:22:12] Thank you.
>> Thank you for the further comments. I
[1:22:15] might just comment that I think it's a a
good development. uh in a you know uh a
[1:22:21] location that has been planned uh to be
developed for a very long time. Uh and
[1:22:26] uh they've uh made some adjustments
here. It's a good opportunity for us to
[1:22:31] um get municipal ownership over the rail
trail there which I think is very
[1:22:35] positive thing. Um and they've made some
adjustments to make the development make
[1:22:40] a little more sense I think than the
than it did the last time it was um
[1:22:45] draft plan approved. So I think it it
works a little better and um completes
[1:22:49] this uh uh long planned uh area of
Southampton. So um so I think it'll be a
[1:22:56] good development and um and as councelor
Halpin noted, I don't think although
[1:23:01] council and the town have sort of just
spent uh an hour and a half struggling
[1:23:06] about uh some of the questions here, I
really think it comes down to the risk.
[1:23:11] You know, it's the applicant who's
taking the risk here, not the
[1:23:13] municipality. the applicant is wants to
advance this uh wants it here today.
[1:23:18] It's here today. Um the unanswered
questions, they have to answer them and
[1:23:22] if they and if they aren't answered to
the satisfaction of the subdivision
[1:23:26] agreement, um the subdivision can't go
ahead. And so it's it's really more
[1:23:30] their risk than ours in my view. But um
but I wish them the best because I hope
[1:23:34] the development uh proceeds in
accordance with all these rules because
[1:23:37] I think it'll be a good development. So,
um, if there's nothing further, then all
[1:23:43] in favor
and opposed. That's carried. Thank you.
[1:23:48] All right. So, now we're on to item
seven. Oh, sorry about that. Yes. Get
[1:23:52] counselor Grace back.
[1:24:26] Okay, now we're on item 7.2, community
improvement plan development charges
[1:24:30] review, and we'll turn that over to our
planning policy coordinator.
[1:24:35] » Thank you. Thank you and through you,
Mayor Shero. To provide a brief
[1:24:38] background on this file, an initial
public meeting was held on May 19th,
[1:24:42] 2026, where the draft supplementary
housing CIP update was presented and
[1:24:47] discussed. Following this, at the June
8th, 2026 Council meeting, a draft
[1:24:52] update to the DC bylaw was considered.
At that time, direction was given to
[1:24:57] remove all discretionary exemptions from
the town's DC bylaw and to incorporate
[1:25:01] those exemptions into the CIP. Following
this direction, a review of the existing
[1:25:07] incentive programs was conducted by
Sierra Planning and Management.
[1:25:11] The intention of this staff report, the
consultant's memo and presentation
[1:25:15] attached is to provide an update on the
scope and rationale of the planned
[1:25:18] changes to the community improvement
plan prior to further draft amendments
[1:25:23] being prepared. We have consultants
online from Sierra Planning and
[1:25:26] Management, Jonathan Hack, and Lindseay
Cudmore. And I'll now turn it over to
[1:25:30] Lindsay online to walk through the
incentives review in more detail.
[1:25:35] » Great. Thank you, Jordan. Uh, good
evening, Mayor Charbano and members of
[1:25:39] council. Tonight, I'll provide a highle
overview of the community improvement
[1:25:45] plan review being undertaken in response
to the town's new development charge
[1:25:49] bylaw. Uh the purpose of today's
presentation is really to summarize what
[1:25:53] has changed uh identify where potential
incentive gap incentive gaps may um
[1:25:59] exist and to outline areas that we
believe warrant further consideration
[1:26:04] through the CIP review process. Next
slide please.
[1:26:12] So, the purpose of the re review um the
new development charge bylaw removed
[1:26:17] several discretionary exemptions that um
lower development costs for certain
[1:26:23] types of projects. Um subsequently,
council directed staff to review whether
[1:26:28] the CIP should uh respond to these um
exemptions that were lost. and our
[1:26:34] review really identifies what's already
covered elsewhere and where some of the
[1:26:39] um gaps exist. Um gaps remain. Um a key
outcome of our review is that the focus
[1:26:46] has really we've been able to narrow it
to um industrial and commercial core
[1:26:52] development specifically. I can go
through the the next few slides sort of
[1:26:56] detail that a bit more. Um but just a
note on this slide here, we wanted to
[1:27:00] reiterate that any future uh incentives
provided through new or modified CIP
[1:27:06] programs will um you know have an
obligation require a municipal funding
[1:27:10] commitment to be able to fund them. Next
slide please.
[1:27:18] So what's changed? Um so in a bit more
detail here um on the left we're
[1:27:25] providing
um the exemptions that were in the
[1:27:29] former DC bylaw um and detailing how
it's covered now. Um so most housing
[1:27:35] related exemptions continue to receive
support either through the development
[1:27:39] charges act with um the exemptions and
reductions in place there as well as
[1:27:45] through the proposed um half programs um
that we've developed um that were
[1:27:51] brought at the May 19th council meeting.
Um vacant building redevelopment
[1:27:56] exemption remains in the DC bylaw with a
few um language changes. Uh, industrial
[1:28:02] development no longer has broad relief
beyond the legislative expansion
[1:28:07] provisions, although there are
incentives offered for innovation parks
[1:28:11] specifically. Um, commercial core,
meaning non-residential and mixed use
[1:28:17] projects specifically, no longer have uh
equivalent relief as part of the new DC
[1:28:22] bylaw. Um, and so there's two key gaps
there, industrial and commercial core
[1:28:28] development.
Next slide, please.
[1:28:35] So just looking at the housing
exemptions in a little bit more detail,
[1:28:38] we just wanted to sort of remind
everyone about what is being provided in
[1:28:44] the halffunded
um proposed programs that have been
[1:28:49] developed. Um so this the table on this
slide really demonstrates why housing is
[1:28:53] not part of um you know our review going
forward. We're not considering any
[1:28:58] additional exemptions related to housing
in the um in a CIP amendment um because
[1:29:04] affordable housing additional h
residential units and rental housing
[1:29:10] purpose-built rental housing um continue
to benefit from DC provisions whether
[1:29:15] it's exempt full exemptions or um
discounts reductions. Um and then the
[1:29:22] proposed half programs provide
additional support on top of uh the DC
[1:29:27] um provisions. Therefore, uh we're
recommending there's no short-term
[1:29:32] replacement incentives required for
housing related incentives. Um and just
[1:29:36] to note that the half funding currently
extends to December 4th, 2028. So, um
[1:29:44] just sort of in the short term, we're
not not considering that for inclusion.
[1:29:49] Next slide, please.
[1:29:53] » [sighs and gasps]
>> So potential gaps. So just um to sort of
[1:29:57] summarize the key conclusions of our
review that were provided in a bit more
[1:30:01] detail in the uh touched memo as well.
Um
[1:30:05] one of the key gaps we note is
industrial development outside of that
[1:30:09] in uh occurring or potential to occur in
innovation park. So the other existing
[1:30:16] employment lands that exist within the
town. um while we understand they may be
[1:30:21] you know fairly built out there's
opportunity for redevelopment
[1:30:25] reinvestment
um expansion and that type of thing um
[1:30:29] as well as commercial core development
being the second gap so both again both
[1:30:34] loss review through the new CIP or the
new DC bylaw that was put into place and
[1:30:39] approved um and there's no equivalent
support provided through um the
[1:30:44] development charges act or or half
funding which is housing focused
[1:30:49] » [gasps]
>> So the the review will really focus, you
[1:30:52] know, less about housing, more about
economic development downtown as well as
[1:30:56] um in the employment areas. Um and
future options that we're considering
[1:31:01] are uh you know potentially to include a
multiream
[1:31:06] DC grant program that already exists in
the CIP, but just sort of you know
[1:31:12] fleshing that out a bit more potentially
by sector or location oriented. Um we'll
[1:31:19] also take a look at um whether there's
any merits of um detail detailing a bit
[1:31:25] more the tax increment equivalent grant
that is also provided for within the
[1:31:29] existing CIP. Um
and having looked at what remains
[1:31:35] covered elsewhere, the review really
comes to down to those two areas that no
[1:31:39] longer have um coverage that where
council may wish to consider uh a CIP
[1:31:45] response in that regard.
Next slide, please.
[1:31:52] So again, today's update is really
intended to establish the direction uh
[1:31:56] for the amendment process um based on
council's feedback today. Our next step
[1:32:01] will be to prepare the draft amendment
uh for consideration and then bring
[1:32:06] those um bring that forward through the
statutory PL public meeting um process
[1:32:12] in September. Um and at that point, it
being a public meeting, um council will
[1:32:18] have the opportunity to review the
proposed programs
[1:32:22] um their structure and any associated
funding implications that may be um
[1:32:27] required before making any decisions.
Um so that concludes my presentation. Um
[1:32:34] we'd be happy to answer any questions
tonight. Thank you. Thank you. There is
[1:32:39] a resolution that council receive the
community improvement plan development
[1:32:41] charges review update report for
information is removed and seconded for
[1:32:45] that moved by the deputy mayor seconded
by councelor Mette. Discussion we'll
[1:32:50] start with Halpin and then come to
Grace.
