December 10, 2021 - Robert Washburn Interview With Northumberland County Planning Manager

Within the next 30 years or sooner, Northumberland County could grow to 122,000 people from the current level of about 85,000. As part of his 'Consider This" blog Robert Washburn interviewed Dwayne Campbell. Dwayne is the Manager of Planning for Northumberland County. In the interview Dwayne talks about how the County is planning to deal with growth while protecting all the natural features in the area. It is a realistic approach to growth and should be required listening for all residents of Northumberland County.

This is an edited version of the interview 

Here is a link to the longer version as posted on Robert Washburn's Website Robert Washburn Interview with Dwayne Campbell

November 25, 2021 - Landlab Request for Delegation Status Re Lakeport Beach Proposal

Landlab Inc (Fred Brisco) made a request to be put on the Alnwick/Haldimand Planning Meeting agenda for November 25, 2021 as a delegation. After spotting this on the agenda Gritt Koehl wrote to Staff and Council alerting them to the fact that this was not allowed by the Procedural Bylaws of Alnwick/Haldimand. The correspondence on this issue is reproduced below. Note: the correspondence is best read from the bottom.

From: Pat Kemp [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Sent: November 23, 2021 4:35 PM
To: Gritt Koehl; Troy Gilmour; Yolanda Melburn
Cc: Sherry Gibson; Greg Booth; Mike Filip; James Hogg; Gail Latchford
Subject: RE: Procedural By-Law - Delegations

Good Afternoon Ms. Koehl:

This is to advise that Council has denied the request of Landlab to make a presentation at our meeting scheduled for November 25, 2021.  Landlab has also been informed that they will not be permitted to make further presentations until after September 2nd, 2022.

Yours truly,

Pat Kemp, A.M.C.T.
Acting Clerk
Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
10836 County Road 2, P.O. Box 70
Grafton, Ont. K0K 2G0
905-349-2822 Ext. 25
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

AH Logo

------------------------------------------------------ 

From: Gritt Koehl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: November 22, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Pat Kemp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Troy Gilmour <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Yolanda Melburn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Cc: Sherry Gibson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Greg Booth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Mike Filip <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; James Hogg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Gail Latchford <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: RE: Procedural By-Law - Delegations

Good afternoon Pat,

Thank you for your email, and while it is good to know that you made the decision and no staff member was forced, it does not change the fact that this delegation should not be permitted as per the Procedural By-law:

  • 12 months has not transpired since the delegation on Sep 2nd
  • Decision of Council was made on Sep 2nd and is being undermined through this process

There is no update required to be given to Council, and if they had wanted such, they would have asked.

The presentation is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at brainwashing Council and Taxpayers.  Please refer to Slide 7 of the PowerPoint as explicit proof.  The word MZO isn’t used, but it is 100% implied. This delegation is another attempt to persuade Council to support an MZO. 

I will share with you that Sean McAdam and Fred Brisco came to my home shortly after the request for an MZO was denied, obviously with the hope of swaying my stance.  What Mr. McAdam was trying to promote was a “modified MZO”.  What is that???  An MZO is an undemocratic, dictatorial tool used by the current government in favour of developers.  If you are not aware of what the Provincial Government has done in the area of MZO’s, I can provide you with information. 

Getting back to the matter of Thursday’s delegation.

Landlab Inc. has already been able to present to Council on two separate occasions, just 3 months between.  May 28th as an introduction to their proposal, and on September 2nd to get Council to request an MZO from the province on their behalf.  Both of those delegations had a PowerPoint presentation – first slide at each presentation – LAKEPORT BEACH.

Sep 2, 2021 - Decision of Council denied the request, stating that if the proposal is to go forward, then it would have to go through proper planning process.

Please consider the following regarding Nov 25 delegation:

  • First slide of presentation – LAKEPORT BEACH. Same matter, same issue, same topic. No delegation can be brought to Council for 12 months if the matter has been presented to Council.
  • No “new information” is being presented. 
  • What is being presented is a biased survey, with only 221 participants. What an insult to the over 6,600 who did not participate, but live in A/H.
  • The survey questions are designed to get people to answer in a way that seems to support the proposal.  I received a call TWICE to participate in the survey.
  • The numbers presented are one-sided, and do not provide any financial information for the future – only that users will pay the costs.
  • A herring dangled before the cat’s nose that perhaps a new arena could happen is…well, it stinks.  The DC’s of 8.2 M wouldn’t even cover that.

I could go on with more reasons, but I do not believe it is necessary.  The Decision of Council on Sep 2, 2021 is being undermined by someone by approving the delegation in the first place, and that is in violation of the Code of Conduct.

If you choose to accept blame for this Pat, that is up to you.

I have already requested in writing that an investigation be undertaken by the Township through the Integrity Commissioner, and that request stands. I understand there are others in the community preparing to do the same as well.

I respectfully request that the Landlab Inc. Delegation not be permitted to proceed on Thursday, November 25, 2021.

Sincerely,

Gritt Koehl

---------------------------------

Sent: November 22, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Gritt Koehl; Troy Gilmour; Yolanda Melburn
Cc: Sherry Gibson; Greg Booth; Mike Filip; James Hogg; Gail Latchford
Subject: RE: Procedural By-Law - Delegations

Good Afternoon Ms. Koehl and Mr. Koehl:

I was asked by Fred Brisco of Landlab to be a delegation at the November 25th, 2021 Planning Meeting.   The presentation is to be an update for Council and was not asking for a MZO as was previously discussed.

I made the decision to allow Landlab’s to make a presentation.  I did make the CAO aware of my decision, however I made the decision.

Yes I advised Mr. Brisco that he was approved to be on the agenda in writing.  I felt this was new information and therefore approved the request.

I was not forced to place the item on the Agenda by the Mayor or any other member of Council or the CAO.

The Mayor did not approach me on this matter. 

If you have a concern regarding a member of Council violating the Code of Conduct then you can ask for an investigation with the Integrity Commissioner.

I apologize for the delay in responding.

