Well tonight’s meeting wrapped up at 7:43 PM! The meeting moved along quite well, save for one item. All members of council were present although Councillor Courtney attended the meeting virtually via zoom and he appeared to be at work. Perhaps, that helped the meeting move along more quickly? I don’t know.
Just a reminder that council had met for a planning meeting at 4:00 and then an in-camera meeting at 5:00. When I arrived around 5:45, the council chamber was open and the in-camera meeting was finished.
Request to Place a Memorial Stone near the Town Clock – Joan Donaldson, Rotary Club of Amherstburg
This delegation was canceled without explanation.
PRESENTATIONS
Report to Amherstburg Town Council – January 2020 – December 2021 – Bruce Elman, Amherstburg Integrity Commissioner
Mr Elman presented his report virtually to council. He wanted to highlight a few elements of his report to council. For those who are interested, here is the link to the full report : https://pub-amherstburg.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=8126
Mr Elman explained his primary functions, which include education, advice and complaint investigation / resolution. He noted a major accomplishment was the revision of the Code of Conduct and cited (former Clerk) Paula Parker and Kevin Fox with working diligently with him to provide a clear and comprehensive code of conduct. He noted that he provided extensive education to council and the committees following the 2018 election. He spoke of his advisory functions as well. He pointed out that he provided 14 letters of advice this term, compared to zero during the last council’s term. He felt very pleased about the increased letters of advice since he felt that it was easier than investigating complaints. He also noted he had provided three advisory bulletins that are posted on the town’s web site. Here is the link to the town’s website if anybody is interested in reading the advisory bulletins. https://www.amherstburg.ca/en/town-hall/advisory-bulletins.aspx
Mr Elman went on to say that all of the current files have been closed, as well as two previous files prior to the reporting period. He drew a few conclusions from his report. One being that education is important in regards to the Code of Conduct and must be robust after an election. He also noted that the formal requests for advice were higher than before, which is a good change. Mr Elman noted that there had been fewer complaints filed than with the previous term. He also seemed pleased with a clear and comprehensive code of conduct with added language about reprisal and obstruction. As well, he recommended adding a provision that if a member sought his advice and followed it that no further action could be taken against the member.
Deputy Mayor Meloche asked Mr Elman to clarify his role with the punitive side of things. Mr Elman explained that if an individual makes a complaint and if it is justified and serious, he will investigate and can make recommendations to council. Ultimately, however, it is council’s decision to impose sanctions or not.
Councillor Courtney had several questions for Mr Elman. Councillor Courtney noted that he had had a lot of interactions with Mr Elman. He wondered what roughly the average cost of an investigation could be. Mr Elman said it was difficult to put a number on it and that most complaints can be resolved quickly. (I believe that Mr Elman is paid $300 per hour by the Town.) Councillor Courtney wondered if all of the complaints had merit or legitimacy. Mr Elman said that he is very protective of the process. He does not want to see the process weaponized or used for political purposes and will say so if he deems a complaint as such.
Mr Elman noted that a deposit is required if someone files a complaint, which is not the case in Windsor and Lakeshore where he has also served as Integrity Commissioner. He felt that the deposit is a useful tool as well as having the complainant sign an affidavit. He felt that these are sobering elements. (I’m guessing these two things would help deter frivolous complaints.)
Councillor Courtney also asked Mr Elman if there had been overuse of the process in his opinion. Mr Elman felt that perhaps there had been one or two that were but he simply did not continue or investigate the complaints.
Funny, but not one member of council asked anything about this section of the Integrity Commissioner’s report:
“In addition to the two Files from the previous Reporting period which remained open after January 1st, 2020, a further six (6) Complaint Files were opened after January 1st , 2020. These Files concerned Confidentiality, Conflict of Interest, and Member Conduct. During the current Reporting period, six (6) Files were closed. Three Files resulted in a Letter of Admonition being sent to the Member; One File was resolved by the Informal Complaint Procedure; one File was dismissed because, on its face, it did not disclose a violation of the Code; and one File was dismissed in the public interest. The remaining two Files were closed early in January of 2022. Both resulted in a Letter of Caution being issued.” (page 11)
It’s unfortunate that it was not disclosed which members of council received the letter of admonition, nor the letters of caution. I would think that it is in the public’s interest to know who received such letters? What if it is someone who is seeking re-election? Clearly the complaints were investigated and had merit if they resulted in letters of admonition or letters of caution? Although, based on one member of council who asked numerous questions and seemed to be heading into “the lady that doth protest too much” direction, well……
And finally, the motion carried. The report was received and the modifications to some of the wording in the Code of Conduct were accepted.
Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) Green Stream – Transfer Payment Agreement
This is a good news / bad news scenario. It looks like administration applied for some grant money from the federal and provincial governments. They were successful and we will be receiving a grant of $3,662,833.50. The money will be used towards replacing a water reservoir. Now, for the bad news…..the grant does not cover the entire cost and the town will have to take on a debt of $5,937,166 to cover the rest of the project. It seems that according to the program guidelines that projects must start work (which could include design/engineering) by September 30, 2022 at the latest and that projects must be completed by October 31, 2026.
Councillor Courtney felt that he did not like debt. He noted that we are the soul provider for water with no cost sharing. He wondered if there were any options. (Funny, when we looked at cost-sharing and not providing our own police department, some people were up in arms…..yet here we are talking about the same thing about our water…..?) Ms Giofu, Director of Public Works said that the grant application was very specific and that administration always applies for any grant funding that they can. Councillor Courtney felt that $5.9 Million was a lot and that the town would have to foot the bill for that portion. Councillor Prue asked about the debenture costs and the timelines since interest rates are currently trending upwards. Ms Prince, the Treasurer, said that administration is currently seeking information and reports will be forthcoming.
Deputy Mayor Meloche inquired how much had been put into reserves for this anticipated expense. Ms Giofu said that his project would be funded from the water rates. Deputy Mayor Meloche felt some misgivings to be acquiring debt and thought back to where we had been in 2014. He felt that future councils need to look at reserves and setting more money aside.
Councillor McArthur felt that there weren’t many options and that council has an obligation to provide safe drinking water, although he did agree that it was a hefty bill. He asked why we only received $3.6 Million in grant money when we had applied for $4.9 Million. Ms Giofu explained that they could only apply for $5 Million and that with the percentages allowed, the town had received the maximum grant of $3.6 Million.
And eventually, it all passed. Here is the recommendation that was passed :
It is recommended that:
1. Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a Transfer Payment Agreement with the Ministry of Infrastructure– Green Stream (ICIP) for total funding of up to $3,662,833.50 toward replacement of the Reservoir at Amherstburg Water Treatment Plant;
2. A capital expenditure not to exceed $9,600,000 including net HST BE APPROVED as a first charge to the 2022 Water Budget estimated $1,032,500 for engineering, and the remaining from 2023-2026 capital budget for construction of the replacement of the Reservoir based on the 2022 Capital Budget estimations. To be funded from the ICIP grant and long-term debenture as required;
3. Administration BE AUTHORIZED to sign long-term (up to 30yr) debenture not to exceed $5,937,166 to fund the construction and replacement of the Reservoir at Amherstburg Water Treatment Plant.
Heritage Designation of 24 Sandwich Street South
The homeowner of the above noted property had requested designation of their home. They were present at the council meeting in order to address council. Council waived the rules of order and Ms Fox addressed council.
Ms Fox explained how heritage was very near and dear to her. She sat as a councillor for the Town of Amherstburg for two terms. (It was a while ago, and if I recall, she was pretty good…..wonder if she’d consider a comeback?) She asked council if they would defer the designation. She was seeking removal of certain items that were included in the designation, specifically the windows and the indoor flooring. She felt that these elements were too restrictive.
Mayor DiCarlo mentioned that this change would not have to go back to the Heritage Committee and that council could decide.
Councillor Prue felt that it was strange for indoor items to be listed. He asked why she was seeking to have the windows removed from the designation.
Ms Fox said that since she was the proponent and had requested the designation, she can include items (or not) as per her will. Councillor Prue wondered if the windows were unique but Ms Fox said that they were not. She said they were original and that she and her husband had restored them but that they were not particular in character.
There was some back and forth but ultimately, the request was granted. The house was designated as heritage but the conditions regarding flooring and windows were removed.
There were many items on the agenda that were passed with little to no discussion.
Site Plan and Development Agreement for 106 Gore Street
The owners of the above noted property had applied for a demolition permit. It seems that they have submitted their site plans to the Heritage Committee and that the Committee has endorsed the plans.
Once again, the rules of order were waived to allow the neighbours to speak.
Dave and Nicole Rogers addressed council. Mr. Rogers explained that they lived on Bathurst street right next door to the corner lot of 106 Gore Street but had just received notice about the new build on Friday. He explained that they had done significant work and spent a lot of money on their home in keeping with its heritage theme and the heritage area downtown. Mr. Rogers explained that their home was built in 1908 and was built right on the property line. He noted that the town had grandfathered this issue. He noted that they were not opposed at all to the new development, they just wanted a proper 10 foot distance between the two dwellings. The new house would be 5 feet from the lot line (as per requirements) but their 114 year old house sits on the lot line, therefore proper distance is not maintained. He expressed concern for safety in regards to fire, as well as the natural light being blocked from the south windows. Mr Rogers explained that they were just looking for a compromise to ensure a 10 foot distance from the two structures. He felt that a variance would be necessary and that this was not too much to ask in order to protect their dream home.