[1:32:53] » Thank you Marin through you. Um, just
for the the general public in that,
[1:32:58] could we define commercial, core, and
non-residential and mixeduse
[1:33:01] development? Would would that like be
downtown stores or or what what exactly
[1:33:06] would that involve
the consultant?
[1:33:12] » Yes, thank you through you, Mr. Mayor.
Um, yes, commercial core. So, that's um
[1:33:18] based on the uh official plan
designation, but within that it really
[1:33:23] focuses on commercial. So, I mean, you
know, non-residential, it's ultimately
[1:33:27] commercial. Um whether it's, you know,
existing
[1:33:32] um commercial there. There's, you know,
new commercial sites that potentially
[1:33:37] could be developed. Um it it's it's
basically commercial is what what what
[1:33:44] the um reference is there. The mixeduse
reference would ultimately be commercial
[1:33:49] at ground floor with residential above.
Um, however, the incentives that we'd be
[1:33:54] looking at would focus on the commercial
pon component of that development.
[1:33:59] » Yeah. So, if I could, uh, mayor, um, I
do support DC breaks for this. I I think
[1:34:06] it's important for us to support our
downtowns and and to do anything we can
[1:34:10] to make it easier for them to develop.
But I but I do have a question. If a
[1:34:15] vacant building is being redeveloped,
um, do they have to pay any DC charges?
[1:34:23] Like, let's say a a storefront that's
been empty for several years or
[1:34:27] something and now they want to redevelop
it. Do things like that have to pay a DC
[1:34:33] charge?
>> The consultant?
[1:34:38] » Yes. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor.
Um the the
[1:34:44] current the new DC bylaw maintains
um
[1:34:50] the exemption that was in place
previously for vacant buildings for
[1:34:54] redevelopment.
Um I I believe maybe someone from the
[1:34:59] town could clarify what the language
change was, but from what I understand
[1:35:02] it, it's just sort of a little bit more
um provided some additional uh structure
[1:35:08] to what those requirements might be.
>> I'll just clarify that DCS would be owed
[1:35:15] on commercial development that
represents additional square footage or
[1:35:20] expansion. So it's only that component
that would trigger DC charges.
[1:35:25] the counselor.
>> Uh, thank you. Oh, okay. Just I'm sorry,
[1:35:31] one more question. For the vacant
building, how long does a vacant
[1:35:34] building have to be empty to qualify for
for anything like that?
[1:35:42] The treasur.
So again, I'll just speak specifically
[1:35:47] to when DC's are triggered. And a vacant
building could be vacant for
[1:35:55] I'm not sure that there's a time period
on it. It would more have more to do
[1:36:00] with if there's expanding footprint.
>> Thank you. Okay, the deputy mayor.
[1:36:09] » I thought councelor Grace was next.
>> Oh, sorry, Council Grace. I have my back
[1:36:12] turned to you and saw your hand. Council
Green.
[1:36:14] » It's okay. I've been out of the room for
a while.
[1:36:17] » Um just uh to go to the vacant
properties question. Um and one of the
[1:36:24] charts talks about um the offering
incentives
[1:36:29] for vacant building redevelopment. Um
which I think is a great idea.
[1:36:36] I'm and I know a number of residents are
still are continue to be frustrated
[1:36:44] by the fact that we have some vacant
properties in our downtown area that
[1:36:51] appear not to respond to incentives or
anything. And I don't know if um what we
[1:37:00] could do um to
encourage
[1:37:06] um
the development of those properties or
[1:37:10] the willingness of those owners to um
to develop their properties. But that
[1:37:17] that's something I'd like to have happen
either in this or some other means.
[1:37:24] Uh, you mentioned um, Lindsay that um,
and I had a question in particular that
[1:37:30] I submitted to staff about offering DC
exemptions for properties in Innovation
[1:37:37] Park. Um, and that we have a rubric that
we use. Um,
[1:37:45] I didn't see that specifically mentioned
in the written report, but I know you've
[1:37:49] addressed it in your comments here. Um
that's something that you're continu
[1:37:55] you're recommending that we continue
>> the consultant.
[1:38:02] » Yes, thank you. Um yes, that that is
something that we will be taking into
[1:38:07] consideration. The town has developed
and approved um the
[1:38:13] uh a scoring matrix for Innovation Park
specifically. Um, so we can use that as
[1:38:19] a basis um, going forward looking at
potential for development charge um,
[1:38:26] reductions and how those might apply to
other employment lands within the town.
[1:38:31] Um, so yeah, incorporating that and
making it clear that those exist under
[1:38:38] the existing DC um, or under the
existing CIP, sorry, um, is something
[1:38:44] that we can address.
Grace
[1:38:48] » and that would be based on this rubric
of ultimately how much value we consider
[1:38:55] that industrial development to be for
the community right I mean could it
[1:39:01] range from like a 25% reduction to a
perhaps 100% reduction
[1:39:09] » the consultant
>> thank you Mr. Mayor um through you Mr.
[1:39:13] Mary, yes, we're going to look at all of
that. So, um yeah, the the scoring
[1:39:18] that's in place at present is um you
know, based on the the target sector and
[1:39:23] the type of sector that the business is
in, how many employees it brings in, um
[1:39:28] you know, the construction costs, um
sustainability considerations, all of
[1:39:33] that. Um if the town wishes to, you
know, maintain that type of scoring,
[1:39:38] then uh we can incorporate it. um as
well as look at um you know what what it
[1:39:44] might mean for other other you know
reinvestment insights and that type of
[1:39:48] thing as well.
>> Grace,
[1:39:53] » thank you. Uh I have one more and that
is um a question about the ARU does an
[1:39:59] additional residential unit grant
program. Um
[1:40:05] when I sent this question um the
response was my question was can we
[1:40:12] include a design requirement
in the housing accelerator funded CIP
[1:40:18] inventives incentives. Um, the reason
that I included that is because we have
[1:40:25] had some
um 4unit
[1:40:30] residential buildings going up that we
up until now because of provincial site
[1:40:37] plan control
um
[1:40:41] regulations
don't allow us to exercise any kind of
[1:40:45] site plan control on units on on
developments. that have uh 10 or fewer
[1:40:54] uh residential dwellings within that.
And as a result, we have ended up with a
[1:41:01] couple of developments
that essentially look like small
[1:41:05] apartment buildings within a an
established
[1:41:09] uh residential area that they just don't
fit. Um, so do is there a potential
[1:41:17] would we have to get past a conflict
with the provincial regulation or are we
[1:41:22] able do we have the power within this
um community improvement plan to be able
[1:41:29] to exercise our our own design
requirements.
[1:41:37] » Thank you Mr. R. Um I I you had
discussed this as well and about the
[1:41:44] town approved um pre-approved designs
for ARUS I believe you're referring to
[1:41:51] uh whether adding that as a stipulation
or a you know um
[1:41:57] eligibility criteria as it were you know
if your design is follows these you know
[1:42:03] the town approved um designs then you
would be elible eligible for CIP
[1:42:10] funding. Um
I'm not sure about the legislative
[1:42:15] requirements. Maybe I could ask John to
weigh in on that, but um I guess
[1:42:20] including it as you know if they want
the CIP funding from half for for that
[1:42:26] type of unit, putting that stipulation
would I guess, you know, would limit
[1:42:33] them to have to uh include that design,
right?
[1:42:37] » Yeah. I can uh if it's helpful and I
apologize for my uh situation. I'm sat
[1:42:43] in a car um and uh but just just joining
in online. So just to add to what
[1:42:50] Lindsay has said, if I understand the
the question correctly that can you put
[1:42:54] in additional design criteria for ARUS
to make sure it works well and in the
[1:43:00] public interest. I think absolutely you
can if you cast your mind back to the
[1:43:05] half program funded CIP that we
developed we were fairly
[1:43:12] uh I say non-prescriptive I know you
have the guidelines for you know sorry
[1:43:15] the template designs but we were we
tried to reduce the level of
[1:43:19] prescription
for further aspects such as universal
[1:43:23] design for an for example because to do
that you may end up creating further
[1:43:30] limit MITs to take up of the ARU program
and I recognize that those goals are
[1:43:36] laudable themselves but our experience
with CIPs is you can work with the
[1:43:42] applicant to move it in the direction
that you want. CIPs are quite flexible
[1:43:47] in that way. I don't think you want to
put in rigid rules about exactly those
[1:43:53] things because it's going to it will
have no doubt but to restrict the number
[1:43:57] of uh applications that you get and at
this point when you have the funding
[1:44:02] ahead of you and only two years in which
to spend it I think you know be be a
[1:44:08] little bit less prescriptive but
prepared to uh engage with applicants
[1:44:13] using the the CIP as the uh as the tool.
