Welcome back to the recap of the September 25, 2019 Middlesex Centre Council meeting. If you missed the preview, you can find it here.
I live tweeted the meeting, so this is mostly a copy and paste of the notes made that evening.
Delegations, Presentations & Petitions
- Brenda Slater now doing her presentation about MPAC. Here’s a link to the presentation for those playing the home game!
- The last date used for MPAC’s assessment was Jan 1, 2016. Next date will be Jan 1, 2019.
- Q&A time:
- I asked whether property owners can expect huge increases in property value assessments because of red hot market. Didn’t get a clear answer, but sounds like yes.
- Deputy Mayor Brennan asked whether speculative farm purchases are considered. No. Only farmer to farmer.
- I asked how much assessment was done algorithmically or by a person. It’s a mix — lots done by formulas by computers, and then individuals review for a sanity check.
The Consent Agenda passed. A few clarification questions were asked and answered regarding monies spent and allocated. I commended staff on increasing budget survey responses by 50% over last year, and their efforts to keep a rein on costs and use money wisely are paying off through more positive responses.
- On to revised HR policy. CAO DiLullo presented the report. Mayor DeViet pointed out she’s happy that this will make equal pay for equal work (raising student minimum wage to match adult minimum wage). Revised HR policy approved.
- Pre-approval request for new Zamboni for Ilderton Arena. Pre-approval passed.
- Poplar Hill rehab project now. As mentioned on my blog, staff want to get things underway so that (most of) the renovations are ready for the 100th anniversary event next year. Motion approved.
Committee of Adjustment
Both minor variance applications approved. There was not any input provided by the public or Council.
- Mayor DeViet noted that the application B-23-2019 (Buren) has been withdrawn.
- No members of the public spoke about item 10.1. Report from Palumbo Homes and their contractors received for information.
- Item 10.2 passed with no comments from the public or Council.
- Item 10.4, Councillor Heffernan asking about water quality and impact from development.
- Arnie Marsman answered that if new properties would negatively impact existing wells, then they must drill deeper into another well with no negative impacts.
- Mayor DeViet unclear on why gap is being left between proposed lots and existing homes.
- Craig Linton (agent for the applicant) explains that original proposal had 5 lots, but they had to show access to lands to the north for further development later. Gap is for future road, plus more than 3 lot application means a development agreement would be required.
- I pointed out that that is odd considering we have no plans, and I doubt any future Council will have plans, to install municipal water in Poplar Hill. Regardless, the motion was approved with me voting against it.
- Item 10.5 – same property, new application. Owners want to sever surplus farm house. Planner says they’re having hard time establishing that property owners are the same across existing farm properties. Mr. Linton disagrees. Regardless, staff recommending deferral.
- One individual raised concerns about this paving the way for future development on the land. I will say that is incredibly unlikely. Another gentleman also raised the same concern.
- The motion was deferred back to staff to give them more time to validate whether this severance qualifies as a surplus farm dwelling.
And that was that! If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please let me know.