Loading...
08 - June 9, 2015 MinutesCOUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES Tuesday, June 9, 2015 The Elgin County Council met this day at the Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. with all members present. III M I I I I IIIII I III III I I Iiii 1 1111,11 11111111111111111 Ms. Elizabeth Sebestyen, Acting Director St. Thomas -Elgin Ontario Works, presented a report updating Council on the activities of the organization including the satellite office in Aylmer, the Social Services Emergency Plan and the Bridges Out of Poverty Program. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Martyn THAT the reports titled "Ontario Works Department Update and 2015 Ontario Works Budget Review" from the Ati•D• of St. Thomas -Elgin Ontario Works, dated June 9, 2015 be received and filed. Moved by Councillor Currie Seconded by Councillor Menn1 'A Uri 111m, Mana er of Plannin The manager presented the report providing Council with the information required to consider granting approval for Offal Plan Amendment No. 15 (Deryk Farms) Lot 109, Concession 6 STR, Municipality of Bayham. THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin gives approval to Official Plan Amendment No. 15 to the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan, File No. BA-OPA1 5-15 (Deryk Farms); and, HIRE County Council 2 June 9, 2015 VACIE NIMMI!571233 fe 111liq Manaqer of Planning The manager presented the report providing Council with a review of changes to the Plannin Act that will streamline land -use planning and appeals in Ontario. The report included staff analysis and recommendations regarding these changes. I Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Currie THAT County Council endorse the attached report titled "Bill 73 — Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act, 1990" prepared by the Manager of Planning; and, THAT the report be submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in response to the Province's request for comments; and, THAT the report be forwarded to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and to Elgin County's municipal partners for their information. 111506=2 10 The director presented the report providing Council with an overview of proposed renovations at the Belmont Library to enhance accessibility and makes general improvements to the building. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Currie THAT the report titled "Renovations to Belmont Library" from the Director of Community and Cultural Services, dated May 15, 2015 be received and filed. UEM ��RVF. III" Museum — Director of Community and Cultural Services The director presented the report informing Council that the Government of Canada rec- • -• ounced the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program and recommended Council endorse an application to expand climate -controlled storage for the Elgin County Museum in the basement of Elgin Manor. ixkllal�lm SI-71KOA IN MIS, 0,01 LTALW-61 R I I M I I M W THAT Elgin County Council hereby endorses an application to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Fund to support the renovation of existing museum storage to incorporate climate - controls, fire suppression, security and appropriate shelving for Elgin County Museum as part of the County of Elgin's celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in 2017; and, THAT funds to support the necessary engineering study in 2015 relating to this project be drawr from existing funds in the County's ten year capital plan. Archives — Director of CommunitV and Cultural Services The director presented the report recommending that Council endorse an application under the Government of Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program to expand climate -controlled storage for the Elgin County Archives. County Council 3 June 9, 2015 Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Martyn THAT Elgin County Council hereby endorses an application to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Fund to support an expansion of climate -controlled storage for Elgin County Archives as part of the County of Elgin's celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in 2017; and, THAT the County's financial contribution as outlined in this report be allocated as part of 2016 capital budget planning should the application be successful. I p1l 11i; r The director presented the budget comparison for the month of April 2015 with a monthly performance of $38,000 favourable. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Jones THAT the report titled "April 2015 Budget Performance" from the Director of Financial Services, - dated May 15, 2015 be received and filed. The Director of Engineering Services presented the report recommending that Council approvt. the addition of an additional half-time position be introduced to help better service customers/ ratepayers in the Engineering, Finance and Provincial Offences departments. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Jonel THAT staff be authorized and directed to hire a part-time clerical position to serve the public in the Finance, Engineering and POA departments; and, Wil 1.0 U EjAN10 I - - 0 0 OWMEAN10 'Iffilemalfir, 0 THAT the 2016 budget include the full cost of this service. The director presented the report requesting that Council approve the purchase of a bariatri ambulance. i 0 WINI I ON R-155MO IN lam=* am THAT one bariatric ambulance be purchased in 2015 from Crestline Coach Ltd. at the quoted price of $163,446, exclusive of the trade in amount and exclusive of taxes; and, THAT the additional funds required for the bariatric ambulance be sourced from the capital reserve. - Carried. ql:%i lriirri�i :ii•ii ill 1! 