Yours truly,

 

Pat Kemp, A.M.C.T.
Acting Clerk
Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
10836 County Road 2, P.O. Box 70
Grafton, Ont. K0K 2G0
905-349-2822 Ext. 25

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

AH Logo

------------------------------------------------------ 

From: Gritt Koehl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: November 20, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Troy Gilmour <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Pat Kemp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Yolanda Melburn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Cc: Sherry Gibson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Greg Booth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Mike Filip <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; James Hogg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; Gail Latchford <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: Procedural By-Law - Delegations
Importance: High

RE:  LANDLAB DELEGATION

The Agenda is up for the Planning Meeting on Thursday, November 25, 2021.  There is a Delegation by Landlab Inc. on the Agenda.  This is in contravention of the Procedural By-law 03-2019.  Please see attached pages 15, 16 & 17 from Schedule “A” of the By-law re Delegations.  Please refer to the following sections:

11.2    Delegation – Reply to Request
The Clerk in consultation with the CAO, shall reply to such delegation requests in writing or by telephone, as time permits, indicating approval, refusal, deferral or referral of the delegation and reasons thereof.

11.7    Delegation – Refusal
The Clerk is given authority to refuse delegations that are not permitted under the following circumstances:
(3) The subject matter has already been discussed within the past twelve (12) months;
(4) The subject matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of Council;
(6) Council has previously made a decision on the issue.

11.8    Delegation – Reason for Refusal
In the event a delegation request is refused, the Clerk, in consultation with the CAO shall provide to the person(s) in writing, with a copy to Council, the reasons for the refusal.

There are several questions raised with the appearance of this Delegation on the Nov 25th Agenda.

1.  Did the Acting Clerk and CAO consult and reply to the delegation in writing or by telephone indicating approval of the delegation?

2.  How could this delegation have been approved when it is in direct contravention of Section 11.7 Delegation – Refusal, Parts (3), (4) and (6).

3.  Were any staff forced to place this item on the Agenda by the Mayor?

4.  Is the Mayor in violation of the Council Code of Conduct? 

Please refer to the following sections:

Rule No. 7
Improper Use of Influence:

1.  No member shall use the influence of his or her office for any purpose other than for the exercise of his/her official duties.

2.  Pursuant to corporate policy, the CAO/Municipal Clerk directs (as a whole) the Township managers, who in turn direct Township staff, Township Council and not individual Members of Council appropriately give direction to the Township administration.

Rule No. 11

Respect for Township By-laws and Policies:

1.  Members shall encourage public respect for the Township and its by-laws.

2.  Members shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that are applicable to them.

Commentary:  Members of Council are required to observe the policies and procedures established by Township Council at all times, and are directed to pay special attention to, and comply strictly with, the Council Procedure By-law and <Expense Policy> policy.  In exceptional circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy.

Rule No. 13
Conduct Respecting Staff:

1. No Member shall compel staff to engage in partisan political activities or be subjected to threats or discrimination for refusing to engage in such activities.

2. No Member shall use, or attempt to use, their authority for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing any staff member with the intent of interfering in staff’s duties, including the duty to disclose improper activity.

3. Members shall be respectful of the role of staff to advise based on political neutrality and objectivity and without undue influence from any individual Member or faction of the Council.

Rule No. 15
Not Undermine, Work Against Council’s Decisions

1.  Members of Council shall not actively undermine the implementation of Council’s decisions.

Commentary:  The role of elected officials, once a council decision is made, is to support the implementation of that decision, not to work against its implementation, publicly or behind the scenes.  Council decisions are arrived at following discussion and debate, reflecting the democratic process.  Members are expected to engage in debate with their fellow council members through the democratic process of government.  However, once Council has made its decision, Members must recognize that decision as the duly-considered decision of the body of Council.  As members of that body of Council, individual members – those who did not agree with the decision – are not to engage in activities that seek to challenge or undermine that decision.

Members can express disagreement with Council’s decisions, but it is contrary to the ethical behaviour of members of Council to actively seek to undermine, challenge or work against Council’s decisions.

I attended the special meeting set by the Mayor on May 28, 2021 to hear the Delegation by Landlab Inc. re Lakeport Beach Proposal, and I attended the September 2, 2021 Council Meeting where Landlab Inc. again presented as a Delegation asking Council to request an MZO from the Province. At that meeting, a Decision of Council denied the request.  Now the Mayor is pushing another request for Delegation by Landlab Inc. to be heard by Council at Planning Meeting.  We believe this is disrespectful behaviour by the Mayor to the Council, Staff and Taxpayers of this township, and is in direct violation of the Council Code of Conduct.

As taxpayers, we respectfully request the following:

  • that a Formal Investigation be launched with the Integrity Commissioner against the Mayor of the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand into violations of the Council Code of Conduct, and
  • that the Delegation by Landlab Inc. not be permitted to proceed on Nov 25th, as it is in violation of the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand Procedural By-law No. 03-2019.

Gritt and Ernie Koehl
ABC-Activism
104 Bowman Court South
Grafton, ON   K0K 2G0

September 2, 2021 - A/H Council Denies Landlab Inc Request for Minister's Zoning Order

In a recorded vote, Alnwick/Haldimand Council said NO to Landlab Inc's request that Council support an MZO application to the Province.

Council voted as follows:
AGAINST the MZO
Deputy Mayor Sherry Gibson
Councillor Mike Filip
Councillor Greg Booth
 
In SUPPORT of the MZO
Mayor Gail Latchford
Councillor Jim Hogg
 
Here is a link to video of the proceedings of the Council meeting Regular Council meeting - September 2, 2021
Of particular interest is the segment between the 52 minute mark and the 1 hour mark.
 
Here is a link to the correspondence received from A/H residents Correspondence From A/H Residents on the Landlab Proposal

September 2, 2021 - Landlab Inc. Requests That A/H Council Ask For Minister’s Zoning Order

Landlab Inc. has put forward a proposal for an 800 unit urban subdivision on 120 acres on Lake Ontario shoreline in middle of an active farming zone with no urban infrastructure or public services in the area. The proposal violates all of the regulations at the provincial, county and municipal levels that are in place to protect and preserve agricultural and natural heritage systems in A/H. To get around this Landlab Inc is requesting Alnwick/Haldimand to ask for a Minister's Zoning Order.

CAO Troy Gilmour Report To Council

Why can't this Township develop a backbone and just say NO!  Why entertain this proposal at all?  It does not comply with any Provincial, County and Municipal legislations in place.  It amounts to bully tactics by Landlab Inc. to push through an ill-advised development.

Landlab Inc. Cover Letter To Council

Deep pockets and it's all about money, money, money...

