07 02 1997 Sp Public Minutes
.
.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 2,1997
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEENTH MEETING 1994-1997 COUNCIL
Council met this evening @ 8:06 p.m. with the following members present:
Present:
Mayor Ian Beard
Deputy Mayor Murray Martin
Councilor Walter Dickie
Councilor Don Bell
Councilor Neil Craig
Councilor Thelma Halfacre
Councilor Ron Sommers
Staff Present:
Andria Leigh, Planner, Jennifer Zieleniewski,
CAOlTreasurer.
Also Present:
Nick McDonald, Bernie Still, Ray Kelso, Kathy
Bass, Gary Cunnington
Mayor Ian Beard opened the meeting and the Clerk explained to those present that this
Public Meeting was to receive public comments with respect to a proposed modification to
the Official Plan
To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte have not made a
decision on the proposed modification, other than proceeding to this Public Meeting. Only
after comments are received from the Public, requested agencies and Township staff,
within the appropriate time period, will Council make a decision on the modifications.
Notice of the Public Meeting was placed in the Barrie Examiner, Orillia Packet and Times
and Midland Free Press on June 12, 1997.
Nick McDonald:
Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'll be very brief this evening. As everyone will recall the Official
Plan was adopted by council on February 6, 1997, subsequent to that adoption the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing circulated the Official Plan to a number of agencies
including the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, the Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority, Ontario Hydro, CN Rail and a number of other agencies. As
a result of that circulation they made a number of comments on some of the policies in the
Official Plan and made some requests.
Many of those requests were dealt with in a report that I prepared in May of this year. That
was brought forward for Council's attention at that time and then passed on to the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing for consideration. In addition to there being comments
that were submitted by the agencies, a number of land owners also submitted some
comments following the adoption of the Official Plan, which were dealt with by Council in
that report. Other comments have also been forthcoming and some of those have been
included as modifications or some of those have resulted in modifications to the Official
Plan. This is a very normal process after the Official Plan was adopted and because that is
,
.
2
when the agencies really get involved in the policies and make submissions regarding the
final wording of all of them.
In addition to the agencies I mentioned, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing also
made some final comments on the Official Plan. Their comments are related more to
servicing and ensuring that the Official Plan reflects the intent of the Provincial Policy
Statement so they have made a number of very detailed suggestions regarding servicing in
the Official Plan. Rather than go through all of the modifications, there are almost a
hundred of them, many are very, very minor - most of them are very minor wording
changes - but there are some substantial changes to the Official Plan. I would rather this
meeting just be an informal session, then anyone in the audience or anyone in Council can
ask questions regarding any of the modifications and I would be more than happy to clarify
any modifications to anyone who request it. It should be noted that a public meeting to
deal with this issue is not required in the final act. This is being done to ensure that the
public is involved in all parts of the Official Planning process. Following this meeting the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be issuing a decision on the Official Plan, that decision will
probably be released sometime during the week of July 14, 1997. Following the release of
that decision anyone who has requested notice of that decision will have 20 days from the
date the notice is actually given to refer, or have any part of the Official Plan be referred,
to Ontario Municipal Board, and that is the process.
I am here from this point on to answer any questions the public might have regarding the
modifications. I understand that the modifications were made available about two weeks
ago and I understand that some people have picked up the modifications and have
reviewed them. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Beard:
Thank-you Nick. Now at this point we will have anyone who wishes to ask questions come
forward and state your name into the microphone please. As mentioned earlier, we are
recording this meeting so we can get an accurate record.
Bernie Still:
Thank you your worship and members of Council. My name is Bernie Still, I am president
of Hepburn Development Corp. who owns property in Craighurst. I only learned today of
these modifications, I have been away on a holiday and so I prepared a letter which I was
not able to get to Council prior to tonight's meeting. With your indulgence I would like to
read that letter now:
Dear Mayor and Members of Council,
It has just come to my attention that the Municipality may be entertaining a modification to
the new Official Plan that would see new development in Craighurst halted until such time
as a Secondary Plan for the community is undertaken and completed.
In this regard, I have serious concerns as to the effect of this action. As you are aware, I
have been attempting for sometime to develop a block of land that runs on County Road
22 for residential purposes. This block has been considered part of the larger subdivision
to the north that I have been developing. I have made an application to the Committee of
Adjustment to subdivide this block of land into residential lots but have held off activating
this application until the Official Plan Amendment concerning this same block was settled.