It's both a carrot and a stick in that
[1:44:19] regard. So I I don't think it will be a
problem. Certainly you can instruct
[1:44:22] staff that they should look for those
issues. But one of the key metrics is to
[1:44:27] make sure you do get applications in.
It's about creating supply and working
[1:44:32] with the developers to meet the needs.
And if those needs involve universal
[1:44:37] design as an example and accessibility,
then that is uh that's a goal that
[1:44:42] should be pursued.
>> Those are Greece. Um, thank you. I I
[1:44:48] wasn't um suggesting
that um
[1:44:54] to for us to require
that the applicants follow the exact
[1:45:01] designs that have been created. But to
be consistent
[1:45:06] or complement
um the character which we haven't fully
[1:45:14] defined um in my opinion but um the
general character of
[1:45:22] what our town looks like um what's I
think we have some guidelines on that
[1:45:27] that are available and um I'm just
thinking of you you know, permanent
[1:45:34] constructions that now um are
wildly out of place in some
[1:45:43] um residential areas, unfortunately.
They're there and there's nothing we can
[1:45:48] do about it. Now, if there's some way we
could um
[1:45:53] as you say, carrot and stick somehow um
um lead people to consider designs that
[1:46:02] are are more complimentary to retaining
the character of our community. Thank
[1:46:07] you.
>> Okay, the deputy mayor.
[1:46:12] » Um thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I wanted to
just ask I know um somewhere in the
[1:46:18] report it suggests that something's
going to be before council um September
[1:46:23] 21st a public meeting surrounding a CIP
review. Couple questions. Um is the
[1:46:30] focus of the re review um on what's
occurred because the report suggests
[1:46:37] that there's been no take up of CIP
programs in recent years. So um is the
[1:46:42] the focus about that or is about is it
about you know what we're expecting in
[1:46:48] the future? Um but beyond that I'm just
the part that's about um the commercial
[1:46:57] core. You know we have a we've deferred
um a discussion about the CPPS which is
[1:47:02] focused on the commercial core um areas
of of both Port Agen and Southampton the
[1:47:07] former towns of Southampton and Port
Agen. I just um it's very confusing um I
[1:47:14] think that um there's this overlap
always um coming into play and
[1:47:23] ultimately you know have we realized
anything have we got any affordable
[1:47:27] housing have we infilled any vacant lots
have we you know infilled um someplace
[1:47:33] with with a little more density I my
reading of of what was before us tonight
[1:47:38] would say that there's been no take up
um what is the justific and I understand
[1:47:44] you know the funding element but why are
we even continuing with this if if in
[1:47:49] the two years it's kind of been around
because I think it's been two years
[1:47:54] there's been no uptake um what are what
are we going to see on the 21st that
[1:48:00] makes this an important thing to keep
talking about and spending money on
[1:48:04] » the director
[1:48:10] Thanks, Mayor. I think at this point in
terms of having listened to the
[1:48:14] conversation, um there's a lot of things
here being tabled uh and good
[1:48:18] conversation. Um and at this point, my
suggestion might be in terms of that we
[1:48:25] go back and re revisit the scope of the
work uh that uh was put forward. Um,
[1:48:32] we're hearing a lot of good conversation
in in that and I think we're getting
[1:48:36] into a lot of different areas and I
would suggest, you know, maybe we need
[1:48:39] to go back and look at that direction
that council provided. Unfortunately, I
[1:48:44] don't have it right here in front of me.
Um, but let's go back and look at the
[1:48:47] scope of that work.
>> The CEO has her hand up. The CEO,
[1:48:54] » thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I just wanted to draw council's
[1:48:58] attention to the staff report that
accompanied tonight's presentation
[1:49:01] because it does outline the scope of
work for council on this. So if council
[1:49:06] will remember the community improvement
plan that came forward in May was the
[1:49:12] supplementary housing initiatives CIP.
So again, the focus of that work is to
[1:49:18] enable the housing accelerator fund
grants to get out the door uh in order
[1:49:23] to support all the supplementary housing
pieces that were targeting to spend the
[1:49:28] half-funding grant on council at that
meeting also heard about the DC bylaw
[1:49:34] update. And so there was a the
recommendation that was passed that
[1:49:38] night is included in the staff report
that council removed all the
[1:49:41] discretionary exemptions from the DC
charges bylaw and ask staff to
[1:49:47] incorporate those discretionary
exemptions into the CIP if it was
[1:49:51] possible. So, I just want to table with
council and support what the director
[1:49:57] was saying that that's the scope of work
that we're focused on right now and we
[1:50:02] want to target bringing those
supplementary housing initiatives back
[1:50:06] to council in a timely way. So, that's
why we're talking about September and
[1:50:11] that we would look at where the DC
exemption list could be included where
[1:50:16] it makes sense. So, I hope that provides
a little bit of clarity about what we're
[1:50:19] trying to do. I just want to make sure
we're not going down different areas
[1:50:24] related to community improvement plans.
We're really targeted on that
[1:50:28] supplementary housing piece and then
where any discretionary exemptions can
[1:50:33] fit into that amendment.
I
[1:50:35] » think the discussion that council had at
that time was when we were discussing
[1:50:40] removing all the discretionary
exemptions from the development charges
[1:50:43] bylaw, we wanted to make sure that
nothing important was missed. uh that we
[1:50:47] weren't removing something that wasn't
already covered by provincial
[1:50:52] legislation that we also valued. Right?
So I think the purpose of this report is
[1:50:57] to understand that question, right? to
look at what what's what's picked up by
[1:51:03] provincial legislation and then what's
left over and then council can make the
[1:51:07] decision after that about whether we
think those items which are left over
[1:51:11] which appear to be on the question of
industrial um exemptions and on core
[1:51:17] commercial exemptions from my reading
that's about all that those are the
[1:51:20] pieces that are left unressed
um and I guess council then can have the
[1:51:24] discussion
do we consider those important enough
[1:51:29] that we want to incorporate them into a
CIP to carry them on outside of the
[1:51:34] development charges bylaw where they
used to be picked up. So to me that's
[1:51:40] that's what we're talking about here. Is
that does that conform with what staff's
[1:51:45] uh view of this discussion is just so
that we're on the same page?
[1:51:50] Yes. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, um further
discussion I don't know deputy mayor you
[1:51:55] were were you finished? Okay. Uh,
councelor Help and then
[1:52:00] » thank you mayor and through you. One one
cautionary
[1:52:04] note with this like some of the stuff
isn't being taken up so it doesn't seem
[1:52:07] like it's going to cost us a lot of
money but we have foregone a lot of
[1:52:10] revenue with um uh with our DCs for
purpose-built housing and and it worked.
[1:52:18] It we we we doubled our supply. It
wasn't this council. It was the previous
[1:52:22] council. They doubled the supply of
rental units, but we we sure have
[1:52:28] foregone a lot of DC charges over the 3
million worth over the last
[1:52:34] four or so years. So that that's my one
cautionary thing. Yet at the same time,
[1:52:39] I do want to support our downtowns as
much as we can.
[1:52:43] » Thank you. Further comments?
Yeah, I think and when we discussed it,
[1:52:49] when we were discussing the development
charges bylaw and I I proposed a notion
[1:52:53] of wiping all these discretionary
exemptions out of the bylaw and
[1:52:56] considering them as part of a CIP, my
feeling at that time was that what was
[1:53:02] left wouldn't be all that significant.
And I think that that's the case still.
[1:53:07] I think we need to clarify, make sure
that we are covering off the work we're
[1:53:14] trying to do in places like Innovation
Park. make sure that that we can
[1:53:19] adequately implement DC relief in
accordance with the rubric that
[1:53:23] councelor Grace laid out was discussing.
Um we need to be able to continue to do
[1:53:27] that. So we have to have that we have to
have the policy framework in place
[1:53:30] either through a CIP or some other
policy to be able to continue with that.
[1:53:34] That's critical I think. Um and you know
the downtown core commercial program uh
[1:53:42] could be important but I would be
interested to understand a little more
[1:53:45] clearly what exactly we were trying to
achieve in the core commercial areas
[1:53:49] because the core commercial areas are
essentially developed for the most part.
[1:53:53] Right? So what are we trying to
encourage um in the core commercial
[1:53:58] areas? I understand this notion of of um
moving vacant
[1:54:04] um commercial spaces out of vacancy into
some kind of occupancy, but we've tried
[1:54:07] lots of things to incentivize that in
the past without much success because in
[1:54:11] the because in the final analysis, it's
none of these charges are the deciding
[1:54:15] factor in that. The deciding factor is
some private interest. the inability to
[1:54:18] lease or the unwillingness to lease and
all of that comes down to private
[1:54:23] financial considerations and generally
isn't driven by development charges or
[1:54:28] taxation, right? Like that's not the
that's not what an owner is thinking
[1:54:31] about when they're deciding how to use
that property, right? Uh so so we have
[1:54:35] to be realistic about how much we can
influence any that kind of decision with
[1:54:39] this kind of move. I think our we have a
much more effect as councelor Halpin
[1:54:43] pointed out uh in the housing realm
because the decision-m around building
[1:54:50] housing is much is driven to a much
greater extent by um those DC charges
[1:54:55] which can amount to a fair bit of money.
