The Corporation of the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

The Corporation of the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Special Meeting 2010/53 MiNUTES November 2,2010 UNDER SECTIONS 51(20) AND 34(12) OF THE PLANNING ACT, REVISED STATUTES OF ONTARIO 1990, CHAPTER P.13, AS AMENDED, TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPALITY'S ZONING BY-LAW RE: TIME: LOCATION: Owners: Bond Head Properties Two Inc. and Bond Head Properties Three Inc. Part of Lot 1 and Part of Lot 24, Con. 7 (North Plan) -and - Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Con. 6 (South Plan) File Nos: S-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and S-10-03 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Court House, 57 Holland Street East, Bradford Meeting Location: Council Chambers, Court House 57 Holland Street East, Bradford, ON Members Present: Doug White, Mayor Dennis Roughley, Deputy Mayor Mark Contois, Councillor Del Crake, Councillor Peter Dykie, Councillor James Leduc, Councillor John McCallum, Councillor Jeanny Salmon, Councillor Ron Simpson, Councillor Staff Present: Jay Currier, Town Manager Karen Gill, Administrative Assistant Ian Goodfellow, Director of Finance/Treasurer Tom Graham, Director of Leisure Services Debbie Korolnek, Director of Engineering Geoff McKnight, Director of Planning & Development Services Patricia Nash, Municipal Clerk Mike O'Hare, Manager of Facilities, Parks & Cemeteries Tara Reynolds, Deputy Clerk Jack Tosta, Chief Building Official Others: Mikki Nanowski Rob Keffer Carl Hordyk Ann Page Dave Morton Sam Lee Miriam King Meade Helman Jean Keffer Raj Sandhu Gary Lamb Barry Jaynes Donna Reynolds Ed Gres Bev Ferguson Jay Gutteridge Duncan Page David Chambers Celeste Phillips Keith Reynolds And others. OPENING 2010/53-001 Moved by: D. Roughley Seconded by: J. McCallum "That this special meeting of Council being held pursuant to Sections 51 (20) and 34(12) of the Planning Act comes to order at 7:02 p.m., to discuss applications for Subdivision Approval and Zoning By-law Amendment in respect of certain lands located in Part of Lot 1 and Part of Lot 24, Concession 7 (North Plan) and Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Concession 6 (South Plan)." CARRIED.

File Nos.: S-09-03, Z-09-07,Z-10-05 and S-10-03 Page 2 DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST- DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Mayor White reminded the Members of Council of the Municipal Conflict of Interest legislation and requirements thereunder for disclosure. There were no declarations of Conflict of Interest declared at this time or throughout the meeting. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Mayor White welcomed those present to this Special Meeting of Council and advised that this is the statutory public meeting held pursuant to Sections 51 (20) and 34(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended, to discuss proposed plans of subdivision and proposed changes to Zoning By-law 2010-050 of the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public of the nature of the proposals, invite public input, and answer questions regarding the proposed developments. EXPLANATION OF MEETING PROCEDURE Mayor White explained the procedure for the Public Meeti~g. 1. 2. The Chairman will outline the purpose, nature and,location of the planning application being considered. I The Chairman will remind the Members of Council ~f the Municipal Conflict of Interest legislation and requirements there under for disclos~re.! i! 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. II The Clerk will outline the method by which notice Of the public meeting was given and confirm that proper notice was provided in accordance with the legislation. Planning staff will outline the purpose and nature! of the planning application being considered, present the contents of the Planning R~port and outline the details of the application. The Planner will present any written responses received on the application from the publication, internal circulation to agencies' or public bodies. The Planner will respond to questions from Council. The Applicant or a representative will provide details bfthe proposed amendment and / or respond to the Planner's presentation and question~ from Council. The meeting will be opened to public participation. the Public will be invited to address Council to provide comments and ask questions. I~ residents have a prepared written submission that you are reading from, please submit it to the Clerk upon completion of your presentation. I. Written submissions regarding the proposal can be ~ade to the Clerk. If the public wish to be notified of the decision on the proposal, subnltit a written request to the Clerk or provide your contact information on the roster sheet located at the back of the Council Chambers. Additional information regarding the Rroposal is available for inspection during regular business hours (Monday to Friday, 8:;30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Town's Planning and Development Services offices located lat 3541 Line 11, Bradford.! The Applicant will be invited to respond and answer iquestions from the public. i Following the public portion of the meeting, Council members will be invited to ask final questions should they require clarification from the Applicant. I! I