As you can appreciate, I feel that the impact of any change concerning a Secondary Plan
would effectively stop up my plans for the development of these lands for an undetermined,
and possibly, lengthy period of time.
I would request that if Council would proceed with the Secondary Plan approach that my
lands be exempted in the text of the Official Plan and viewed as on-going development. Or
as an alternative to the above, that I be assured that my previous application - on-going
application - concerning the severance of the block will not be affected by this rather
dramatic change in planning policy.
In conclusion, I feel that my situation is a circumstance of infilling and the conclusion of a
larger development scheme which should not be caught in a net really designed to affect
green field development that has yet to occur. I trust the above will meet your approval.
Yours truly, Bernie Still
\
.
3
Mayor Beard:
Thank you Mr. Still. Nick, do you have any comments at this time?
Nick McDonald:
I can make a very brief comment at this time Mr. Mayor. The reason that this modification
came about was because concerns were being expressed by the Ministry of Natural Affairs
regarding the servicing of Craighurst. Prior to preparing this modification for Council
considerations there was a requirement in the Official Plan that a Comprehensive
Development Plan be prepared for Craighurst before any development occurred and that
led to policy in the plan as it was adopted in February 1997.
Subsequent to that, both the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Municipal Affairs
indicated that they were not satisfied with that policy since it did not deal with the issue of
servicing the entire community. Craighurst is probably the only community in the
Township that has quite a considerable amount of land that is designated for development
but which isn't the subject of an Application for Development at this time. And the
potential exists, where there could be anywhere between 100 and maybe 300 lots in
Craighurst depending on the form of servicing. On that basis it was thought appropriate
that before any additional development occurs, that there be some consideration given to
looking at servicing options for Craighurst - determining where parkland should go,
determining how water should be supplied to this community, and so on. And this policy
was added to the plan as a means of ensuring that development will not occur until those
items are addressed.
Mayor Beard:
Mr. Still. -
Bernie Still:
Mr. Speaker, my block of land, that I have, is part of a Plan of Subdivision is actually a
block on a Plan of Subdivision, that I have currently been developing and it is fully
serviced, in that I have constructed the roads fronting on two sides of the block of land.
There is capacity - this has been confirmed by the engineers in the water system that I
have constructed and my servicing is in place. Again, I don't feel that the concerns you
have regarding servicing, or the Ministry has regarding servicing, should pertain to my
block. I had proof of servicing in place and I am on-going and I don't feel I should be held
up by that Secondary Plan process. Thank you.
Mayor Beard:
Yes sir.
Ray Kelso:
My name is Ray Kelso. I am with Reindersßnd Associates, I'm also speaking on the
Craighurst modifications 12 to 18 and number 39. What I would like to do is to read my
letter to council. I apologize for the lateness of the letter but I did not receive the
modifications through the mail in time for the meeting tonight to get the correspondence to
you.
This correspondence is being forward on behalf 1204600 Ontario Limited. This Ontario
Limited Company, directed by Mr. Floyd and Mrs. Barbara Sinton, had purchased the
property from the former owner Mr. George Snider. The western portion of the property is
presently designated residential district of the former Township of Medonte on the Official
Plan which permits the development by of a Plan of Subdivision of single detached
dwellings and private services. A portion of the property is also comprised of Registered
Plan Number 91 originally a 38-lot Plan subdivision now partially developed and held by a
number of owners.
Proposed modifications to the Official Plan prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, which would now require Secondary Plans to be prepared prior to any
development being given approval, effectively eliminates the current ability of the Sintons
to proceed forthwith with the submission of the development application for the site. The
proposed modifications to the Official Plan are unfair since Mr. Sinton would be the only
land owner contributing to the development of the Secondary Plan and would be severely
\
.
4
impacted by both the associate costs and delays associated with the imposition of these
modifications. We thereby formerly request the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte
not to endorse Ministry of Municipal Affairs draft modifications numbers 12 to 18 and
number 39 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan as they pertain to the Settlement
Area of Craighurst.
