Brudenell Lyndoch and Raglan Township (BLR) held its June 3 Council meeting via telephone conference. Although it was easy for the public to call in, it was not so easy to listen. The meeting was plagued with distortion and background noise, so participants and listeners repeatedly dialled in to reconnect, causing Mayor Sheldon Keller to repeat the roll call to ensure he had members of Council back on the line.
Integrity Commissioner fees questioned — again
During the report from Clerk Michelle Mantifel, Council found themselves in the position of having again to consider the appropriateness of fees charged by the Township’s Integrity Commissioner, Peggy Young-Lovelace of E4M. Click HERE to read The Current’s report of the previous discussion.
Councillor Andrea Budarick started the ball rolling when Mantifel referred to a bill Young-Lovelace had sent for having advised a member of Council. Budarick was unhappy that the invoice showed that there was an initial charge for Young-Lovelace to examine the information, but then referred it to a lawyer for a legal opinion which she then reviewed and which formed the subject of her advice to the member of Council. Budarick reminded Council that they had weighed the cost of a lawyer as their Integrity Commissioner vs. E4M’s lower hourly rate. “It seems like we were double-billed,” she said. She also complained about the time that E4M took to deal with it because, by the time they responded, the issue that it related to “was over,” to which Councillor Iris Kauffeldt’s response was, “Oh my goodness.” Budarick said that she was “not saying that they did anything wrong, if that’s their structure of how they are handling it. But now that we know how the process works, I don’t know but I personally would rather just call a lawyer and get the advice myself.” Councillor Trevor Liedtke agreed saying, “Yeah, you’ll get it cheaper.” Council agreed to pay the bill.
Mayor outlines impact of new Official Plan
Mayor Keller gave Council a brief outline of why the Official Plan approved by the province has been met with much dismay throughout Renfrew County. Responding to the question that councillors “thought it was all agreed and just had to be passed?” Keller said, “Remember who does the passing – it’s the province of Ontario. They basically did not approve the changes that [County] Council wanted. At the end it basically came down to, if you were in a hockey game as Charles Cheesman [County Planner] described it, it was County 1, Province 6. So we lost. When it came to the consent policy, the County of Renfrew’s Official Plan consent policy is Three plus Two, a planning justification report to potentially create five lots from the original holding. The County was able to retain its consent policy on that one. That was the one we won.”
Keller then cited the points County lost to the Province, such as:
- Population growth projections and related allocations that potentially hinder development;
- Protection of Natural Heritage Features including mapping of deer wintering areas;
- Mapping of regions including Prime Agricultural Land and Aggregates;
- The requirement of Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) to identify any negative impact on natural heritage features – Five or more lots may trigger that process. Any development regardless of size will require an EIS within or adjacent to 120 metres of a Natural Heritage Feature.
- An archaeological assessment will be required for all waterfront development or plans of subdivision for the creation of more than three lots by consent.
Keller ended by reassuring Council that County went “to bat on this along with staff…. It isn’t the outcome that we wanted but I want you to remember that we tried hard. The province is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to these issues…. It wasn’t just Renfrew County – every rural area in the Province lost on this.”
Cannabis grow-op severances postponed
At the Mayor’s suggestion, Council agreed to discuss the three consent severances applied for by Jiang Shan Vegetables Farm Inc. at the June 17 meeting in order that members of Council could devote more meeting time to the budget and could also do some additional study of new information about the severance applications.
Members of Council heard reports from roads, fire, recreation, planning staff, including health and safety concerns, and COVID-19 updates. Council then spent the rest of the meeting in budget talks so they could approve the 2020 budget on June 17.