File Nos.: 5-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and 5-10-03 Page 3 10. Council will not deal with the proposal tonight. Staff have prepared a recommendation report for Council's consideration. Council will refer the matter back to staff for further report. 11. It is very important that the Town receive the correct names and addresses of the individuals having an interest in each planning application. Therefore, priorto leaving the meeting, persons requesting formal notice of Council's decision on the proposal must complete a sign-in Attendance Register indicating their full name, mailing address, and telephone number on the Attendance Register. Under the Planning Act, the Applicant or the residents have the right to Appeal any decision of Council to the Ontario Municipal Board. The public must verbally express any comments or concerns here tonight or submit their comments in writing to the Clerk prior to Council's decision on whether to approve the proposal. If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting, or make written submissions to Council before the proposal is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. If a person or public body does not make oral submission at a public meeting, or make written submission to Council before the proposal is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the Hearing of an Appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Comments presented at this public hearing are being recorded by staff. Please provide your name and address. Personal information is being recorded according to the Municipal Act and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, providing your personal information will assist our Clerk in preparing accurate minutes and to create a record that is available to the general public including the Town's website. Questions regarding the collection and use of personal information should be directed to the Clerk, Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. 12. With the benefit of input received tonight, staff will prepare a Recommendation Report for Council's consideration at a later date. 13. Council will consider the Information Report. 14. The meeting will then be closed. CONFIRMATION OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Mayor White called upon the Municipal Clerk to provide confirmation of notice requirements. Patricia Nash, Municipal Clerk reported that notice of the public meeting was published in the Bradford West Gwillimbury Times and mailed to the property owners and public bodies on October 7,2010, as prescribed by regulation under the Planning Act. In response to the notices, written submissions regarding Applications Z-10-05 & S-10-03 were received from the following residents: Milton Calder, 4198 County Road 88 Dave Morton, 34 Mulock Drive; and Douglas Reynolds, 2874 County Road 27

Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Con.6 (South Plan) File Nos.: 5-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and 5-10-03 Page 4 PLANNING REPORT Mayor White requested that Geoff McKnight, Director of Planning & Development Services confirm the Planning Act notice requirements and explain the application. Mr. McKnight explained the application as follows: The Planning Division has received applications from a group of companies affiliated with the Bond Head Development Corporation (BHDC) to permit two plans of subdivision and amend the zoning by-law to implement the proposed plans. The applications were submitted by Robert Cutler of Bousefields Inc., on behalf of the landowners. Two separate applications have been filed for lands north and south of County Road 88 for a total of 1,081 residential units. Subject Lands The "North Plan" consists of Part of Lot 1 and Part of Lot 24, Concession 7, in the former Townships of Tecumseth and West Gwillimbury (see Attachment #1 - Location Map). The application was deemed complete as of September 17, 2009. The lands are located on either side of County Road 27 and north of County Road 88, consisting of a total of 52 hectares. The crest of a drumlin is located near the north-east corner of CR 88 and CR 27, and then the lands fall off to the north; a floodplain associated with branches of the Penville Creek surrounds the developable portion of the subject lands. A ribbon of dwellings and commercial operations are situated along the north side of CR 88, as well as a pocket on the east side of CR 27 north of CR 88. Agricultural lands sit to the west. The "South Plan" consists of Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Concession 6, in the former Townships of Tecumseth and West Gwillimbury (see Attachment #1 - Location Map). The application was deemed complete as of July 16, 2010. The south-west quadrant is located south of Cummings Road; the south-east quadrant is located south of Mulock Drive. The total area of the subject lands is 62 hectares. The lands are generally flatter than those of the North Plan. Penville Creek runs along the east edge of the plan and then bisects the subject lands in an east-west direction. The TransCanada Pipeline bisects the eastern third of the site. Estate residential lands are situated to the north and agricultural lands to the south. Residential, commercial and industrial development exists along the eastern side of CR 27. Existing development is serviced via private wells or municipal water. All existing development is dependent on private septic systems. EXisting Official Plan Designation and Zoning The proposed development is subject to the policies and designations of the Bond Head secondary plan, which was adopted by council in 2007 following an extensive public consultation program. The plan was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in August 2009. Section 6.1.3 of the plan sets out a vision for the hamlet, as follows: 6. 1.3. 1 Vision a) Bond Head will develop as a small scale sustainable settlement area on full water and sewer services, and will provide an alternative.living and working environment for residents in Bradford West Gwillimbury. It will reflect a traditional vii/age character, while encompassing the principles of sustainable community development. b) The Vii/age concept builds on the existing settlement and reinforces the key structural elements including the existing commercial core and the partially