Reinders and Associates Ltd. were retained by the Sinton's in order to facilitate the Draft
Plan Subdivision Approval application for the above noted site. We have been
investigating the extent of the existing information and the need to update same in order
that a formal and complete application may be submitted to the Municipality and approval
authorities. The origin and need for the proposed modifications is unclear as no
requirements for a Secondary Plan is foreseen in the original and revised November 1996
version of Draft Official Plan.
We acknowledged and agree that there are important community-wide issues that must be
dealt with, however we do not believe that the imposition by the Province of a formal
Secondary Plan requirement will in any way assist in the resolution of the current issues
now facing the community. To the contrary, we believe that the hasty concurrence to these
imposed Draft Modifications created by people unfamiliar with the local circumstances
could serve as an impediment to both the resolution of the current issues now facing the
community and the facilitating of the proper planning of the property and of the community.
To summarize, we request the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte not adopt the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs Resolutions numbers 12 to 18 and 39 and that discussions
take place among the interested parties in an effort to find a mutually agreeable and
acceptable method recognizing and realizing the various goals and objectives of the
parties involved. That's my letter, if you have any questions, I am willing to answer them. I
have copies of the letter I will distribute them.
Mayor Beard:
Does anyone have any questions at this time? Does Council have any questions at this
time? There is one item on page 67, at the bottom of the page, regarding the
environmental (inaudible) ... and further on Ontario Hydro will consult with the municipality
on the location of any electrical power facilities. I think maybe we should add in there
another rather than name Ontario Hydro, in case, because of the downloading changes to
Ontario Hydro in the future. I prefer that to read the appropriate authorities because it may
very well with the restructuring Ontario Hydro go to another authority as some time
......(inaudible)
Kathy Bass:
My name is Kathy Bass, I represent John Johnston Construction Limited of Hawkestone
property. I would like asked to ask Mr. McDonald and council a few questions. I guess for
starters, I was just wondering why nobody here has received a copy of these modifications.
We've received some letters from you last year but we never received, I didn't even know
about the modifications before I phoned at the end of Mayor beginning of June that there
was going to be modifications and that they would be available at some point. That's just
a small point, but I've heard four times tonight that no one has received it and of all the
people that are here, it's unanimous, that no one has received and I find that a little
unusual.
Second of all, we refer you to the copy that we received on the Village of Hawkestone from
last year, there was a map on the back of it. Now on it there is the present Hawkestone
residential in purple, and this huge yellow area is the expansion area. Now I've only been
able to identify four people, Mr. Johnston, the Ochryms, the Ukranians, and Lloyd. The
rest of the area - where does the rest of the area come from? Who are these people? Who
are these developers?
Nick McDonald:
I can tell you that the Ukranian Camp Ground is the owner of all the land to the west of the
existing Ukranian subdivision. And Mr. Lloyd owns the north west corner of Ridge Road
and (interrupted).
Kathy Bass:
What about this big chunk?
5
Nick McDonald:
We are still trying to track down the owners, at some point there was an owner in Alberta.
But all the mail that has been sent there has been returned to us.
Kathy Bass:
What about all of this?
Nick McDonald:
That's the Girl Guide Camp.
Kathy Bass:
So they are expanding are they?
Nick McDonald:
Not at this point they aren't?
Kathy Bass:
Putting up houses are they?
Nick McDonald:
No not at this point they are using it as a Girl Guide Camp.
Kathy Bass:
So I guess they really wouldn't need the full service that you are recommending?
Nick McDonald:
Eventually, I think that whole area would be full serviced.
Kathy Bass:
The Girl Guide Camp?
Nick McDonald:
Yes.
Kathy Bass:
So right now at the present the only developers really are John Johnston and Ochrym, The
Ochrym Partnership. There are five members there.
Nick MacDonald:
And Mr. Lloyd and the Ukrainian Confederation.
Kathy Bass:
How many have lots, how many does Mr. Lloyd have?
Nick McDonald:
It really will depend on the form of servicing for that particular property.
Kathy Bass:
How many present...
Nick McDonald:
I think you're being a little adversarial and I don't think that's productive.
Mayor Beard:
Now, madam you'll address all questions to the chair and then give the gentleman a
chance to answer.
