Anyone can view the public December 12, 2023 10:00 am virtual merit hearing regarding 639 Front Road N Amherstburg, Case OLT-23-000455 ZBA – six-storey, 28-unit condominium.
Contact the case coordinator using the email: William.Badu@ontario.ca and request a copy of the Public Notice for details.
It was only two weeks earlier, at the September 11 council meeting, that both Gibb and McArthur spoke against and voted against allowing gallery member Larry Amlin to speak; both voted to allow Bolger to speak at the September 25 council meeting.
Mayor Prue acknowledged there were no delegates at the September 25 meeting, just one Presentation – Mr. Norbert Bolger. Prue then asked Bolger to come forward and stated just before he did, he needed a motion from council to bring forward items 13.2 and 19.1 which both deal with the matter at hand; it carried and Prue told Bolger the floor was his.
Bolger then stated he was not going to make a presentation; he was just going to be there to answer any questions; he explained that he sent a letter in to the town and everybody has it. He also said he’s talked to some members of council regarding the naming of the street, one of the streets in Brittney’s Gate. He went to the heritage committee and got their endorsement on it so he was there for the final endorsement from council and if there’s any questions he’d be happy to answer.
Prue asked if there were any questions of Mr. Bolger, stated there were no questions, and as Prue thanked him, Bolger took his seat in the gallery and Prue said it was back to council.
Prue asked if there was any discussion on the issue and there was for approximately 8 minutes; Councillor Pouget spoke, then Councillor Crain, Councillor Courtney, Prue passed the gavel and directly addressed Bolger, who went back up to the podium, then Crain again, Clerk, Deputy CAO, and then Bolger raised his hand and said something inaudible. Prue said it would require the unanimous consent of council.
The motion to allow a member of the gallery to speak carried.
After Bolger briefly spoke, Pouget asked a question and Bolger returned to the podium to answer her question; Prue didn’t call him out of order – Prue echoed Bolger’s answer.
I reviewed 10 surveys on talk the burg and only 1 displayed names, along with mine – a survey I completed while logged in as ‘the burg watch.’
I questioned CAO Critchley why the survey with names was posted to the June 22 Accessibility Advisory Committee Agenda titled, Survey Responses Report – Public Consultation 2022, although it states 22 September 2017 – 20 September 2022.
Critchley: This information was freely submitted in a public forum as part of a public discourse. Should you have further concerns, have included the links to the applicable information on the website and she included links to the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan Public Engagement Site, Public Survey from Last Year and Privacy Policy.
After completing the town’s Open Air survey, I emailed all members of council with my critique and my comment, I hope to see all the names and all responses of all survey participants publicly posted as CAO Critchley advised this information was freely submitted in a public forum as part of a public discourse.
There was no fuss when then-Councillor Prue mentioned erroneous minutes regarding his wife during a 2022 regular council meeting so why all the fuss when Councillor Pouget rightfully notes errors? After all, minutes are legal records and should be accurate. The bigger question is why did no other council member note the errors?
Councillor McArthur stated it was adequate time to address this before this evening. without calling staff to task in public so he was going to oppose a motion to defer.
McArthur was present at the 2022 meeting when Prue noted errors; he also received my email noting the 2022 accessibility committee minutes error pertaining to a question by Shirley Prue. The result of my email? The minutes were not corrected prior to the council meeting and no one brought up the error during the council meeting.
Not only is it standard procedure for the chair to ask if there are any errors or omissions since only the governing body can make corrections and approve minutes, but the Municipal Act states one of council’s roles is ‘to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality.’
Deputy Mayor Gibb chimed in with his judgment and concurred with McArthur. Gibb stated It could have been corrected with an email and that it could have been handled differently in his opinion. The Ontario Ombudsman investigated Amherstburg council back in 2016 and recommended members of council for the Town of Amherstburg should avoid exercising the power or authority of council or laying the groundwork to do so through email communications.
It would be more professional and efficient if members of council would just support/not support duly moved motions without speeches or judgments.
As mentioned in this post, Minutes Need To Be Corrected, the September 11 minutes, attached to the September 25 agenda contained errors: CAO Critchley was marked as present when she was absent, the wording of some of Councillor Pouget’s motions was incorrect. Words were omitted or substituted despite Pouget providing hard copies of her motions.
The public notice sets out all necessary details to view the October 6, 10:00 am hearing regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment application council approved in May for the boutique hotel at 256 Dalhousie.
From the OLT: Please note that as per Rule 22.5 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedures, recordings of hearing events – photograph, motion picture, audio, video, or otherwise – is not permitted unless the presiding Tribunal Member authorizes the recording. However, approval would be subject to conditions that no distribution or public re-playing of the recording occurs, and it does not constitute an official transcript of the hearing or a record for use in any subsequent proceeding. Additionally, as per section 29 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, persons found improperly recording hearing events before the OLT and/or distributing those recordings may be liable to a fine of up to $25,000.
What a waste. There were some long winded speeches during the Amherstburg town council meeting that resulted in the predictable 4-3 vote. Councillor McArthur mentioned ‘economies of scale’ five times; Crain once. Meetings would be more efficient if members would refrain from sharing personal anecdotes – do we really need to know the mayor freezes fish heads or what a councillor’s favourite coffee is and his thoughts on disposing of coffee cups? And, wouldn’t it be so refreshing if staff just answered yes or no to a question? Even better, can members just ask a question without a speech?
To move forward a majority of town councils had to vote in favour. Last night LaSalle and Lakeshore voted no, joining no votes from Essex and Kingsville. Amherstburg, Leamington and Tecumseh voted in favour.
The Ombudsman OntarioEvery municipality states every municipality should have a general complaint policy approved by council and posts a brochure titled, Tips for Municipal Complaint Resolution Policies. I was unable to find an Amherstburg Municipal Complaint Resolution Policy on the town’s website.
What is a complaint?
Ontario ombudsman
The Office of the Ombudsperson broadly defines a complaint as: An expression of dissatisfaction made to or about a public organization about some aspect of its programs, services or people where a response is explicitly or implicitly expected.
In the local government context, it is important to distinguish between a bylaw complaint and other complaints about the way their services are being delivered to the public. Most local governments have established processes for responding to bylaw complaints—enforcing bylaws and responding to bylaw complaints is a central part of a local government’s role. However, it is also in the best interests of all local governments to have an effective system in place to handle general complaints and concerns from the public apart from bylaw complaints.
The Ontario Ombudsman is an office of last resort so the first step is to complain to the municipality, the CAO for example and, if not satisfied, then complain to the Ombudsman by filling in a simple online complaint form.
On September 24, I emailed questions to all members of council.
Councillor Pouget emailed CAO Critchley this morning, These are all very good questions and I for one, would appreciate answers to them, concerning our new procedural by-law. When time permits, will you or one of your staff please respond to all copied in this email?
Critchley answered the questions this morning.
the burg watch: how was it determined that Mr. Bolger will be a ‘presentation’ at the September 25 council meeting instead of a ‘delegation’ when presentation is not defined in the by-law and he will be speaking to an agenda item like a delegate?
Critchley: A “presentation” is a form of a delegation and so the rules for delegations apply equally. Mr. Bolger registered within the time frame set out in the Procedure By-law and notice of the delegation was made public with the revised Agenda which was posted on Friday.
the burg watch: please explain the stipulation that a unanimous vote is required for council to waive the rules to allow audience members to speak freely.
Critchley: The new Procedure By-law has been changed to state that Agendas will now be posted publicly 10 days before a Council meeting. With this change, members of the public have ample time to review the Agenda and determine if they wish to register as delegations (by noon on the Friday preceding the meeting). Given this expanded timeline, there should be very few situations where someone cannot register to delegate in a timely manner. As such, there is now a rule that there must be a unanimous vote of Council to waive these rules. I would note that having procedures around delegations is a normal part of public meeting management that reflect municipal best practices, and that they are needed in order to run an orderly and professional meeting.
the burg watch: did members give any consideration to ontario human rights code accommodations of persons with disabilities when voting to approve the new by-law?
Critchley: I cannot speak to what each member of Council considered when voting on the new by-law. However, I will say that, had any member asked if the new rules complied with the Ontario Human Rights Code, I would have advised them that it does. There is nothing in the new rules that would prohibit a person with disabilities from registering as a presentation or delegation and the Town’s Procedure By-law is in keeping with municipal best practices.
the burg watch: on what date did members of council give direction to admin to update the by-law?
Critchley: August 14, 2023
the burg watch: and, since my september 8 email has not been answered, would you please describe the procedure for delegates to council meetings regarding items that do not appear on the agenda?
Critchley: By “items that do not appear on the agenda” I am assuming you are referring to items raised during “new business”. Should a member of Council raise an item at this portion of the meeting that someone wishes to speak to, Council can direct that a report on the item be prepared for a future meeting and delegations will be able to register to speak to those items in accordance with the Procedure By-law.
the burg watch: The by-law should have defined presentation and the public should have been consulted during the draft stage, a best practice other municipalities utilize. Nowhere can I find the ‘unanimous’ rule; and obviously, you cannot speak to what each member of council considered when voting. My questions were addressed to the members who, as you all know, are mandated to ‘develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality.’
Some of the accessibility committee’s 7 members will tour 7 facilities over the course of the next year while ALL of the parks and rec committee’s 9 members will tour ALL 24 parks by the end of the year.
Three members of the two committees are the same: Shirley Curson-Prue, who chairs both, and Councillor McArthur and Tony Pietrangelo.
At the August 24 Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Pietrangelo noted the document title is municipal property audit locations and asked if playgrounds are municipal properties. The clerk advised they do playground audits as well; they were just waiting on the AODA standards to be updated and that it’s anticipated within a year or so that might move forward for legislation.
At the September 19 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting, members viewed a document wherein accessibility was mentioned twice in quotes from the Parks Master Plan, currently being updated:
Using the Assessment Form, the accessibility committee will tour:
Prue thought the biggest contention is probably the town hall and suggested they don’t need to do that first because they have the data from the last round.
Christine Easterbrook mentioned she’d never been in the Gordon House, the Gibson Gallery and the community hub. She also asked if they need to do the police station again; the clerk advised it wasn’t included because its public facing areas have been reduced significantly since COVID and it really is only a vestibule.
The parks and rec committee will tour:
Awkward comes to mind; out of order business, a resident being denied an opportunity to speak, motions/notices of motion, belabouring points, apologies and then the usual time wasters like passing the gavel and stating a question was already answered when someone else asked it.
Another time-waster, kudos. Compliments from Mayor Prue for admin being almost up to date with the minutes; Councillor Crain thanked and commended staff for a 50,000 surplus being used for future maintenance projects at the Libro; Councillor McArthur didn’t want to throw staff under the bus – they spent a lot of time crafting that new procedural bylaw.
During the Duffy’s discussion, when Mayor Prue noticed a raised hand in the audience, he stated that council changed the procedural bylaw and that generally does not allow for this; council would now have to unanimously vote to hear Mr. Amlin.
Is it ironic that the August 1 memo to council was titled, Procedural By-law Renewal for Greater Civic Participation and Engagement?
Deputy Mayor Gibb opined they cannot give an opportunity to people who are physically in the room that they aren’t giving to people who are watching from home for whatever reason, be it you know, physically not being able to be here. He said he was sorry but he wasn’t going to support it. He felt it was a question of equity between those who can physically be here and those who can’t.
Mayor Prue stated he didn’t have to go any further, it wasn’t unanimous; he also apologized and advised Mr. Amlin they couldn’t hear him.
Councillor McArthur wanted to back up Gibb as he didn’t want to leave him hanging out on a limb. He stated they’ve all received emails that it’s unfair to people who can’t be present in the room and to have people in the gallery come up and speak. You know, that’s one reason. And the second reason is he didn’t want to throw staff under the bus. They spent a lot of time crafting that new procedural bylaw to address what they perceive were deficiencies that could potentially allow meetings to go off the rails. He mentioned as a former journalist, he loved it but doesn’t anymore; it sends a bad message to staff. They unanimously supported that procedural Bylaw and he also apologized to Mr. Amlin.
At one point Prue stated they had a motion duly moved and seconded, then stated he thought they did then they did.
Councillor Pouget inquired about correspondence from North Star. The clerk advised it did not come in time for the agenda submission so it would be on a future agenda. Pouget said time was of the essence and she understood that she could bring it up under new business. Mayor Prue stated it was her prerogative to raise it under new business that can be dealt with at this meeting just not now.
Moving on to 18.1 Economic Development Advisory Committee minutes. Gibb commented on the request to ‘consider’ and then noted he meant that for the next item.
Next item, 19.1, Co-An Park Advisory Committee minutes and Prue acknowledged Gibb had a question or something. Gibb mentioned the accessibility advisory committee meeting to ‘consider’ an item. The clerk mentioned Co-An park and Gibb clarified he was speaking to 19.2 as thought they had dealt with 19.1 and the discussion continued.
Next, 19.2, Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes. Gibb’s question was about the committee calling on the town and the developer to build a sidewalk along Pickering drive; he asked if this is something to debate in budget or if they were going to get some kind of recommendation from staff.
Related: AAAC Discussed New LCBO At Length.
Since McArthur made the motion at the committee meeting, he provided a background.
Prue acknowledged the Deputy CAO, who stated no, they can not compel the developer to put the sidewalk in; it would be a town expense. She would suggest that if Council wishes to move in that direction, it may be appropriate for the director of infrastructure services to provide a report first, because current policies around the types of roads that Pickering is does not require a sidewalk on both sides. So should Council elect to put a sidewalk on both sides they will probably need to ensure that they’re not setting any precedents that all collector roads throughout the town then require sidewalks on both sides.
The discussion continued about the location of the sidewalk, whether it would be a portion to the first driveway or all the way to the sidewalk on Pickering.
Prue passed the gavel to comment about the LCBO. He said it’s one of the smallest he’s seen anywhere and it has a sidewalk and a ramp; what is being proposed is less than we have now. He mentioned how the town would have to pay; the Ontario government took away the authority of this municipality and council to insist that this be built. He ended by saying he just finds this horrendous and then took the gavel back.
Then there was a question of whether it would be possible to seek funding and the answer was probably not.
McArthur moved a two part motion that carried for 1. that administration approach the developer to see if a creative solution can be found to address this issue and provide access for all people, which seems redundant, considering the advice the developer cannot be compelled and discussion has already taken place, and 2. if that goes nowhere, that administration come back with a report in time for the 2024 budget with options to put a sidewalk there.
Next item but they had to revisit 19.2 for the third part of the AAAC motion.
Drainage Board minutes, unfinished business and next item Notice of Motion 22; no, go back to 21. New Business which will be in an upcoming post.
the burg watch 