Councillor McArthur asked if the building could be moved 5 feet without any impact.
The developers said that they were at their limit for the distances required on each side. As well, moving the dwelling could affect elevations and the entrance to one of the units.
Councillor Simone explained that the Heritage Committee had reviewed the plans but they can only discuss certain items. Mr. Rogers explained that 5 feet per property is required but realized that their property did not have that due to the age of their home and having been built on the property line.
Councillor Prue wondered if 5 feet was okay in terms of fire safety. The Deputy Chief said that it can be okay and that certain products are available but that the fire department does not decide on the distance between buildings.
It was mentioned again about moving the building over 5 feet but the Chief Builder said that that could affect site lines for oncoming traffic. There was some back and forth between various administrative staff, but in all honesty, they were on zoom and with all of the staff turnover I was not sure who was who, nor what their title was.
Deputy Mayor Meloche felt that he would be in favour of a minor variance and that the situation should go back to administration. He felt it was important to find a resolve.
Mayor DiCarlo pointed out that the developers had met all of the requirements to this point.
The developers spoke and said that they had followed all of the proper procedures. He felt that they would be open to a variance but that the project had already been delayed since March. He noted that they were under no obligation to move the building but that would move it if the minor variance could be done quickly.
And then the great calendar debate began. It seems that the next Committee of Adjustment meeting is already set and notice is required as per the planning act. Mr. Fox felt that it would take at least a month to get everything in place. The developers were willing if it could be done in two weeks but felt a month was too long to wait.
Then, the developers asked to take a two minute break to discuss between the two of them. They turned off their microphone and talked.
When they came back, they said that they didn’t want to see anybody upset. They asked if the variance could be done and approved in one month. Mr Fox, from administration said that it couldn’t be guaranteed but they could try. The developer felt that it wasn’t ideal but that they were willing to move the building 5 feet if they had a one month timeline.
(Well, it seemed like an amicable resolution may happen…..but cue the red tape….)
Ms. Osborne, Director, (that’s all the name plates say now, just “Director”…….guess there’s too much coming and going to make more permanent name plates, but I digress…..) said that a one month timeline may not be possible. It seems that notice must be provided, then they have to see if the committee can meet, then an appeal period must be provided…..etc, etc, etc….
Someone named Rob from administration said that a minor variance can’t be expedited and that it would likely take two months. He wondered if the developers could revise or modify the design of the building. The developer noted that they had already revised it several times to satisfy the Heritage Committee.
Councillor McArthur wondered how a 10 day notice period and 20 day appeal period had now become two months instead of one. Mayor DiCarlo said that the entire process would have to work out perfectly to expedite it even to two months.
Mr Rogers pointed out that the developer and the Committee likely assumed that there was 5 feet from their side of the property. He felt that the Heritage Committee should look at neighbouring properties in an area where there are many heritage homes that have grandfathered conditions. Mr Fox said that the Heritage Committee only considers the property itself but that setbacks are not part of the committee mandate.
Councillor Courtney then spoke and felt that the discussion had gone around and around. (The irony of this comment was not lost on me LOL). He felt that he understood the neighbours concerns but that the developer had met the criteria. He noted that the semi-detached style building was likely taking up more space and encroaching on the neighbours. He felt that this is problematic with infilling in a heritage district.
Councillor Courtney then moved the recommendation to approve the site plan for 106 Gore Street. He said he felt bad for the delegates but that they couldn’t stop the process. Councillor Simone seconded the motion.
It went to an unrecorded vote, so I watched closely :
Support : Councillors Renaud, Simone and Courtney
Opposed : Councillors Prue and McArthur and Deputy Mayor Meloche
Since the vote was tied, Mayor DiCarlo voted in favour, and explained that the developer had met the criteria.
So, that was that. The development will proceed “as is”, even though the developer was willing to postpone a month to try to resolve the problem……but the bureaucratic red tape would not allow this to proceed that quickly……so it looks like this new building will be 5 feet away from a historical home……instead of 10 feet…..
Council then took a short recess.
When the meeting resumed, there wasn’t a whole lot of discussion.
Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes
Councillor Prue noted that the recommendation coming from the Heritage Committee meeting could very well bring them down the same road as the previous delegation.
- It is recommended that:
- The Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2022 BE RECEIVED;
- The application for demolition of 295 George Street BE APPROVED; and,
- 295 George Street BE REMOVED from the Heritage Register as a listed property of cultural heritage value or interest.
Councillor Prue made a motion that the proposed development be presented before the approval for demolition, however nobody seconded it.
And then, the motion above was made and passed. 295 George Street will be demolished.
Amazingly, there were no items discussed for unfinished business nor for new business. The meeting wrapped up at 7:43!
See you in two weeks Amherstburg!
amherstburg2 