Brian McHattie : Asks question about Ministry of Environment Certificate of Approval for sanitary waste system of the bakery. Notes report says 30,000 gallons in one place and 40,000 in another place. ".whether the sanitary system that's in place that the CofA covers, whether it can handle these volumes. and what happens if there's a need for an increase in water usage." Ed Fothergill [agent for the applicant]: "There's two numbers actually in the Certificate of Approval. There's 30,000 for the employees that is a separate system, and there's another 30,000 for the bakery use. The reason there's more water coming in that going out, obviously, is that a lot of the water is used during the processing of the material in the bakery. And the MOE approval was based on the understanding, er the anticipation of a municipal water service coming in. So that MOE approval will effectively limit how much water can come into the system, because that is a fixed number and that's regulated and monitored on a regular basis. And I would say that the proponents did go ahead and they've got the MOE approval already. And they went and did that on their own. So that is in place and that offers a further protection to how much water they can actually use."

Ferguson moves (but asks to comment). Seconded by Pearson. Ferguson : "This council's focus has been economic development. Part of economic development is business retention. This business has been in business for 25 years this year. They pay significant realty tax. They employ 390 people. They have been courted by other municipalities because of the water situation. The company is a significant part of the social fabric of our community. They're good neighbours. This is not an expansion of the urban area, nor can it be without an OPA or a rezoning and all the other stuff. What you see is what you're going to get. What you won't see is 40 or 50 trucks per day on the roads. The proponent is paying for all costs No one else can hook into it. The proponent is going to supply a fire hydrant at the bakery which will increase, improve the fire protection for the area. The water won't have to be trucked in. And if you've ever had an egg mcmuffin, it came from this bakery. They produce a good product and are a good corporate citizen so I would with pleasure move this recommendation."

Braden: "First let me say that I'm a strong proponent of rural businesses in particular, but I think that this one is really problematic. I think in fact what we're asking for is against all the rules. That's in the face of the fact that I want to see this thing proceed, and proceed reasonably. But if you read the report, and you read the official plan documents, what they say is, you know, we service inside the boundary. We don't service outside the boundary. And that's in our so-called bible. That's what it says. What this report says - and I really don't want to do it one step at a time, but I can do that - in fact this report's a bit embarrassing. This is far too liberal for even people like me. It says that we have some things that are etched in stone for good reason. We've had the debate over 30 years that we service inside our boundary. And it says rural businesses go that can sustain themselves, like my house, or my farm, or my business. If it can feed itself in the rural area, that probably limits its size. This is not a personal thing about the bakery. In fact it has nothing to do with it. It's an existing business, but we don't need to put a personality on this. What this proposal is asking us to do is to say 'look in spite of the fact that we've already agreed for 30 years not to service outside the boundary, let us do it one time, and then let us agree that we're never going to do it again, and that this isn't going to promote more development there'. That's what we call doublespeak. You simply can't do that. But if you want to do it, then let's get the debate open. But I don't think that that's anything like where we want to go. If you look at some of the quotes. I better walk you through this. Page 5 of 11, right in the middle, that 3.3.8. I gotta read it for you. " All development in the Rural Area shall have adequate and sufficient systems for water, sanitary sewage disposal and storm drainage and must be on the basis of private individual systems to avoid environmental problems." It says two key things. One, you gotta be self-sufficient in servicing, and two is you don't have a license to environmentally be anything less than 100%. Because you're rural doesn't mean you can be permissive or you can be polluting. So we got a business that now is no longer self-sustaining. And the report suggests, either through the truck traffic or something else that there could be environmental problems. Well, we don't tolerate environmental problems. We don't tolerate them from anybody. It doesn't matter who the personality is. That's not on the table. If you go to page 4. This proposal will not result in pressure to expand the urban area. Well I've been here 13 years and we've been saying that and saying that. And all the time we come to this meeting and we rethink it and we make exceptions. We want to be honest in the statements we're making. I think what we're really trying to do is say 'what can we do to help these guys' so that we don't have to change colours. And this one we've simply said 'let's change colours'. Let me use an example of a terrible corporation that has acted terribly in the past, that has now cleaned up its act completely, almost completely - Rothsay. You remember Rothsay. Rothsay's up in my neck of the woods near Greensville. It's a rendering plant. That's a little bit low on the list. Right?. They treat their water so effectively that they don't need to bring in any water. And they don't have to use, I think, any water from their wells, nor from surface water. If you build in the rural area, you have a responsibility because we've said it and we've already agreed to it. It's right there. I just read it to you. Page 5. You've got to be able to self-service. It doesn't say 99%. It just says that's a must. Remember American Water. We've got some rules. There is a must. This is a must. It isn't a must until later. It's just a must. This corporation is having difficulty so we want to provide them what they need so that they can be self sufficient in that location. Because they're here and they're successful and they're good corporate clients, does not mean that we bend all the rules. So that's a real problem. This should not be here like it is. This is a complete lack of integrity if you're a purist, and I'm not. If you're a purist in planning this shouldn't even be in front of us. To think that this is going to be the last time this happened, even if this is for good reason, is not just realistic. And we need to be able to deal with the exceptions if they really come. We don't want this guy leaving town and going to Burlington , right? But because he's here, it doesn't mean we throw out all the good merely to keep him. If somebody's intent on leaving, there's not much we can do about it. The last thing is far more controversial than anything I've said to this point, and that's this. Right now through the court system, campaign donations are being looked at, and they're being looked at very carefully. So I would urge anybody here that on this specific issue, if you have received donations, in particular above and beyond the $750 limit, that probably you vacate the chamber. And I say that very clearly, just so that these things are all up-front. I hate being the person to put it upfront but" Interrupted by Chairman Mitchell : "Councillor Braden that's not the issue we are discussing at the public meeting today, please." Braden: "Mr. Chairman, it just if people would have a perception of conflict of interest, and I want to make that very clear. Mr. Chairman, I want this to go back to staff. The staff knows this isn't right. Ask any of them privately. So that this can be dealt with in a more appropriate way rather than turning it down. We shouldn't be turning it down, we should be sending a message." Interrupted by Chairman Mitchell : "It's supposed to be for questions, Councillor Braden." Braden: "I'm part of the debate, Mr. Chairman, and if I have to I'll come back to defer it, but I appreciate you giving me the time, but the comments I've made I don't think other people understand."

Mitchell: "Councillor Ferguson, I had you next, but I should go to first time speakers, that's sort of been our policy. So I have Councillor McHattie as a first time speaker on the debate portion."

McHattie: "This is bit of a tricky issue, I know, and that why I think staff have this clause in here that within the official plan amendment it recognizes that this is the only establishment that can use this water pipe. I have a question that's related to that, and perhaps a friendly amendment to the motion. What size of pipe is being proposed in this case and is the size of pipe sized particularly for this use, as in it's not large enough for others to patch into anyway should a housing development want to occur in the future, so" Interrupted by Mitchell: "So the size of the pipe Tony Sergei?" Tony Sergei, staff: "I believe when we discussed the size of the pipe it was strictly to accommodate fire flows and the demand that was required for the industry that was requesting the use. I believe that's in the six inch to eight inch size range." McHattie: "Sorry, six inch did you say?" Sergei: "The sizing will all be dependent upon the demand, and the demand will be covered through fire protection as to what the 1000 gallons per minute demand on the fire, if there's a fire flow required. And because of the length of the service, all these factors have to come into play. So prior to issuing the part of the application has to come through detailed engineering. These issues will be resolved at that point in time.". McHattie: "Thanks, and if in the future some, if the future council wants to expand the urban boundary in this area and wants to use that water pipe, the size of the water pipe that's going to be there, is it safe to say it's insufficient for a housing development, typical housing development?" Sergei: "To give you a straightforward answer on this one, it all depends on the demand. It all comes down to demand. One house? Obviously would be insignificant. Three hundred houses, there'd be an issue." McHattie: "I guess what I'm trying to say is, if it's a six inch pipe, six to eight inch pipe right now, to service this development, this commercial operation, which I support, can that same six to eight inch pipe accommodate a subdivision next door to the commercial development? Or would in fact a new pipe have to be built, 12 inch whatever say. I'm trying to allay the fear, the concerns, that this may lead to future development." Sergei: "This pipe that will be constructed is strictly a private service, unless the existing industry, the bakery in this case, grants permission, they can't connect to this service." McHattie: "I guess my amendment, Mr. Chair, was to actually talk about the size of the pipe. Again I'm trying to address the concerns that might be out there, that the pipe actually, not only the clause that staff have in here about the, if things change then the pipe's have to come out and everything, but that it is sized, that the pipe itself is sized strictly for the use of this facility, limited to eight inches, or whatever amount is necessary. I'm not an engineer. That would be an additional clause that I would ask the mover to consider." Mitchell: "I'm hearing that it is not sized for anything more that what is necessary for the proponent, so if councillor Ferguson is willing to put that in there as a friendly amendment, I don't see a problem with that. Mr. Sergei?" Sergei: "Will contain wording within this special servicing agreement that it's strictly for their own use. Period. And that additional connections will not be permitted."

Ferguson : "Just to address councillor McHattie's concern, page 10 of 11, residents concerns. There's a sentence there that says: 'To further address their concern, a clause would be inserted into the Official Plan Amendments stating that "no further extension or connection to the private extension of the municipal

water pipe is permitted".' So the wording's already in the [tape break] . would be cheaper for him. He [referring to Braden] says he should be self-sufficient. The proponent has 100 acres. I suggest that he could drill enough wells that he would be self-sufficient. What would that do to the neighbourhood wells? It would more than likely drain them, so the proponent is being environmentally sensitive. The proponent isn't asking for a handout. He's going to pay all costs. He's going to provide better fire protection for the rural area, and absolutely no way will this facilitate the expansion, either of this facility, or certainly not of the urban area."

Mitchell recognizes Braden because his name has been used. Braden (off mic) .so foolish to think we're going to need 100 wells, but let's say we need six. Right, because this is equivalent to a development. The idea is of course is that water was treated and treated on-site to a high degree, it's very likely that that water would filter back down to ground, so that the net sort of sum game of that whole thing would be zero, and that's exactly what we want. Right now we have a situation where because they're not interested in doing that, they're trying to go in, I would say, the back door. There's nothing wrong. The client's come forward and simply asked. But in terms of what we're saying in our official plan and what we've always agreed to, this is a huge exception. And as soon as we make it, we want to say we're not going to make it again. I just want to be clear on the integrity point."

Motion moved and carried. Braden recorded as opposed.