11111111111 1 17 •1 � �• iii The director presented the report recommending that Bayshore Healthcare be selected to provide physiotherapy services for Elgin County homes. County Council 4 Moved by Councillor Martyn Seconded by Councillor Wolfe June 9, 2015 THAT Bayshore Healthcare be selected to provide Physiotherapy Services for the Elgin County Homes for a three year term with the option to renew for two additional years; and, THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to enter into an agreement wit Bayshore Healthcare for the provision of Physiotherapy Services for County of Elgin Homes. I V YLVIII Homes and Seniors Services The director presented the report outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the 100 Bel# Option versus the 96 Bed Option for Terrace Lodge. 0 N- a t �_14 R g] A 10 rag 0 am Meg I a Le"I I I Lei E kyj MI THAT Council reaffirms the 100 Bed Plan for Terrace Lodge and if required meet with the Minister to emphasize 100 bed need and demand in the area in support of Elgin's redevelopment project. - Carried. 1. Mayor Geoffrey Dawe, Town of Aurora, with a resolution seeking support for opposition to the installation of community mailboxes and that Canada Post adhere to its Five -Point Action Plan requirement to engage in full and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders. 2. Ken Loveland, Acting Clerk/CAO, Township of Southwold, with a resolution seeking suppo for the Glanworth Road Overpass to remain in use and not be demolished. I 11111111 •111 11 5 1 if W-4 11 103311! Mil MINIM Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Jonel ME% NMI 11!�Ipi I THAT the Corporation of the County of Elgin strongly support the Township of Southwold's resolution that the Glanworth Road overpass remain in use. K06=2 0 1 1 County Council 5 1910ABOW61,1FAL fflsffiw June R.2O15 WHEREAS Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proposing to construct a deep geologic repository (DGR), which is an underground long-term burial facility, at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station site in Kincardine Ontario Canada, and bury and abandon in the DGR all of Ontario's low and intermediate level radioactive nuclear waste, some of which remains highly radioactive and toxic for over 100,000 years. The proposed site is approximately one kilometre inland from the shore of Lake Huron and about 400 metres below the lake level; WHEREAS Ontario Power Generation did not consider or evaluate any other actual sites for the location of the proposed DGR; WHEREAS fresh water is Canada's most important resource and should be protected and managed prudently; WHEREAS the Great Lakes are an irreplaceable natural resource, containing twenty one percent of the world's, and ninety five percent of North America's fresh water, relied upon by millions for drinking water, tourism, recreation, vital to human and environmental health and economic and agricultural well-being of both Canada and the United States of America and supporting a regional economy of US$4.7 trillion (2011); WHEREAS Lake Huron and connecting waters are a source of drinking water for millions of people downstream in Canada, the United States of America and First Nations; WHEREAS any contamination resulting from a leaking nuclear waste repository located on Lake Huron could affect the source of drinking water for Elgin County, Ontario; WHEREAS individuals, citizen and environmental groups and municipalities and counties in both Canada and the United States have expressed concern and opposition to the proposed nuclear waste repository; WHEREAS as of May 19, 2015, one hundred fifty five (155) resolutions have been passed by communities in the States of Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and Indiana and in the Province of Ontario representing 21 million citizens opposing the proposed nuclear waste repository, with the vast majority of the resolutions opposing any permanent underground nuclear waste repository anywhere in the Great Lakes Basin; WHEREAS under the 2012 Protocol Amending the Agreement Between Canada and the Unite States of America on Great Lakes Water Quality, the governments of Canada and the United States acknowledge the importance of anticipating, preventing and responding to threats to th waters of the Great Lakes and share a responsibility and an obligation to protect the Great Lakes from contamination from various sources of pollution, including the leakage of nuclear waste from an underground nuclear waste repository; WHEREAS in April 2015 resolutions HR 194 and SR 134 were introduced respectively in the US House of Representatives and US Senate expressing the sense that (1) the Canadian Government should not allow a permanent nuclear waste repository to be built within the Great Lakes Basin; (2) the President and the Secretary of State should take appropriate action to work with the Canadian Government to prevent a permanent nuclear waste repository from being built within the Great Lakes Basin; and (3) the President and the Secretary of State should work together with their Canadian