File Nos.: 5-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and 5-10-03 Page 5 surrounding open space. The concept is translated into five residential precincts for Bond Head. c) The Village Core is intended to be the central focus and meeting place of the Settlement Area. This Plan promotes the revitalization of the Village Core to support the residents of Bond Head. d) Sections of the Pen ville Creek tributaries are to be realigned generally along their original natural channel alignments in the northeast and southeast precincts of the Settlement Area. With restoration, the creek system will form a strong open space boundary to the Settlement Area. In conjunction with new parks, stormwater management facilities, restoration areas, and existing woodlots, a connected open space system is created around the perimeter of three quarters of Bond Head. e) The Village concept also incorporates sustainability as a fundamental principle by preserving the significant environmental features including the realigned and rehabilitated Pen ville Creek corridor, by reinforcing the creek corridor with additional open space, and by providing walkable streets and a compact neighbourhood. f) A final key element of the Secondary Plan is a By-pass of County Road 27 which will minimize traffic through the Settlement Area and allow County Roads 27 and 88 to remain as a two lane street within the Village. However, achieving the vision of a sustainable village is not contingent upon the construction of the By-pass, which is under the jurisdiction of the County of Simcoe. Section 6.3 also sets out a table that distributes population growth among five residential precincts. The planned population for Bond Head is approximately 4,400 people (inclusive of the 500 current residents). This equates to approximately 1,500 residential units. Schedule 'D' of the secondary plan presents the Land Use and Transportation Plan (see Attachment #2). The majority of existing development is found within the "Heritage Residential" and "Employment Area" designations. The following designations and special policies apply to the subject lands: Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Pond Employment Area Neighbourhood Park and Village Square Residential Transition Area Stream Realignment Special Study Area Employment Buffer/Mitigation Area The low density residential designation permits a maximum of 24 units per hectare. A variety of housing forms are permitted including detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings. The medium density designation permits a range of 25 to 40 units per hectare. The designation also permits detached and semi-detached dwellings, as well as townhouses and low profile apartment buildings. CR 27 and CR 88 are designated as Major Arterial roads. A CR 27 Bypass is conceptually identified around the eastern limits of the settlement area. The plan also sets out a collector ring road system and a trail network. Zoning By-law 2010-050 applies various zones to the subject lands. The vast majority of the area is zoned Future Development - 'FD' and Environmental Protection - 'EP'. The lands in the

Part of Lot 1 and Part of Lot 24, Corio 7 (North Plan), and File Nos.: S-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and S-10-03 Page 6 north-west quadrant are zoned 'EP', 'FD', Open Space - 'OS', and Rural Settlement Residential 'R4'. The R4 zone applies to a 11710t estate subdivision approved in 2001. That draft approved plan (known as "Allene Heights"), will be replaced with the proposed plan of subdivision. Proposed Plans Toe "North Plan" subdivision and rezoning applications propose the following: a total of 331 lots for detached dwellings comprised of: 18 lots with 24 metre frontages (79 feet) 99 lots with 15.2 metre frontages (50 feet) 52 lots with 13.7 metre frontages (45 feet) 131 lots with 12.8 metre frontages (42 feet) 26 lots with 13.4 metre frontages (44 feet) 5 lots with 11.6 metre frontages (38 feet) rear-lane accessed lots that front onto CR 27 5 park blocks (totaling 2.14 ha) 2 stormwater management blocks 3 open space blocks stream realignment study area various road reserves, including that for the proposed CR 27 Bypass 3 agricultural blocks (for those lands north of the Bond Head settlement area boundary) accommodation for the planned trail network The "South Plan" subdivision and rezoning applications propose the following: a total of 750 residential units comprised of: 34 detached dwellings on 24 metre lots (79' frontage) 32 detached dwellings on 15.2 metre lots (50' frontage) 303 detached dwellings on 11.6 metre lots (38' frontage) 56 semi-detached units on 7.3 metre lots (24' frontage) 180 street townhouse units on 6.1 metre lots (20' frontage) 44 lane-based townhouse units on 5.5 metre lots (18' frontage) 101 apartment units (5-6 stories) rear-lane accessed townhouse units that front onto CR 27 and a public park 4 park blocks (totaling 3.8 ha) 3 stormwater management blocks 5 open space blocks elementary school block future employment land block mixed use block buffer block various road reserves, including that for the proposed CR 27 Bypass accommodation for the planned trail network The applications were accompanied by the following reports and studies: Planning Justification Report Functional ServiCing Report Internal Traffic Review Stage 1 to 4 Archaeological Assessments Woodlot Memorandum Environmental Site Assessment Bond Head Urban Design Guidelines Riparian and Fish Habitat Enhancement Report Preliminary Environmental Noise Report

