Full Transcript
1 Call to Order
Council called the meeting to order.
Agenda item 1: Call to Order
2 Declaration of Interest
Council considered a declaration of interest.
Agenda item 2: Declaration of Interest
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
2.
Declaration of Interest
3 Business Arising from Minutes
Council considered business arising from minutes.
Agenda item 3: Business Arising from Minutes
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
3.
Business Arising from Minutes
4 Delegations
Council considered delegations under agenda item 4.
Agenda item 4: Delegations
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
4.
Delegations
4.a Judi Smelko - Saugeen Preservation Society Inc
Agenda item 4.a: Judi Smelko - Saugeen Preservation Society Inc --- Attachment: SPSI Delegation Slides Sept 10 (1).pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/5cd49de44c3ead7fc259734525ecb67f5f699f33f0dc2691808dc82249bab1fb/4-a-1-spsi-delegation-slides-sept-10-1-pdf.pdf MODERNIZING AGGREGATE POLICY IN GREY COUNTY A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO SUPPLY, SITING, PROTECTION & CONSISTENCY SAUGEEN PRESERVATION SOCIETY SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026 ~Supporting Grey County to begin the Aggregate Policy Study now GREY COUNTY IS AN AGGREGATE POWERHOUSE Grey County holds 60% of Southern Ontario’s aggregate resource 139 Active Licenses 7 Active New License or Expansion Applications Licensed to extract over 25 MILLION Tonnes/year Actual Extraction 2024 4.1 MILLION 2025 3.8 MILLION 4.1 14 WATER TAKING PERMITS TOTALING 138.3 MILLION liters per day CASE STUDY: THREE APPLICATIONS IN WEST GREY Existing License Walker Pit STYX STYX SAUGEEN SAUGEEN Camp Mcgovern RIVER RIVER RIVER RIVER SOLD Water Taking/ Saugeen Discharge Springs Wash Plant RV Park Sorting and Crushing Asphalt Plant Readi Mix Concrete Plant SEASONAL TRIBUTIRIES Recycling APPLICATIONS Winter Sand Import Salt/Gravel Walker Expansion Dust Suppressants New Operator 1 License Pit expanding New Operator 2 License WHAT A NEW STUDY CAN DELIVER FROM REACTIVE TO PROACTIVE PLANNING A modern Aggregate Resource Inventory & Policy Study can provide: CURRENT DATA CONSISTENCY Resources • production • reserves • Studies • peer review • monitoring supply/demand • mitigation • rehabilitation BETTER SITING LONG-TERM PLANNING Rivers • waterfronts • tourism • Cumulative impacts • licence evolution • communities • natural heritage future land-use compatibility One framework benefiting both municipalities and the industry.
Saugeen Urges Immediate Study and Interim Bylaws
The Saugeen Preservation Society urges Grey County Council to immediately initiate an Aggregate Resource Inventory and Policy Study before the Official Plan Update commences next year. The delegation requests support for Interim Control Bylaws in aggregate-rich municipalities to allow temporary pauses on new planning decisions while the modern framework is developed. This approach aims to address policy gaps regarding cumulative impacts, groundwater, air quality, and the protection of major river systems like the Saugeen River identified in recent West Grey applications.
Argues That Grey County Requires a New, Evidence-based Aggregate Study
The Saugeen Preservation Society Inc. argues that Grey County requires a new, evidence-based aggregate study to replace outdated 2004 data, specifically addressing the need for updated inventory mapping and current production figures. The presentation highlights policy gaps revealed by recent West Grey applications near the Saugeen River, emphasizing the necessity of protecting major rivers, waterfronts, and tourism assets like Camp McGovern from incompatible extraction uses. Recommendations include establishing a 2,000-metre setback approach similar to Muskoka, implementing cumulative impact assessments for groundwater and air quality, and adopting Interim Control Bylaws to ensure municipalities can make consistent planning decisions while the comprehensive study is underway.
Saugeen Urges Immediate Independent Study and Interim Bylaws
The presentation outlines a two-stage approach to modernizing Grey County's aggregate policy by immediately initiating an independent Aggregate Resource Inventory and Policy Study and supporting Interim Control Bylaws.
Proposed Study Establishes County-wide Evidence Base
The proposed study must establish a comprehensive and current county-wide evidence base to address existing information gaps.
Agenda item 4.a: Judi Smelko - Saugeen Preservation Society Inc
---
Attachment: SPSI Delegation Slides Sept 10 (1).pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/5cd49de44c3ead7fc259734525ecb67f5f699f33f0dc2691808dc82249bab1fb/4-a-1-spsi-delegation-slides-sept-10-1-pdf.pdf
MODERNIZING AGGREGATE POLICY IN GREY COUNTY
A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO SUPPLY, SITING,
PROTECTION & CONSISTENCY
SAUGEEN PRESERVATION SOCIETY
SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026
~Supporting Grey County to begin the Aggregate Policy Study now
GREY COUNTY IS AN AGGREGATE POWERHOUSE
Grey County holds 60% of Southern Ontario’s aggregate resource
139 Active Licenses
7 Active New License or
Expansion Applications
Licensed to extract
over 25 MILLION Tonnes/year
Actual Extraction
2024 4.1 MILLION
2025 3.8 MILLION
4.1
14 WATER TAKING PERMITS
TOTALING
138.3 MILLION liters per day
CASE STUDY: THREE APPLICATIONS IN WEST GREY
Existing License
Walker Pit STYX
STYX
SAUGEEN
SAUGEEN Camp
Mcgovern
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER SOLD
Water Taking/
Saugeen
Discharge Springs
Wash Plant RV Park
Sorting and Crushing
Asphalt Plant
Readi Mix
Concrete Plant SEASONAL TRIBUTIRIES
Recycling
APPLICATIONS
Winter Sand
Import Salt/Gravel Walker Expansion
Dust Suppressants New Operator 1 License
Pit expanding New Operator 2 License
WHAT A NEW STUDY CAN DELIVER
FROM REACTIVE TO PROACTIVE PLANNING
A modern Aggregate Resource Inventory & Policy Study can provide:
CURRENT DATA CONSISTENCY
Resources • production • reserves • Studies • peer review • monitoring
supply/demand • mitigation • rehabilitation
BETTER SITING LONG-TERM PLANNING
Rivers • waterfronts • tourism • Cumulative impacts • licence evolution •
communities • natural heritage future land-use compatibility
One framework benefiting both municipalities and the industry.
WHY WAIT?
OFFICIAL PLAN UPDATE BEGINS NEXT YEAR SO START NOW
2026
Begin aggregate inventory + policy study
2026–28
Research • consultation • analysis
↓
Feed results directly into Official Plan Update
↓
GOLD STANDARD COUNTY WIDE AGGREGATE POLICIES
Starting now avoids delaying the completion of the Official Plan Update.
INTERIM PROTECTION
WHILE THE STUDY IS UNDERWAY…
Applications will continue to arrive.
Municipalities will still be asked to make decisions
using policies that are being reviewed.
USE THE TOOL THAT ALREADY EXISTS
WE ASK GREY COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT AGGREGATE-RICH
MUNICIPALITIES TO USE AN
INTERIM CONTROL BYLAW
Don't make tomorrow's decisions using yesterday's rules.
GOLD-STANDARD AGGREGATE MANAGEMENT
LETS BUILD IT TOGETHER
START THE
START THE STUDY
STUDY NOW.
NOW.
PROTECT MUNICIPALITIES
PROTECT MUNICIPALITIES WHILE
WHILE IT'S
IT'S UNDERWAY.
UNDERWAY.
~T
~
~Thank
hank you.
Thank you.
---
Attachment: AGGREGATES IN GREY COUNTY SPSI Delegation (1).pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/3b24a5cd007c15db66774a914ebc177835519bf18924799352b522d55ceef809/4-a-2-aggregates-in-grey-county-spsi-delegation-1-pdf.pdf
AGGREGATES IN GREY COUNTY
A Case for Immediate Policy Review and Interim Protection
Image: Active Aggregate Licenses in Grey County
Prepared By: Saugeen Preservation Society
Delegation: September 10th, 2026
Executive Summary
Grey County is one of Ontario's most aggregate-rich regions, containing an estimated 13 billion
tonnes of mapped aggregate resources. The County has approximately 26.8 million tonnes
of licensed annual extraction capacity, while actual annual production is substantially lower.
At the same time, Grey County is experiencing increasing pressure from new aggregate
applications and expansions. There are currently seven active applications identified on the
Environmental Registry of Ontario, which are currently or have recently gone through
municipal planning processes.
These circumstances expose a fundamental policy problem.
Grey County's aggregate policies are based largely on a 2004 aggregate study with a
20-year planning horizon. That horizon has now passed.
Since those policies were developed, provincial planning legislation and policy have changed
(which were generally addressed in previous updates), aggregate operations have evolved,
communities and land uses have changed, and the importance of cumulative impacts,
groundwater, surface water, air quality, tourism and natural heritage has become increasingly
apparent.
Recent applications in West Grey demonstrate how these gaps can create conflict. Issues such
as cumulative impacts, future evolution of licences, monitoring, technical review, incompatible
land uses and protection of major river systems may ultimately have to be resolved through
expensive Ontario Land Tribunal proceedings rather than through clear policy established in
advance.
This is not an argument against aggregate extraction.
It is an argument for better planning.
Grey County has the opportunity to develop a modern, evidence-based and consistent
aggregate management framework that recognizes the legitimate need for aggregate while
protecting communities, natural assets, tourism and other established land uses.
Saugeen Preservation Society is therefore asking Grey County Council to take two immediate
actions:
1. Start the Aggregate Resource Inventory and Policy Study now.
The study should begin before next year's Official Plan Update formally commences so that the
research, data collection, consultation and policy development can proceed in parallel and feed
directly into the Official Plan Update.
2
2. Support Interim Control Bylaws in aggregate-rich municipalities while the
study is underway.
Municipalities should have the ability to temporarily pause new aggregate-related planning
decisions while the policy framework is being reviewed, so that decisions are not made under
the very policies that are being identified as outdated and insufficient.
The objective is not to stop aggregate development. The objective is to ensure that future
aggregate development is planned under modern, consistent and defensible policies.
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. The Scale of Aggregate Resources in Grey County
2.1 Licences and Production
2.2 Active Aggregate Applications
2.3 Supply and Demand
2.4 The "Close to Market" Argument
3. What Recent Applications Have Revealed
3.1 West Grey Case Study
3.2 Siting and Natural Assets
3.3 Cumulative Impacts
3.4 Water, Air Quality and Noise
3.5 Existing Land Uses and Tourism
3.6 The Future Evolution of an Aggregate Licence
4. The Current Policy Framework
4.1 Grey County's Role
4.2 The 2004 Aggregate Study
4.3 Policy Gaps Identified
5. Why the Licensing Process Is Not Enough
6. The Case for a New County-Wide Approach
6.1 The County's Own Official Plan Supports Further Study
6.2 What the New Study Should Examine
6.3 Protection of Major Rivers and Waterfronts
6.4 One Study for Nine Municipalities
7. Interim Control Bylaws
7.1 Why an ICBL Is Needed Now
7.2 What an ICBL Would Accomplish
8. Benefits of a County-Wide Policy Update
9. Recommended Action
10. Conclusion
Appendix A
Active Environmental Registry of Ontario Applications
Appendix B
Sources & References
4
1. Introduction
Grey County is facing an important planning decision: do we continue to manage one of our
most significant natural resources using a policy framework developed more than two
decades ago, or do we take the opportunity to build a modern, balanced and
forward-looking approach to aggregate management?
Grey County contains an extraordinary amount of aggregate resources. It is also home to
important agricultural lands, communities, major river systems, waterfronts, recreational
destinations and a growing four-season tourism economy.
These priorities do not have to be in conflict.
Aggregate is essential to our communities, and responsible aggregate extraction is an important
part of Ontario's economy. But the scale of the resource in Grey County makes it even more
important that extraction is appropriately sited, carefully managed and planned alongside the
other values that make the County a desirable place to live, work and visit.