Government counterparts on a safe and responsible solution for the long-term storage of nuclear waste; WHEREAS, In the mid 1980's, the US Department of Energy was considering potential sites for a US nuclear waste repository, including some sites location in the Great Lakes Basin and as a result of significant Canadian opposition, Joe Clark, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, intervened and the US government honored Canada's request to exclude any sites within 40 kilometers of the Canadian border; and WHEREAS placing a permanent nuclear waste burial facility so close to the Great Lakes is ill- advised. The potential damage to the Great Lakes from any leak or breach of radioactivity far outweighs any suggested economic benefit that might be derived from burying radioactive nuclear waste at this site. The ecology of the Great Lakes, valuable beyond measure to the County Council 6 June 9, 2015 health and economic well-being of the entire region, should not be placed at risk by storing radioactive nuclear waste underground so close to the shoreline; 1. In order to protect the Great Lakes and its tributaries, Elgin County urges that neither this proposed nuclear waste repository at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station site nor any other underground nuclear waste repository be constructed in the Great Lakes Basin, in Canada, the United States, or any First Nation property. 2. Elgin County urges the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario 4# reject (and seek alternatives to) Ontario Power Generation's proposal to bury and abandon radioactive nuclear waste in the Great Lakes Basin. 3. A copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, Leona Aglukkaq, Canada's Minister of the Environment, Robert Nicholson, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jeff Yurek, MPP Elgin -Middlesex -London, and Joe Preston, MP Elgin -Middlesex -London. 1. Hon. Steven Del Duca, Minister, Ministry of Transportation, informing Council of their Ministry's plan of action to address the recommendations in the Auditor General's report o winter highway maintenance in Ontario. I 2. AMO Communications Email re: AMO Policy Update — Ontario Government Launches Consultation on Infrastructure Funding for Areas Outside of GTHA. 3. Grace McGartland, Chair, The Arts & Cookery Bank with an invitation to participate ir The Outrageously Rural Food Fight: A Southwest Ontario Regional Six -Day Event. The Arts & Cookery Bank with information on their 2015 Fest-a-Month Dinners and the Fourth Annual Ribs & Rubies Masquerade Gala Fundraiser on August 22, 2015. 5. Brad Woodside, Federation of Canadian Municipalities President thanking Council for renewal of annual membership. 6. Resolutions endorsing the continuation of the Elgin -St. Thomas Municipal Association from: a) The Municipality of Central Elgin b) The Town of Aylmer c) The Municipality of West Elgin Dow-glieleto 052!ue 112telme im, im - Carried. Lonowl Councillor McWilliarn provided an update about the Health Recruitment Partnership. The partnership hosted 12 medical students in Port Stanley on May 26, 2015 giving them the chance to socialize with community physicians and get an idea of what Elgin has to offer. Councillor Martyn promoted the Waist Management Exhibit at the Elgin County Museum an the Parade of Fashions Exhibit at the Sparta Church Museum. The two organizations have partnered on advertising because of the exhibits' similar themes. I Warden Ens passed around photos of Councillors at a recent log -sawing competition in Bayham and at the opening of the MakerSpace at the Aylmer Library. County Council 7 June 9, 2015 Councillor Marr mentioned that all Mayors and Deputy Mayors wishing to discuss the ®PP Contract could do so with him after the meeting. Notice of Motion — Rone. �MRZkrem- Km-��M May's 100 am THAT we do now proceed into closed meeting session in accordance with the Municipal Act to discuss matters under Section 240.2 (a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board — Ontario Works Update; and Section 240.2 (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board — Update #5 Dexter Line Land Purchases. 95F.'ra M -*1 Moved by Councillor Currie Seconded by Councillor Jonel THAT the confidential property item from the Acting Director of St. Thomas Elgin Ontario Works be received and filed. 9146mr-X41 Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Wolfe WHEREAS the Corporation of the County of Elgin has applied to expropriate specified lands for, among other things, the relocation of a portion of Dexter Line within the territorial limits of the Municipality of Central Elgin. AND WHEREAS landowners of such lands to be expropriated have not requested a Hearing of Necessity in respect to such expropriation. AND WHEREAS, as an alternative to the said expropriation proceedings as creating a delay for possession of the subject lands by the Corporation of the County of Elgin, the landowners and the Corporation of the County of Elgin are currently negotiating an Agreement pursuant to s.30 of the Expropriations Act as providing for, among other things, earlier possessions of the involved lands. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chief Administrative Officer be authorize* ' to complete negotiations of the said Agreement pursuant to s.30 of the Expropriations Act upon terms acceptable to both he and the County Solicitor and, furthermore, to ex - A• -- - eflecting those terms as acceptable to the County Solicitor. U Moved by Councillor Martyn Seconded by Councillor Currie County Council 8 June 9, 2015 I tWl �_A, 0 0 0 - 1 rem kh TAAT By -Law No. 15-17 "Being a By -Law to Authorize the Execution of a Collective Agreement Between the Corporation of the County of Elgin and the Ontario Nurses' Association, with Respect to All Nurses at Elgin Manor, Terrace Lodge and Bobier Villa" be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. Moved by Councillor Currie Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT By -Law No. 15-18 "Being a By -Law to Confirm Proceedings of the Municipal Council the Corporation of the County of Elgin at the June 9, 2015 Meeting" be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. I I WT, N 0 5 006HI1 *919*7@9 1 reTalm THAT we do now adjourn at 11:22 a.m. and meet again on June 23, 2015 at the Count Administration Building Council Chambers at 9:00 a.m. I 01,6�k McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. , ?I Paul Ens, Warden. 16 xin_ ElgmCounty Arpgmssrlc: try Marufe REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Steve Evans, Manager of Planning DATE: May 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Bill 73 — Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act, 1990 Starting in 2013, the Provincial government undertook province -wide consultations on the Development Charges and Planning Acts. The stated purpose of the review was to ensure both systems are predictable, transparent, cost effective and responsive to the changing needs of our communities. The Province is now proposing legislative changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act. The Province has stated that Bill 73 - the proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act would give residents more say in how their communities grow, set out clearer rules for land use planning, give municipalities more independence to make local decisions and make it easier to resolve disputes. This report provides County Council with a review of changes to the Planning Act, th will streamline land use planning and appeals in Ontario. As the County of Elgin doe not have a Development Charges By -Law, proposed changes to that Act under Bill 7 are not reviewed in this report. 11 Changes to the Planning Act include additional sections and provide for new regulations covering a range of issues to enhance transparency and public participation in reaching decisions, provide additional dispute resolution procedures, etc. Attached is a list of changes being proposed which will be addressed in the a•_ •_• Comments can be made through the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry until June 3, 2015. Some of the proposed changes are positive and could be supported by the County of Elgin. There are other changes that may not be as well suited in the Elgin County context. The Manager of Planning has provided comments on each proposed change and suggested recommendations have been provided for Council's consideration. Proposed Change to Analysis Recommendation to Minister 1 expand the potential This provision allows for Elgin County supports the use of alternative alternative notice procedures proposed change provided that notification and for matters other than official the requirement is discretionary, consultation plan, zoning, subdivision and as opposed to mandatory. processes for consent. additional matters 2 requiring The Planning Act already Elgin County recommends that municipalities to prescribes the minimum additional public consultation include public requirements, and provides procedures remain discretionary consultation policies discretionary powers if a in Official Plans. in their official plans municipality chooses to have alternative procedures (above and beyond the minimum requirements), in their OP's. 3 require citizen The Planning Act currently Elgin County supports citizen members on provides discretionary powers involvement and recommends planning advisory to Council, so that they "may" that the tools available for committees across constitute a planning advisory planning advisory committees Ontario, and require Committee, and they "may" remain discretionary. planning advisory appoint citizen members. committees in However, a statutory obligation single -tier and that a municipality "must" have upper -tier such committees, with citizen municipalities in appointees, seems Southern Ontario unreasonable, particularly in a (except the rural and small town context. Township of Pelee) 4 require local Currently there is no such Elgin County does not support planning authorities requirement in the Planning providing an explanation of how to provide an Act. However, input from the citizen input was considered in explanation of how public, is important and their notices of decision. they considered encouraged by County Council citizen input in their and Elgin's lower tier notices of decision municipal Councils. Such input can be provided in various ways including written and verbal comments aired at public meetings. Also submissions can be made by mail, email and on-line in many cases. The requirement for planning authorities to explain how they considered citizen input is unnecessary given the opportunities that are provided and only adds another level of complexity to a process that is already transparent. 