Landlab Inc. - Lakeport Beach Project

Just look at the density of the proposed housing.  All of the homes in the subdivision will have tiny front yards with laneways in the back for parking, and a tiny backyard with common green space for all homes. Nothing like that exists anywhere in A/H or Cramahe.

Landlab Inc. - Project Proposal

Here is a quote from the MZO Planning Rationale Report:

"The proposed plan recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the wetlands and associated woodlands and the Lake Ontario shoreline and incorporates the findings of the detailed environmental studies which have been prepared in accordance with local and regional planning policies."

The reference to studies prepared in accordance with local and regional planning policies is a crock.  This ignores the FACT that a development of this sort does not belong in that location.  The company has shown complete disregard for our Official Plan. In fact the proposal violates all of the regulations at the provincial, county and municipal levels that are in place to protect and preserve agricultural and natural heritage systems in A/H.  Such a development was not even contemplated in the GGH Growth Plan through to 2051!  Who is kidding who?  There's nothing rational to the MZO "Rationale" report below:

MZO Rationale

This is little more than an attempt to obfuscate.

Proposed MZO

All of this is happening without any public consultation.  oh, they say there will be a public meeting, but we know how well our township does with public meetings...

While the naive presentation states that it won't cost taxpayers - that is complete and utter nonsense. Roads around the township will need to be upgraded, schools, public transit and other public services will be required - and there is no way the Developer is going to pay for all that!  Then there's the cost to users of municipal sewer and water systems - this infrastructure is expensive. 

One can only hope and pray that common sense prevails in this Township.

PLEASE write a brief email to all of the people listed below voicing your objection to an urban development in a 100% Rural Township!

Thank you for taking the time to do this.  The very future of rural life in A/H depends on it.

Gritt Koehl    

MPP FOR NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

David Piccini:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY MANAGER OF PLANNING & LAND USE

Dwayne Campbell:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ALNWICK/HALDIMAND COUNCIL MEMBERS

Gail Latchford:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sherry Gibson:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Mike Filip:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Greg Booth:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

James Hogg:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ALNWICK/HALDIMAND STAFF

CAO Troy Gilmour:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

PLANNER Jennifer Current:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

August 27, 2021 - Minister's Zoning Order vs Planning Process

Landland Inc. has been unable to submit an application to the County for a plan of subdivision for 800 residential units proposed to be built on what was ACTIVE FARMLAND in the rural Township of Alnwick/Haldimand. 

In fact, it is stated right in the A/H Official Plan that active farming operations must be protected. Council is responsible for and has an obligation to follow the Official Plan. 

Yet, Landlab Inc. forced a farmer to kill off an entire crop of corn that had been planted on the 200 acre parcel of land that this company recently purchased for an exorbitant amount of money.

The reasons why no application can be submitted are many.  Here is a Summary from a report written by A/H Planner Jennifer Current that sums it up!

"SUMMARY

 While Landlab is currently undertaking a community consultation pertaining to their proposal, there has been no formal application submission to Northumberland County or the Township. Landlab has requested a meeting with County and Township Staff to discuss municipal planning requirements.

The 700-800 unit proposal is located in a rural area with no municipal water or wastewater services and would create a new large settlement area in the Township. Neither the Township

Official Plan nor the Northumberland County Official Plan anticipate a development of this size in this location.

Full municipal water and wastewater systems would require municipal participation and the long-term costs of these services is unknown at this time. Impact on the municipal road infrastructure is unknown.

The proposed development does not contain any employment or commercial lands. The developers have indicated that they would consider a commercial component as part of the development however no employment lands are proposed. Indication has been given that the developer will be drawing on the recent trend of working from home and telecommuting.

Over the coming months there will be continued communication with Landlab as they pursue their development proposal. Landlab has requested a meeting with Northumberland County and Township staff to discuss the proposal and how it fits into the Provincial, County and Township planning framework.

Report written by,

Jennifer Current, B.A. (Hons) RPP, MCIP

Senior Planner"

So how does a developer get around the planning laws?

Why they only have to approach the current Provincial Government for a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO)! 

A Ministerial Zoning Order is an underhanded tool being wielded by the Ontario Conservative Government to push urban development through in areas where urban development does not belong.

Previously Minister's Zoning Orders were rare, but under the current provincial regime, they are being issued like candy bars to Developers with deep pockets.  Greed has no limits.

This heavy handed and undemocratic approach must stop. Citizens/taxpayers must hold elected officials accountable for their actions. 

Landlab Inc. is ASKING A/H COUNCIL to apply for the MZO on their behalf!  There is no doubt that the un-elected Mayor of A/H is pushing this unwanted proposal.  Will the rest of Council be brainwashed into believing this will be good for our Township? 

The hype that will be paraded before Council next Thursday will be all about tax revenues and development charges.  It will sound impressive as a rosy picture is painted.

What will be missing is vital information about the future financial impact to taxpayers and the assumption of municipal services by the Township.  The Planning Departments for the County and A/H Township have done their jobs.  Landlab was to provide this information to A/H Township to justify their urban proposal. 

What is Landlab going to do instead?  Ask for special favours from the Conservative Government and get an MZO issued to override the legislation that is in place, to permit development where it is NOT PERMITTED.  Their appearance before Council means nothing, and is merely a public relations tactic to make it look like they are partnering with the Township.  This is furthest from the truth, because asking for an MZO means they don't care what the citizens and taxpayers of this township think or want.  Greed has no limits.

We must let our Council members know that urbanization of this beautiful rural township should not be allowed, especially given that it is not permitted in the first place, and was not even planned for through to 2051!

Please take a moment to write to A/H Council Members and the MPP for Northumberland County to voice your opposition to an urban development proposed in a rural and actively farmed area in A/H, that meets none of the legislated requirements at all levels of government in Ontario.

MPP FOR NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

David Piccini:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY MANAGER OF PLANNING & LAND USE

Dwayne Campbell:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ALNWICK/HALDIMAND COUNCIL MEMBERS

Gail Latchford:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sherry Gibson:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Mike Filip:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Greg Booth:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

James Hogg:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ALNWICK/HALDIMAND STAFF

CAO Troy Gilmour:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

PLANNER Jennifer Current:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thank you for standing up to preserve the peaceful, rural way of life  in the beautiful Township of Alnwick/Haldimand, and most importantly to protect and preserve the agricultural and natural heritage systems that makeup this entire township.

