Community Meeting Notes: 09/02/2023

Community Meeting February 9, 2023 Scots Bay Community Hall

Minutes

The meeting got underway at 1905 hrs with Ann Huntley facilitating. An introduction to the meeting and an explanation as to why the meeting was being held was given. It was explained that this was a meeting not of opinion but of the process to be followed within the Municipality regarding the application for a Development Agreement of PID 5014534 (file # 21-25).

It was explained that there had been no community engagement meeting due to covid protocols however, there had been a you tube video made to replace the community engagement meeting which explained that the developers intention was to develop a campground on the 96 acres of land.

Approximately 1 week after this video had been made the covid protocols were lifted. It was felt by the community group working together and hosting this meeting tonight that in the spirit of accessibility it was important to hold a meeting and be able to explain to folks what the process of this development application will look like, and where public input is accepted. Not everyone with the community has access to the internet and to YouTube nor does everyone know how to use these technologies. The committee was asked to stand and wave to the group to identify themselves as people that could be approached to ask more questions or to provide more help to this working group.

It was suggested that we go around the room and folks can stand and introduce themselves. This was done.

A few more participants trickled into the meeting after introductions had been done.

A flow chart of the development process was handed out to everyone at the meeting. This was discussed and explained step by step in length. It was explained by Ann that she had been in contact via email with Laura Mosher, Manager of Planning and that the information being provided to the community was correct according to Laura and is information directly from the Land Use Bylaws for the County and the Municipal Planning Strategy for the County. Laura was invited to attend this meeting, however, was unavailable.

Step one of the flow chart was discussed which is application submission. It was explained that the original application by the developers was a rezoning application to rezone the land from A2 (Agriculture Rural Mixed Use) to P1 (Commercial Recreation). An explanation was given to the group on what each of these zones allowed to be done on the land including residential uses and non-residential uses. It was explained that the Municipality is mandated in their by-laws to protect agriculture land. This application was changed on February 7, 2023, from a rezoning application to a development agreement application. The process remains pretty much the same however, it allows the municipality to impose certain restrictions on the agreement as they see fit.

Step 2 Public Information Session. This was replaced with the you tube video because of Covid 19. Public input should have been allowed at this time, however that didn’t occur because it was held online.

Step 3 Review by municipal planning staff. This is where we are now. This step is still ongoing and therefore is still open to public input. You can write the municipal staff, you can call, you can email, you can do all the above. Laura Mosher is the manager of planning in the county and is happy to receive questions and respond. This is her job. June Granger is the Councillor for District 1 and is also available to talk to , call email, or write. All other councillors are also available to speak with. Even if they are not the councillor of the district in which you live, they will all have a vote on this application. The deadline for input in this step is one week prior to the Planning Advisory Committee meeting. The agenda for this meeting is generally also posted one week prior to the meeting date. The county councillor June Granger sits on this committee also. This committee is made up of 4 county councillors, 2-3 planning staff and 3 members of the public.

Question was asked by a community member who assesses the applications when members of the public apply to have a position in the planning advisory committee? We will look and see if we can get the answer to this question.

Step 4 Planning Advisory Committee meeting and recommendation to council (or not). During this meeting the PAC will make a recommendation to council to approve this application or they will recommend that they do not.

Step 5 Council First Reading. The application will continue to step 5 even if the Planning Advisory Committee recommended that staff not pass this application. During this step the public should encourage the councillors to read all the documentation and letters that they have received from the public. All the councillors will receive a package will all the information that they need to review in order to make a decision. During this step at the first reading there is time for the public to speak. Individuals who wish to speak will have 10 minutes to do.

Step 6 Public Hearing and Step 7 Council Second Reading and Vote. These two steps are normally done together. This meeting has no time limit and no limit to the numbers of speakers from the public who do with to speak. This is where councillors vote to approve or deny the application. Public speaking is done prior to the vote.

Step 8 Fourteen Day Appeal Period. This appeal period begins 14 days after the decision from the vote is posted in the newspaper. This is usually posted in the newspaper 1 week after the vote takes place. If an appeal happens the appeal is made to the UARB The Utility and Review Board. This is the step where lawyers etc. will become involved. Question was raised from a member of the community. Can more than one appeal be submitted to the UARB? The committee working together believes that yes more than one appeal can be submitted but we will confirm this.

DISCUSSION, Q & A There was some discussion about receiving the proposal and being able to know exactly what this entails and what the development will look like. This has been requested. The answer that was given to this request was that the application had too much personal information attached. It was asked to have that information removed and blacked out etc. and then sent. No answer from the planning office was ever received on this.

A member from the community asked if Ms. Skaling ever offered to present this information to the community. Ms. Skaling answered this question, and the answer was no this was never offered to the community as the Skaling’s were advised from the county to not offer this to the community.

It was discussed that this question had also been asked to June Granger County Councillor for District 1. The answer from June was that all the information had been provided in the You-Tube video. A question regarding this was asked by a community member. Is this You-Tube video no longer accurate as the application has been changed from a rezone application to a development agreement application? This question will be taken to Laura Mosher to see if we can receive an answer.

There was also some discussion on how decisions get made in council. What do councillors use as a guide to make decisions? Is there a decision-making matrix? This has been asked before with an answer that we would never be given that information. This question will be taken forward again to see if we can get an answer.

There was discussion about the changing of the application from a rezone to a development application. The question was raised regarding what the development agreement looked like. At that time the developers spoke up and commented that they didn’t even know what the new application for a development agreement looked like.

A comment was made that it was known by council and the developers that the application for a rezone was never going to happen. It was also commented that the development agreement shouldn’t be treated any less powerful then a rezoning. As stated earlier it allows the municipality to impose certain restrictions on the agreement.

Once a development agreement is passed then changes can be made to this agreement at any time. For example, development can begin very small scale and continue to grow and change even with a development agreement. A formal application does take place to change or expand a development agreement but there is ZERO public input and ZERO community engagement for these changes.

A question was raised from the community regarding ownership of the land. Does the development agreement go with the land if it is sold or would this process have to start over? We believe the development agreement sells with the land, but we will confirm.

It was discussed that if anyone in the community feels certain testing could be pertinent to this development then it should be asked of the county to require this testing be done and may result in restrictions placed in the development agreement.

Real estate values were discussed. It was stated that information gathered from numerous real estate agents was that property values would drop anywhere from 20-40%. This is a huge negative effect to people owning land and homes etc. in the community. A community member wanted to know which real estate agent was responsible for providing this information. Another community member said that it didn’t matter who it was and that she was a real estate agent and was happy to comment on the fact that any property within earshot of the proposed campground development would be affected by a decreased property value.

A final comment was made from a community member regarding responsible development, and that in a responsible development a risk and impact study should be created and then what things will be put in place to mitigate these risks. This information hasn’t been given to the community.

A thank-you was given to everyone for coming out to the meeting and to Ann for facilitating the meeting.