Kathy Bass:
We've received a letter last year warning us about information meeting which our lawyer
had advised us, since we had already received from both the Simcoe County Health
Department in 1994 - June 7 the approval for wells and septics, in addition to that's what
6
the Council based there decision on at that time ,we had already been granted that
approval for our development. We saw no reason to attend the meeting because we had
planned on continuing on that approval. If I appear adversarial, I am sorry, but we had this
development on the books for over eleven years now. And all of a sudden we're surprised
with a letter, dated one week before the meeting, which was another reason we did not
attend because we were not prepared and we had no idea what the surprise was going to
be for full servicing.
I'd also would like to know the orders that went down to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
recommending that full surveys was based on poor quality of soils we have never seen
any reports. John Johnston has funded three reports that Council has received in the last
six years for the water system, that's on council file, and has been producing on your own
recommendations as moderate to good supply. We've also used, from the MMA saying
there is inadequate amount of water, and yet there was a preliminary finding saying that
hydrological assessment says there's a good supply of water. And also supposedly
somewhere that the soils have been contaminated. Now if this is true, we definitely would
be more then happy to see those reports because we wouldn't want to develop if that was
happening here. We've had 300 geological studies the first was in 1974 by Skeleton
Brumwell. All telling us that the soil from the property, which may appear low at first, but
the laboratory analysts with experts. Etc. etc. supports wells, and septics in addition to no
contamination, in addition to great quantity of waters from what we all know are the
aquifers which two of your studies both in 1993 and 1996 have shown. I would like to
know what the evidence is to support these letters.
In addition, to the statement that Hawkestone has now been identified as the area of
greatest growth in the Municipality. With great density. I was under the idea that
Horseshoe Valley was the greatest density not Hawkestone. As a matter of fact, I saw a
lot of areas in Oro Township, of which I live in, with greater density. I just want some
substantiation for some of these inuendoes that have documented as fact and that's what
they made their decision and that is curving our development.
I've discussed this matter with the Municipal Affairs and they told me to come to this
meeting state our cases. In addition to the cost of putting in full services was grossly
underestimated in 1992, Stanton estimated at $856,000 that was 1992. They had
commented on the numbers that were produced by the Planning Partnership and pointed
out all the numbers that were left out in the estimate. We're all for development and I
believe in high density areas - where it is necessary - full service as well. This is not a high
density area and this has been on the books since 1993 and we have studies done since
1974. I just think we should be grandfathered into getting on with our program.
Mayor Beard:
Nick would you like to respond to some of these statements.
Nick McDonald:
I would like to make a couple of brief comments. Firstly, the idea behind our identifying
Hawkestone as a growth area for Oro-Medonte was developed in the summer of 1996 and
that's when the letters were sent out to the land owners. All of the land owners with the
exception of your client attended a meeting at which we discussed some of these issues.
Kathy Bass:
How many land owners? How many where there?
Mayor Beard:
Madam, ah...
Nick McDonald:
Let me just answer the question. Now we had a number of discussions with some and
owners. Not all of the landowners were present ,I will agree, but at that time you could
have made your concerns known and expressed your interest or non-interest in joining up
with us and let us know at that time.
The idea for Hawkestone being a growth area has followed through the entire Official Plan
- it was developed by this Municipality. It wasn't a decision made by the Province, it was a
decision made by this Council. This council saw Hawkestone as an ideal area for growth
7
for a number of reasons; because of its location, because of its existing density. The
existing density of development in Hawkestone is quite high and the likelihood in the future
of there being problems with servicing is probably the highest in Hawkestone than in any
other area in this Municipality. And for those reasons it was decided that Hawkestone
would be identified as a growth area, additional lands would be designated for
development, but at the same time there is a requirement for a Secondary Plan to be done
and a Servicing Option Study to be completed.
Some of the land owners have indicated an interest and some have not. I believe that it
will be the onus of the land owners to decide on how they want to proceed with this. We
also have the support of the province and the MoE on the approach we are taking on the
Official Plan and I think it represents good planning that we are looking at the future of
Hawkestone and were not looking at it on a scattered basis.
Kathy Bass:
Thank you for your comments, but I believe that Ministry of Municipal Affairs who have
been contacted and who I have been in close discussion with, made a decision on
erroneous information. And I am more than willing to look at your documents that will
contradict the Simcoe Distritict Health Unit and 300 geological studies.