Background Information On MZOs

Minister’s Zoning Order
The Planning Act gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the authority to control the use of any land in the province. Zoning orders can be used to protect a provincial interest or to help overcome potential barriers or delays to critical projects. If there is a conflict between a minister’s zoning order and a municipal bylaw, the minister’s zoning order prevails. The municipal bylaw remains in effect in all other respects.

Ontario Nature website

Ontario Nature – The Misuse of MZO’s

AMCTO Slideshow on MZO’s

MZO’s and Provincial Policy Statement (Ontario Professional Planners Institute)

Gritt Koehl

August 1, 2021 - Another Article About Landlab Class Action Lawsuit

In late November 2020, Sean McAdam, the president of both the development company Landlab Inc. and Hendrick Farm, announced that an organic farm that was part of the Hendrick Farm development would shut down. He cited financial instability (from 2016 to 2019, the five-acre farm cost $820,000 to operate, but sales generated only $113,000) as well as difficulties mixing agricultural and residential uses.

Issues identified by residents:

  • First, there was an agreement between purchaser and seller. Now McAdam is reneging on that agreement. Residents are suing - not for money, but to stop McAdam's plans.
  • Second, McAdam is proposing mixed uses for the 5 acres, which in effect would become public space.  This is not what residents bought into a few years ago.
  • Third, who knows? Given the agreement with Nordick, and McAdam's attitude towards land use, one can't help but wonder if there aren't development ideas in his head? After all, you can squeeze a whole lot of units into 5 acres...

Part of the agreement was that homeowners would pay an amount towards the operational costs of the farm.  Were residents consulted about the cost of running the farm vs. revenues generated?  Were residents given an opportunity to pay more to keep the farm operational?  So many questions!

Here is a link to the article Old Chelsea Residents Want Farm Back

July 21, 2021 - CBC News Article - Class Action Lawsuit Against Landlab (Hendrick Farm Development)

If ever there was a time to pay attention A/H residents, it is now.
Apparently the Organic Farm that was a core part of the Hendrick Development in Chelsea, Quebec wasn't sustainable.
This is the same company that is blowing sunshine & flowers up A/H Council's butt for a proposed development in A/H that will be anything but sunshine & flowers! It would be nothing but densely crowded housing with no jobs, and nothing else around it.
According to a CBC article, Landlab's Crown Jewel - Hendrick Organic Farms is being repurposed. This has the residents up in arms.
Residents have started a class action lawsuit claiming that:
"The development originally included a two-hectare organic farm as part of its plan that was promised "in perpetuity."
Here is a link to the CBC article CBC News Article - Class Action Lawsuit

June 30, 2021 - Fields of Gold and Green in Alnwick/Haldimand

On Wednesday we took a driving tour.
As we travelled down Wicklow Beach Road we were met by orchards on both sides of the road. Then after bumping over a sad set of train grade crossings, we passed Jubillee Beach Park and then reached the Wicklow Beach Boat launch. I should mention that after the train tracks we found ourselves on a surface treated road (tar and gravel). After passing the boat launch we found ourselves on Lakeport Road. This was an assumption since there were no signs. Once again it was a surface treated road. After driving for a while we came across a barren property with a view of Lake Ontario (currently owned by Landlab Inc). After taking some pictures we continued on to Lakeport.

Just west of Lakeport the road suddenly improved and we were now on a paved (High Class Bituminous) County Road 31. In Lakeport we passed Townline Road which is the boundary between Alnwick/Haldimand and Cramahe Township. The County road then took us past more farm fields and a solar farm before coming to a well maintained CN grade crossing. After passing Earl Street we found ourselves on Ontario Street driving past the Cramahe Waste Water Treatment plant. Ontario Street is a gravel / dirt road in that is in poor shape with lots of potholes. We couldn't wait to get back to County Road 2. In retrospect we should have taken Earl Street over to Division Street. However Division Street ends at the infamous Colborne intersection where confusion reigns when there is a lot of traffic.
We can't imagine how people would commute from the proposed Landlab subdivision.
The trip inspired Gritt Koehl to put together a pictorial of what we saw. She called it Fields of Gold and Green - A True Story

Picture (June 30, 2021) - Fields of Gold - A/H Township

Wheat Field

Picture (June 28, 2021) - Fields of Green - A/H Township

IMG 20210628 131952

Picture - Fields of Urban (Image from the Internet)

Subdivision

Picture (June 28, 2021) - Lush corn fields on the north side of Lakeport Road across from proposed Urban development site.

IMG 20210628 131956

Picture (June 28, 2021) - Established Farming Operation on Lakeport Road just east of proposed Urban development site.

IMG 20210628 132159

Pictures of Barren fields (June 28, 2021) - Corn crop was destroyed by applying Roundup over entire property of proposed Urban development site

IMG 20210628 132045

IMG 20210628 131852

Pictures (June 28, 2021) - Corn stalks that survived the Roundup poisoning on either side of the entrance.

IMG 20210628 131925

IMG 20210628 131918

If the pictures aren't enough here is an excerpt from A/H Official Plan regarding development on agricultural and rural lands. 

2.3.2 Preservation of Agricultural Land

It is an objective of this Plan to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term use for agriculture, and to protect established farming operations from the effects of non-agricultural development that would inhibit agricultural production.

This land in question is an established farming operation that has been going on for decades.

OURS TO PROTECT, OR LOSE THEM FOREVER

June 24, 2021 - Alnwick/Haldimand Planning Meeting - Discussion of Landlab Proposal

The following is a summary prepared by Gritt Koehl of the Council discussion regarding the McQuillan Subdivision & Landlab Inc. Planning Report submitted by Jennifer Current, Senior Planner.

Mayor Latchford opened asking if Council had any questions.

DEPUTY MAYOR GIBSON: I have one question, and that is, under 2.0 in your report under Planning Approvals, it talks about things that are currently still active under appeal, and I just wondered from a process point of view, what happens when there are outstanding appeals with a new proposal or a new application coming in?

PLANNER JENNIFER CURRENT:  That is a very interesting and complicated question, because as you’ve indicated there are currently four appeals before the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.  An appeal to a lack of decision on a plan of subdivision, lack of decision on an Official Plan amendment, and lack of decision on a zoning by-law amendment, as well as an appeal to the Ministry modification of the Township’s Official Plan that was adopted in 2015.