So anyway, um I guess all of that to say
[1:55:01] is I'm not uh I'm kind of satisfied with
where we are at the moment. Uh apart
[1:55:08] from making sure that we have the uh
exemptions in place or the capacity to
[1:55:12] implement a program to incentivize
industrial development in places like
[1:55:16] Innovation Park, I think that's a piece
we need to have. So we should pursue
[1:55:19] that. Um but that's the that's really
all that's left from my perspective of
[1:55:24] of great importance. Um at this point,
councelor Helvin,
[1:55:31] » thank you Mayor and through you. This
Spruce the Bruce offers incentives for
[1:55:36] our commercial core as well, right
through the the county. There's a pro uh
[1:55:40] program where uh commercial core stores
and that can apply for funding and
[1:55:46] grants for sprucing up their
storefronts. Is that correct?
[1:55:50] » That's right. But it's important to
remember that the CIP is what makes that
[1:55:53] program possible, right? You can't
municipalities can't bonus private
[1:55:58] interests without a mechanism like a
community improvement plan to make it
[1:56:02] possible. So see so spruce the Bruce
rests on the municipality having a
[1:56:08] community improvement plan to implement
it. Yeah, councelor Helvin.
[1:56:14] » So thank you mayor. So does that mean
like if we don't have a CIP for uh
[1:56:18] community improvement plan for downtown
we can no longer take part of uh in
[1:56:22] spruce the Bruce as well?
Well, that's a good point. I guess if it
[1:56:27] were targeted at the downtown, we would
have to have a program in the CIP that
[1:56:30] would um cover off the incentives. I can
turn that over to the uh consultant.
[1:56:36] They'll be greater experts on that than
me. Uh what's say you to that?
[1:56:47] Sorry. Um I was on mute. I'll I'll
answer that through your worship. Yes,
[1:56:52] exactly. You you obviously count
counties are upper tier authorities.
[1:56:57] They are not permitted to undertake
community improvement plans. What they
[1:57:00] can do and what the county does is have
a stated policy of matching essentially
[1:57:06] the funding that is in lower tier CIPs
and that's where the spruce spruce
[1:57:13] campaign is targeted. So to the extent
you want to use those funds, you have to
[1:57:18] have a program that allows the
municipality to essentially work with
[1:57:22] the upper tier offer of funding. So yes,
you need to keep a program in place.
[1:57:27] » Yeah, it's a good point well made
counselor help and that's important
[1:57:30] thing for us to consider. We want
obviously our residents, our business
[1:57:34] owners build access to Bruce. So staff
should pay careful attention to make
[1:57:38] sure that our CIP enables us to access
all those programs. I would note too
[1:57:43] though I think the province just changed
the rules around upper tier CIPs. I
[1:57:47] think the upper the upper tier can now
uh implement a CIP.
[1:57:54] Um
hard to keep up with all the provinces
[1:57:57] changes. So are there further are there
further uh discussions on this? If not
[1:58:04] uh it's been moved and seconded. It's
just to receive for information. Uh all
[1:58:09] in favor that is carried. Okay, so now
we're on to 7.3 comments on proposed
[1:58:14] governance regulations for regional
conservation authorities and the manager
[1:58:17] of planning and development.
>> Thank you and through you Mur Sharbono.
[1:58:23] The Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks is seeking
[1:58:26] feedback on proposed regulations under
the Conservation Authorities Act that
[1:58:29] would establish governance regul
requirements for Ontario's future
[1:58:33] regional conservation authorities and
the Ontario Provincial Conservation
[1:58:37] Agency. The proposed Lake Hiron
Conservation Authority would encompass a
[1:58:42] significantly larger geographic area
than the current Saging Valley
[1:58:46] Conservation Authority, including the
town of Sagin Shores and all of Bruce
[1:58:50] County. Under the proposed regulations,
Bruce County would appoint one member to
[1:58:54] the proposed Lake Hiron regional
conservation authority board and Sagin
[1:58:58] Shores would no longer have direct
representation. The staff report in
[1:59:02] front of you is broken down into the
themes of representation and
[1:59:06] appointments, alternative governments
arrang governance arrangements,
[1:59:10] maintaining local municipal input, and
the Ontario Provincial Conservation
[1:59:14] Authority Board eligibility.
Within each theme, an analysis of the
[1:59:18] proposed change is outlined along with a
context specific to Sagging Shores. A
[1:59:23] number of comments to be forwarded to
the province through the Environmental
[1:59:26] Registry of Ontario are included in the
report and I'm happy to take any
[1:59:30] questions from council.
>> Thank you. The resolution is the council
[1:59:33] endorse the comments in this report
directing staff to forward them to the
[1:59:36] province through the environmental
registry of Ontario and that council
[1:59:39] direct staff to provide a copy to the
Sagi Valley Conservation Authority,
[1:59:42] Bruce County Council and the lower tier
municipalities within Bruce County for
[1:59:45] consideration. Is there mover and
secondary? Council me councelor Halpen.
[1:59:50] Uh discussion council me.
Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor and through
[1:59:54] you. Um the the report that came out
from the provincial government on the
[2:00:00] structure of the new conservation
authority, the regional conservation
[2:00:04] authorities is is really manifesting
exactly what we were afraid was going to
[2:00:09] happen is that these larger conservation
authorities by population such as in our
[2:00:14] case York region and like Simco region
uh are just going to um dominate the the
[2:00:23] boards the conservation authority
authority boards and uh like I says we
[2:00:29] have we'll have one representative for
Bruce County and not only will we only
[2:00:34] have one but it stipulates that that one
representative cannot be a former member
[2:00:40] of the conservation authority so they
don't they want to have minimal
[2:00:43] representation and they want to make
sure that that representation has no
[2:00:48] previous knowledge of how conservation
authorities work. So they want a green
[2:00:52] horn in there that they can manipulate.
And uh and then it it goes nowhere to
[2:00:57] address the the assets that the
different conservation authorities have.
[2:01:02] Like So Valley Conservation Authority
has significant assets, not just liquid
[2:01:07] assets, but land assets. They own
thousands of acres of of land.
[2:01:12] Conservation parks, Sogging Bluffs
Conservation, Dairy Dale Conservation.
[2:01:16] There's lots of parks and and things
that they manage that they're bringing
[2:01:20] to the table and they'll have one vote
as to how those assets get consolidated
[2:01:25] or amalgamated or liquidated or however
that it goes. Our our citizens of Bur
[2:01:32] County are going to be very poorly
represented and that goes for not just
[2:01:37] Bruce County but all of the great county
and Hiron County that are currently
[2:01:41] members of the Sagine Valley
Conservation Board. Um, this is, like I
[2:01:46] said, it's just coming true, but we were
totally afraid what was going to happen.
[2:01:50] And, uh, [sighs and gasps]
and as was just recently pointed out by
[2:01:54] the mayor, the changes are coming so
fast from this government is hard to
[2:01:57] keep up. And this is just, uh, just one
more heavy-handed
[2:02:02] uh, in my opinion to, you know, they
they promised they were going to reduce
[2:02:08] red tape for developers. Well, this is
taken out a whole level of scrutiny that
[2:02:12] they're going to have to go through. So,
it's really a shame. And so, I endorse
[2:02:15] the comments from the town. Uh, the
conservation authority has their own
[2:02:20] sets of comments that they're feeding
back on this. And, uh, I believe that,
[2:02:24] uh, everybody should read those, too.
So, I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
[2:02:27] » I just wanted to clarify, um, your one
comment, um, with respect to current or
[2:02:33] former authority members being
appointed. That's that's to the Ontario
[2:02:37] Provincial Conservation Agency board,
not to not to the Regional Conservation
[2:02:41] Authority. Right. So because what the
government's trying to do there is
[2:02:44] create a regulator. So they don't want
to appoint a member of a current
[2:02:48] conservation authority to oversee the
conservation authorities. That's so
[2:02:52] that's just for clarity there. Uh
further comments from the members.
[2:02:57] Councelor Halpin.
>> Uh thank you mayor. um my colleague
[2:03:02] councelor Matt
um expressed everything well and we're
[2:03:08] both on the Songing Valley Conservation
Authority together and
[2:03:13] it it's leaving us with no seat at the
table I feel like and the thing is is
[2:03:19] we're still going to be paying for this
right like I mean we're going to be
[2:03:23] paying and supporting this without very
much representation on the board and if
[2:03:28] you look at the size of the sogging
Valley conservation the Sen Valley
[2:03:32] watershed how big that whed is and I
guess it goes through Gray County a
[2:03:38] little bit so that what's that going to
be maybe maybe two people
[2:03:44] representing that and I the Ford
government has done some good things but
[2:03:51] it is consistently consolidating power
making appointments and eroding the
[2:03:56] representation of smaller and rural
municipalities.
[2:04:01] and
I don't know what we can do about it,
[2:04:04] but that is my comments and it's a
really good report and they're excellent
[2:04:09] comments and I fully endorse all your
comments.
