The last Council Meeting of this term went out with a bang – literally. At the end of a four hour meeting, in which a couple of things became clear. The Mayor reintroduced his motion to release a closed committee report to the public. Read it here. The motion calls for many things including the release to “to the town closed meeting investigator, the town’s external auditors, the Audit Committee, and the Ontario Ombudsman, and any municipal lawyer at Cunningham and Swan”. The need to release to these people sparked an interesting exchange between Mayoral candidates about who said what during the debate. The bottom line was that the Mayor was denying that he had made certain comments during his defense of the rationale for the motion and when questioned by the Deputy Mayor refused to give a straight answer as to why the Lawyers should be involved, at Town cost. Altogether a great display of non-Council behaviour and decorum. At one point in his opening remarks he said, “If Council doesn’t approve this motion I am going to the Press tomorrow and release it. I can’t go into an election cycle without releasing it.” He was reminded by the Clerk that could spark an investigation if he did that. Bottom line – he did get the report released but only by a 4-3 vote. The winning vote came from Nicole Beatty who had no choice to vote for the release as the report and its release has become an election topic. The vote itself became controversial as Cllr. Darling who was in the Chair called for a voice vote – 4-3 win. Then  it was pointed out the resolution called for a recorded vote. This prompted the Mayor to say “No more votes we have just had one!” Procedural wrangling ensued and the Chair then following procedure ruled for a recorded vote.

That was not all that happened in the meeting. A delegation appeared and wanted to know why the Town had allowed a neighbour to build a coach-house which now creates a drainage problem for her property. It turns out that there may have/may have not been the need for a ‘drainage permit’ from the Town. The Development department blamed the previous department for the omission and vague Building code requirements, even though there is Provincial Legislation that bans water flowing to adjacent properties. The Town also suggested in replies to the Citizen that the remedies for the problems of construction damage and bad drainage planning is a civil matter. Another disgruntled Citizen!

The Development Department (DD) also tried to play catch-up, reinforcing the allegation made by Max LeMarchant in his campaign that the recent Zoning ByLaw was botched and incomplete, by producing nine amendments to the ZBL (read it here). “Planning Staff believe that these changes will make the By-law easier to use and understand for members of the public, reverse policy decisions, or correct several errors that were made in the drafting of the new by-law or were carried over from the previous by-law.” We would suggest a good proof-reader before releasing the document – the preamble talks about eight amendments but nine were listed in the list!

A letter has been received from the Balder Corporation giving notice to terminate the 202 Second St. parking lease. What happens next, as  a parking lot is allowed under the ZBL but any such effort will have to be approved by the Town and subject to Site Plan Control. So if Balder thinks he has the upper hand and can pocket all the money when he opens a parking lot then the Town has final approval and is in charge of the timeline for opening.

Another letter from the DD was given to Council for information. It was addressed to the Proponents of the Brookside development. This letter read it here informs the proponents of the Brookside development that Development within the Special Policy area of Brook Creek cannot go ahead until certain permissions have been granted by regulatory authorities. “Based on the materials filed in support of the Applications to date, there is insufficient evidence to support that the above-noted characteristics are addressed by the Proposed Development. Moreover, the proposal is to facilitate new and intensified development, contrary to the first criteria. The Town is not prepared to apply for a modification to the existing Special Policy Area based on what has currently been provided.” It should be noted that this refers to a Official Plan Amendment (OPA) which was filed at the same time as the ZBL amendment. Whether the failure to comply with the requirements to get approval to redesign the Creek makes the applicant’s ZBL package “Incomplete” and therefore not eligible to go to the OLT yet has yet to be determined.

All in all a fitting end to a nasty and completely dysfunctional Council 

PS the Mayor finally decided to read the Land Acknowledgement himself the first time for months!