The current policy framework, however, is largely based on a 2004 aggregate study with a
20-year planning horizon. That horizon has now passed.
Since that time, provincial planning policies and legislation have changed, communities have
evolved, aggregate operations have expanded and diversified, and the potential cumulative
effects of multiple operations have become increasingly important planning considerations.
Recent aggregate applications in West Grey have brought these broader policy questions into
sharp focus.
What began as concern about the siting of individual pits has revealed a much larger issue:
Grey County and its lower-tier municipalities need a current, consistent and
comprehensive framework for determining where aggregate extraction is appropriate and
how it should be managed over the long term.
This report sets out the evidence supporting that conclusion and proposes a practical path
forward:
● initiate the aggregate study now, rather than waiting for next year's Official Plan Update
to begin;
● develop a modern County-wide aggregate policy framework;
● examine supply, demand, actual production and existing licensed capacity;
● address cumulative impacts and the potential evolution of aggregate licences;
● strengthen consideration of major rivers, waterfronts and tourism assets;
● establish consistent expectations for studies, monitoring and mitigation; and
5
● use Interim Control Bylaws to protect municipalities from having to make new planning
decisions under outdated policies while the work is underway.
The time to begin this work is now.
2. The Scale of Aggregate Resources in Grey County
2.1 Licences and Production
LICENSED TO ACTUAL ACTUAL
TOWNSHIP / EXTRACT EXTRACTED EXTRACTED NUMBER OF UNOPENED /
MUNICIPALITY ANNUALLY PITS/QUARRIES APPLICATIONS
(Tonne)
2024 2025
7 Applications
ALL
26,765,000 4,109,432 3,843,761 139
GREY COUNTY 9 Unopened**
OR New
Chatsworth
2,745,000 354,741 432,987 24 n/a
Township
Georgian Bluffs
Georgian Bluffs
25
Township and 2 Applications in
4,955,000 1,070,085 997,904
Municipality of Georgian Bluffs
Meaford
Meaford*
8
Municipality of
4,730,000 1,347,546 1,139,891 22 1 Unopened**
Grey Highlands
Southgate 195,000
577,301 590,621 23 3 New
Township +1 Unlimited
The Town of 1 Unopened**
1,365,000 113,883 122,083 9
Blue Mountains (Expansion)
4 Applications
Municipality of (2 Expansions)
10,855,000 645,873 560,272 28
West Grey
3 Unopened**
Only verifiable unopened pits included; this is not a comprehensive list.
** Georgian Bluffs and Meaford are combined in the TOARC statistics.
The most striking feature of these figures is the difference between licensed capacity and
actual production.
6
The County has approximately 26.8 million tonnes of annual licensed capacity, while
reported production was approximately 4.1 million tonnes in 2024 and 3.8 million tonnes in
2025.
This represents a significant amount of licensed capacity that is not being used in any given
year.
There is also an important data gap. There are no readily available statistics showing remaining
reserves on a licence-by-licence basis or annual extraction by individual licence. This creates
uncertainty regarding the actual status of existing licensed sites, including which operations
remain active, which may be approaching depletion and whether depleted sites are being
appropriately rehabilitated.
A new County-wide study provides the opportunity to establish this baseline.
2.2 Active Aggregate Applications
As of August 25, 2026, the following active applications are identified on the Environmental
Registry of Ontario:
● Ted E. Young — Georgian Bluffs
● Stonemark Forbes — Georgian Bluffs
● H. Bye — Southgate
● Teeswater Concrete — West Grey
● J.R. McLaughlin — West Grey
● JT Excavating — West Grey
● Walker Redford Expansion — West Grey — rezoning in progress and not yet listed on
the ERO at the time of compilation.
The applications demonstrate that aggregate development pressure is not isolated to one
municipality.
This reinforces the value of a County-wide policy response rather than a series of separate
municipal responses.
7
2.3 Supply and Demand
Grey County contains an estimated 13.037 billion tonnes of mapped aggregate resources,
including approximately:
● 1.67 billion tonnes of sand and gravel, across approximately 11,984 hectares of
potentially available extraction areas within 12 primary resource areas; and
● 11.367 billion tonnes of bedrock, across approximately 60,595 hectares of designated
primary bedrock resource areas.
The scale of this resource raises an important planning question:
How much aggregate does Grey County actually need to supply, and how much
additional extraction is justified by demonstrated demand?
A current study should answer that question using current production, licensed capacity,
remaining reserves and market data rather than relying on assumptions developed more than
twenty years ago.
2.4 The "Close to Market" Argument
Provincial policy and the aggregate industry frequently emphasize the importance of maintaining
aggregate supplies close to market.
Provincial supply-and-demand studies have focused heavily on the Greater Golden Horseshoe
(GGH), Ontario's highest-demand urban market.
The 2024 Aggregate Supply and Demand Study for the Greater Golden Horseshoe estimated
approximately 6.2 billion tonnes of aggregate reserves within the GGH and identified
approximately four decades of current reserves near the major urban-centre market.
Grey County is different.
Grey County is considered part of the outer ring rather than the primary high-demand urban
market, and the 2004 aggregate inventory also determined that the County was not part of the
southern urban-centre supply chain because transportation costs made exporting aggregate
less viable.
This suggests that Grey County's primary market is more regional, including Grey and Bruce
Counties and surrounding areas.
The County therefore needs a current, evidence-based understanding of:
8
1. the amount of aggregate resource available;
2. the amount currently licensed;
3. actual annual production;
4. remaining reserves;
5. the regional market being served; and
6. the amount of additional supply that is reasonably required.
The answer should come from current data, not assumptions from 2004.
3. What Recent Applications Have
Revealed
3.1 West Grey Case Study
In 2023, two new operators applied for aggregate licences in close proximity to the existing
Walker Redford operation on opposite sides of the Saugeen River near Concession 4 NDR and
Allan Park Road.
At approximately the same time, Walker installed test wells in preparation for an application to
expand its existing operation and is now proceeding through the municipal rezoning process.
9
These applications brought the broader policy issue into focus.
The question is not simply:
"Should this particular pit be approved?"
The larger question is:
"Do Grey County's current policies provide municipalities with the tools they need to
determine where aggregate extraction should be located and how multiple operations
should be managed?"
The experience in West Grey suggests that they do not.
3.2 Siting and Natural Assets
One of the most significant concerns raised by these applications is their proximity to the
Saugeen River.
Grey County contains an enormous aggregate resource. At the same time, the Saugeen River
is one of the County's major natural assets and an important part of the region's recreational
and tourism economy.
The question therefore deserves consideration at the County policy level:
Should aggregate extraction be permitted immediately adjacent to major rivers and
waterfront areas when significant alternative aggregate resources exist elsewhere in the
County?
SPSI believes this issue should be examined through the County-wide policy update.
The experience of Muskoka provides a useful comparator. Muskoka has a similar
tourism-oriented economy and has incorporated a 2,000-metre setback approach within its
planning policies to protect waterfront-oriented settlement and economic areas from
incompatible land uses.
SPSI is asking Grey County to evaluate whether a similar approach is appropriate for the
County's major rivers and waterfronts.
This does not mean treating every watercourse identically. It means identifying the rivers and
waterfronts that are strategic natural, recreational and economic assets and determining
whether stronger policy protection is warranted.
10
3.3 Cumulative Impacts
Several applications in the West Grey area have overlapping geographic areas of influence.
Yet existing cumulative-impact policies did not necessarily require the first new operator
application to address the combined impacts of surrounding proposals.
This creates a significant policy problem.
Cumulative impacts cannot always be addressed effectively one application at a time.
Where several aggregate operations are proposed within the same watershed, road network or
community, the combined effects on:
● groundwater;
● surface water;
● air quality;
● noise;
● traffic;
● natural heritage;
● surrounding land uses; and
● community well-being
should be considered as part of the planning process.
A modern County policy should establish when cumulative-impact assessments are required
and who is responsible for undertaking and reviewing them.
3.4 Water, Air Quality and Noise
The West Grey applications also identified gaps in the consistency of technical requirements.
Water
Concerns include the proximity of proposed extraction to the Saugeen River, wetlands, seasonal
tributaries and floodplain areas.
Groundwater review has also focused on pre- and post-operation conditions rather than fully
addressing conditions while extraction is actively occurring.
11
Air Quality
There has been an absence of detailed air-quality assessment, ongoing monitoring and a
comprehensive mitigation plan beyond the proposed use of water or provincially approved dust
suppressants.
Noise
There has been an absence of required ongoing noise monitoring and detailed
best-management mitigation plans.
These matters should not have to be negotiated separately for every application.
County policy can establish minimum expectations before an application is submitted.
3.5 Existing Land Uses and Tourism
Aggregate planning must also consider what already exists around a proposed operation.
Existing recreational and tourism uses near these applications, such as: Camp McGovern,
Saugeen Springs RV Park, the river access point at the Hopkins Bridge on Concession 4NDR
and the Saugeen River itself (which is an established recreational destination), demonstrate the
importance of considering surrounding economic and recreational uses.
Grey County identifies tourism as an important part of its economy and describes the County as
a renowned four-season tourism destination.
This raises an important planning principle:
Aggregate extraction should be planned in a way that recognizes and protects
established economic and recreational assets rather than treating them as secondary
considerations.
A modern policy framework can identify incompatible land uses and establish appropriate
separation distances and study requirements before applications reach the rezoning stage.
12
3.6 The Future Evolution of an Aggregate
Licence
An aggregate application is generally assessed based on what is being proposed at that time.
However, existing operations may subsequently seek changes or additions such as:
● increased tonnage;
● water-taking;
● water discharge;
● aggregate washing;
● recycling;
● ready-mix facilities;
● asphalt plants; or
● changes to extraction depth.
Operations initially proposed for above-water-table extraction may also subsequently seek
below-water-table extraction.
Whether or not any particular future modification occurs, the broader planning principle remains:
The long-term potential evolution of an aggregate operation should be considered when
determining whether a location is appropriate.
This is an issue that should be addressed through County policy rather than left entirely to future
application processes.
4. The Current Policy Framework
4.1 Grey County's Role
Grey County's Official Plan directly influences aggregate planning throughout the County.
It functions as the governing official plan in areas not covered by local official plans, including
rural West Grey, Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs and it provides the policy framework from
which the other municipalities developed their own aggregate policies.
As a result, Grey County is uniquely positioned to establish a consistent approach across
all aggregate rich lower-tier municipalities.
13
4.2 The 2004 Aggregate Study
The aggregate policies currently relied upon by Grey County and its lower-tier municipalities are
based largely on an aggregate study undertaken in 2004 by Skelton Brumwell & Associates and
Jagger Hims Limited.
The study was designed around a 20-year planning horizon.
That horizon has now passed.
There have been subsequent updates to policies to address changes in provincial policy and
housekeeping matters, but there has not been a comprehensive County-wide reassessment of
the aggregate management framework comparable to the original study.
This is the fundamental reason for initiating a new study.
The question is not whether the 2004 study was appropriate when it was undertaken. The
question is whether it remains an adequate foundation for Grey County's aggregate
planning in 2026 and beyond.
4.3 Policy Gaps Identified
The experience with the recent applications has identified several areas where clearer
County-wide policy could improve consistency and decision-making.
These include:
● municipal participation in licence modifications;
● water-taking and discharge applications;
● boundary reductions;
● increases in annual tonnage;
● additions such as washing, asphalt and ready-mix facilities;
● municipal participation in consultation on new licence applications;
● consistent monitoring requirements;
● comprehensive peer review;
● cumulative-impact assessment;
● consideration of future licence evolution;
● protection of major river systems and waterfronts; and
● consideration of tourism and other established land uses.
14
These are not necessarily issues that need to be solved through more regulation at the
provincial licensing stage.
Many can be addressed through stronger and clearer municipal planning policies.