[2:04:12] » Thank you for the comments. Councelor
Grace,
[2:04:16] » thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, I also had a
question for Candace Counselor Halp and
[2:04:21] about costs and what our financial
contribution
[2:04:26] may be because we do make a significant
financial contribution now, but we don't
[2:04:31] know that information of course. Um
the yeah the the 21 reps total for the
[2:04:40] regional
um authority. Gray County gets two.
[2:04:45] Bruce County, Hiron County, Duffren and
Wellington, and several other
[2:04:49] municipalities each get one. Uh so as
you're you're right, our eight
[2:04:54] municipalities within Bruce County um
not not all eight would be part of this.
[2:05:00] Uh no, I guess they would. Yeah. So,
eight municipalities within the county
[2:05:05] end up getting one representative. Um,
now the thing that I was when I was
[2:05:11] reading this, I was thinking, okay,
that's the way we do our representation
[2:05:16] now is representation by population. So,
on the Sin Valley Conservation
[2:05:21] Authority,
um, Sagin Shores gets two, Conarten gets
[2:05:26] two, does handover get two?
Um just just the two of us just
[2:05:32] concarden and sagggin shores west gray.
Yes. But
[2:05:39] and I was first I was thinking well you
know we are objecting we like it now
[2:05:46] because we get two represented
representatives but the effect is so
[2:05:54] huge. I mean the devast devastation to
our representative representative level
[2:06:02] is so large that um it is a different I
don't know whether they just did this
[2:06:08] because they thought oh that's the way
that it's been done um or whether
[2:06:13] there's something more some other um
motive behind whether this is just
[2:06:21] laziness of how to organize this it's
easy way out or whether uh so I'm
[2:06:27] hopeful maybe that if someone is
considering this and if we have strong
[2:06:35] [snorts] enough advocates that perhaps
they may consider other factors than
[2:06:40] just simply representation by
population.
[2:06:44] » Thank you councelor Dinsky.
>> Thank you Mr. Mayor. And through you one
[2:06:50] word sort of sums it up. It's
outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous.
[2:06:56] Um, considering the work that's been
done by the Sin Valley Conservation
[2:07:01] Authority, as Councelor May said, we
knew there was a hint that this was
[2:07:07] coming and sure enough, it's before us.
Hopefully, we can change things uh
[2:07:13] beforehand. May I suggest whoever we
send this to that we send it to Lisa
[2:07:19] Thompson as well and rattle her cage so
she knows what we are dealing with. She
[2:07:25] probably does, but it wouldn't hurt to
remind her again. Thank you.
[2:07:31] » Yep, we certainly can do that. The
deputy mayor,
[2:07:36] » I agree with everything that's been
said. It's it's really interesting when
[2:07:40] you look at the charts, too. Um, you
know, Gray County was mentioned. Gray
[2:07:44] County of course in the in the grouping
with us um has two representatives, but
[2:07:50] you know, just if you look at another
region, the Eastern Lake Erie regional
[2:07:54] CA Gray County um in this one, their
population within that regulated area is
[2:08:01] 1,09.
They get one one representative there.
[2:08:06] Um it's it's like the the it makes no
sense when you you really look at it in
[2:08:12] terms of um how it how it it just looks
it's not sensical at all. It's
[2:08:19] nonsensical anyway. But um so thank you
Candace for the report. It's um good to
[2:08:27] send something but um I think we we all
should
[2:08:31] send more if or get other people to send
comments as well.
[2:08:36] Thank you. Further comments. I u met at
Amal with the minister of natural
[2:08:41] resources uh on this issue on behalf of
the county of Bruce. uh Bruce County uh
[2:08:48] took the position that the um regional
conservation authority should separate
[2:08:54] um uh essentially be divided in two to
have uh the Simco region um separated
[2:09:02] from the smaller rural because it's
really having Simco having Barry and
[2:09:06] Simco mixed in with us which is really
what drowns out that rural um voice in
[2:09:13] our area. I mean it's it's got this huge
urban population where although we are
[2:09:16] fast growing, we're not fast growing
like Simco is fast growing. Uh and so um
[2:09:22] you know most of the attention and most
of the resources we felt would be
[2:09:25] focused on Simco rather than on Bruce
and Gray and the uh the watersheds
[2:09:31] within our jurisdictions. Um so we made
that suggestion to uh directly to the
[2:09:37] minister and made the point I made the
point to him. I led the delegation and
[2:09:40] made the point to him that um you know
it would uh you know if the government
[2:09:46] values rural voices as they say they do
then then um this is not a good
[2:09:51] configuration for this uh for this new
authority. I can tell you based on that
[2:09:56] conversation there is no in there is
there will be no uh uptake on any
[2:10:01] suggestion uh that these boundaries
should be adjusted um whatsoever. So I
[2:10:08] mean the government's committed and
that's I mean I heard that directly from
[2:10:12] the minister. Uh so uh so this is how uh
they're going to roll this out. Um
[2:10:19] and I think this representation model is
how it's going to be. um which is
[2:10:26] unfortunate for the reasons everybody
has said. I for one I believe that
[2:10:30] conservation authorities are in need of
reform. Um and I think there are
[2:10:34] problems with the conservation
authorities. I do like the notion of a
[2:10:37] provincial regul provincial regulator to
enforce consistency across the
[2:10:42] conservation authorities because I find
they are very inconsistent and I hear
[2:10:45] that all the time. Um so reform is
necessary. Sadly,
[2:10:51] I don't see how this approach achieves
the reform we need. I don't I don't
[2:10:57] really understand how it the outcome
will be better. What do we want? We we
[2:11:02] want an outcome that's better for people
who are trying to do things in our
[2:11:05] watersheds, for our property owners, uh
for people who are trying to build
[2:11:09] affordable housing, people who are
trying to make life, you know, do
[2:11:13] something to make their own lives, make
their own property better. um and to do
[2:11:18] it in a way that that doesn't threaten
the watershed or or get them too close
[2:11:22] to a flooding condition, all those
things. We want that to work better and
[2:11:26] I don't exactly see understand how these
changes do that. Um and also I worry
[2:11:31] more than the representation piece. I
worry that what will happen is um we'll
[2:11:36] see money the money now that the county
of Bruce will be paying going into this
[2:11:41] larger regional authority and heading to
Simco and that the focus will be in
[2:11:45] Simco uh and not on investments here in
our conservation areas in all those
[2:11:53] assets council might just mentioned that
the conservation authority owns and in
[2:11:56] better services to people on the ground
in our communities which is what we
[2:12:01] want. though I guess the proof will be
in the pudding. But I will report to you
[2:12:05] that there is I receive I was it was not
just a sense it was explicit that this
[2:12:11] isn't going to change. Not to say we
shouldn't make the point we should but
[2:12:14] uh that was u the message that I
received loud and clear.
[2:12:20] All right. If there's nothing further uh
you've heard the recommendation. It's
[2:12:24] been moved and seconded. So all in favor
that is carried. Okay. So, now we're on
[2:12:30] to the consent agenda.
I guess we're How much longer will we be
[2:12:36] going on here? Maybe a little while
longer. Why don't we take Let's take a
[2:12:39] break here. We'll break until uh 8:50.
[2:22:24] Okay, guys. Let's do it.
[2:23:11] Okay. So, we are now on to the consent
agenda. Only one item there. Uh there's
[2:23:18] a resolution that item 10.1 be approved
and received for information. Is remove
[2:23:22] and secondary. Moved by Gray, seconded
by Dinsky. Uh there's the one item there
[2:23:27] then the bell communications tower.
Anybody wish to speak to that in any
[2:23:30] way? Uh the deputy mayor.
[2:23:35] » Um thank you through I had a hard time
uh reading the um the concurrence
[2:23:40] package information. So perhaps this was
in there um so I apologize if it was but
[2:23:45] um the reference to barbed wire around
the telecommunications tower. I
[2:23:50] understand the need for safety and
security. However, um it wasn't clear
[2:23:56] from the drawing how close this was
going to be to the sidewalk and is there
[2:24:02] any potential whatsoever for any kind of
um opportunity to put some landscaping
[2:24:10] there so that
>> the sound isn't on.
[2:24:16] » Um sorry,
>> hold on a second. I guess we have you're
[2:24:18] hearing that from somebody that they're
not hearing this.
[2:24:26] Okay,
>> deputy mayor here.
[2:24:29] [laughter]
>> I was just about to talk about barbed
[2:24:31] wire. Um, so I I just was curious um how
close to the sidewalk is this tower. It
[2:24:37] wasn't I I couldn't figure that out from
the map and um it was mentioned about
[2:24:42] barb wire being around the installation.
Um I understand for safety and security
[2:24:47] that that that would be necessary.
However, it's a pretty prominent
[2:24:51] location um adjacent to the highway um
in Port Elgen and in an area where, you
[2:24:56] know, we're trying to get other
businesses to do a little little um
[2:25:01] aesthetic improvement along the highway.