Special Meeting of Council Meeting, 2010/53 November 2, 2010 Applications for Subdivision Approval and Zoning By"law Amendment Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Con.6 (South Plan) File Nos.: 5-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and 5-10-03 Page 7 Proposed Servicing Development would be on full municipal services. Through the completion of environmental assessments undertaken by the town, it has been determined that municipal water will be drawn from the trunk watermain that currently exists within the CR 88 right-of-way. That line will eventually be supplemented by a second watermain running along Line 8. Water pressure will be boosted through a new water tower north of CR 88 and east of Bond Head. Sanitary sewers within Bond Head will drain to a pumping station to be located in the north-west quadrant. Sewage will be pumped via a force main along Line 6 to a second pumping station that will service the Hwy400 employment lands. The force main will continue along Line 5 and then up Simcoe Road to a third pumping station in Green Valley. From there a force main will lead to the sewage treatment plant east of Dissette Street. Timing The infrastructure required to service new development in Bond Head (and the Hwy 400 employment lands) is anticipated to be completed in 2014. It should be noted that section 6.1.14.2 of the secondary plan states that building permits for new development in Bond Head cannot be issued until construction is occurring within the Hwy 400 employment lands. Thus, the timing of Bond Head development is dependent upon employment growth occurring within the Hwy 400 corridor. Results of Agency Circulation The North Plan applications were circulated on September 28,2009 to internal departments and external review agencies. The following respondents offered no objections and/or minor comments:. Simcoe County District School Board Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board Enbridge Gas. Bell Canada Hydro One TransCanada Pipeline Canada Post Fire & Emergency Services Finance Department More detailed comments were received from the following: Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - required additional information and clarification regarding the proposed design of stormwater management facilities (particularly in the north-east quadrant). Engineering Services Department - comments summarized as follows: additional soils reports and environmental site assessments are required proposed road layout and lot pattern is generally acceptable Functional Servicing Report cannot be approved until the town completes the servicing EAs (note: this work has since been completed) the lane design and standards are problematic a more detailed noise report should be completed prior to final approval additional work is required to determine the adequacy of the proposed temporary road connections to CR 27 and CR 88 (staff note that following the submission of their draft plan application, BHDC has acquired additional lands on the east side of CR 27 to facilitate the immediate connection of Street 'C') the Internal Traffic Review report does not adequately address all relevant topics

Special Meeting of Council Meeting, 2010/53 November 2, 2010 File Nos.: 5-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and 5-10-03 Page 8 revisions to the proposed water and waste water systems are required the proposed grading plan contemplates an excessive use of retaining walls (both the extent and scale of the walls) additional details are required but the proposed stormwater management plan appears satisfactory information on proposed utility plans is required Planning Division - comments summarized as follows: the plan is generally consistent with the secondary plan's Schedule '0' - Land Use and Transportation Plan, as well as the north-west and north-east growth allocations set out in section 6.1.3.2(b) the proposed density of 18.5 uph is within the permissible maximum of 24 uph 24-m wide lots have been properly located within the Residential Transition Area concur with the concerns expressed by engineering staff regarding the considerable use of retaining walls; however, complying with the landform conservation policies (s. 6.1.5.4) will prove challenging - further discussion and review is required The South Plan applications were circulated on July 28, 2010 to internal departments and external review agencies. The following respondents offered no objections and/or minor comments: Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board Enbridge Gas Bell Canada Hydro One Canada Post Southlake Regional Healthcare Centre Rogers Cable Communications Fire & Emergency Services Finance Department More detailed comments were received from the following: Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - the proposal involves the realignment of stretches of Penville Creek and reconfiguration of its floodplain. NVCA staff note that rehabilitation of the creek will provide for significant enhancement of the floodplain and watercourse habitats. Additional information and clarification is required pertaining to the proposed design of stormwater management facilities. Simcoe County District School Board - the Board has confirmed that the proposed elementary school site will be required by the public school board. TransCanada Pipeline - TCP will require that the right-of-way be dedicated to the municipality as passive open space or parkland. Several other requirements are set out pertaining to grading, crossings, setbacks, fencing, landscaping, etc. TCP also requests that the implementing zoning bylaw specify that no buildings can be constructed within 3-metres of the right-of-way, and that principle structures must be set back a minimum of 7-metres. Engineering Services Department - comments summarized as follows: additional soils reports and environmental site assessments are required proposed road layout and lot pattern is generally acceptable Functional Servicing Report cannot be approved until the town completes the servicing EAs (note: this work has since been completed) various road curvatures and intersections must be revised in order to comply with town standards