Nick McDonald:
The letter from the Health Unit - that letter is conditional upon MoE providing you with
approval and we don't have MoE approval. That letter is a standard letter of draft approval
conditions basically saying that if the MoE are happy then they'll be happy. The Simcoe
County District Health Unit is not in the business of determining if septic tanks are ideal in
principle on a particular piece of property.
Kathy Bass:
I understand that. But the Ministry of Environment has been told the soils have been
contaminated, which if I was the Minister of the Environment, I'd say that's right. You can't
possibly put wells and septics in if the soil is contaminated or if there is low ground water.
But where is the proof that this is happening? You told them that and of course they made
that decision. That's the logical decision to make and as land owners there's only four land
owners, that are involved in this, and Mr. Johnston's legal advice was not to attend
because we had already been given the approval to go ahead. We've also been given one
week's notice of the meeting.
We talked about land owners, that there's this big meeting involving all these land owners,
there are four involved, John Johnston wasn't represented and you told us someone else
didn't show up. So does that mean there was only two land owners there - at the meeting?
Those are my comments. I just wanted you to know what these facts are based on. And
I'm not questioning, I think your right, it is to be identified as a growth area. It has for quite
awhile but it is your comment that it's the highest density growth area in this Municipality. I
question that fact in addition to contaminated soil, in addition to the low water, in addition to
(inaudible) .....".... Thank You.
Mayor Beard:
Any further questions or comments on this particular issue? Mr. Martin.
Deputy Mayor Martin:
I just think that there was a bit of an impasse here tonight and I encourage, Kathy, you
come into the office and look at the documents that would be available to answer your
questions.
Mayor Beard:
Any further questions or comments? It's an important document, we have received some
correspondence, but I haven't had a chance to read it. Maybe we should take a few
minutes to peruse it.
Kathy Bass:
I just have one more comment your worship. I just want to note that these documents are
not available for experts to review on contaminated soils, etcetera, that the MoE has based
its decision on, which contradicted our previous approval.
,
.
8
I guess were looking at, we were given approval, we've spent an awful lot of time and
money on this property which we were hoping to develop very soon, which would give
more taxes which would keep my taxes down as well as everyone else's - and nice big lots
as well. I would like a retraction of those comments to the Ministry of the Environment as
well as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs - they can not be substantiated.
I would also like to know if the letter that I had sent in, I was listening to Mr. McDonald's
comments at the beginning that landowners who submitted comments were included in the
report, were my comments regarding all of the following were they included and noted. I
think development and what you're talking about is great, and if things are contaminated
then we should be on full services, but I would just like to see the documentation.
Mayor Beard:
If there is documentation that is public information it would certainly be available. Staff and
council are not adverse to having any information we have distributed... but for the most
part this information is public and it is yours to get. I do take issue with the statement that
subdivisions lower taxes, where in fact the evidence I have seen on the subject it actually
increases in taxes in the municipality because of the demand on services. That study was
done about a week ago. ...(inaudible)
I'm going to take a few minutes to read these letters.
Gary Cunnington:
I wonder if I might, Mr. Mayor before you take a few moments to address council. I'm here
on behalf of Horseshoe Resort, we have put our position in writing. I would just ask that
you give consideration .... (end of side A of tape)
(start of side B of tape) ........your staff did when you made the modification. And we
would ask that you give consideration to those two issues. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
(Due to tape malfunction, the letter will be entered.)
Letter from PK Menzies Planning & Development to Nick McDonald as presented by Gary
Cunnington on behalf of Horseshoe Resort Corporation:
On behalf of Horseshoe Resort Corporation, this office has had an opportunity to review
your proposed modifications to the Oro-Medonte Official Plan dated May 27,1997 and
would like to make the following comments as it relates to the Resort (Modification 5).
Request One - B 1.2.2 - Communal Sewage Systems
The proposed modification, in the opinion of HRC is an improvement, however the issue of
financial securities is still not agreeable. It is still the opinion of HRC that if the system
meets government standard, there is an appropriate maintenance period, and the
Municipality agrees to its assumption, that costs should be born by the Municipality
similarly to the assumption of roads or water systems. Also, any securities that were
posted upon construction should be released upon assumption by the Municipality.
.Request Two - E2.5.2. - Timeshare Developments
The definition section of Timeshare addresses the Resort's concerns.