Is there any potential to encourage or
[2:25:06] to require I realize it's on private
property, but to require um some
[2:25:11] consideration to the look? Um so, two
question, well, three questions there.
[2:25:17] How close to the sidewalk is it? Do we
have any potential and um can we ask for
[2:25:23] landscaping
>> the manager?
[2:25:27] » Thank you. And through you, Mayor
Sharbano. Uh so there is a a plan
[2:25:31] included in the concurrence package and
what it's showing is that the the the
[2:25:36] tower itself will be located in the
center of what is the compound and there
[2:25:41] is a distance um for the access which is
showing at 7.28 m to the concrete
[2:25:47] sidewalk. So that's the the answer to
the distance of the the area to to the
[2:25:53] existing sidewalk. In terms of um
landscaping or any s sort of site design
[2:25:59] considerations, this uh this poll is
actually exempt from requiring a
[2:26:04] building permit is exempt from meeting
site plan control. And so while there
[2:26:08] can be comments that are that are
forwarded on um there wouldn't be any
[2:26:12] necessarily requirements uh per se in
terms of of what the final design will
[2:26:18] look like.
>> Good premier. Um would it be appropriate
[2:26:23] then to um encourage
um you know we we do have some design
[2:26:29] guidelines and some some uh examples
nearby where where things have happened
[2:26:35] adjacent to the sidewalk, adjacent to
the highway to to provide some
[2:26:39] encouragement either to the property
owner or to um the builder of the tower
[2:26:44] themselves to to you know do what they
can do to make it look a little more
[2:26:49] attractive from the street.
the manager.
[2:26:53] » Um I can certainly um pass that along to
the applicant.
[2:26:58] » Okay. Any other comments on this one?
Seeing none, then I this will consider
[2:27:03] the resolution then on the consent
agenda. It's been moved and seconded.
[2:27:07] All in favor? That is carried. All
right. So now we will move on to mo
[2:27:12] motions and notices of motion. There are
two notices there 11.1.1 and 11.1.2.
[2:27:19] Those two items will be considered at
the next council meeting and then we're
[2:27:24] on to the one for consideration which I
have interest in. So I'm going to turn
[2:27:27] that to the deputy mayor.
[2:27:35] Okay. Um
we have a notice or a motion u moved by
[2:27:42] councelor Halpen, seconded by councelor
Grace. Um and it reads, "Whereas Highway
[2:27:47] 21 between Concession 10 in Port Elgen
and South Street in Southampton is under
[2:27:52] the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario, MTO) and
[2:27:56] whereas the Sin Rail Trail, SRT, is a
yearround multi-use trail and designated
[2:28:02] active transportation corridor built on
a former railway line which directly
[2:28:07] connects three communities within the
town of Sagin Shores. And whereas the
[2:28:11] SRT serves as a key active
transportation connection between Port
[2:28:15] Agen and Southampton with several access
points along the corridor between
[2:28:19] concession 10 and South Street that are
regularly used by trail trail users. And
[2:28:25] whereas the corridor is utilized by
residents, daily commuters, visitors,
[2:28:30] tourists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
users of the SRT resulting in increased
[2:28:35] interaction between active
transportation users and high-speed
[2:28:39] vehicular traffic.
And whereas there are commercial
[2:28:44] businesses, agricultural properties, and
four partially controlled intersections
[2:28:49] located along this section of Highway
21, generating regular vehicular
[2:28:54] movements and additional conflict points
for all road users, especially during
[2:29:00] peak seasons. And whereas the Sagine
Rail Trail Association has requested
[2:29:04] that the speed limit on this section of
highway 21 be reduced from 80 kilometers
[2:29:08] per hour to 60 kilometers per hour due
to safety concerns. Near. Now,
[2:29:13] therefore, be it be it resolved that the
council of the town of Sagging Shores
[2:29:18] formally request that the Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario review the
[2:29:22] posted speed limit on Highway 21 between
concession 10 in Port Algen and South
[2:29:28] Street in Southampton and consider
reducing the speed limit to 60
[2:29:31] kilometers per hour and further that
this resolution be circulated to the
[2:29:36] honorable Pragmat uh Sarah,
Minister of Transportation, the MTO West
[2:29:43] region office, Lisa Thompson MPP for Hon
Bruce and the Sagine Rail Trail
[2:29:48] Association for information and support.
Again, it's moved by councelor Halpin,
[2:29:53] seconded by councelor Grace. Um, I will
open it up for discussion. Councelor
[2:29:58] Halpin first, then councelor Dinsky.
>> Uh, thank you. [clears throat] Thank
[2:30:04] you, Chair, and through you. I I really
believe we need to support this. The
[2:30:10] traffic continually increases as our
community is growing. Something needs to
[2:30:14] be done for safety. A lower speed limit
will also benefit the cars entering and
[2:30:19] exit exiting the many ways you can enter
and exit Highway 21 in that section,
[2:30:26] including of course County Road 3
junction. you know, um,
[2:30:32] this is I know councelor Grace is going
to discuss this more and has much to say
[2:30:37] about this, but the town has a binder I'
I've told about this thick on this file
[2:30:43] to to try to move it forward. I just
want to acknowledge and thank the Song
[2:30:47] Rail Trail and Ken Mercer, the the
chairman of the Rail Trail for
[2:30:52] initiating this. this was his initiation
he asked me to do and um and I'm just
[2:30:59] looking for my colleagues support on
this. Thank you
[2:31:05] » councelor Dinsky.
[2:31:09] » Thank you deputy mayor and through you
uh to councelor Halpin. Councelor
[2:31:14] Halpin, you were at the association of
municipalities of Ontario last week. Did
[2:31:19] you get a chance to talk to any MTO
members about this uh about this notice
[2:31:27] of motion?
[2:31:37] » Um thank you chair through you. Uh no we
did not. We made three delegations but
[2:31:43] we did not make a delegation to the
minister. I did see him there. he was
[2:31:48] answering questions um during the
question and answer period and uh but no
[2:31:57] » councelor Grace.
Uh thank you madame deputy mayor. Um I
[2:32:04] do have some background comments
um to support councelor Halpin's um
[2:32:10] motion. The town has been working on
this issue since before 2013.
[2:32:18] I was a member of the rail trail
association as a board uh council
[2:32:23] representative
um and wrote a motion which was passed
[2:32:27] by council um to request that the MTO
visit
[2:32:33] uh and assess the conditions around um
this section of road in early June 2017
[2:32:41] they did visit they presented a summary
of their findings ings uh which were
[2:32:48] presented to council.
Um their conclusions were first that a
[2:32:54] speed limit of 80 kilometers an hour
does not permit a pedestrian
[2:33:01] signal or crossover.
Um they indicated that they thought that
[2:33:07] the 80 kilometer speed limit was
appropriate because the area is zoned
[2:33:12] agricultural. So the minimum driveway
separation is far enough apart to permit
[2:33:18] that speed limit. They also presented a
psychological argument
[2:33:24] uh saying that when one is driving out
of town, drivers expect to drive 80
[2:33:30] kilometers an hour because they think
speed naturally increases out out of
[2:33:35] town. and that if the speed was reduced
to 60 kilometers an hour, this would
[2:33:42] cause an extra hazard to trail users who
expect slower speeds, but the drivers
[2:33:48] won't slow down and that would give
trail users a false sense of security.
[2:33:54] So, that was the way it was left in
2017.
[2:33:58] Um the MTO rejected our re the council
requests and the rail trail requests for
[2:34:07] some kind of added security uh safety
measures.
[2:34:12] In January 2023,
uh I was part of a delegation to the MTO
[2:34:18] at the Roma conference
and we specifically ask the ministry to
[2:34:24] consider some additional facts and
change circumstances since 2017.
[2:34:32] Um we argued that the 2017 ministry
decision was based on their
[2:34:39] understanding that the surrounding area
is zoned agricultural. However, the
[2:34:44] lands adjacent to the highway are also
zoned agricultural, commercial, and
[2:34:49] commercial recreational, and that this
type of zoning has affected and increase
[2:34:55] the number and placement of driveways
and entrances with businesses like a
[2:35:00] commercial nursery, garage, storage, the
farm produce market, a number of
[2:35:06] residences, and a campground. Other
changes um the number in placement of
[2:35:12] driveways since 2017.
Um as of 2023, there were 15 entrances
[2:35:20] to the highway between Bruce County Road
3 and the 10th concession. Of those 12
[2:35:27] were commercial or residential and three
were road entrances.
[2:35:32] Uh also other changes, a storage
facility entrance was immediately
[2:35:36] adjacent to the a new one was
immediately adjacent to the eastern rail
[2:35:41] trail entrance and the Hibberry Farms
entrance move farther to the south.
