REPORT ON COUNCIL
March 29, 2004
Committee of the Whole: 9:04 a.m. – 6:32 and roughly 10:00 p.m. – 10:36 p.m.
Evening Meeting: 7:00 p.m. – 9:40 p.m.
All Members of Council present.
CONFIDENTIAL / CLOSED SESSION: 4:03 p.m. 6:32 p.m. Questions were raised about whether several matters scheduled for closed session could be discussed in public, including mediation and the procedure for hiring a new CAO/Clerk. The answer was yes to hiring procedures, and no to discussions to do with mediation. Apparently, the mediators had asked that stakeholders discuss mediation matters in camera: Councillor Panasiuk then asked that the Mediators be requested to consider whether open discussion would indeed jeopardize the process.
HIRING A NEW CLERK/CAO: It was decided to interview four search firms, in open session, and to begin the interviews on April 15, 2004.
TOWNSHIP COMMITTEES: Council extended the term of current Committees until the end of the year. By then, it should have a clearer sense of their functions and objectives. Committee positions will be advertised in the fall and Tiny residents may apply to fill them.
FESTIVAL DU LOUP: The Festival (which takes place on the third weekend in July) was declared a community event so that it can be covered by the Township’s general insurance policy.
SITE 41: Council agreed to have the County’s responses to Dixon Hydrogeology’s Peer Review of Site 41 assessed at a cost of up to $10,000. No decision has been made as yet about who is to do the assessment.
GATOR GIFT: The Lafontaine Women’s Auxiliary together with residents of Cedar Ridge raised $15,000 to buy a 2004 John Deere Rescue Gator. It’s a heavy-duty all terrain vehicle and is to be housed at the Fire Station in Lafontaine, but to be available to all Tiny’s Fire Stations. The Fire Chief says it will be useful for off-road rescues.
DEPUTATIONS BY RESIDENTS: There were six (!) of these.
In his deputation (his third in as many meetings of Council), former Mayor Anthony Lancia raised more issues about financial transactions during the term of the previous Council.
In her deputation (her second in three meetings), Janet Evans, wife of former CAO / Clerk Earl Evans, raised more issues to do with her husband’s dismissal, again harking back to events during the previous Council.
Former Deputy Mayor Patricia O’Driscoll spoke about procedures, a number of them the previous Council’s.
Alfred Mullie, representing Lafontaine water users, questioned costs connected with the upgrade of the Lafontaine water system. Council delayed passage of the proposed schedule of repayments until his queries could be looked into.
Nick Leblovic, representing shore residents south of Balm Beach, asked that Bylaw 04-012 which permits the rental of 8 sea-doos in Balm Beach (see the Report on Council for January 26, 2004) be repealed and a new public meeting be held. He argued that the usual 120 metres notice was inadequate as the use of sea-doos affects shore residents for a considerable distance from the rental location. He also protested that it was inappropriate that such an issue was decided in the winter when seasonal residents could not easily attend.
Judith Grant, speaking on behalf of the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations, also asked that Bylaw 04-012 be repealed and a second Public Planning Meeting be held before a decision was made, and that changes be made to the way Planning Matters are presented in the Agendas of Council and of Public Planning Meetings to make it easier for the general public to understand the issues at stake. The complete deputation follows.
DEPUTATION CONCERNING THE PASSAGE OF BYLAW 04-012
March 29, 2004
Mayor Klug, Deputy Mayor Maurice, and Councillors Breckenridge, Millar and Panasiuk,
My name is Judith Grant and I am President of the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations.
The Board of the Federation has discussed the passage of Bylaw 04-012 and asked me to come this evening to ask you to repeal the By-Law and to have a second Public Planning Meeting on the matter before a decision is made.
We also ask that two changes be made in the way Planning Matters are presented in the Agendas of Council and of Public Planning Meetings.
We understand that the rules concerning notice and timing of the public meeting were followed. Notice was given to properties within the required number of metres of the property and the public meeting occurred in the required number of days after the applicant asked for the zoning change.
Furthermore we understand that the legal requirements for wording about the matter in the agenda for Committee of the Whole and in the Agenda for the Public Meeting on the matter were followed.
In other words, the letter of the law has been followed.
But the spirit of the law, which is that those who would be affected by a zoning change should be given notice so that they may react and respond before a change is made, has not been served.
As you know, the Bylaw concerns a rezoning which allows for the rental of 8 Sea-Doos. Sea-Doo use affects not just immediate neighbours but shore owners and users for miles. These people were given no notice that a decision was being made that would affect them.
The decision was taken in January, a time of the year when they were unlikely to get wind of the matter and when it would be difficult for them to get to Council to make their views known.
The Agenda which is available several days before the Public Meeting spoke only of something called “Million Reality Ltd” — not of Roger Neal and Sunport. The address given in the Agenda was the plan and lot number, not the street address. The description of issue in the Agenda was a zoning change. There was no hint that the zoning change would authorize the rental of 8 Sea-Doos in Balm Beach. Associations and individuals who routinely check Council’s Agendas for items of concern had no idea what was coming.
The Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations asks that the Bylaw be repealed and a new public meeting be held in May or later so that those truly affected by the proposed rezoning may be informed of the matter and may attend to express their views.
Further, we ask that items in the Planning and Development section of the Committee of the Whole Agenda include the street address of the property in question as has been done recently in the Public Hearing (Planning) Agendas.
And we also ask that both the Planning and Development section of the Committee of the Whole Agenda and the Public Hearing (Planning) Agendas include a brief statement of the issue involved.
Thank you for your attention.