File Nos.: S-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and S-10-03 Page 9 the lane design and standards are problematic a more detailed noise report must be completed prior to draft approval - the report recommends various options for mitigating the noise generated by the existing industrial operations on the east side of CR 27, but it is unclear as to which mitigation technique is proposed to be utilized the Internal Traffic Review report does not adequately address all relevant topics it is apparent that the planned road network cannot be completed until additional lands are acquired/developed; the proposed interim condition features connections exclusively to Mulock Drive - additional discussion is required to determine the appropriateness of this approach and the extent of improvements required to Mulock Drive and CR 88 input from Simcoe County is required to determine a timeframe for construction of the CR 27 bypass additional information and revisions to the proposed water and waste water systems are required the proposed grading plan contemplates an excessive use of retaining walls (both the extent and scale of the walls) additional information is required on the proposed modifications to the creek and its floodplain, particularly with respect to potential impacts beyond the subject lands additional details and revisions are required for the proposed stormwater management system information on proposed utility plans is required Planning Division - comments summarized as follows: the plan is generally consistent with the secondary plan's Schedule '0' - Land Use and Transportation Plan neighbourhood design provides for a logical extension of the existing street pattern wide "transitional" lots are appropriately located adjacent to existing development the street pattern and open space blocks can accommodate the pedestrian trail system noted on Schedule '0' the proposal falls within the population distribution table of section 6.1.3.2(b) albeit with minimal residual population available other vacant lands in the SE quadrant the plan appears to comply with the low and medium density residential provisions of sections 6.1.6.4(b) and 6.1.6.5(b); additional information is required regarding the net residential areas for the low and medium density residential designations as delineated on Schedule '0' Schedule '0' depicts a school/park campus centralized within the SE quadrant, which was intended to be the main active space for the neighbourhood; the proposed plan separates the blocks and provides a small park with an awkward configuration (Block 451); Parks staff will have to be satisfied that the park and sports field programming anticipated for this area can be accommodated by Block 451 or the other proposed park blocks Block 452 is the largest park, but as noted in the noise report and peer review, it may be utilized as an acoustic berm; if the town is ultimately satisfied that a berm is appropriate, it will not be accepted as park land dedication among other matters, section 6.1.9.6 speaks to the need for a open space separator in lieu of a realigned Penville Creek; a combination of open spaces east of the TCP adequately provide for this separator; it appears that Block 462 is intended to fulfil this role for the area west of the TCP; staff question whether a 1 O-metre wide block will be a sufficient "separator" and request that a landscaping detail be provided for a sample section of the block regarding cultural heritage, a commemoration ofthe Phillips-Stoddart house should be accommodated within the plan (Le. street name, plaque, replica home, etc.); an appropriate location would be a the Street 'C' / CR 27 bypass intersection