5 enhance the Ontario Currently there is no such Elgin County does not support Municipal Board's requirement in the Act. The the proposal to enhance the obligation to OMB is obligated to make land OMB's consideration of public consider citizen use decisions that constitute input. input when making good land use planning, and decisions are in the public interest. It is our experience that the OMB consistently considers public input in the hearing process. 6 extend municipal A 10 year cycle is appropriate Elgin County supports the official plan update for providing a document that Minister in extending municipal cycles from 5 to 10 reflects changing trends. official plan update cycles from 5 years, after a new, to 10 years. comprehensive official plan 7 provide Province This change will provide Elgin County supports this with documents effective pre-consultation proposed change. earlier to review where the Minister is the municipal official approval authority (90 days plans/official plan prior to public notice). amendments, when those documents are not exempt from provincial approval 8 allow for suspension Currently the Planning Act does Elgin County supports the new of timelines for not have a "mediation" provision provisions to allow for triggering appeals of (outside of mediation requests suspension of timelines for official plans/official to the OMB). While this triggering appeals of official plan amendments provision can lengthen the plans/official plan amendments for up to 90 days to approvals process, it may avoid for up to 90 days to work out work out issues, potentially long and protracted issues. including citizen OMB hearings, if both parties concerns, where agree to mediation. agreeable to approval authority and the initiator (i.e. applicant or adopting municipality) 9 remove ability to In rural/small town areas of the Elgin County does not support apply for Province the supply of serviced the prohibition on applying for an amendments to an and designated lands for new official plan amendment within 2 official plan for 2 growth is limited. As such, an years of adoption of a new years after new, official plan amendment may comprehensive official plan. comprehensive be required to facilitate a new official plan comes development. These areas must into effect be able to react quickly to growth opportunities. To suspend a potential "new growth opportunity" for a two year period is not reasonable in rural Ontario. 10 remove ability to Please see analysis above for Elgin County does not support apply for 2 year suspension for official the prohibition on applying for a amendments to a plans. zoning by-law amendment within zoning by-law for 2 2 years of adoption of a new years after comprehensive zoning by-law comprehensive update. zoning by-law update 11 provide authority to Currently no local municipalities Elgin County does not support remove ability to in Elgin County employ a removing the ability to apply for apply for development permit system. amendments for 5 years after amendments for 5 However, as in previous points the establishment of a years after the above, a 5 year prohibition on development permit system. establishment of a any amendments to official development permit plans or by-laws respecting system development permit systems is not reasonable in a rural Ontario context. 12 remove the The current requirement under Elgin County supports this requirement to section 26 of the Planning Act is proposed change. revise employment detrimental to rural areas and land policies at time small towns that generally rely of an official plan on limited supplies of update employment lands. 13 remove remaining This removal assists the County Elgin County supports this ability to appeal in meeting its affordable housing proposed change. second unit policies targets. in official plans 14 remove ability to The Planning Act has always Elgin County does not support appeal official included an appeal mechanism removing the ability to appeal plans/official plan to allow for resolution of disputes official plans/official plan amendments that that can't be settled. This is the amendments that implement implement certain reason Ontario has the OMB. prescribed provincially approved provincially Removing the ability for appeal matters. approved matters is heavy handed and provides (e.g. source wate r no option for resolving protection differences. The Province boundaries) should set the example and not impose provincially approved matters without any recourse. 15 remove the ability There have been occasions Elgin County supports the for one appellant to where a single appeal has removal of the ability for one appeal the entirety stalled the approval of an Official appellant to appeal the entirety of a new official plan Plan. This can lead to extensive of a new official plan. delays in new important development, as well as delays before the OMB. 16 establish more rigor While many OMB appeals are Elgin County supports this in the requirements based on legitimate concerns, proposed change. to make an appeal there is also a concern that the appeal may have been lodged solely for the purpose of delay. 17 modify the The provision is modified from Elgin County does not support maximum one hectare for each 300 the proposed change. alternative parkland dwelling units to one hectare for dedication rate each 500 dwelling units. any when giving cash -in- of our municipalities do not have lieu development charges by-laws in place and therefore it is important that this rate not be reduced. 