With respect to the need for an approved Plan of Condominium, it remains the opinion of
HRC that this requirement is excessive, that matters required within the existing provisions
will address matters of concern of Council including Section 34 of the Act (zoning) and
Section 41 (site plan). The matters which appear to be of concern outside of section 34
and 41 relate to matters of taxation and levies specifically:
"...to ensure that all matters of municipal interest and jurisdiction, such as, but not
limited to, the administration and collection of taxes, other charges, levies, fees and
the provision of notices are addressed in a Condominium Agreement to the
satisfaction of the Municipality."
Provincial legislation outside of Section 51 of the Planning Act, and the Condominium Act
address issues of Municipal taxation (Municipal Act), levies (Development Charges Act),
and fees (Section 69(1) of the Planning Act). Issues related to Letters of Credit to ensure
that the provision of services, grading, landscaping and other matters related to Section 41
9
are a commonly used technique of the Municipality and can be continued to be used for
the development of a Timeshare.
The requirement of processing a Plan of Condominium for a timeshare would require the
provision of a declaration and description, the registration of a Corporation which is
required to conduct business, by legislation which is outside of the operations of a
timeshare development, and essentially provides for a legal entity which is not in keeping
with the administration and legal form of a timeshare development. The Condominium Act
also requires that the units be substantially completed prior to registration and sale and
occupancy cannot occur until registration. The fundamental issues related to marketing
and financing of a Timeshare are directly contrary to this provision of the Act.
Horseshoe Resort Corporation is more than willing to work out a standard Site Plan
Agreement format with the Municipality in order to set the parameters for future
development.
It is requested that the need for approval of a Plan of Condominium for the development of
a Timeshare be modified out of the Official Plan.
.Request tnree - E2.5.3.4 & E2.5.4.5. - Public Meetings
It is the opinion of HRC that the".. . sufficient information is made available to enable the
public to understand generally the zoning proposaL" (section 34 (12)of the Planning Act),
is what the Act contemplates and the requirements of the CDP go well beyond the
provision of a general understanding. More specifically, the completion of a traffic study,
the proposed scale and density, the timing of residential versus non-residential
development, and the urban design standards.
Prior to the hosting of the public meeting there is concern that too much work will have
been completed by the Resort, of a detailed nature, prior to the formal public input. It is
understood that changes to the Planning Act initiated by the previous and the current
Provincial Government have encouraged the Public Process start at the beginning rather
than towards the end of the Planning Process as was beginning to be the norm over the
past decade. It is therefore requested that a reduced set of requirements be provided prior
to the public meeting and that, as is the practice in the Municipality and required by the Act
that the information for the CDP be made available to the public throughout the process. It
is also understood by all the stakeholders that the Public Process does not end with thè
holding of the Public Meeting that the statutory Public Process commences with the Public
Meeting.
Requestf2!.!L:....E2.5.4.3 - CDP. Adult Lifestyle Community
Although not enamored with the requirement for a CDP for the Adult Lifestyle Community,
HRC prepared to concede this issue at this time.
Request five - H1.4.2 - Private Roads
HRC agrees with the proposed modifications.
Request six - Upqrades to Horseshoe Valley Road
HRC agrees with the interpretation on page 16 as it relates to upgrades to Horseshoe
Valley Road of the Planning Partnerships Modifications document dated May 27,1997 and
is prepared to accept the policies it they are continued to be interpreted as such.
On behalf of Horseshoe Resort Corporation, the undersigned thanks you for your
consideration of each of the matters contained herein and would be pleased to discuss
them at your convenience.
Yours, truly,
PK Menzies Planning & Development Inc.
Kris Menzies
Mayor Beard:
.
.
"
10
Are there any further questions or comments from the public or council. Any further
questions for the second time. Any further questions for the third time.
There being no further questions or comments, when being called for the third time, the
Mayor in closing the meeting thanked those in attendance for their participation and
advised that Council would consider all matters before reaching a decision. He then
advised those present that if they wished to be notified of the passing of the proposed By-
law, they should leave their name and address with the Clerk.
Motion #1
Moved by Sommers, seconded by Halfacre.
Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council (review of proposed modifications
to Official Plan), now be adjourned @ 8:48 p.m.
Carried.
/;? II
¡(J ~ ~~ hi c~'~f' .f
MAYOR, IAN BEARD
.~- ¡JJ~
CLERK, LYNDA AIKEN