5. Why the Licensing Process Is Not
Enough
The aggregate licensing process and municipal planning process serve different purposes.
The licensing process considers the proposal before it.
Municipal planning provides the opportunity to answer the broader land-use question:
Is this an appropriate location for this use, given everything else that exists or is planned
in the surrounding area?
Cumulative impacts and future licence evolution are two areas that cannot be adequately
addressed by looking at each application in isolation.
When clear municipal policies do not establish expectations for cumulative impacts, monitoring,
mitigation, setbacks or incompatible land uses, those issues may ultimately be contested at an
Ontario Land Tribunal hearing.
That is an expensive and inefficient way to establish public policy.
6. The Case for a New County-Wide
Approach
6.1 The County's Own Official Plan Supports Further
Study
Grey County's Official Plan has previously recognized the need for an Aggregate Resource
Inventory Master Plan.
15
The Plan states:
"...the County will undertake an aggregate resource inventory master plan for
aggregate extraction. A primary objective of the undertaking will be to determine, in
consultation with local municipalities, representatives of the aggregate industry and
the appropriate agencies, the location of areas of mineral aggregate potential that
are appropriate for protection." (Grey County O.P., 1999, section 2.7.4.(1), page
36)
The Terms of Reference identified five purposes for the Aggregate Inventory Master Plan:
1. identify and examine the mineral aggregate resource;
2. assess environmental, social and economic factors affecting resource utilization;
3. develop a management strategy for aggregate resources and rehabilitation;
4. develop Official Plan policies to implement that management strategy; and
5. ensure that aggregate resources are protected and managed in the public interest.
The underlying principle remains sound.
The resource should be protected, but its extraction should also be managed in the
public interest.
6.2 What the New Study Should Examine
SPSI recommends that the new study include (but not limited to):
Resource and Supply
● Updated County-wide aggregate inventory and mapping.
● Current licensed capacity.
● Actual annual production.
● Remaining reserves where data are available.
● Status of existing licences.
● Unopened and speculative resources.
● Current regional supply and demand.
Planning and Land Use
● Appropriate locations for new extraction.
● Appropriate separation distances.
● Existing incompatible land uses.
● Tourism and recreational assets.
16
● Major rivers and waterfronts.
● Natural heritage systems.
● Agricultural and other important land uses.
Cumulative Impacts
● Groundwater.
● Surface water.
● Air quality.
● Noise.
● Traffic.
● Natural heritage.
● Multiple operations within the same area or watershed.
Technical Requirements
● Minimum study requirements.
● Independent peer review.
● Monitoring requirements.
● Best-management practices.
● Rehabilitation requirements.
● Municipal involvement in licence modifications.
Licence Evolution
The study should specifically consider the potential evolution of an aggregate operation when
determining whether a location is appropriate, including potential future increases in tonnage,
extraction depth and ancillary uses.
Tribunal Experience
Recent Ontario Land Tribunal decisions involving aggregate applications should be reviewed to
identify recurring issues that could be addressed through stronger municipal policy before an
application reaches a hearing.
17
6.3 Protection of Major Rivers and
Waterfronts
Grey County's major rivers and waterfronts are more than environmental features.
They support:
● tourism;
● recreation;
● local businesses;
● property values;
● community identity; and
● regional economic development.
SPSI therefore recommends that the new policy framework specifically examine enhanced
protection for major river systems and waterfront areas.
As part of this work, the County should evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of a
2,000-metre setback approach, informed by the Muskoka example and adapted to Grey
County's own geography, economy and planning objectives.
The purpose would be to ensure that strategic natural and tourism assets are not exposed to
incompatible land uses simply because aggregate resources happen to exist nearby.
6.4 One Study for Nine Municipalities
A major advantage of a County-led study is consistency.
Rather than nine municipalities independently undertaking similar policy reviews, Grey County
can establish one evidence base and one comprehensive policy framework that can then be
implemented throughout the County.
This would provide:
● consistent standards;
● reduced duplication;
● greater certainty for municipalities;
● greater predictability for responsible aggregate operators;
● improved protection for communities and natural assets; and
● stronger, more defensible municipal decision-making.
18
7. Interim Control Bylaws
7.1 Why an ICBL Is Needed Now
Starting the study is only half of the solution.
While the study is underway, municipalities will continue receiving aggregate applications and
may be required to make planning decisions using the existing policy framework.
That creates an obvious problem.
If Grey County recognizes that its aggregate policies require updating, municipalities
should not be placed in the position of making significant new planning decisions under
those same policies while the update is being undertaken.
An Interim Control Bylaw provides a temporary planning mechanism to create that necessary
period of review.
SPSI therefore asks Grey County to advise and support aggregate-rich municipalities in
implementing ICBLs while the County study and policy update are underway.
7.2 What an ICBL Would Accomplish
An ICBL would:
● Provide the county and municipalities with time to complete the policy review;
● prevent new planning decisions from undermining the policy-update process;
● avoid having municipalities rely on outdated policies for significant new applications;
● allow the new County-wide framework to be developed before additional planning
permissions are granted; and
● provide a consistent transition across aggregate-rich municipalities.
This is not a request for a permanent prohibition on aggregate development.
It is a temporary planning safeguard.
Once the new policies are completed and incorporated into the Official Plan framework,
applications can be evaluated under the new standards.
Pause the planning decisions, not the long-term supply of aggregate, while Grey County
establishes the rules that should govern that supply.
19
8. Benefits of a County-Wide Policy
Update
Better Planning
A modern policy framework allows decisions to be made proactively rather than reactively.
Reduced OLT Conflict
Clear policies can resolve many issues before they become costly tribunal disputes.
Lower Municipal Costs
A County-wide study avoids nine municipalities independently commissioning comparable work.
Greater Certainty for Industry
Clear rules and consistent expectations provide responsible aggregate operators with greater
certainty about where and under what conditions extraction is appropriate.
Stronger Community Protection
Consistent requirements for studies, monitoring, mitigation and rehabilitation provide
communities with greater confidence in the planning process.
Protection of Natural Assets
Major rivers, waterfronts, tourism destinations and other strategic assets can be considered as
part of the overall planning framework rather than on an application-by-application basis.
Integration with Other County Goals
The aggregate policy update also provides an opportunity to advance other County objectives,
including:
● recycling of aggregates;
● incorporation of recycled aggregate into municipal and County projects;
● rehabilitation of extracted lands;
● climate-action objectives;
● protection of tourism assets; and
● environmental stewardship.
20
Grey County describes itself as a renowned four-season tourism destination and has
demonstrated a commitment to environmental stewardship and climate action.
Aggregate management should support these objectives rather than operate separately
from them.
9. Recommended Action
A Two-Stage Approach to Modernizing Aggregate Policy
in Grey County
Saugeen Preservation Society recommends that Grey County take immediate action to begin
modernizing its aggregate policy framework rather than waiting for the next Official Plan Update
to begin.
We recommend a two-stage approach:
STAGE 1 — START THE STUDY NOW
Grey County should immediately initiate the Aggregate Resource Inventory and Policy
Study, in advance of the formal commencement of next year's Official Plan Update.
Starting the study now would allow the County to:
● update the 2004 aggregate resource inventory;
● establish accurate data on licensed capacity, actual production and remaining reserves;
● assess current and projected regional supply and demand;
● identify appropriate areas for future aggregate extraction;
● identify areas where aggregate extraction may be incompatible with existing land uses or
important natural and economic assets;
● examine cumulative impacts from multiple operations;
● establish appropriate setbacks from major rivers and waterfronts;
● review the potential future evolution of aggregate licences;
● establish consistent requirements for hydrogeological, environmental, air-quality, noise
and traffic studies;
● establish consistent monitoring and best-management requirements;
● review relevant Ontario Land Tribunal decisions and lessons learned; and
● develop a modern County-wide aggregate management strategy and policy framework.
21
The study should be undertaken by an independent and appropriately qualified consultant
or multidisciplinary team that does not have a continuing relationship with the aggregate
industry that could create a perception of bias.
The completed work should then feed directly into the 2027 Official Plan Update, avoiding
duplication and allowing the new aggregate policies to be incorporated into the Plan as part of
that process.
STAGE 2 — PROTECT MUNICIPALITIES WHILE THE STUDY IS UNDERWAY
Grey County should also strongly encourage and support aggregate-rich lower-tier
municipalities to implement Interim Control Bylaws (ICBLs) where appropriate while the
study and policy update are underway.
The purpose would not be to permanently prohibit aggregate development.
It would provide a temporary pause on relevant planning approvals while the County determines
what the appropriate long-term rules should be.
This is important because without interim protection, municipalities may continue to receive
applications and be required to make decisions based on the very policies that Grey County has
recognized need to be updated.
An ICBL would provide municipalities with the necessary planning space to:
● avoid making new decisions under outdated policies;
● allow the County study to proceed without being overtaken by individual applications;
● ensure that cumulative impacts can be considered comprehensively;
● avoid establishing new precedents before the policy review is complete; and
● transition to the new County-wide policy framework once it is adopted.
Specifically, We Ask Grey County Council To:
1. Direct staff to begin the Aggregate Resource Inventory and Policy Study immediately.
2. Do not wait for the 2027 Official Plan Update to begin the study.
3. Establish an independent non biased consultant or multidisciplinary team to undertake
the work.
4. Direct that the study includes a current supply-and-demand assessment and a
comprehensive review of existing licensed operations, production, reserves and
unopened resources.
22
5. Direct that the study examines cumulative impacts, future licence evolution, water, air
quality, noise, traffic, rehabilitation and appropriate technical review and monitoring
requirements.
6. Direct that the study specifically examines enhanced protection for major rivers and
waterfronts, including the feasibility of a 2,000-metre setback informed by the Muskoka
approach.
7. Review relevant Ontario Land Tribunal decisions to identify recurring issues that can
be addressed through stronger municipal policy.
8. Engage all nine lower-tier municipalities, relevant agencies, Indigenous communities,
residents, tourism interests, environmental organizations and the aggregate industry in
developing the new framework.
9. Encourage aggregate-rich municipalities to implement Interim Control Bylaws where
appropriate while the study is underway.
10. Incorporate the completed aggregate study and resulting policies directly into the
2027 Official Plan Update.
The Outcome We Are Seeking
The objective is a gold standard modern, consistent and defensible County-wide aggregate
management framework that includes but is not limited to:
Protects the resource
while ensuring extraction occurs where it is appropriate.
Supports responsible industry
by providing clear and predictable rules.
Protects communities
through appropriate siting, monitoring and mitigation.
Protects major rivers, waterfronts and tourism assets
by recognizing their environmental and economic importance.
Effectively Considers cumulative impacts
rather than evaluating operations entirely in isolation.
Reduces costly conflict
by establishing expectations before applications reach the Ontario Land Tribunal.
23
Provides consistency across Grey County
rather than requiring each municipality to develop its own approach independently.
Most importantly, this approach allows Grey County to move from reactive decision-making to
proactive planning.
That is the opportunity before Council now.
10. Conclusion
Grey County is at a critical point in how it manages its aggregate resources.
The County has an extraordinary supply of aggregate, substantial licensed extraction capacity
and continuing development pressure. At the same time, Grey County's communities, rivers,
waterfronts, tourism economy, agricultural lands and natural heritage systems are evolving.
The policy framework guiding these decisions, however, is largely based on a 2004 study with a
20-year planning horizon.
The issue before Grey County is therefore not whether aggregate extraction should continue. It
should.
The issue is whether where and how aggregate is extracted and managed is being planned
using the best available information and policies for Grey County today.
Recent applications demonstrate that gaps in the current framework can result in questions
about cumulative impacts, water, air quality, noise, monitoring, future licence evolution,
incompatible land uses and the protection of major natural and tourism assets being addressed
only after an application has been submitted, and sometimes only through an expensive Ontario
Land Tribunal process.
These issues are predictable.
They can be addressed through proactive planning.