[2:35:46] Um to respond to the MTO's psychological
arguments that drivers will still speed,
[2:35:53] but those using the crossings will
expect slower speeds and will therefore
[2:35:58] be more vulnerable. Uh we argued that
just to the north of Bruce County Road
[2:36:04] 3, the speed limit on Highway 21 lowers
to 60 kilometers an hour for about half
[2:36:10] the distance between Southampton and
Port Elgen. This is routinely enforced
[2:36:14] by the town's police force and generally
respected by drivers. The 60 kilometer
[2:36:21] an hour speed limit on Highway 21
through Sagging First Nation is largely
[2:36:25] respected by drivers and on their roads.
Bruce County has recently reduced the
[2:36:31] speed limit to 70 kilometers an hour for
significant stretches in agricultural
[2:36:36] zones approaching and leaving hamlets
and villages.
[2:36:41] uh also that the timing of the study in
early June of 2017
[2:36:47] uh was a time that didn't allow the MTO
to see the period of busiest use of the
[2:36:53] rail trail crossing as well as the
increased use of the highway um from
[2:36:59] 2017 to 2023
because our permanent population
[2:37:05] uh had grown 16% between 2016 and 2020.
21 and that we are a very popular
[2:37:13] tourist destination and our seasonal
population and visitors increase uh
[2:37:18] those numbers as well.
Um on uh the issue of driver
[2:37:24] inconvenience that 60 kilometers an hour
is too slow. Um my husband and I uh both
[2:37:31] drove separately uh and timed the
driving of the stretch at various speeds
[2:37:37] 60 and 80 kilometers an hour and we
recorded multiple times a difference of
[2:37:43] about 1 and a half minutes.
Um
[2:37:48] okay uh a resident recently suggested
that we keep the speed the same. it
[2:37:55] would be too dangerous to otherwise, but
that the solution would be creating a
[2:38:01] pedestrian crossover similar to the
pedestrian activated uh crosses
[2:38:07] crossovers in Southampton. I looked up
the most recent edition of the Ontario
[2:38:13] Traffic Manual, book 12, which was last
published in July 2024.
[2:38:20] And in its section on pedestrian
crossovers, it says that quote,
[2:38:25] "Pedestrian crossovers are intended for
low to moderate volume low-speed
[2:38:31] roadways, specifically 60 kilometers an
hour or less posted speed. So unless the
[2:38:39] speed is reduced, if there ever was a
hope to be a pedestrian crossover, which
[2:38:44] has been um routinely rejected by the
MTO, uh that's the only way it would
[2:38:50] ever be able to be done under the
current traffic regulations.
[2:38:54] Um,
town staff continues to work with the
[2:38:59] Ministry of Transportation to
investigate various uh, solutions
[2:39:04] including
um, not just the speed limit but trail
[2:39:09] signage. Uh, the question of pedestrian
crossovers and shoulder paving. Um, as I
[2:39:16] said, uh, the MTO has consistently
rejected the solution of a pedestrian
[2:39:22] crossover. Um, I do support the proposed
motion. Thank you,
[2:39:29] » Vice Deputy Mayor Matt, and then
councelor Matt.
[2:39:34] » Yeah, thank you, Deputy Mayor. And, um,
I I like to take this a little I'm going
[2:39:38] to support the motion, councelor Halpin
and Grace. I think it's worth another
[2:39:42] try. Um, I'm going to take this a little
different direction. And I think as we
[2:39:46] all know the the MTO's council Greece
alluded to you know they determined
[2:39:51] number of laneways that front on highway
21 does not meet that threshold allow
[2:39:56] for speed limit change and that's that's
been that's been their their stance. I
[2:40:00] joined staff here in 2001 that's been
their stance from last 25 years is
[2:40:06] probably going to continue to be their
stance. And I think I think we're
[2:40:10] dreaming if we're thinking about an
overhead pass for an underground tunnel.
[2:40:13] I think we'll be waiting forever. I
think you'll be waiting forever. And um
[2:40:18] I I'm going to take it a little
different direction and I the neighbors
[2:40:22] may not like like to hear this but you
know in um 2028 I think it is in the
[2:40:30] 10ear capital plan and just hear me out
on this because I think this is
[2:40:34] something I'd like staff to think about
and council to think the future council
[2:40:37] to think about in 2028. Um, I think
there's pro in the tenure capital plan,
[2:40:42] there's provisions uh for a controlled
intersection at the intersection of
[2:40:47] concession 10, highway 21. There's talk
about that and I tell you why there
[2:40:51] needs to be talk about that because you
got a brand new public school coming in
[2:40:55] off of cont concession 10 and and
probably a Catholic school within the
[2:40:59] next four or five years. There going to
be a ton of traffic, ton of traffic
[2:41:03] using concession 10. You're going to
have to have a controlled intersection
[2:41:06] at concession 10. Here's my thought.
I believe that the MTO
[2:41:13] should expropriate and they need to
expropriate land on the west side of the
[2:41:18] highway. And I say those property
owners, we know who they are. There's
[2:41:21] three of them, three major property
owners.
[2:41:24] But you talk to the MOT and take it in
that direction. I think to get the speed
[2:41:28] limit reduced from 80 to 60, I think
you're going to be fighting that for a
[2:41:32] long time. I think you're going to be
fighting that for a very long time. And
[2:41:36] there's going to be continue to be near
accidents, serious accidents. And uh we
[2:41:41] see we see them or we're driving along
there. People trying to c just the other
[2:41:45] day. It was close. There was a there was
a there was a close situation. But I
[2:41:50] think you need to take that the cyclists
and the walkers off of the rail trail.
[2:41:57] Move them 300 m. Turn left. When you if
you if you picture coming north on the
[2:42:02] rail trail in behind the plex, you know
what I'm talking about on on Wellington
[2:42:06] Water, Wellington Street, you turn left
to the controlled intersection. You
[2:42:12] cross safely with lights. You cross
safely. There's going to be there going
[2:42:17] to be lights there at that intersection.
You cross safely at the intersection.
[2:42:22] You go on the west side of the road. You
talk to the MTO about about
[2:42:26] expropriating and get it done. If they
can't see their way to getting that
[2:42:31] speed limit reduced from 80 to 60, then
look at another way of doing it. And the
[2:42:36] other way of doing it could be by moving
all of those pedestrian cyclists on, you
[2:42:42] know, you fill in the ditch on the west
side of the road and you take those
[2:42:45] those cyclist walkers right up to that
rail trail. You eliminate eliminate that
[2:42:50] section of trail where they have to
cross that busy highway. It's going to
[2:42:53] be a risk forever, folks. It is. And and
I think we need to think outside the
[2:42:58] box. I really do. I I I I mean that very
sincerely. I think you need to think
[2:43:03] outside the box,
take the cyclist to the controlled
[2:43:06] intersection, talk to the MO about
expropriation and get it done. That's I
[2:43:12] think the approach you need to I'll
support the motion because I think you
[2:43:16] put a lot of work into it. Try it again.
I I I joined staff in 2001. I think this
[2:43:21] is four or five times now that the M2
has been approached about reducing the
[2:43:26] speed limit. I think you'll be waiting
forever. I just don't think it's going
[2:43:30] to get done. You're not going to see an
overhead pass or a tunnel. Look at
[2:43:33] another way of doing it and that's I
think cross at the control intersection.
[2:43:38] Anyways, that's my thought.
[2:43:42] » Council Matt.
>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
[2:43:48] Councelor Grace and I agree on many
things.
[2:43:54] This is not one of them. Uh in 2017 we
this the council of the day purposely
[2:44:01] struck out the recommendation to go from
six from 80 to 60 km an hour and we did
[2:44:06] that after significant debate and
careful thought
[2:44:11] and
um despite that it was represented at
[2:44:14] Roma a couple of years ago that we had
passed a resolution to that effect and
[2:44:20] it was and you apologized and you did
but you misunderstood how the motion
[2:44:25] I don't think that
changing the speed limit 24 hours a day,
[2:44:31] 7 days a week, 365 days a year for what
are a few days in the summer when it's
[2:44:39] difficult to cross that road is sound
planning there. If you're going to try
[2:44:44] and cross that road on Friday afternoon
between 2 and 6:00 in the evening or a
[2:44:50] lot of afternoons during rush hour,
Bruce Power rush hour, and there is a
[2:44:53] rush hour here now, you're going to have
some trouble. But there are many times
[2:44:58] you can cross that road, go try it on a
Sunday morning at 8:00,
[2:45:02] you you cross, you can walk across
there, you can crawl across there, you
[2:45:05] won't get hit by a car. So making
permanent solutions to temporary
[2:45:11] problems is not sound planning in my
opinion.
[2:45:15] Um
I I drive that road. I don't drive it
[2:45:19] every day, but I drive it fairly
frequently. And if I see some cyclists
[2:45:23] or walkers on the side of the road
trying to cross, I slow down. My eyes
[2:45:28] aren't as good as they used to be, but I
can see people standing on the side of
[2:45:30] the road, I'll slow down and I'll maybe
even give them a wave across. even if it
[2:45:34] means holding up some cars behind me.