I don’t think that you can proceed with another application for a plan of subdivision while you’ve got these outstanding appeals before the board.  That being said, this is completely uncharted territory.  There really aren’t any precedents for this type of thing. I haven’t come across something like this in my planning history.  Landlabs met with Dwayne Campbell and myself yesterday, and apparently they have an opinion that they could proceed with a separate plan of application while there are these outstanding appeals before LPAT.  This is a complicated legal, this goes beyond the scope of planning discussion.  It’s legal issues that need to be resolved, because right now, I’m not sure that the LPAT has been notified by the new owners, that they have purchased the property.  I don’t know if they are planning on making a request to have the current appeals transferred through to them for the property, or how exactly they’re planning on proceeding.  It is a complicated situation, because currently what’s before the board, is nothing like the current Landlab proposal.

GIBSON:  Right. And so I read into that, that that is not our responsibility? Who takes ownership and control of that?

CURRENT:  The Township has a responsibility in that we have a role in the current appeals before the board.  So our responsibility applies to the current appeals that are before the board.  It is not our responsibility, the municipality’s responsibility, to tell the board to request to transfer the LPAT appeals to the new owner, that would be the proponent.  I don’t know, maybe Mr. McQuillan is going to withdraw his appeals.  That’s between Mr. McQuillan and the new owners of the property.  The municipality’s responsibility on the existing applications is our role before the board.  We don’t have anything with respect to the Landlab’s proposal, all that we have is a presentation of the proposal.  We don’t have a formal planning application, so you’ve been given a presentation, and there’s been some consultation with Landlab, however there has been no formal application.

MAYOR GAIL LATCHFORD:  We have nothing in writing.

CURRENT:  I have not seen anything. 

LATCHFORD:  I haven’t seen anything in writing.

CURRENT:  I do understand that Landlabs has retained a Planning Consultant to work with them, but we’ve seen no applications.  While Dwayne Campbell and I did meet with Landlabs and their Public Consultation Consultant, it was not what I would consider a formal pre-consultation, because they didn’t have a land-use planner there.

COUNCILLOR GREG BOOTH:  I just wanted to say thank you to Jennifer for the very well written report discussing the background, the planning approval, and especially the financial impact.  I guess you’ve answered my question, have we received a formal application or anything from them, so we’ve just seen their 20 minute presentation, and I know social media is abound with a lot of people complaining and saying that Council is pushing this through and stuff like that.  Taxpayers have called me, I’ve said listen, they’ve just done a 20 minute proposal to us, there’s been no formal application. So this report explains a lot Jennifer, so thank you very much. It’s very informative and giving us the background.

MOTION to Receive & File at this time. CARRIED

June 18, 2021 - Alnwick/Haldimand Planner Issues Report on Landlab Proposal

A report regarding the status of the proposed McQuillan Subdivision Plan was prepared by A/H Senior Planner Jennifer Current. It is to be presented as part of the June 24, 2021 A/H Council Planning Agenda. A link to the full report is provided below. The report summary is copied below.
 
"SUMMARY
 While Landlabs is currently undertaking a community consultation pertaining to their proposal, there has been no formal application submission to Northumberland County or the Township. Landlabs has requested a meeting with County and Township Staff to discuss municipal planning requirements.
The 700-800 unit proposal is located in a rural area with no municipal water or wastewater services and would create a new large settlement area in the Township. Neither the Township
Official Plan nor the Northumberland County OfficialPlan anticipate a development of this size in this location.
Full municipal water and wastewater systems would require municipal participation and the long-term costs of these services is unknown at this time. Impact on the municipal road infrastructure is unknown.
The proposed development does not contain any employment or commercial lands. The developers have indicated that they would consider a commercial component as part of the development however no employment lands are proposed. Indication has been given that the developer willbe drawing on the recent trend of working from home and telecommuting.
Over the coming months there will be continued communication with Landlab as they pursue their development proposal. Landlabs has requested a meeting with Northumberland County and Township staff to discuss the proposal and how itfits into the Provincial, County and Township planning framework.
Report written by,
Jennifer Current, B.A. (Hons) RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner"
 
Link to full report:
 
Given that:
  • an urban development in this area is not permitted under the GGHGP, PPS, and OPs,
  • there are NO services of any kind whatsoever in this area, and
  • this kind of development was not contemplated in growth plans through to 2051
WHY isn't the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand and the County of Northumberland simply saying NO?
 

June 14, 2021 - Toronto Star Article on Provincial Zoning Powers

This is a link to the article - Toronto Star - Provincial Zoning Powers Benefiting Developers
(It is suggested that readers zoom the article to 200% or more to make it easier to read)

June 7, 2021 - Email to A/H Council and Local Planners Regarding Landlab Proposal

From: Gritt Koehl
Sent: June 7, 2021 2:47 PM
To: Jennifer Current; CAO Troy Gilmour
Cc: Mayor Gail Latchford; Deputy Mayor Sherry Gibson; Councillor Greg Booth; Councillor Mike Filip; Councillor Jim Hogg; Dwayne Campbell, NC Manager of Planning and Heather Sadler, Cramahe Planner
Subject: Landlab Inc. - Lakeport Beach Proposal
Importance: High

Dear Jennifer and Troy,

I attended the May 28, 2020 presentation by Landlab Inc. regarding the proposal to build 700 to 800 units on the former McQuillan property off Lakeport Road down to the shores of Lake Ontario.

Over the past week, I spoke with several planners, CAOs and some elected officials in and around Northumberland County, as well as researched some of the legislation.  I discovered that:

  • the land is zoned Rural - RU and Environmental Constraint – EC
  • there are open appeals before LPAT going back to 2016 for a 68 lot recreational residential development – 2006 application by Tom McQuillan
  • no preliminary studies were undertaken by the applicant over the 15 year period
  • there is an LPAT Case Management Conference for this proposal scheduled for November 22, 2021 to allow for preliminary studies to be completed
  • now there is a proposal for 700 to 800 units on that parcel of land
  • GGH Growth Plan prohibits this type of development in A/H
  • proposal does not conform with PPS, POP, GGHGP,  NC OP or A/H OP
  • A/H was not contemplated for this type of growth in the current County OP Review, which is nearing completion after 3 years of work, including information sessions and public consultation

I have prepared a document which includes the points above, which I hope accurately captures the magnitude of issues around this proposal.  The link is below, it is not long, and I sincerely hope everyone takes the time to read it, as it provides facts in this matter.

https://abc-activism.ca/alnwick-haldimand/lakeport-beach-proposal

There are some questions.