Grey County's own Official Plan has contemplated an Aggregate Resource Inventory Master
Plan that considers the environmental, social and economic factors affecting aggregate
utilization and develops a management strategy in the public interest. The need identified more
than two decades ago remains, but the information and circumstances on which that work was
based have changed significantly.
24
We believe Grey County should take the opportunity to do this work properly and do it now.
Waiting until the 2027 Official Plan Update formally begins would delay the very research and
policy work that the Official Plan Update will require. Beginning the Aggregate Resource
Inventory and Policy Study now allows the County to gather current data, consult with
municipalities and stakeholders, assess supply and demand, examine cumulative impacts and
develop the policy framework in time for direct integration into the Official Plan Update.
There is also an immediate need to protect the integrity of that process.
While the study is underway, municipalities will continue to face aggregate applications and may
be required to make decisions under the existing policy framework. If those policies are
outdated, it is counterproductive to continue establishing new planning decisions and
precedents under them while simultaneously undertaking a review.
That is why the two parts of our recommendation are connected:
First: Start the study now.
Begin the Aggregate Resource Inventory and Policy Study immediately, ahead of the 2027
Official Plan Update, so that the work can inform and become part of that process.
Second: Provide interim protection.
Encourage and support aggregate-rich municipalities in implementing Interim Control Bylaws
where appropriate while the study is underway, giving them the necessary time and planning
certainty to avoid making significant new aggregate-related decisions under policies that are
being reviewed.
This is not a request to stop aggregate development indefinitely.
It is a request to pause new planning decisions where necessary while the rules are being
responsibly reconsidered.
The end goal is a County-wide framework that provides greater certainty for responsible
aggregate operators while ensuring that extraction is appropriately sited and managed
alongside the communities, natural systems and economic assets that make Grey County
unique.
Grey County has the scale of aggregate resources to warrant a gold-standard approach to
aggregate management.
We have the opportunity to establish policies that are:
● current and evidence-based;
● consistent across the County;
25
● proactive rather than reactive;
● protective of communities and natural assets;
● supportive of responsible aggregate development;
● clear about cumulative impacts and future licence evolution; and
● strong enough to reduce unnecessary conflict and costly tribunal proceedings.
We respectfully ask Grey County Council to act now: initiate the Aggregate Resource Inventory
and Policy Study, and support interim protection through ICBLs while that work is being
completed.
The study can begin now.
The Official Plan Update can incorporate its results next year.
And Grey County can move forward with a modern aggregate policy framework designed not
just for the next application, but for the next generation of Grey County.
Appendix A
Active Environmental Registry of Ontario Applications
Status as of August 25, 2026
Applicant / Operation Municipality ERO Notice
Ted E. Young Georgian Bluffs 025-0401
Stonemark Forbes Georgian Bluffs 019-6775
H. Bye Southgate 019-5853
Teeswater West Grey 019-8823
J.R. McLaughlin West Grey 019-7255
JT Excavating West Grey 019-6532
Walker Redford Expansion West Grey Not yet listed; rezoning in progress
26
Appendix B
Sources & References
The following sources provide the underlying data, policy documents and background
information referenced throughout this report.
Aggregate Resources and Production
Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 180 — Grey County
Ontario Geological Survey / Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Provides the aggregate resource inventory, including estimates of sand, gravel and bedrock
resources.
https://www.geologyontario.mines.gov.on.ca/persistent-linking?publication=ARIP180
The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation (TOARC)
Production and licensing data used for the Grey County municipal comparison.
https://toarc.com/production-statistics/
Grey County Planning Policy
Grey County Official Plan
https://www.grey.ca/government/land-use-planning/official-plan-and-policies
Grey County Aggregate Inventory / Master Plan Terms of Reference
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://docs.grey.ca/sh
are/s/nEuqipUwRmCM5IWATGEeRA&ved=2ahUKEwi0hZDqpsmWAxV-nSsGHZRyJG8QFnoE
CBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1GnNEvuIMfk_FamdQF50lt
Provincial Supply and Demand
Aggregate Supply and Demand Study for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2024)
Ministry of Natural Resources.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/aggregate-resources-study
Supply and Demand Study of Aggregate Resources Supplying the Greater Golden
Horseshoe (2016)
27
https://www.ontario.ca/page/aggregate-resources-study
Environmental Registry of Ontario
Search ERO number on: https://ero.ontario.ca/
ERO 025-0401 — Ted E. Young, Georgian Bluffs
ERO 019-6775 — Stonemark Forbes, Georgian Bluffs
ERO 019-5853 — H. Bye, Southgate
ERO 019-8823 — Teeswater Concrete, West Grey
ERO 019-7255 — J.R. McLaughlin, West Grey
ERO 019-6532 — JT Excavating, West Grey
Comparative Planning Policies
District Municipality of Muskoka — Official Plan and Aggregate / Waterfront Policies
https://www.muskoka.on.ca/en/business-planning-development/land-use-planning-and-policies.
aspx
Ontario Land Tribunal
Relevant Ontario Land Tribunal decisions and case materials relating to aggregate applications,
municipal planning policy, cumulative impacts, incompatible land uses and technical review.
https://olt.gov.on.ca/case-status/
Source and Data Note
Statistics, policy references and case-study information in this report have been compiled from
the sources listed above. Where data are incomplete or not publicly available,such as
licence-by-licence remaining reserves, individual annual production or the complete inventory of
unopened aggregate sites, those limitations are identified rather than estimated.
The proposed Aggregate Resource Inventory and Policy Study should establish a
comprehensive and current County-wide evidence base to address these information gaps.
28
5 Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion
Council determined that specific agenda items require separate discussion.
Agenda item 5: Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
5.
Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion
6 Consent Agenda
Council receives combined consent agenda items and authorizes staff to implement recommended actions.
Agenda item 6: Consent Agenda
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
6.
Consent Agenda
That the following Consent Agenda items be received; and
That staff be authorized to take the actions necessary to give effect to the
recommendations in the staff reports; and
That the correspondence be supported or received for information as
recommended in the consent agenda.
6.a Correspondence from the Municipality of Grey Highlands - Creation of a Community Safety Zone and School Zone Grey Road 2 Feversham
The Municipality of Grey Highlands passed resolution 2026-517 to advocate for a Community Safety Zone and School Zone on Grey Road 2 in Feversham, requesting a speed reduction to 40km/hr and inclusion in traffic calming prioritization.
Agenda item 6.a: Correspondence from the Municipality of Grey Highlands - Creation of a Community Safety Zone and School Zone Grey Road 2 Feversham
---
Attachment: Correspondence from Grey Highlands - Feversham Community Safety Zone.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/757542c055b362fb853ef1b3a9e23ac5a3a30fb0614cf9a50718a723cfd68f89/6-a-1-correspondence-from-grey-highlands-feversham-community-safety-zone-pdf.pdf
August 6, 2026
County of Grey
Tara Warder, County Clerk
595 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 3E3 Sent via email: clerks@grey.ca
Attention Ms. Warder:
Please be advised that the following resolution was passed at the August 5, 2026 meeting of the
Council of the Municipality of Grey Highlands, in relation to Grey County Road 2 in Feversham:
2026-517
That Council advocate to the County of Grey for the creation of a Community
Safety Zone and School Zone; and
That Council advocate for the 50km/hr zone to be reduced to 40km/hr and;
That Council request an update from the County as to why the segment is not
already a Community Safety Zone or School Zone considering the existence of
a daycare/education center within the segment; and
That this section of Grey Road 2 be included in the prioritization of the traffic
calming measures that the County has underway.
CARRIED.
If you require anything further, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Danielle Thompson
Committee & Records Coordinator
Municipality of Grey Highlands
The Municipality of Grey Highlands
206 Toronto Street South, Unit One - P.O. Box 409 Markdale, Ontario N0C 1H0
519-986-2811 Toll-Free 1-888-342-4059 Fax 519-986-3643
www.greyhighlands.ca info@greyhighlands.ca
6.b Correspondence from the Municipality of North Perth - Review of the Ontario Land Tribunal and Enhancing Deference to Municipal Planning Decisions
The Municipality of North Perth Council passed a resolution on July 6, 2026, supporting Whitby's request for an Ontario Land Tribunal review. The correspondence asks the Province to amend laws for stronger deference to municipal decisions and improved tribunal transparency.
North Perth Supports Whitby OLT Review
The Municipality of North Perth Council passed a resolution on July 6, 2026, supporting the Town of Whitby's request to review the Ontario Land Tribunal. The correspondence requests that the Province consider amendments to provide stronger deference to municipal decisions and improve transparency within the tribunal.
Agenda item 6.b: Correspondence from the Municipality of North Perth - Review of the Ontario Land Tribunal and Enhancing Deference to Municipal Planning Decisions
---
Attachment: North Perth Support Letter - Review of the Ontario Land Tribunal and Enhancing Deference to Municipal Plannning (1).pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/ecd9b8df33d41001d0948a95432499451837fdc0c1ddb2ff7718047d77386a85/6-b-1-north-perth-support-letter-review-of-the-ontario-land-tribunal-and-enhancing-deference-to-.pdf
August 10, 2026
The Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
premier@ontario.ca
Re: Support for the Town of Whitby – Review of the Ontario Land Tribunal and
Enhancing Deference to Municipal Planning Decisions
Please be advised that the Council of the Municipality of North Perth passed the
following resolution at its meeting on July 6, 2026:
THAT: The Council of the Municipality of North Perth supports Consent Agenda
Item 7.4 from the Town of Whitby regarding the Review of the Ontario Land
Tribunal and Enhancing Deference to Municipal Planning Decisions and that a
copy of the support resolution be sent to all relevant parties, including MPP
Matthew Rae, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Perth County Lower
Tiers, County of Perth and all Ontario Municipalities.
A copy of the Town of Whitby's resolution is attached for reference.
Please accept this correspondence for your information and consideration.
Regards,
Lindsay Cline
Clerk/Legislative Services Supervisor
Encl.: Town of Whitby Resolution
CC: Town of Whitby
The Honourable Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Matthew Rae, MPP Perth-Wellington
County of Perth
Town of St. Marys
Township of Perth East
Township of Perth South
Municipality of West Perth
All Ontario Municipalities
Town of Whitby
575 Rossland Road East,
Whitby, ON L1N 2M8
905.430.4300
whitby.ca
June 25, 2026
Via Email
The Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
premier@ontario.ca
Re: Review of the Ontario Land Tribunal and Enhancing Deference to Municipal
Planning Decisions
Please be advised that at its meeting held on June 22, 2026, the Council of the Town of
Whitby adopted the following as Resolution # 166-26:
Whereas local councils are elected by residents to make planning decisions that
reflect the needs and priorities of their communities;
Whereas municipalities rely on extensive public consultation, professional
planning advice, engineering studies, and technical reports when making land-
use decisions;
Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) has the authority to overturn municipal
planning decisions, often requiring municipalities to spend significant taxpayer
dollars defending decisions that have already undergone a thorough local review
process;
Whereas lengthy and costly appeals can delay housing projects, consume
municipal resources, and reduce the ability of municipalities to focus on
delivering services to residents; and,
Whereas local governments should have greater certainty and authority when
decisions are consistent with approved Official Plans, provincial policies, and
sound planning principles.
Now Therefore be it Resolved:
1. That the Government of Ontario be requested to review the role and
mandate of the Ontario Land Tribunal to ensure greater respect for
municipal planning decisions that are supported by evidence, public
consultation, and approved planning policies;
2. That the Province consider amendments to the Planning Act and Ontario
Land Tribunal Act to provide stronger deference to municipal decisions
that align with provincial planning frameworks and Official Plans;
3. That the Province improve transparency and accountability within the
Ontario Land Tribunal by requiring clear and detailed reasoning when
municipal decisions are overturned;
4. That the Province explore measures to reduce the financial burden on
municipalities defending planning decisions before the OLT, helping to
protect taxpayer dollars and improve the efficiency of the planning
process; and,
5. That Staff be directed to circulate this resolution to the Premier of Ontario,
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Local Members of Provincial
Parliament, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), and all
Ontario municipalities for consideration and support.
Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of
the Town Clerk at 905-430-4300.
Kathryn Douglas
Supervisor, Legislative Services
clerk@whitby.ca
Copy: C. Harris, Director of Legislative Services/Town Clerk - clerk@whitby.ca
The Honourable Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -
minister.mah@ontario.ca
Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering-Uxbridge - peter.bethlenfalvy@pc.ola.org
Lorne Coe, MPP, Whitby - lorne.coe@pc.ola.org
Jennifer K. French, MPP, Oshawa - jfrench-co@ndp.on.ca
Todd J. McCarthy, MPP, Durham - todd.mccarthy@pc.ola.org
Rob Cerjanec, MPP, Ajax - rcerjanec.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Laurie Scott, MPP, Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock - laurie.scott@pc.ola.org
Robin Jones, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario -
amopresident@amo.on.ca
All Ontario Municipalities
Page 2 of 2
6.c Request for Letter of Support - Safe N Sound- Neighbourhood Response Team
Agenda item 6.c: Request for Letter of Support - Safe N Sound- Neighbourhood Response Team --- Attachment: Grey County Letter of Support Safe N Sound Neighbourhood response Team.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/ca2dd7983fca64a6eb6ffc7f1f68a666e627fe888647d9d3b2429038d1f83b5c/6-c-1-grey-county-letter-of-support-safe-n-sound-neighbourhood-response-team-pdf.pdf 310 8th St E, PO Box 162 Owen Sound, ON, N4K 5P3 519-470-7233 execdirector@safensoundgreybruce.ca Warden Matrosovs and Members of County Council, Safe ’n Sound respectfully requests a letter of support from Grey County Council for its fall 2026 Ontario Trillium Foundation application to continue and expand the Neighbourhood Response Team (NRT) in downtown Owen Sound.
Request for Letter of Support - Safe N Sound
Safe 'n Sound requests a letter of support from Grey County Council for its fall 2026 Ontario Trillium Foundation application to continue and expand the Neighbourhood Response Team (NRT). The NRT pilot operated from November 2025 to March 2026, delivering over 1,600 interactions and more than 2,200 supports including health and wellness responses.
Agenda item 6.c: Request for Letter of Support - Safe N Sound- Neighbourhood Response Team
---
Attachment: Grey County Letter of Support Safe N Sound Neighbourhood response Team.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/ca2dd7983fca64a6eb6ffc7f1f68a666e627fe888647d9d3b2429038d1f83b5c/6-c-1-grey-county-letter-of-support-safe-n-sound-neighbourhood-response-team-pdf.pdf
310 8th St E, PO Box 162
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 5P3
519-470-7233
execdirector@safensoundgreybruce.ca
Warden Matrosovs and Members of County Council,
Safe ’n Sound respectfully requests a letter of support from Grey County Council for its fall 2026
Ontario Trillium Foundation application to continue and expand the Neighbourhood Response
Team (NRT) in downtown Owen Sound.
With Grey County’s support as a flow-through funder, Safe ’n Sound delivered the NRT pilot from
November 2025 to March 2026. The program provided a visible, supportive street-level presence for
residents, businesses, visitors, and people who are underhoused or unhoused.
The NRT complemented existing community services by responding to situations that did not
always require an emergency or enforcement response. Team members connected people
experiencing complex mental health, addictions, housing, and social service needs with
appropriate resources, while also assisting with concerns affecting the broader downtown
community, including wellness checks, de-escalation, encampment-related concerns, sharps
disposal, and requests for assistance from businesses and residents.
The pilot operated in close collaboration with Grey County programs, including Supportive
Outreach Services and Grey County Housing. This partnership supported a “no wrong door”
approach, connecting individuals with the service best positioned to assist them.
During five months of operation, the NRT recorded more than 1,600 interactions and provided more
than 2,200 supports, including more than 840 health- and wellness-related responses. Feedback
from downtown businesses and residents also demonstrated interest in seeing this type of
community-based response continue.
Although funding limited the initial pilot to November through March, the needs the NRT was
created to address are not seasonal. Safe ’n Sound is therefore seeking Ontario Trillium Foundation
funding to continue and expand the program, maintaining a practical street-level response that
works alongside—not in place of—existing County, City, health, social service, and emergency
response systems.
Owen Sound Council has already provided a letter of support for the application. Grey County’s
endorsement would be particularly meaningful given the County’s partnership in the original pilot
and would demonstrate to the Ontario Trillium Foundation that continuation of the NRT has support
across community and municipal partners.
Safe ’n Sound respectfully requests that Grey County Council provide a letter of support to
accompany its fall 2026 Ontario Trillium Foundation application.
Thank you for you time and consideration,
Annette Pedlar
Executive Director, Safe N Sound
---
Attachment: Letter of Support Safe N Sound - September 10 2026.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/9b6b455f58dc8dc122b6f0a423cb2de70c15715d311649d2cae26a7e11274cd8/6-c-2-letter-of-support-safe-n-sound-september-10-2026-pdf.pdf
Office of the Warden
595 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound Ontario N4K 3E3
519-372-0219 / 1-800-567-GREY / Fax: 519-376-4082
September 10, 2026
Ontario Trillium Foundation
Re: Letter of Support for Safe ‘N Sound Grey Bruce’s Neighbourhood Response Team (NRT)
To Whom It May Concern,
On behalf of Grey County Council, I am pleased to provide this letter of support for Safe 'N Sound
Grey Bruce's application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation to secure funding for the continuation
and expansion of the Neighbourhood Response Team (NRT) program.
Grey County recognizes that communities across Ontario are facing increasingly complex
challenges related to housing affordability, homelessness, mental health, addictions, public health,
and social inclusion. As Service Manager for housing and homelessness services, Grey County
continues to invest in affordable housing development, homelessness prevention, supportive
housing, Coordinated Access, emergency accommodation, outreach services, and community
partnerships that advance our long-term goal of reducing and ultimately ending chronic
homelessness. Grey County's Colour It Home Housing and Homelessness Plan identifies the
importance of coordinated, person-centred approaches that connect people to appropriate services
and support pathways as quickly as possible.
The Neighbourhood Response Team is an important and innovative component of that broader
response system.
The program offers a practical, relationship-based, and highly visible community presence that
serves residents, businesses, visitors, and individuals experiencing homelessness or other complex
social challenges. Through outreach, engagement, navigation, de-escalation, and service
connection, the NRT helps individuals access housing supports, mental health and addictions
services, healthcare, income supports, and community resources. In doing so, it creates meaningful
opportunities to connect people with the systems that can help stabilize their lives and improve
outcomes.
Importantly, the NRT embodies a “no wrong door” approach to service delivery. Individuals
encountered through the program are connected to the support system best positioned to help them,
regardless of where the interaction begins. This philosophy aligns closely with Grey County's efforts
to improve coordinated access to housing and support services and to reduce barriers that often
prevent vulnerable individuals from receiving assistance. By establishing trusted relationships and
offering low-barrier engagement, the NRT helps bridge the gap between vulnerable individuals and
the services that can support long-term stability.
Grey County: Colour It Your Way
Page 2
September 10, 2026
The pilot program demonstrated the value of integrating the NRT alongside existing community
initiatives. The NRT worked collaboratively with Safe 'N Sound, Grey County Housing Services, and
the Supportive Outreach Services (SOS) program, creating a coordinated and complementary
response rather than duplicating existing services. The program helps identify individuals who may
benefit from housing services, supports referrals into community and healthcare systems, and
strengthens the overall network of care available to residents facing housing instability, mental health
challenges, addictions, or other barriers.
During its five-month pilot period, the NRT recorded more than 1,600 interactions and provided more
than 2,200 supports, including over 840 health and wellness-related responses. These interactions
represent opportunities to connect individuals with housing, health, social, and community supports
before issues escalate into emergencies requiring more intensive interventions.
Grey County believes that community wellbeing, public safety, downtown vitality, and economic
prosperity are fundamentally connected. Communities flourish when public spaces are welcoming,
inclusive, and supportive of all residents. The NRT contributes positively to this vision by helping
address social challenges compassionately and constructively, while supporting residents, visitors,
businesses, and community organizations. Programs such as the NRT help strengthen social
cohesion and contribute to public spaces that are safe, vibrant, and welcoming for everyone.
Experience from communities across Canada demonstrates the value of outreach and ambassador-
style programs that combine social navigation, business support, public engagement, and
connections to housing and health services. Communities including Moncton, Sault Ste. Marie, and
Calgary have implemented comparable models to help balance the needs of vulnerable populations
with those of businesses, residents, and visitors. These programs recognize that outreach,
relationship-building, and early intervention can support improved outcomes for vulnerable
individuals while contributing to stronger and more resilient downtowns and commercial districts.
For Grey County, the continuation of the NRT aligns with broader community priorities that include
addressing homelessness, improving access to health and social services, supporting community
safety and belonging, fostering inclusive economic development, enhancing the visitor experience,
and helping to create communities where all residents have the opportunity to thrive. Programs such
as the NRT demonstrate how compassionate, community-based responses can simultaneously
support vulnerable individuals while contributing to healthy local economies, vibrant cultural districts,
and welcoming public spaces.
Grey County is proud to support Safe 'N Sound Grey Bruce's application to the Ontario Trillium
Foundation and strongly encourages consideration of this funding request. Continued investment in
the Neighbourhood Response Team will strengthen an important community partnership, build upon
a successful pilot initiative, and support a more coordinated and effective response to some of the
most pressing social challenges facing our communities.
Sincerely,
Andrea Matrosovs
Grey County Warden
Grey County: Colour It Your Way
6.d PDR-CW-38-26 Isaac M Martin Minor Exemption
The Committee recommends approval for a minor exemption allowing the clearing of approximately 1.2 hectares of hardwoods at 395628 Concession 2 in the Township of Chatsworth for agricultural use, noting that no endangered species were identified and an accepted replanting plan mitigates woodland impacts.
Approval Recommended for Isaac M Martin Minor Exemption
The Committee recommends approval for a minor exemption to clear approximately 1.2 hectares of hardwoods at 395628 Concession 2 in the Township of Chatsworth for agricultural use. Staff note that while the current Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer raised concerns about species diversity and potential butternut presence, no endangered species have been identified on site. The applicant has voluntarily proposed a replanting plan accepted by Ecology staff to mitigate impacts to significant woodlands.
Agenda item 6.d: PDR-CW-38-26 Isaac M Martin Minor Exemption
---
Attachment: Isaac M Martin Minor Exemption - PDR-CW-38-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/eb8ed6e29386ee2e5b8f213baf704971147e5d63ea41ff987a74af21837a457a/6-d-1-isaac-m-martin-minor-exemption-pdr-cw-38-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: September 10, 2026
Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-38-26
Title: Isaac M Martin Minor Exemption
Prepared by: Sarah Johnson, Trails and Forestry Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
Lower Tier(s) Affected: Township of Chatsworth
Recommendation
1. That report PDR-CW-38-26 be received; and
2. That the application for minor exemption under the County’s Forest Management
By-law for 395628 Concession 2, Part of Lot 55, Concession 2 EGR, geographic
Township of Holland, now in the Township of Chatsworth, be approved.
Executive Summary
The County received a minor exemption application under the County’s Forest Management By-
law in May 2026 to clear woodlands of approximately 1.2 hectares (2.8 acres) of hardwoods
(mainly maple). The purpose of the clearing is for agricultural use. County staff are
recommending approval of this minor exemption application.
Background and Discussion
An application for a minor exemption was received for clearcutting in a woodland under the
County’s Forest Management By-law. The application is seeking approval to clear
approximately 1.2 hectares (2.8 acres) of mainly maple. Map 1 below shows the subject lands,
and those lands proposed for clearing.