That's what conscientious drivers do. We
[2:45:39] haven't, you know, knockwood, we have
not had a serious bicycle pedestrian car
[2:45:45] collision at that intersection.
uh where our previous director of public
[2:45:51] uh of engineering used to say when when
plans are made around controlled
[2:45:56] intersections and speed limits they use
stat statistics and I can't get that
[2:46:04] word out statistics say that if you have
one accident it's an isolated event if
[2:46:09] you have two it's a trend if you have
three it's a problem when you have three
[2:46:12] accidents at an intersection that's when
they start looking at making changes for
[2:46:16] solutions
We're at zero. Thank god we're at zero
[2:46:20] because usually between a
[clears throat] bicycle and a car, the
[2:46:24] bicycle or the pedestrian doesn't fair
as well. But we haven't had the problem
[2:46:29] because drivers are generally courteous
and smart pedestrians and smart cyclists
[2:46:35] don't go at the peak times of day, peak
times of the summer. After Labor Day,
[2:46:41] traffic drops right off except for maybe
half an hour in the morning and half
[2:46:45] hour in the evening. So, I don't I don't
think that warrants it. I I agree with
[2:46:50] the vice deputy mayor that the MTO is
not going to support this anyway. We've
[2:46:54] asked they've been asked lots of times.
That just the the traffic counts don't
[2:46:59] support it. The rural designation
doesn't support it and the number of
[2:47:03] driveways doesn't support it. So,
I know it's going to pass because I can
[2:47:07] see the nods around the room, but uh
it's it it's futile and I won't be
[2:47:12] supporting it, but uh good luck getting
it done in the future.
[2:47:19] » Couns Councelor Stack, [clears throat]
>> thank you. So, maybe two things. So, I
[2:47:25] um I use the rail trail a lot in the
summer. I do find the one advantage of
[2:47:30] the 80 kilometers is that I'm always in
desperate need of a respiratory break at
[2:47:34] that point. So I will say the traffic
does help. Um however I I think the
[2:47:39] issue is really it's kind of probability
versus consequence here. So the
[2:47:43] probability is perhaps at this point low
that someone will get hurt or killed but
[2:47:48] the consequence uh is high. And I think
where my concern is is less about the
[2:47:53] adults that cross the road. But I don't
know if you've ever spoken to a 13 to
[2:47:57] 17year-old teenager for instance. Their
attention spans and a awareness of their
[2:48:02] surroundings is often not 10 out of 10.
So I think from my perspective I think
[2:48:07] it's a worthwhile issue to continue to
raise just for the basis that we do have
[2:48:11] a lot of kids using those paths. Um
ideally with helmets and without their
[2:48:15] cell phone in the hand but I've seen
several instances of kids on bikes on e-
[2:48:20] scooters on regular scooters crossing
that road. So, I just think it's a
[2:48:24] worthwhile exercise even if nothing
comes of it because the MTO has its
[2:48:27] views. I think um continuing to raise
awareness of the potential risk is I
[2:48:32] think worthwhile,
[2:48:36] » councelor Halen.
[2:48:40] » Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor and through
you.
[2:48:43] Uh, you know, councelor Matt, I I kind
of supported you on that last time and
[2:48:48] that was the wrong thing to do. It's the
guy on the rail trail, I found out, but
[2:48:52] [laughter] so I'm back here with hat in
hand asking that this be done again. I
[2:48:58] just want to mention that the rail trail
on its own dime has
[2:49:05] has started the engineering for paving
the shoulders. They they are they are
[2:49:11] working very hard at this and I I just
want to tell you how passionate they are
[2:49:16] about getting this crossing looked after
and so they have the engineering in.
[2:49:23] It's just a shame that Raul left when he
did because he was really I felt like he
[2:49:28] was really kind of championing this and
and and making some headway with the MTO
[2:49:33] and um so you know the rail trail has
worked hard on this and councelor or
[2:49:39] vice deputy mayor I I love your idea
that is a really long-term idea but you
[2:49:46] know that that is a good idea and thank
you for that. And you know what?
[2:49:53] You you you you
just need sometimes to keep asking.
[2:49:59] Going to AMO. Um I I went to a
delegation once and they had no in their
[2:50:05] face this first minute we walked in
there. We went the next time and we
[2:50:09] asked and they said, "Well," and then we
went back and then we got the money. So,
[2:50:13] you know, if if you don't keep asking,
if we don't ask, we know it'll never
[2:50:18] happen. So, thank you.
[2:50:26] » Anyone else?
>> Um, [clears throat] Vice Deputy May,
[2:50:34] » I just want to say I I just want to
plead with you one more time is
[2:50:39] meet with the MTO. If they won't pass
this speed limit this time, if this if
[2:50:43] this fails again, talk to the MTO. the
neighbors won't be too happy about it,
[2:50:48] but talk about that 20 ft filling in the
ditch and moving the trail on the west
[2:50:53] side of the road crossing at a
controlled intersection. Just want to
[2:50:57] repeat that. I just think it's got a lot
of merit.
[2:51:03] I agree with you about the west side of
the road. I would be curious to know if
[2:51:08] the longerterm plan though is not a
signal but a roundabout at concession 10
[2:51:13] and the highway which sets up a an
opportunity still but um a little
[2:51:18] different. And I would I would also add
um that heading in the other direction
[2:51:23] on the east side of the road, you know,
when when um we recently repaved
[2:51:28] Carlile, we did put tiny um but there is
definitely a little ashvault section off
[2:51:35] the traveled portion of the road which
has been increasingly used by cyclists.
[2:51:39] But getting from where Carile hits
County Road 3 across um in front of
[2:51:46] basically um three four properties um
Shane, Greg, um Everest, the church and
[2:51:52] and the property at the corner. Um there
was there was um no opportunity for that
[2:51:58] either because that that seemed like a
short stretch too and um because it
[2:52:03] would enable a different route but
without having to cross the highway. So,
[2:52:08] I I agree with you about that, but is
there any other comments at the moment?
[2:52:13] Um, councelor Mette.
>> Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just just
[2:52:17] finally, um, they mentioned somebody
mentioned ecooters and ebikes and this
[2:52:25] this is where the accident's going to
happen because these e- scooters and
[2:52:28] ebikes have a great more potent great
greater potential to speed into that
[2:52:32] intersection and they're inattentive
drivers who are driving because they're
[2:52:36] soggy rail trail. Let's face it, it's
lost its non-motorized status as far as
[2:52:40] I'm concerned. These electric bicycles,
they'll do 30 40 km an hour and you can
[2:52:46] modify them to go faster than that and
these scooters and everything else. Um,
[2:52:51] that's if we have an accident, I think
that's where it's going to be. It's
[2:52:55] going to be one of these bikes. You got
a, you know, young boy or young girl
[2:52:59] riding a bicycle that they're not used
to the speed and acceleration and and
[2:53:03] and they're going to come up to an
intersection like that. So hopefully
[2:53:07] not, but that seems to be part of the
problem too is even, you know, if you're
[2:53:11] riding a bicycle or walking your dog on
the rail trail, these bikes are going by
[2:53:14] at a, you know, when you're going
walking 40 km an hour is pretty fast. So
[2:53:20] just that I point that out.
[2:53:24] » Well, thank you. Seeing um
no further comments, um we do have a
[2:53:30] motion before us. Um again, moved by
Councelor Halp and seconded by Councelor
[2:53:34] Grace. Um, I'll call the question now.
All those in favor?
[2:53:40] Those opposed? That's carried.
[2:53:45] And since the mayor has left the
meeting, I will just continue along. Um,
[2:53:50] item 13 on the agenda is bylaws. We have
two bylaws before us. U bylaw uh 832026
[2:53:57] local plan amendment L-2025-016
[2:54:02] by SKG Holdings Incorporated and um
bylaw 84-2026
[2:54:10] zoning bylaw amendment Z-2025-027
[2:54:15] by SKG Holdings Incorporated. Um, I have
a recommendation that these uh two
[2:54:21] bylaws are hereby read, passed, and
sealed this 24th day of August the 20
[2:54:26] August
August 2026. Sorry. This 24th day of
[2:54:30] August 2026. Um, can I have a mover and
a second for that? Moved by Vice Deputy
[2:54:35] Mermay, seconded by councelor Halpin.
Any discussion to the two bylaws?
[2:54:43] And um, note that councelor Grace did
leave. All [clears throat] those in
[2:54:47] favor?
That's carried. Then we have a
[2:54:51] confirmatory bylaw. I have a
recommendation that bylaw 85-2026
[2:54:56] being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings
of the council of the town of Sagging
[2:55:00] Shores. It's hereby read passed and
sealed this 24th day of August 2026.
[2:55:06] Moved by
councelor Grace, seconded by councelor
[2:55:11] Stack. Any discussion? All those in
favor?
[2:55:15] That's carried. Then I have a
recommendation that this regular council
[2:55:19] meeting of August 24th, 2026 hereby
adjourns at 9:25 p.m. Moved by Vice
[2:55:25] Deputy Mayor Matt, seconded by councelor
Sack. All those in favor?
[2:55:30] That's carried.
>> [laughter]