Applications for Subdivision Approval and Zoning By law Amendment Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Con.6 (South Plan) File Nos.: S 09-03, Z 09-07, 2:-10-05 and S-10 03 Page 10 the street network is clearly dependant on the construction of the CR 27 bypass; as noted in comments from the town's engineers, phasing and interim connections will have to be identified engineering have commented on the use of rear lanes; planning staff note that the town is supportive of their inclusion but we have yet to arrive at an acceptable ROW standard for lanes; further discussion on this matter is required concur with the concerns expressed by engineering staff regarding the considerable use of retaining walls; however, complying with the landform conservation policies (s. 6.1.5.4) will prove challenging further discussion and review is required Results of Public Circulation Notices of the applications and public meeting were mailed to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands and placed in the October ih edition of the Bradford West Gwillimbury Times. To date, three written submissions have been received, as follows: M. Calder CR 88: Mr. Calder requests additional information regarding the servicing of the proposed subdivision and impacts on the TransCanada Pipeline. D. Morton Mulock Drive: Mr. Morton requests additional information regarding the core of Bond Head, timing of the CR 27 bypass and timing of development. Revisions to the layout of the some of the "transitional" lots next to his property are requested. Mr. Morton also asks for additional information regarding the process, timing and cost of connecting existing residents to a municipal sewer system. D. Reynolds - CR 27: Mr. Reynolds property is located on the east side of CR 27 and backs onto the subject lands. Mr. Reynolds objects to the applicant's plan, as it proposes roads through his property. Staff Response: All comments received to date as well as those received during and following the public meeting are appreciated and will be considered during staff's ongoing evaluation of the applications. Questions regarding servicing, impacts on TCP, timing of development, and timing of the CR 27 bypass are addressed elsewhere in this report based upon the best available information. Staff will endeavor to provide additional information as the plan evolves. Staff and the applicant will review potential revisions to the proposed lotting adjacent to Mr. Morton's property in an effort to address his concerns. With respect to Mr. Morton's questions regarding the connection of existing homes to a new municipal sewer system, staff will be reporting to council on this matter separately. Treatment capacity within the newly expanded waste water treatment plant has been reserved for the current Bond Head residents. A design of the internal collection system must be completed. Cost estimates will then be prepared for connection, collection and conveyance. Staff will present various options for moving such a project forward, and will consult extensively with the Bond Head community. With respect to Mr. Reynolds concerns regarding the proposed street connections through his property, staff advise that the roads are displayed for illustrative purposes only at this time. The proponent's plan does provide for logical road connections to CR 27 that are consistent with the secondary plan, but any actual development on Mr. Reynolds property will follow from applications that he (or a subsequent landowner) pursues.

File Nos.: 5-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and 5-10-03 Page 11 APPLICANT PRESENTATION Robert Cutler of Bousefields Inc. was in attendance to speak to the application and answer questions. Mr. Cutler thanked Mr. McKnight for his presentation. Mr. Cutler described additional lands that were required for the subdivision. In the northeast quadrant, there were challenges with access to the property, so there was a necessity to purchase additional property to permit access to County Road 27. It is the applicant's hope that the new property will be brought into the draft plan and be approved at the same time. Mr. Cutler indicated that he would like to hear what the public has to say about their application and he will be available to answer questions. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mayor White indicated that the meeting was open for input from the public. Mayor White asked, a first time, if there were any persons present who wished to speak in support or in opposition to the proposal. 1. Duncan Page, 4118 Sth Line Mr. Page made the following comments with respect to the application: It would have been nice to have this application in front of the newly elected Council, rather than the outgoing Council. If we go back to mid 2006 when the Secondary Plan came to Council, the whole Council room was full and it is always full when there is anything to do with Bond Head. There was an overwhelming objection to the plan by the existing Bond Head community and residents created a flood of letters and petitions. My question is who is for this plan and has Council been listening to the residents? What is the advantage of taking infrastructure all the way to the New Tecumseth border to us the taxpayerzero except for higher taxes. What is the advantage to developers - millions because their plan is not to leave Bond Head at 4500 people, but to push for a complete live, work, play community of approximately 80,000 or more. Which will need it own police and fire station, library, healthcare, schools - all at the taxpayers' expense. We already have such a community, it's called Bradford. We should be building on our existing Town Centre using existing infrastructure and Town facilities. With vision we can infill, revitalize, have a transit system that gets us in and out of Bradford creating a downtown that could be the envy of the province. My question is why are we doing this? Mayor White asked Mr. McKnight to clarify what one of the terms of the Ministerial Zoning Order regarding the 400 was and the application for the large number of people that Mr. Page referred to. Mr. McKnight stated that the Official Plan that was approved in 2001 was a document that set the course for the expansion of Bond Head. It created a settlement boundary beyond the existing development. The Secondary Plan adopted by Council in 2006 provided detail for the settlement boundary. When the Ontario Municipal Board approved the Secondary Plan in 2009 there was one appellant by the time the hearing proceeded. Tonight the draft plan applications are proposed to implement the Secondary Plan. There are no other applications in front of Council for anything beyond what is permitted in the Secondary Plan. There is no permission or contemplation in the Town's, County's or Province's documents to deliver a population of 80,000. 2. Bert Clay, Durabody Industries Mr. Clay made the following comments with respect to the application:

File Nos.: S-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and S-10-03 Page 12 The purpose of my addressing Council today is to express our concerns and objections to the current plan as presented. One of the things we feel is important to have is to have a barrier which prevents line of sight. The plan that is adjacent to our operation has town houses as the next closest development. Town houses are generally constructed with garages underneath and then first storey living quarters and bedrooms up above, which amounts to a three storey building. We feel that with the current plan, the line of sight for those units would be impacted by lighting, potential noise and vibration from our facility because of the distance. What we are recommending is that the plan must include a berm to surround all industrial areas that is a minimum of two stories high with a fence on top of it to prevent and minimize the impact to any community development. Our concerns are such that we want success if the plan goes forward and we want the community as a whole and the future residents to live in harmony and peace with the industry that brings jobs to the community. Mr. McKnight responded by stating that the Town shares the same concerns as Durabody. The Town wants to ensure that any new development that is near of adjacent to existing industry is done in a manner that does not place any undue threat on the future success of that industry. When the Secondary Plan was prepared, a noise report was done at that time to confirm that it is reasonable to expect that using a berm or other noise abatement measures that residential development could occur around Durabody. The Secondary Plan set out requirements for more detailed studies to be undertaken when the development itself was proposed and the applicant has submitted those reports. The reports have been reviewed by the Town's noise consultants and some further work is required. I can confirm that the applicant is proposed to use a berm along the western edge of their site. We are looking for some more work to be done to confirm the accurate location and height of the berm. 3. Doug Jackson, 2752 County Road 27 Mr. Jackson made the following comments with respect to the application: I live directly across the road from Durabody who you just heard from. My main concern is the stormwater control and that the drainage from my lot to the culvert under County Road 27 remains available to me. There is a stormwater pond being shown on block 459, so there is an attempt to stop the water from coming on my property. Whether that works or not, I don't know. If it works as well as the tile drainage system and the crop program that has been on the fields, then I wouldn't have a problem. I don't know the answer to that so I am totally dependent on the Planning and Engineering Departments of the Town to look after my interests. If that is not successfully, then it will be the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury that I hold responsible. The other problem is the drainage from my lot is to the north. The front of my lot is the highest part of the lot and I do not have drainage to the front, I have it to the north and it is to the culvert under County Road 27. The future grading change ofthe land could make a big difference. The other problem is that ever since the fire hydrant was put in, the flushing of the water system has washed the fence bottom out and washed a considerable amount of soil into the culvert and into the Penville Creek and at some point this could be a problem. The other thing I mention is that years ago this was all one parcel that was farmed. Prior to selling any lots that farmer decided he didn't want the stream in his field. There are two culverts under CR 27; one to the north of my property and one to the south. The farmer dug a ditch from the south culvert to the north culvert. The water that used to flow across his field then went up and between Durabody and Dol's in the industrial area. This was a fine system when it was a farmer. If the system didn't work, it was his crops that got flooded. Today I expect that the ditch is owned by at least three organizations. I don't know if it was ever registered as a municipal ditch. It is a very deep ditch - 15 feet in some places with steep slopes. Somewhere along the line this will be a real problem for the municipality and the taxpayer will pay if it is not corrected at this time.

-------_._._----,- Special Meeting of Council Meeting, 2010/53 November 2,2010 File Nos.: S-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and S-10-03 Page 13 This by-pass has been included in every meeting that has been held on the Bond Head subdivision. If this does not become part of this plan when it is developed, then our Council will be considered really letting down the people in Bond Head. The plans currently state "potential" County Road 27 By-Pass. Mr. McKnight responded that with respect to stormwater control, a basic engineering principle that is applied is that stormwater that enters and leaves the site after development is to be the same volume as it was prior to development. It is called pre and post flow. The intent is to ensure that whatever water is running near Mr. Jackson's property now will be the same as after development. This is something that our engineers will be looking at closely to ensure that no hardship comes to his property. With respect to County Road 27, Mr. Jackson is quite right in that ultimately it is under the purview of Simcoe County to deliver that road. The County supported this amendment and the plans that include the by-pass. Now it needs to take the next steps to ensure it is accounted for in the County's capital planning and ensure it is ultimately delivered. We will have those discussions with the County to make sure that is on track. 4. Dr. David Chambers, 4370 Line 7 Dr. Chambers asked Mr. Cutler if he could indicate how many residential units are proposed for each quadrant. Mr. Cutler confirmed that the in the northwest quadrant there are 199 units proposed; 132 in the northeast, 596 in the southeast and 154 in the southwest. This is a total of 1081 units for the Bond Head Development Corporation. Dr. Chambers asked Mr. McKnight to repeat what he had said about the Phillips-Stoddart House in his presentation. Mr. McKnight reiterated that given the loss of the Phillips-Stoddart House, we will be discussing opportunities with the applicant for commemorating the home. Mayor White asked, a second time, if there were any persons present who wished to speak in support or in opposition to the proposal. There was no response. Mayor White asked, a third and final time, if there were any persons present who wished to speak in support or in opposition to the proposal. There was no response. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor White asked Council if they had any comments. Councillor McCallum asked Mr. McKnight to clarify that OPA 15 has new criteria for stormwater management ponds and does this mean that the Nottawasaga watershed has to meet the same criteria as well? Mr. McKnight stated that he would have to review the Secondary Plan with respect to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Council committed to abide by a draft of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan with respect to OPA 15 and the employment lands at Highway 400. Most of those lands are with the Lake Simcoe watershed. The northern quarter are within the Nottawasaga Valley watershed. Despite that we are still committed to apply the Protection Plan to the whole of those lands. I believe OPA 16, the Bond Head Plan is not part of that, but I can confirm that for you.

Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Con.6 (South Plan) File Nos.: 5-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and 5-10-03 Page 14 Can you bring everyone up to speed on where the province is on the Growth Plan for Simcoe County. Mr. McKnight stated that with respect to the Growth Plan, the province released a proposed amendment last week that deals specifically with Simcoe County. Among other things, it sets out a population target for each lower tier municipality. The proposed target for BWG is 50,500, which is about 1500 people higher than our current target within our Official Plan. Council may recall the presentation on the Official Plan Review. I indicated that numbers within that realm can be managed within our existing settlement boundaries. Councillor Leduc stated that he has concerns about the noise with respect to Durabody. I just wanted to make sure we deal with the noise issue as well as the by-pass issue. Councillor Crake referred to the email from Meade and Erica Helman regarding affordable seniors housing. Mr. Cutler was asked if there was any thought given to putting condos for seniors in Bond Head. Mr. Cutler responded that in the southwest quadrant there are two apartment blocks that are set aside, one is 50 units, one is 52 units. It is a good idea for us to consider your questions regarding seniors housing and one of the blocks would certainly suit that purpose. We will discuss the suggestion. Councillor Dykie asked how large the buffer will be between the existing subdivisions and new subdivision development. Mr. McKnight confirmed that the width is required to be a minimum of 24 meters and this applies to all four quadrants. Councillor Dykie also asked if there were any specs on the proposed water tower that will be to the east of Bond Head. Will it be similar to what we currently have in BWG at this time? Mr. McKnight responded that there would be details for the water tower, but he is not familiar with them. Councillor Contois asked Mr. McKnight what the plan is for the by-pass and what is Simcoe County's plan to enhance existing sidewalks? Mr. McKnight confirmed that we haven't received any comments yet from the County on the applications. The planning approval for the by-pass is very much in place, but the delivery of it is not within the control of the Town. It is in the County's mandate, so we do need to find out additional information from them. A similar situation goes for the sidewalks. Councillor Contois asked Mr. McKnight to clarify whether or not development in Bond Head can occur before the construction of the 400 employment lands. Mr. McKnight confirmed that there is a minimum amount of floor area of employment development that must occur before permitting development in Bond Head. It does not require a full build out, it is more of a sequence thing to ensure that the employment lands were serviced first before residential growth occurred in Bond Head. Mayor White commented that something needs to be clarified if it hasn't been done already in regards to the larger population figure that is being suggested beyond this proposal. I want to make it abundantly clear that the larger population (i.e. 80,000 or more) being suggested is against the Official Plan of the Town, the Official Plan of the County and the Growth Plan Province. As a matter of fact, when the province approved the employment lands was that the proposal for a large population in Bond Head had to be formally withdrawn. If anyone is suggesting that this is a slippery slope to a massive population in Bond Head, they are either misleading you or they don't know what they are talking about. There will not be a massive population growth in Bond Head.

Part of Lots 24, 1 and 2, Con.6 (South Plan) File Nos.: S-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and S-10-03 Page 15 2010/53-002 Moved by: J. McCallum Seconded by: D. Roughley "That Report No. PDS-10-46 entitled "Public Information Meeting - Applications for Subdivision Approval and Zoning By-law Amendment - Bond Head Properties Two Inc., Bond Head Properties Three Inc., Southherts Development Inc., and Featherie Development Inc. (File: S-09-03, Z-09-07, Z-10-05 and S-1 0-03), dated November 2,2010, be received." CARRIED. 2010/53-003 Moved by: D. Roughley Seconded by: J. McCallum "That this special meeting of Council being held pursuant to the Planning Act close at 8: 16 p.m." CARRIED. CONFIRMED IN OPEN SESSION THIS 18 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. Doug White, Mayor