The subject lands are located at 395628 Concession 2, Part of Lot 55, Concession 2 EGR,
geographic Township of Holland, now in the Township of Chatsworth. Most of the property is
cleared for agriculture with about 1/3 being treed, the total size of the property is 40.2 hectares
(99.3 acres). Surrounding the subject lands are mainly farmed and forested.
In the County official plan, this property is designated as mainly Rural’ with a small portion in
‘Hazard Lands’ on Schedule A, the area proposed for clearing is within the Rural designation.
Schedule B designates a pocket of ‘Aggregate Resource Area’ on the site, but not in the
proposed area for clearing. On Appendix B, a portion of the proposed clearing falls within the
PDR-CW-38-26 1 September 10, 2026
‘Significant Woodlands’ mapping. The applicant has voluntarily proposed a replanting plan
which proposes to replant trees to the south of the proposed cleared area as well as within the
forested area to the west on the same property. Grey County Ecology staff has reviewed and
accepted the proposal. The Forest Management By-law does not have a mechanism in place to
require a replanting plan, but County staff spoke with the applicant and they are proposing to
replant the area being removed (1.2 hectares) in those areas noted above on the same
property.
Map 1 – Proposed Area for Tree Removal
The County’s climate change action plan, Going Green in Grey, promotes tree planting across
the County, including setting tree planting targets. The County’s current forest management by-
law predates Going Green in Grey. The County’s by-law is currently under review. One of the
objectives of this review is to consider the by-law’s relationship to other County plans and
strategies such as Recolour Grey, the County official plan, and Going Green in Grey, the
climate change action plan. Strictly speaking this minor exemption application is being tested
against the current forest management by-law. Staff are however cognizant that the future
updated by-law may consider woodland clearing differently, including possibly considering
replanting plans or offsetting approaches.
PDR-CW-38-26 2 September 10, 2026
Agency and Public Comments Received
Under the Forest Management By-law, adjacent landowners, conservation authorities, and
municipalities are to be notified and/or consulted when a minor exemption application is
received.
Public Comments
No public comments were received during the processing of this application.
Agency Comments
The Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA), Township of Chatsworth, the County’s
Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer, and the County Planning Ecologist provided comments on
this application. A summary of each of their comments is as follows:
SVCA find the application acceptable.
Chatsworth has no concerns with the Minor Exemption.
Planning Ecology staff reviewed the proposal and noted;
o The property contains and/or is adjacent to significant woodlands, significant wildlife
habitat, potential habitat for threatened and/or endangered species, and other
wetlands. It is staff’s understanding that the proposed clearing will be located within
and adjacent to the features. A site plan including replanting of the trees at a 2:1
compensation rate is proposed. Provided the replanting is provided and adhered to
through the replanting plan, it is staff’s opinion that the potential impact to natural
heritage would be negligible and the requirement for an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) can be waived.
The County’s Forest By-law Enforcement Officer did not support the application.*
*It is worth noting that pre-submission consultation on this minor exemption application was
done with the County’s former Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer who supported the clearing
in principle. As such, the proponent submitted their application under that premise. Since then,
the comments received from the current Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer are not in support
of the clearing. The concerns raised were that the area was quite diverse for species with
numerous mast trees for wildlife and the potential for Butternut being on site. Based on the
opinion shared with the proponent at the time of the pre-submission consultation, and the fact
that there are currently no Butternuts that have been identified on the site, staff are still
recommending support for the minor exemption application. Staff are proposing that a notation
be included with the approval that the applicant is responsible to follow regulations related to
any endangered species that are regulated under provincial legislation, should they be found
during the clearing.
Based on the above, staff are recommending approval of the minor exemption application.
Financial and Resource Implications
None.
PDR-CW-38-26 3 September 10, 2026
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: Planning, Grey County By-law Enforcement Officer, Planning Ecology
☒ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets: see commentary in the
report regarding the relationship between Going Green in Grey and the County’s
current forest management by-law review.
☒ External: Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA), The Township of Chatsworth,
and the public.
Appendices and Attachments
None.
PDR-CW-38-26 4 September 10, 2026
6.e PDR-CW-39-26 Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption
Agenda item 6.e: PDR-CW-39-26 Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption --- Attachment: Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption - PDR-CW-39-26.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/037bdffd0ee68c0d8a77a733920dc016b2e64b11958f8b8d538398809a333019/6-e-1-benjamin-martin-minor-exemption-pdr-cw-39-26-pdf.pdf Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: September 10, 2026 Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-39-26 Title: Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption Prepared by: Sarah Johnson, Trails and Forestry Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning Lower Tier(s) Affected: Municipality of Grey Highlands Recommendation 1.
Approval Recommended for Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption
The report recommends approval of a minor exemption to clear approximately 1.8 hectares of cedar woodland for agricultural use on Lot 7, Concession 8 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 7 in the Township of Osprey. County staff determined that the proposed clearing does not meet connectivity requirements for Significant Woodlands, meaning potential impacts to identified features would be negligible and an Environmental Impact Study can be waived. Although the current Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer raised concerns regarding habitat loss in healthy stands, staff maintain support for the application based on pre-submission consultation premises and the by-law's contemplation of this clearing type.
Agenda item 6.e: PDR-CW-39-26 Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption
---
Attachment: Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption - PDR-CW-39-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/037bdffd0ee68c0d8a77a733920dc016b2e64b11958f8b8d538398809a333019/6-e-1-benjamin-martin-minor-exemption-pdr-cw-39-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: September 10, 2026
Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-39-26
Title: Benjamin Martin Minor Exemption
Prepared by: Sarah Johnson, Trails and Forestry Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
Lower Tier(s) Affected: Municipality of Grey Highlands
Recommendation
1. That report PDR-CW-39-26 be received; and
2. That the application for minor exemption under the County’s Forest Management
By-law for Lot 7, Concession 8 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 7, geographic
Township of Osprey, now in the Municipality of Grey Highlands, be approved.
Executive Summary
The County received a minor exemption application under the County’s Forest Management By-
law in May 2026 to clear woodlands consisting of approximately 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres) of
mainly cedar. The purpose of the clearing is for agricultural uses. County staff are
recommending approval of this minor exemption application.
Background and Discussion
An application for a minor exemption was received for clearcutting in a woodland area under the
County’s Forest Management By-law. The application is seeking approval to clear
approximately 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres). Map 1 below shows the subject lands, and those lands
proposed for clearing.
The subject lands are located at Lot 7, Concession 8 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 7,
geographic Township of Osprey, now in the Municipality of Grey Highlands. Approximately two
thirds of the property is in active agriculture, the remaining one third is forested. Surrounding the
subject lands are mainly farmed or forested.
In the County official plan, this property is designated as mainly ‘Agricultural’ with a small portion
of ‘Hazard Lands’ on Schedule A, the proposed clearing is not proposed within the Hazard
Lands. On Appendix B Significant Woodlands and a small portion of Significant Valleylands are
identified on the property, both not in the area proposed for clearing.
PDR-CW-39-26 1 September 10, 2026
Map 1 – Proposed Area for Tree Removal
The County’s climate change action plan, Going Green in Grey, promotes tree planting across
the County, including setting tree planting targets. The County’s current forest management by-
law predates Going Green in Grey. The County’s by-law is currently under review. One of the
objectives of this review is to consider the by-law’s relationship to other County plans and
strategies such as Recolour Grey, the County official plan, and Going Green in Grey, the
climate change action plan. Strictly speaking this minor exemption application is being tested
against the current forest management by-law. Staff are however cognizant that the future
updated by-law may consider woodland clearing differently, including possibly considering
replanting plans or offsetting approaches.
Agency and Public Comments Received
Under the County’s Forest Management by-law, adjacent landowners, conservation authorities,
and municipalities are to be notified and/or consulted when a minor exemption application is
received.
Public Comments
No public comments were received during the processing of this application.
PDR-CW-39-26 2 September 10, 2026
Agency Comments
The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA), the Municipality of Grey Highlands, the
County’s Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer, and the County Planning Ecologist provided
comments on this application. A summary of each of their comments is as follows:
GSCA had no comments.
Grey Highlands has no concerns with the Minor Exemption, but requests that any
removal of logs should not be staged within the municipal right of way.
Planning Ecology staff reviewed the proposal and noted:
o The subject property contains or is adjacent to potential Habitat of Threatened or
Endangered Species, Significant Woodlands, Significant Valleylands, Significant
Wildlife Habitat, Fish Habitat and a River. In addition, the property is considered a
Significant Groundwater Recharge Area and influences Highly Vulnerable Aquifers.
o County staff have reviewed the tree clearing proposal and the areas proposed for
clearing are not considered Significant Woodlands as the area does not meet
connectivity requirements for Significant Woodlands in terms of tree size and habitat.
Provided the Significant Woodlands directly south of the proposed area for removal
are maintained, it is the opinion of County staff that potential impacts to the identified
features would be negligible, and the requirement for an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) can be waived.
The County’s Forest By-law Enforcement Officer did not support the application.*
*It is worth noting that pre-submission consultation on this minor exemption application was
done with the County’s former Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer who supported the clearing
in principle. As such, the proponent submitted their application under that premise. Since then,
the comments received from the current Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer are not in support
of the clearing. The concerns raised were that the stands are in excellent health and the loss of
habitat. Based on the opinion shared with the proponent at the time of the pre-submission
consultation, and the fact that the by-law contemplates this type of clearing, staff are still
recommending support for the minor exemption application.
Based on the above, staff are recommending approval of the minor exemption application.
Financial and Resource Implications
None.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: Planning, Grey County By-law Enforcement Officer, Planning Ecology
☒ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets: see commentary in the
report regarding the relationship between Going Green in Grey and the County’s
current forest management by-law review.
☒ External: Grey Suable Conservation Authority (GSCA), The Municipality of Grey
Highlands, and the public
PDR-CW-39-26 3 September 10, 2026
Appendices and Attachments
None.
PDR-CW-39-26 4 September 10, 2026
7 Items For Direction and Discussion
Council considers items for direction and discussion.
Agenda item 7: Items For Direction and Discussion
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
7.
Items For Direction and Discussion
7.a CAOR-CW-23-26 Comments on Proposed Regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act - ERO Posting
Agenda item 7.a: CAOR-CW-23-26 Comments on Proposed Regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act - ERO Posting --- Attachment: Comments on Proposed Regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act; ERO Posting 026-0740 - CAOR-CW-23-26.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/4ba885ac1655b41f11804ae7b4d3a488812990366952b884387703aefd611d62/7-a-1-comments-on-proposed-regulations-under-the-conservation-authorities-act-ero-posting-026-07.pdf Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: September 10, 2026 Subject / Report No: CAOR-CW-23-26 Title: Comments on Proposed Regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act; ERO Posting #026-0740 Prepared by: Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning, Randy Scherzer, CAO Lower Tier(s) Affected: All Recommendation 1.
Comments on Proposed Regional Conservation Authority Regulations
The report outlines proposed regulatory amendments under the Conservation Authorities Act regarding governance for new Regional Conservation Authorities and the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency. Staff recommend issuing comments to the Province by September 12th before the deadline expires. The proposal shifts board representation from local municipalities to an upper-tier model based on population tiers, which would grant Grey County two seats at Lake Huron RCA and one at Eastern Lake Erie RCA. This change reduces rural geographic influence compared to the current system where member municipalities held seventeen elected seats across three existing boards. Staff support excluding registered lobbyists from OPCA governance but seek clarification on whether experience with current Conservation Authorities will permanently disqualify candidates. Grey County suggests eliminating the Tier 4 category and capping municipal seats at three to better balance population metrics with watershed geography.
Grey County Comments on Proposed OPCA Board Eligibility
Grey County supports excluding registered lobbyists from the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency Board to reduce conflicts of interest but seeks clarification on whether current Conservation Authority Board members and senior staff will be permanently excluded or only concurrently barred. The municipality questions the rationale for permanently excluding experienced individuals whose positions are transitioning to new Regional Conservation Authorities and requests detailed definitions regarding eligibility restrictions for former leaders.