18 require any of our municipalities do Elgin County supports the municipalities to not have parks plans, and the development of parkland master develop parks plans need to have one as a condition plans, but does not support such if they wish to to establish an alternative a plan as a mandatory establish the parkland dedication rate is not requirement for the alternative parkland reasonable especially in the establishment of alternative dedication rate and rural and small town areas of the parkland dedication rates. to work with school Province. boards in developing such plans 19 enable the use of The change in name is more Elgin County supports the use of the "Community appropriate. the "Community Planning Permit Planning Permit System" as an alternate name System" as an for the "Development Permit alternative name for System". the system of land use control, currently known as the Development Permit System 20 providing authority No "Community Planning Permit Elgin County supports the for the Minister and Systems" have been inclusion of a community upper -tier established in Elgin County development permit system in municipalities to to date. In fact there are very the Planning Act and would require a local few that have been established support pilot project funding municipality to in the Province. As there has from the province, to pilot such a establish a been a very low take-up rate on system in select areas of Elgin Community these systems there is concern County. However, the County of Planning Permit that such change to the Planning Elgin does not support the System for purposes Act could result in the imposition imposition of such a system by specified in of such a system by the upper the upper tier or the Province regulation tier or the province. and therefore cannot support this change. 21 allow decision- Alternative Dispute Resolution is Elgin County supports this makers to require a the preferred option where an proposed change. 60 day period for appeal is made but only if the Alternative Dispute parties agree to it. Resolution after an appeal is made 22 limit minor variance This change complicates the Elgin County does not support applications for 2 process and would be difficult to this change. years after a zoning enforce. amendment has passed in response to a privately - initiated application 23 provide the ability to There has never been a Elgin County does not support a make a regulation definition of what constitutes proposed change that would that would clarify 94 minor". Committees of clarify what constitutes a minor what constitutes a Adjustment have been given the variance by regulation. minor variance authority to deal with applications for minor variances and the ability to use a certain amount of discretion in determining whether an application meets the planning criteria set out in Section 45 (1) in the Planning Act. A more prescriptive approach is not warranted. In addition to the list of proposed changes above, the Manager of Planning suggests that an additional change to the Planning Act would be beneficial to Elgin County. This change would include deleting Section 28 (4.0.1) of the Planning Act thereby giving upper tier municipalities the same powers as lower tier municipalities related to Community Improvement. Currently the County is partnering with its local municipalities on a County -wide community improvement initiative. The existing legislation will not permit the County to prepare and administer its own CIP. As a result a County -wide community improvement initiative can only be advanced by having each local municipality adopt its own CIP that supports a County-wift • and implementation framework. WMNINUM The intent • Bill 73 is to give residents more say in how their communities grow, set • clearer rules for land use planning, give municipalities more independence to make local decisions and make it easier to resolve disputes. Many of the proposed changes are positiv and warrant support. However, there are other changes that impose mandatory requirement that may be perceived as heavy-handed and that offer no recourse for dispute resolution. One change in particular — the proposal to require upper -tiers and single -tiers to have in plac a Planning Advisory Committee which includes citizen members, would change County Council's committee structure and impose additional financial and staffing impacts. The information provided in this report regarding proposed changes and recommended actions are provided for County Council's consideration. The commenting period through the EBR ends on June 3, 2015; however, it is suggested that this report be forwarded to thil- Minister • Municipal Affairs and Housing and to AMO. THAT • • endorse the report titled "Bill 73 — Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act, 1990" prepared by the Manager of Planning; •! THAT the report be submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing ir response to the Province's request for comments; and, • the report be forwarded • the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and to Elgin County's municipal partners for their information. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Steve Evans • • Planninl Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer