Taken from the roll call in the town’s own minutes. The minutes record who was not there and almost never why.
What was decided (4 motions)
3 carried, 1 recorded otherwise. Every motion below is printed as the minutes print it.
THAT all Items for consideration and consent (6.1 and 6.2) not separated for discussion purposes, BE APPROVED. Recorded vote on all items for consideration and consent not separated for discussion purposes: Yes (4) Councillor Sless, Councillor Carpenter, Councillor Van Tilborg, and Councillor Sicoli
Moved by Councillor Van Tilborg, seconded by Councillor Sless
Carried
THAT all Items for consideration and consent (6.1 and 6.2) not separated for discussion purposes, BE APPROVED. Recorded vote on all items for consideration and consent not separated for discussion purposes: 2 Yes (4): Councillor Sicoli, Councillor Sless, Councillor Carpenter, and Councillor Van Tilborg
Moved by Councillor Van Tilborg, seconded by Councillor Sless
Carried
A. THAT Zoning By-law Amendment Application PZ-12-25, submitted by The Angrish Group on behalf of Jodi Brown, affecting the lands municipally known as 133 Dufferin Avenue by adding “Medical Clinic” as a permitted use, BE APPROVED in accordance with the applicable provisions outlined in Section 9.3 and Appendix D of Report 2025-480; and, B. THAT pursuant to Section 34(18.2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c.P.13 the following statement SHALL BE INCLUDED in the Notice of Decision: “Regard has been had for all written and oral submissions received from the public before the decision was made in relation to this planning matter, as discussed in Section 9.5 of Report 2025-480.” Recorded vote on item 4.1: No (5): Councillor Sicoli, Councillor Sless, Councillor McCreary, Councillor Carpenter, and Councillor Van Tilborg
Moved by Councillor McCreary, seconded by Councillor Sless
Lost
A. THAT Zoning By-law Amendment Application PZ-12-25, submitted by The Angrish Group on behalf of Jodi Brown, affecting the lands municipally known as 133 Dufferin Avenue by adding “Medical Clinic” as a permitted use, BE REFUSED; and, B. THAT the reasons for the refusal are as follows: i. that the proposed development offends the character of the neighbourhood ii. The medical clinic will result in the loss of two dwelling units; iii. The medical clinic will result in an increase in traffic and parking demands on the existing neighbourhood; 6 C. THAT pursuant to Section 34(18.2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c.P.13 the following statement SHALL BE INCLUDED in the Notice of Decision: “Regard has been had for all written and oral submissions received from the public before the decision was made in relation to this planning matter, as discussed in Section 9.5 of Report 2025-480.” Recorded vote on motion to refuse item 4.1: Yes (5): Councillor Sicoli, Councillor Sless, Councillor McCreary, Councillor Carpenter, and Councillor Van Tilborg
Moved by Councillor McCreary, seconded by Councillor Carpenter
Carried
In favour (5): Councillor Sicoli, Councillor Sless, Councillor McCreary, Councillor Carpenter, Councillor Van Tilborg