  1. Given that there are open appeals before LPAT for a 68 lot subdivision, how is it that Council could even entertain a proposal for 700 – 800 units?
  1. Why was another Special Meeting held for this, and how did this proposal come before Council in the first place?
  1. Did the Planning Department have an opportunity to give professional direction to Landlabs Inc. informing them that this proposal would not be permitted in A/H Township based on provincial and municipal legislation?
  1. The Mayor stated at the May 28th meeting that she wouldn’t ask questions, as she had attended other meetings. Can the Mayor please divulge WHO was involved in those other meetings, and why she gave the impression that this project would go ahead in her closing comments at the May 28th meeting?

I look forward to receiving a reply to this email with answers to the questions.

I wish to formally oppose the Landlabs Inc. Lakeport Beach Proposal, based on all of the facts above, as it does not meet the land use requirements in A/H. 

I respectfully request that the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand not proceed with this project, as it does not belong in a rural township such as A/H, nor does it comply with relevant legislations. Council decisions should be based on facts presented by planning professionals, and not on political persuasion.

 

Sincerely,

Gritt Koehl

Concerned A/H Taxpayer & Resident

June 5, 2021 - Research into Lakeport Beach Proposed Development

Gritt Koehl undertook to do detailed research on this proposal.

She read Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) official proceedings, she attended the Landlab Inc. presentation to A/H Council, and she spoke with several planners, consultants, elected officials and municipal staff in and around Northumberland County.  Below is her summary.

As of June 4, 2021, there are three open appeals before LPAT (formerly OMB) for this property under the name of Tom McQuillan, for a 68 lot subdivision. The next Hearing on these appeals is scheduled for November 22, 2021

The proposed 68 lot subdivision application was first filed in 2006. That's 15 years ago!

It is not known if LPAT has been notified of change of ownership of this property.  It is also not known if the open appeals carry over to the new owner. In any event, the appeals are quite interesting in that they pertain to approval of a 68 lot recreational residential subdivision & water access park. Here are the details:

McQuillan 68 Lot Subdivision

In March of 2006 Tom McQuillan filed an application with A/H Township and Northumberland County, to develop 62 hectares (153.2 acres) with a 68 lot residential subdivision, including a water access park at Lake Ontario. The application sought to amend the A/H Official Plan (OP) and to rezone the subject lands.

The following information is taken from OMB proceedings Case No PL151151.  Simply stated, the Applicant was appealing the following:

  1. Failure of A/H Township to adopt requested amendment to the Official Plan
  2. Failure of A/H Township to make a decision re a zoning by-law amendment
  3. Failure of Northumberland County (NC) to make a decision to permit a 68 lot subdivision

Memorandum of Oral Decision

The first Prehearing Conference was held on August 22, 2016. At that time the decision was that the matter would be phased.

Phase 1 of the hearing took place on March 6 and 7, 2017. The Order that was issued indicated that:

 “…the Tribunal finds that subject to the redesignation of the lands to Shoreline, the proposed development is a permitted use of the subject lands as a resource-based recreational use as contemplated by s.1.1.5.2 b) of the PPS (Provincial Policy Statement).  The Tribunal finds that the development proposal is permitted as limited residential development as contemplated by s.1.1.5.2 c) of the PPS.”

A telephone conference call was held on September 11, 2020. Counsel for A/H Township advised that an OP amendment would not be required.  Both parties agreed that the technical studies such as Environmental Assessment (EA), and Hydrologic testing would determine the final form of the development. A/H Township advised that a public consultation may need to be held due to amount of time that had elapsed.

On January 14, 2021 the Applicant advised the Tribunal that more time would be needed to do the technical studies. The parties agreed to set a Case Management Conference (CMC) for the fall, which would allow sufficient time for the technical studies to be completed, the draft planning instruments to be prepared and a public meeting to be held.

At present, the Case Management Conference (to discuss the details of the proposed development for 68 residences on 153.2 acres of land).is scheduled for Monday, November 22, 2021 at 10:00 am.

Landlab Inc. Proposal for 700 to 800 Units

The parcel of land has increased from the original proposal and is now 200 acres - perhaps more land was purchased. 

As presented, the proposal includes 40% greenspace (80 acres), leaving 120 acres for development. This would mean a blend of 6 to 8 units per acre and would total approximately 700 to 800 units.

Summary of Information from Planning Professionals

Northumberland County has been in the process of reviewing and amending the Official Plan to guide growth and development in Northumberland over the next 30 years

Specific topics that were reviewed:

  • Natural Heritage System mapping and policies
  • First amendment planned. NHS report finalized based on public consultation in 2018-2020 and endorsed by County Council on July 22, 2020. Virtual consultations regarding amendment held in spring 2021.
  • Agricultural mapping and policies
  • Population, Housing and Employment
  • Land Needs
  • Water Resource mapping and policies
  • Affordable housing policies

The public information sessions began in 2018 with Natural Heritage System mapping and policies.  A virtual public meeting was held on October 28, 2020. Public engagement will continue in 2021.

Of particular interest regarding the Landlab Inc proposal is the planned growth for NC and where that growth can occur.  Gritt attended all of the Public Information and Consultation sessions over the years, and the areas where the most growth can occur is in the Port Hope, Cobourg and Hamilton areas. Limited residential development can occur in settlement areas in other municipalities as per the attached map.

Settlement Structure and Natural Heritage System Map Link:

Northumberland County Settlement Structure and Natural Herotage System Map

The consensus among planning officials was that the Lakeport Beach development proposal does NOT conform with: 

  • Provincial Policy Statement (PPS);
  • Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GPGGH) or
  • County and Municipal Official Plans (OPs).

The proposed Landlab Inc development is not in one of the strategic growth areas, nor does it have transit, public service facilities, or municipal services.

Here is an excerpt from the GPGGH stating where and how growth can take place.

Forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan will be allocated based on the following:

  1. The vast majority of growth will be directed to settlement areas that:
    1. have a delineated built boundary;
    2. have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems; and
    3. can support the achievement of complete communities;

  2. Growth will be limited in settlement areas that:
    1. are rural settlements;
    2. are not serviced by existing or planned municipal and wastewater systems; or
    3. are in the Greenbelt Area;

  3. Within settlement areas, growth will be focused in:
    1. delineated built-up areas;
    2. strategic growth areas;
    3. locations with existing or planned transit, with a priority on higher order transit where it exists or is planned; and
    4. areas with existing or planned public service facilities;

  4. Development will be directed to settlement areas, except where the policies of this Plan permit otherwise;

  5. Development will be generally directed away from hazardous lands; and

  6. The establishment of new settlement areas is prohibited.

In summary, growth will be limited

  • in rural settlement areas and
  • in areas that are not serviced by existing or planned municipal and wastewater systems

Also, establishment of new settlement areas is prohibited

A/H Land Use Plan

This map shows the current makeup of Alnwick/Haldimand Township.

Link to the Land Use Plan Map of Alnwick/Haldimand (Schedule A of A/H Official Plan)

The large white swath through the middle of the Township is the Oak Ridges Moraine which makes up 45% of the Township land mass. This is where our drinking water comes from, and any development is severely restricted in this area.

The rest of the Township consists of the following:

  • Alderville First Nations (dark orange outline) is a significant portion of the northern part of the Township
  • Northumberland Forest is in A/H (Recreational/Conservation)
  • Various green designations represent environmental areas
  • Solid yellow represents closed landfills (no active landfill in A/H)
  • Red areas are the Hamlets in A/H (where limited growth can take place)
  • Grey is Rural and orange dashes is Rural Residential (limited growth)
  • Brown diagonal is agricultural
  • Black gridlines indicate Provincially Significant Area of Natural & Scientific Interest (ANSI)
  • The rest of the smaller designations are aggregate, industrial, resort, highway commercial, shoreline, wellhead protection area

Note that a parcel of land in the bottom right hand corner of the map is flagged with the words Under OMB Appeal”. This land is the subject of the Landlab Inc proposal. This parcel is officially referred to as Part of Lots 5, 6 and 7, Concession B and C.

There is a green section within this parcel that is designated ‘Environmental Protection’.

The land is zoned Rural (RU) and Environmental Constraint (EC). (limited growth)

The land to the immediate east and abutting the Hamlet of Lakeport with the black gridlines is designated ‘Provincially Significant Area of Natural & Scientific Interest’ (ANSI).

Summary

A/H is a rural agricultural Township, with settlement areas in Hamlets and limited development in Rural areas. 

A/H has no municipal services, other than a small communal well servicing 370 water hookups in the Hamlet of Grafton.  The Hamlet of Lakeport does not have any municipal services.

Cramahe is currently undertaking a final Environmental Assessment (EA) with a goal to expanding the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) for Colborne to meet the needs of development happening now, and to be able to accommodate future development.  Cramahe has less than 1,000 hookups to the existing WWTP. It is not known how many hookups are needed to accommodate future development within Cramahe, but taking on 700 to 800 from the proposed Lakeport development would be too much.  Furthermore, sharing of cross-border services is complicated. Cramahe Township has too much on the go to take on a development where the municipal taxes would go to A/H.

There is no public transit system in A/H or Cramahe, and the roads infrastructure is currently not able to accommodate the large increase in traffic.

A/H is not able to handle a major development this big for many reasons.

The proposed development does not belong in A/H based on where and how growth can take place under the provincial Growth Plan, and does not conform to PPS and Official Plans.

Gritt Koehl, June 5, 2021

May 28, 2021 - A/H Special Council Meeting - Lakeport Beach Development Proposal

This summary was prepared by Gritt Koehl. The YouTube video of the Council meeting can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Tt1HGVwUM

This is the Landlab Inc PowerPoint presentation that was submitted as part of the Council agenda

Landlab Inc PowerPoint Presentation

NOTE: This PowerPoint presentation does not include all the slides used by Landlab representatives when they made their presentation to Council.

This is a map showing the location of this property.

Landlab Map Showing Location of Property

Sean McAdam:  Discuss our hopes for development in Lakeport.  The title is Lakeport Beach.

What does Landlab do?

  • Approach development from a very different perspective than most developers
  • Plans are designed around people and the environment
  • Pocket communities can vary in size, what they all have in common is they knit the community together
  • Large green spaces promotes social connectivity
  • Lakeport Beach leaves 40% green space

Lakeport Beach

  • 200 acre property just west of Lakeport and Colborne
  • We hired DPZ to design Lakeport Beach with a large variety of housing
  • Beachfront park is the cornerstone of the development
  • It will be a public part that all public can enjoy
  • A kilometer of shoreline open to ensure that future generations have that link to Lake Ontario
  • We’ll turn it into a feature that attracts people
  • Pocket parks have the homes backing onto or front onto green space. The concept is that the homes would share the common green space
  • Internal parks that form the focal point of communities
  • Seniors cottages
  • The homes would be setback from the waterfront, so homeowners and the public will not feel like privacy is being invaded

Councillor Mike Filip

It’s exciting.  I have a couple of questions, and waterfront. I’m wondering if it’s occurred to you that you’re going to require some beach maintenance.  I have experience in this, there is much that washes up on the beach, pharmaceuticals and garbage. Because we have little people running around we don’t want infections and that kind of thing, or dogs rolling in what. Have you thought that one through?

Sean McAdam - This will be one of the important conversations that we have to have with Council, municipal staff and the County to determine practical ways we can manage this.  One is the question of what responsibilities a municipality or township are willing to take on.  In cases this may be one where it’s more appropriately handled by the community itself.  We have established a homeowners association which has maintenance facilities and maintenance staff associated with it to look after it in a privately managed way. We need to talk about the practicalities with your staff and county officials.

Filip – so there could be an overriding Condo concept to live in that area.  My second question is, I was concerned about active parks, such as outdoor rinks. I don’t see that in your pictures. What are your thoughts on that.  I see the open spaces and places to sit, but I don’t see places for kids to pick up their basketballs, or baseball bats.

McAdam – they are a part of the plan.  Some have even mentioned Pickleball.  It is our intention to have active space, tennis, basketball, maybe even pickleball.  It’s not on the drawing, simply because it was an oversight.  It should have been there.

Filip – My geography background – what is your estimate of the number of residents that you hope to reside here?

McAdam – Old village scale density is 4 – 6 units per acre, the plan is about 4 units per acre on a gross density measure, the plan is between 700 to 800 units.  (It will be 6-8 per acre given that 40% remains as greenspace.)

Filip – What would the completion date be?

McAdam – We hope to complete it in about 6 to 7 years.

Filip – Can you give me a range of price points?