Agenda item 7.a: CAOR-CW-23-26 Comments on Proposed Regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act - ERO Posting
---
Attachment: Comments on Proposed Regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act; ERO Posting 026-0740 - CAOR-CW-23-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/4ba885ac1655b41f11804ae7b4d3a488812990366952b884387703aefd611d62/7-a-1-comments-on-proposed-regulations-under-the-conservation-authorities-act-ero-posting-026-07.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: September 10, 2026
Subject / Report No: CAOR-CW-23-26
Title: Comments on Proposed Regulation under the Conservation
Authorities Act; ERO Posting #026-0740
Prepared by: Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO
Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning, Randy Scherzer, CAO
Lower Tier(s) Affected: All
Recommendation
1. That report CAOR-CW-23-26 be received in regards to ERO Posting #026-0740;
and
2. That staff be directed to issue comments as indicated in response to the
Province’s proposals before the comment deadline of September 12th; and
3. That staff be authorized to proceed prior to County Council approval as per
Section 26.6(b) of Procedural By-law 5134-22.
Executive Summary
The Province posted notice on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) on July 29, 2026
seeking feedback and comments on two proposed regulatory amendments to the Conservation
Authorities Act.
The amendments proposed are limited in scope and relate to the governance and oversight of
new Regional Conservation Authorities and the changes to governance in respect to the
transition of Conservation Authorities to Regional Conservation Authorities.
Given that the County will be impacted by these changes, this report both outlines the key
changes as they affect Grey County and seeks direction from Council in respect to issuing
comments on the ERO postings.
Background and Discussion
Over the past year, staff have brought several reports to County Council regarding the
Province's transition from 36 existing Conservation Authorities to nine new Regional
Conservation Authorities (RCAs). Previous reports outlined Grey County's concerns regarding
CAOR-CW-23-26 1 September 10, 2026
governance, local representation, geographic scale, and municipal accountability within the
proposed regional framework.
Existing Conservation Authorities operate under the Conservation Authorities Act and are
governed by boards comprised of representatives from participating municipalities. Within Grey
County, the four Conservation Authorities serving the County currently receive funding and
board representation directly from local municipalities. Grey County itself does not currently
appoint members or provide levy funding directly to these Conservation Authorities.
The Province is now advancing implementation of the new RCA structure through Transition
Committees and Project Executives. Current timelines anticipate that the new Regional
Conservation Authorities will become fully operational in February 2027. The current Project
Executives are expected to assume the role of Chief Administrative Officer for the new
organizations following transition. The Lake Huron RCA Project Executive is Don Goodyear who
brings experience with Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority and municipal experience with York
Region, and for Eastern Lake Erie RCA, Samantha Lawson who has held a variety of positions
at Grand River Conservation Authority over the past 21 years, including leading the organization
as CAO for the past seven.
As previously reported to Council, the Province has established the Ontario Provincial
Conservation Agency (OPCA) to oversee and coordinate the new RCA system. While RCAs will
continue to be accountable to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, they will
also operate within a provincial framework supported by OPCA.
The Province is currently seeking public input through Environmental Registry Posting 026-0740
on two proposed regulatory amendments related to governance of the new Regional
Conservation Authorities and the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency.
Analysis
Regional Conservation Authority Board Composition
Currently, Conservation Authority (CA) Board composition is legislatively governed within the
Act; changes already made to the Act mean that future composition (beyond ensuring all
participating municipalities have at least 1 seat on the Board) is established under regulation.
The first proposed regulatory amendment establishes how members will be appointed to
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Boards.
Consistent with information previously presented to Council, membership on RCA Boards will
be drawn from upper-tier and single-tier municipalities rather than from lower-tier municipalities.
While local representation has traditionally drawn from locally elected officials, both the past
legislation and proposed regulation allow for a mix of both elected and non-elected members to
be appointed by the Council to the new RCA Boards.
This represents a significant governance change for Grey County and other upper-tier
municipalities that have not historically had direct appointments to CA Boards.
The proposed regulation establishes a population-based allocation model that would provide
municipalities with between one and four seats based on the proportion of watershed population
located within their boundaries. All participating municipalities would receive at least one seat,
CAOR-CW-23-26 2 September 10, 2026
as per the legislative statute that remains within the Conservation Authorities Act, while larger
municipalities would be capped at four seats.
The proposal creates four population tiers:
Tier 4: Greater than 30 percent of watershed population
Tier 3: Between 15 percent and 30 percent
Tier 2: Between 5 percent and 15 percent
Tier 1: Less than 5 percent
Seat allocation ranges from one seat for Tier 1 municipalities to four seats for Tier 4
municipalities.
Based on the proposed model, Grey County would receive two seats at Lake Huron RCA and
one seat at the Eastern Lake Erie RCA. This contrasts with current representation of 17 elected
representatives from Grey County member municipalities participating in three existing CA
Boards1, 6 of which are also County Councillors.
Staff note that while these proposals generally seek balanced representation, ensure all
participating municipalities have a governance role, and avoid excessively large boards, they
result in a dramatic decrease in local representation on newly formed RCA Boards, as well as
realigning this to only the upper tier of municipal government.
They also continue a trend identified in previous reports whereby representation is weighted by
population rather than geographic area or watershed coverage. This has the effect of
concentrating governance influence within larger urban centres and reducing proportional rural
representation across several of the proposed RCAs. This trend will be further enhanced by
urban growth continuing to outpace rural growth as Board membership will change periodically
based on proportional growth between participating municipalities.
For example, approximately 70 percent of the estimated population of the proposed Lake Huron
RCA is located within York Region, Durham Region, Simcoe County and the City of Barrie.
Under the proposed model these municipalities would collectively hold eleven seats and
therefore a majority on the twenty-one-member Board.
At the same time, these four municipalities account for approximately one-quarter of the
geographic area of the proposed RCA while the remaining municipalities represent
approximately three-quarters of the land area. Staff believe this demonstrates the ongoing
challenge of balancing population-based representation with the significant geographic and
environmental diversity found within these large watershed systems.
Staff note that the proposed regulation would allow participating municipalities to reallocate
seats among themselves, provided overall board size is not increased. This could allow for
municipalities to gain additional seats, to a proposed maximum of five, and allow for
municipalities to vacate their seat.
1 No Grey County or member municipal elected official currently participates on the Grand River CA
Board of Directors.
CAOR-CW-23-26 3 September 10, 2026
While this flexibility may assist municipalities seeking greater representation in specific RCAs,
staff do not anticipate that such provisions would materially benefit Grey County's participation
in either of the new authorities.
Further the proposal removes the requirement that at least some of the appointments must be
elected officials and municipalities may select to appoint both elected and non-elected officials
as they deem appropriate. Non-elected appointments must meet some minimum criteria. There
is no proposed skills matrix being applied to Board governance structures under the proposal,
but this could be established by new Boards locally if deemed of value. The regulation sets no
term lengths, again, this is deferred to municipal and/or Board direction.
Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency Governance
The second proposed amendment addresses governance of the Ontario Provincial
Conservation Agency.
The OPCA has been established to provide coordination, oversight and support to the Regional
Conservation Authorities. During transition it is being funded by the Province, with long-term
funding anticipated through RCAs and, ultimately, municipal levies.
The regulation proposes eligibility restrictions for future OPCA Board members by excluding:
Registered lobbyists;
Current Conservation Authority Board members; and
Individuals currently employed as officers or senior staff members of a Conservation
Authority.
Staff support the exclusion of registered lobbyists as a measure that strengthens public
confidence and minimizes potential conflicts of interest.
However, staff believe additional clarity is required regarding the intent and application of
restrictions related to Conservation Authority Board members and senior staff.
Specifically, clarification is needed as to whether the intent is to prohibit concurrent service
between RCA Boards and the OPCA Board, or whether the Province intends to permanently
exclude individuals with current Conservation Authority governance or leadership experience
from future consideration.
Staff note that many current Conservation Authority Board members, officers and senior staff
possess extensive knowledge of watershed management, environmental regulation,
governance and conservation authority operations. If the intent is to permanently exclude such
individuals from OPCA governance, a significant pool of knowledgeable and experienced
candidates may be unavailable for future appointment.
Further clarification is also warranted because references to "current" Board members and
employees may become less clear following transition to the new RCA structure in 2027.
Conclusion
The proposed regulations provide additional detail regarding governance of the new Regional
Conservation Authorities and the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency. While staff support
CAOR-CW-23-26 4 September 10, 2026
several aspects of the proposed framework, concerns remain regarding the balance between
population-based representation and rural geographic representation within RCA governance
structures. Staff also believe additional clarity is required regarding proposed eligibility
restrictions for OPCA Board membership.
CAOR-CW-23-26 5 September 10, 2026
Draft Comments for Submission to ERO Posting 026-0740
Grey County Council has reviewed Environmental Registry Posting #026-0740 respecting
proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and appreciates the opportunity to
provide comments.
Consistent with concerns raised in previous reports of County Council regarding the
regionalization of Conservation Authorities, Grey County continues to observe a shift from
locally focused governance toward a population-based regional governance model. While this
may improve consistency across the province, it also reduces direct representation from rural
municipalities and lessens the influence of communities covering large geographic portions of
an RCA watershed.
Regional Conservation Authority Board Representation
Grey County notes that the proposed board composition model further reduces rural
representation and shifts governance influence toward larger urban centres.
As previously communicated during earlier consultations on conservation authority restructuring,
Grey County continues to be concerned that the RCA model reduces local governance
influence in rural areas despite the significant role conservation authorities play in rural
communities where much of Ontario's natural heritage system, agricultural land base,
watercourses, and shoreline resources are located. These communities will continue to rely on
conservation authorities for watershed management, natural hazard services, and
environmental stewardship.
Grey County will participate in the proposed Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority and is
anticipated to hold two seats on a proposed twenty-one member board. Eleven of these seats
would be held by four municipalities and regions, York Region, Durham Region, Simcoe County,
and the City of Barrie, representing approximately 25 percent of the geographic area of the
proposed RCA. The remaining ten members would represent approximately 75 percent of the
geographic area.
While Grey County recognizes the need for governance structures that reflect population,
consideration should also be given to the significant geographic scope and environmental
diversity of these large watershed areas.
To provide greater balance between population-based representation and geographic
representation, Grey County suggests eliminating the Tier 4 category and limiting all
municipalities to a maximum of three board seats. This approach would better balance
representation across the watershed while maintaining strong municipal participation.
Grey County further notes that several proposed RCA boards exceed twenty members. Boards
of this size may present governance challenges and reduce decision-making efficiency. The
proposed adjustment would also modestly reduce board size while improving representation
balance.
Grey County would recommend that the Province and OPCA provide details as early as
possible of ways in which proposed “Watershed Councils” may provide additional ways for
smaller, rural communities seeking to meaningfully engage with and influence the priorities of
the new RCA’s.
CAOR-CW-23-26 6 September 10, 2026
Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency Board Eligibility
Grey County supports the proposed exclusion of registered lobbyists from membership on the
Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA) Board. This exclusion helps reduce potential
conflicts of interest and supports public confidence in the governance of the organization.
Grey County would, however, welcome additional clarity regarding the intent and application of
the proposed restrictions involving current Conservation Authority Board members and senior
Conservation Authority staff.
Specifically, Grey County seeks clarification as to whether the intent is:
to prohibit individuals from serving simultaneously on both an RCA (or existing CA)
Board and the OPCA Board; or
to permanently exclude anyone who currently serves on a Conservation Authority Board
from future consideration for appointment to the OPCA Board.
If the latter interpretation is intended, Grey County questions the rationale for such an exclusion.
Current Conservation Authority Board members possess valuable experience and
understanding of conservation authority governance, legislation, and operations. These
individuals may provide important perspectives that would benefit the OPCA Board.
Grey County also notes that the proposed exclusion refers specifically to "current" Board
members. Given that existing Conservation Authority Boards will cease to exist upon transition
to the new RCA structure, clarification is requested regarding whether former Board members
would subsequently become eligible for OPCA Board appointments.