McAdam – It will depend on what the market and the economy is doing when we get to market.  Hendrick Farm is a good example of the range.  From the low $400,000’s  to over a $1,000,000.  I gave a tour to a federal official a year or so ago, and one of the things I pointed out that he found very confusing, because one of his mandates is to look after affordable housing, I can’t think of too many examples of where you can sell a 400,000 next to a 1,000,000house and the neighbours feel proud to have each other as neighbours.

Filip – We’ve seen a tremendous bump in lot prices in our area and they are around $400,000 just for the lot. Are you going to let people buy/invest at the 400,000 point knowing that the value of their home is going to appreciate. I am concerned that this will not be an entry level development for our young people.  That is a real concern for us, we want to keep our young people in the community.  I think it will be very difficult to build anything under half a million dollars.

McAdam – I must say I am astonished by the increase in construction prices and in real estate prices as well.  It is in our interest to try to maximize the mix of product that we have available.  There are not only big social benefits to be had, but from a business case as well.  We are very much focused on providing a wide range of products, precisely because it is a natural hedge against the risk we have as developers.  The ones that are the most successful are the ones that have the broad spectrum of housing. They buy the house at the price now, and it is up to us to deliver the house on time and on budget as much as possible. The risk is on the builder.

Latchford – this problem is across Ontario.  The cost of housing and how we’re going to get a grip on it.  We hear it at different meetings, and the loss of kids out of rural areas, but to go to the cities it’s even more expensive. If we can provide a wide range of housing in our community.  And hopefully building prices of materials will settle down. We’ll move onto another question from Council.

Gibson – I would be interested in allowing our guests to complete their comments. I know Fred was trying to speak, so I would be interested in hearing that.

Briscoe – As lumber costs increased, it’s really cost per square foot that’s the determining factor, and as much as people want 3 and 4 bedrooms, I’m the one that reminds the sales guys that that’s going to cost an arm and a leg.  If you look at our pictures, our semis are 1,200 sq. ft. – if you finish the basement you could add 2 more bedrooms, but there’s 3 bedrooms upstairs, 2 four piece baths, but they’re not large and extravagant – they are a little bit more humble, but those sold out really quickly, and the affordability came from just being a more reasonable size.

Gibson – I am pleased to see seniors housing included.  Question around the model of care in support services for the seniors, because that requires some logistical work there, so I’m wondering if you put thought into that?

McAdam – The answer is I don’t really have the details in terms of how that would be managed.  We focused on designing the seniors component as one of the building blocks to designing the community. The design we shared is really elementary in that we tried to find a connection to the outside world.  We want to allow seniors to have access to the outdoors, as opposed to being closed in large buildings.  To be completely honest, we have not gone much further than that.  We are testing to see if the Township is interested, if there is a demand for such a thing, and to put a placeholder in if that is something that should be included.  Our sense is that we would bring in an operator to deal with that, whether it’s nursing or food service or whatever else needs to be provided.  This is not our expertise, so I’m not going to pretend that other than how it might fit in from an architectural and urban planning standpoint.

Gibson - It’s an interesting concept and good that you’ve included it, so if we get to the next stage I’m sure Northumberland County and the Township can help.

My second comment is that this is a large development a lot of people together and we have no public transit in Alnwick/Haldimand, and so I think you just have to be aware that people are moving out of town and away from services and they’re going to need to get back to places. I think that needs a bit of consideration too.

Councillor Greg Booth - The infrastructure for this. The location you are building at – there’s no water service or sewers and stuff like that, so what’s the thought from Landlabs. Are they looking at sewers and water supply, or is it going to be well and septic?

McAdam – This is one of the most important questions.  We’ve engaged with WSP Engineering to discuss possibilities. It looks as though there are a number of ways that we can provide for water and sewer treatment onsite.  That would be our first choice.  I’ll defer to Fred.

Briscoe – We’ve had many discussions with WSP and we hope to present in the coming weeks or months.  We would have to be working hand in hand with municipal staff and county staff just to make sure everything fits everybody’s needs, but we have a number of possible servicing solutions. The most likely would be self-sustained internal systems.

McAdam – One of the things we’ve asked them to look at is the possibility of connecting Lakeport and neighbouring houses as well, because in our view if we are looking at the practicality of a system there, how much can that system be expanded to accommodate neighbours who may want to connect.

I’d like to underscore that we view this as our problem – not your problem.  The question of servicing is, obviously we have a strong interest in making sure we are meeting the needs of the township and the regulatory requirements of the county and province as well.  It needs to be funded by the growth of the project itself – not the broader tax purse.

Hogg – Councillor Booth just asked the questions I had. Good answers.  This is the size of a small town and would need its own water and sewer systems.

McAdam – all signs point to off the shelf means of providing that service on site, which I think most of us can agree is the most practical and sensible solution.

Filip – I love the public beach concept.  You can’t supply enough of that. You’ve gone and done that without us asking for it.  Any thoughts to green energy? Solar or wind or anything like that.

McAdam – I am suspicious of people who present these new-fangled high tech solutions to what would usually be common practices.  If you can encourage people to walk instead of driving and preserving nature along the way and having common green spaces and creating large open spaces in the community and use quality materials, then you’ve gone further than any new-fangled gadget could go.  As far as solar or wind, I don’t have an answer, other than we have had a preliminary discussion on solar energy. 

McAdam – Wind would be a rather large undertaking, which would involve large wind turbines along the shore, and what would be the appetite for that?  Solar panels add substantial costs, it would be hard to include it project wide.

Filip – perhaps street lighting, common space lighting could be solar powered and could be an economic savings in the long run.

Latchford – I know you are conscious of the people who live in Lakeport.  I have held back from questions. Council you asked good questions.

McAdam – In closing, I really appreciate you and your colleagues and staff setting up this meeting.  Sincerely, it’s nice to be meeting a Township a municipal government that is clearly interested in at least exploring that social and economic development can take place collectively.  I acknowledge that this is very early in this discussion and there’s a lot of T’s to cross and I’s to dot before we move forward in any concrete way.  I apologize in advance to staff that we will be darkening your door over the coming weeks an. d months and will look forward to your views and requirements for the Township.

Latchford – Hopefully we can host a public meeting where possibly people will be able to attend and ask the questions.  We have good staff here that you will be working with, and we look forward to the project.

All’s well…

Gibson - Gibson closed out the meeting.

Gritt Koehl, May 28, 2021