Grey County recommends that the Province more clearly define both the intent and application
of this exclusion.
Similarly, Grey County seeks clarification regarding the exclusion of current officers and senior
staff members of Conservation Authorities.
Many individuals serving in senior leadership positions possess significant expertise in
watershed management, environmental regulation, governance, and organizational leadership.
Depending on the Province's intent, these individuals may represent a valuable pool of potential
OPCA Board candidates.
Grey County notes that references to current Conservation Authority officers and senior staff
may become unclear following transition, as those positions will largely transfer to the new
Regional Conservation Authorities.
Clarification is therefore requested as to whether the intent is:
to prevent individuals from serving concurrently as senior staff of a Conservation
Authority or Regional Conservation Authority and as OPCA Board members; or
to permanently exclude anyone who has ever held a senior Conservation Authority
position from serving on the OPCA Board.
Grey County sees merit in preventing concurrent service where conflicts of interest may arise.
However, if the intent is to permanently exclude former Conservation Authority leaders from
CAOR-CW-23-26 7 September 10, 2026
future OPCA Board participation, Grey County is concerned that a substantial number of
experienced and highly qualified candidates may be unnecessarily excluded.
Grey County therefore encourages the Province to provide detailed definitions and explanatory
guidance regarding these eligibility restrictions to ensure the intent of the regulation is clear and
consistently understood.
Financial and Resource Implications
There is no direct financial impact associated with submission of comments to the Province.
Future financial implications related to RCA governance and levy funding continue to be
monitored and will be reported to Council as additional information becomes available. Previous
reports have identified the potential for significant future levy impacts associated with transition
to the RCA framework.
Relevant Consultation
☐ Internal (list)
☐ AODA Compliance (describe)
☐ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)
☒ External (list)
☒ Member municipality CAOs
☒ Grey Sauble Conservation Authority
☒ Grand River Conservation Authority
☒ Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority
☒ Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
Appendices and Attachments
ERO Notice #026-0740
Supplemental Document: Appointment of members by participating municipalities to RCA
Boards
Conservation Authority Transition Committees
PDR-CW-70-25 – Proposed Changes to Conservation Authorities
Regional Conservation Authorities – June 2026 Update
CAOR-CW-23-26 8 September 10, 2026
7.b CCR-CW-14-26 Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy
The report recommends endorsing an updated Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy effective November 15, 2026. This proposal replaces the flat $75.00 meal per diem with actual expense reimbursements up to that daily maximum while removing the meal allowance from the standard rate. Additionally, the policy introduces a $500.00 annual contribution for continuous learning courses and adjusts seminar reimbursement to cover only one day or a proportionate cost for multi-day events. The Warden retains discretion to attend any number of conferences subject to budget availability, whereas councillors are limited to two paid conferences per year unless approved by Council.
Report Recommends Endorsing an Updated Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy Effective November
The report recommends endorsing an updated Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy effective November 15, 2026, which expands eligible conferences to include those aligned with strategic priorities. The proposal replaces the flat meal per diem of $75.00 for councillors with actual expense reimbursements up to that daily maximum while removing the meal allowance from the standard rate. Additionally, the policy introduces a $500.00 annual contribution for continuous learning courses and adjusts seminar reimbursement to cover only one day or a proportionate cost for multi-day events. The Warden retains discretion to attend any number of conferences subject to budget availability, whereas councillors are limited to two paid conferences per year unless approved by Council.
Agenda item 7.b: CCR-CW-14-26 Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy
---
Attachment: Update to Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy .pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/37da2ef72d5d4a1d602d0f02302a0da013f08b5338921a07702b6ab679733106/7-b-1-update-to-councillor-conference-and-seminar-policy-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: September 10, 2026
Subject / Report No: CCR-CW-14-26
Title: Updated Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy
Prepared by: Tara Warder, Clerk
Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO
Lower Tier(s) Affected:
Recommendation
1. That Report CCR-CW-14-26 regarding an update to the Councillor Conference and
Seminar Policy be received; and
2. That the proposed policy be endorsed as presented, and a by-law be brought
forward for Council’s consideration which includes the policy update, to be
effective upon the start of the 2026-2030 Council term, being November 15, 2026.
Executive Summary
This report presents a draft policy for councillor attendance at conferences and seminars. The
policy was reviewed in 2024 with administrative updates being completed, however ahead of a
new Council term, staff wish to bring another update forward to clarify the policy further and
provide additional flexibility for attendance at conferences, seminars and other continuous
learning activities Council may wish to consider implementing.
Background and Discussion
Grey County Council has a policy, being the Conference and Seminar Attendance for County
Council Members policy, which provides a consistent procedure for use by Council and staff
around conference and seminar attendance by County Councillors.
The policy was last updated in 2024 and included revisions that were housekeeping in nature
and also clarified the conferences that were eligible for payment under the policy. No significant
changes were proposed at the time, which was in the middle of the current term of Council.
Staff are putting forward a proposed updated policy ahead of the next council term that clarifies
the policy further, provides additional continuous learning opportunities for Councillors and
removes the meal per diem that is currently paid in favour of expense reimbursements.
The intent is that the policy would begin at the commencement of the new Council term.
CCR-CW-14-26 1 September 10, 2026
The draft policy is attached and the main changes are outlined below.
Conferences eligible for payment
The conferences eligible for payment by Grey County has been expanded in the
updated draft. In addition to the typical conferences (AMO, ROMA, OGRA, Western
Ontario Municipal Conference, etc), the new draft policy covers conferences that may be
relevant to Grey County’s business but do not fall within the typical list. Conferences with
business that is aligned with Council’s strategic priorities may be covered as well,
subject to advance confirmation by staff.
Clarification that exceeding the allocations under the policy is subject to Council
approval
Seminars and Continuous Learning
A change is being proposed to how seminar attendance is reimbursed in order to
support attendance at multi day seminars, without the full cost being borne by Grey
County. The current policy restricts seminar attendance to one day events only, however
in practice, seminars often extend beyond a single day. The new policy would contribute
one day’s worth of the seminar, with the balance of costs falling to the member
municipality or councillor.
Inclusion of a $500.00 contribution from Grey County in lieu of seminar attendance to be
put towards continuous learning courses related to municipal governance and duties as
a councillor.
These changes are being suggested to recognize the changing political environment and
increased complexity of municipal government.
Change to meal allowance provisions
The current policy provides a meal allowance of $75.00 per day for Councillors and
$125.00 per day for the Warden to cover meals at conferences. The draft policy
proposes to change this to an expense reimbursement so meals are reimbursed based
on actual cost versus a flat rate per diem, as some meals are included in conference
attendance. This is also more consistent with how most member municipalities handle
expenses.
Reporting
Each year, the Clerk will compile an information report outlining attendance at the
forums and seminars attended by County Councillors for information sharing.
At the next practical meeting following a conference, an item will be added to the
Committee of the Whole agenda offering the opportunity for councillors to share
information and benefits on the conferences they attended. This formalizes an existing,
informal practice.
Budget Availability and Approvals
CCR-CW-14-26 2 September 10, 2026
The updated policy also reflects proposed changes that are intended to assist with
improved budget preparations around conferences and seminars. The current policy
allows for both hospitality and conference and seminar attendance per the Warden’s
discretion. In years where the budget is anticipated to be over spent however, it is
difficult to both partake in additional events or restrict participation in events with a policy
that leaves these items open ended. The new draft notes that budget availability or
approval is needed in these circumstances but recognizes the Warden is representing
Grey County and should have higher participation than councillors in years where
budget is available.
Based on recent years budget discussions and outcomes, there are no changes being proposed
to the number of conferences that a councillor may attend on behalf of Grey County.
Legislated Requirements
There are none.
Legal Considerations
There are none.
Financial and Resource Implications
Staff expect a slight increase in the conference registration line if there is uptake from incoming
councillors on the continuous learning provisions. Historically, seminars have not been well
utilized by councillors so large increases are not anticipated. Staff expect offsetting savings in
the travel and meals line as the County will be reimbursing actual costs, not a flat rate per diem.
At this time staff believe these impacts will offset each other and not have an impact on the
overall council budget. However, staff will continue to monitor actual costs and update the
budget accordingly.
Relevant Consultation
☐ Internal
☐ AODA Compliance (describe)
☐ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)
☐ External
Appendices and Attachments
Draft County Councillor Conference and Seminar Attendance Policy
CCR-CW-14-26 3 September 10, 2026
Corporate Policy
Updated Councillor Conference and Seminar Policy
Approved by: County Council Policy:
By-law: 5___ -26 Date Approved:
Replaces: 3-7 Last Revision Date: August 8, 2024
Section: Governance Scheduled for Review by: September 2031
Purpose
To provide a consistent procedure for attendance at conferences and seminars by members of
County Council, the reimbursement of expenses related to those conferences and seminars and
to provide opportunities for County Councillors to participate in continuous learning topics of
their choice in recognition of the changing municipal landscape.
Scope
This procedure applies to County Council members only in respect to Conference and
Seminar/Continuous Learning attendance and reimbursement of associated costs. This
procedure does not apply to Alternate Members of Council.
Definitions
“AMO” means the Association of Municipalities of Ontario
“FCM” means the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
“GLSLCI” means Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
“OGRA” means the Ontario Good Roads Association
“ROMA” means the Rural Ontario Municipal Association
“OSUM” means Ontario Small Urban Municipalities
“Seminar” means a training session, educational session, workshop or course
“Hospitality Event” means a networking event hosted by Grey County
Eligibility
The County of Grey Conference Policy for County Councillors will be
comprised of the following provisions:
Conferences eligible for payment under this by-law include the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and its sections, ROMA,
OGRA, Western Ontario Municipal Conference, OSUM and other
CCR-CW-14-26 4 September 10, 2026
organization conferences in which the County maintains a membership
with the host organization. Conferences that are aligned with Grey
County’s strategic priorities are also eligible where eligibility has been
confirmed prior to registration. Conferences must be held in province.
Attendance at FCM is not eligible, unless hosted in Ontario.
Attendance at conferences not eligible under this policy require the prior
approval of Committee of the Whole, with the exception of FCM if held in
Ontario.
Members of County Council may attend two conferences per year paid by
the County.
Notwithstanding Section 2.1 (b) and (d), the Warden may attend any number
of conferences including FCM and Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiative at their discretion, subject to budget approval and/or budget
availability each year.
Councillors holding positions on Executive Committees of Associations
appointed by Grey County Council may attend any meetings or conferences
of those Associations in addition to the above provisions.
County Councillors will be permitted to exceed the allocations under this
policy only with the prior approval of County Council or Committee of the
Whole. Such requests shall be put forward as a notice of motion to
Council/Committee of the Whole for consideration.
Seminars and Continuous Learning
The Warden may attend any number of Seminars at their discretion, subject
to budget approval and availability each year.
Members of Council may attend one seminar per calendar year relative to
County governance in addition to the conferences authorized by this by-law.
Additional seminars require the prior approval of Committee of the Whole.
Where a seminar extends beyond one day, Grey County will reimburse for
attendance for one day, or the proportionate registration cost for one day’s
attendance. County Councillors or their member municipality will be
responsible for the balance of the registration fees.
In lieu of seminar attendance, County Councillors may be reimbursed up to a
maximum calendar year total of $500.00 for continuous learning courses
related to municipal governance and their duties as councillors. This amount
is considered inclusive of travel, registration fees, meals and
accommodations.
Reimbursement is subject to submission on the approved expense form
within the calendar year and must include receipts.
CCR-CW-14-26 5 September 10, 2026
Reimbursement of Expenses
The County will reimburse the following expenses for Councillors, including
the Warden, attending conferences and seminars:
Transportation (mileage, etc.). Where alternate forms of transportation
are available County payment will be limited to the most economical
alternative
Registration fees
Hotel accommodation
Parking expenses
Meals, where receipts are provided, up to a daily maximum of $75.00 for
Councillors and the Warden, inclusive of HST, tips and gratuity. Alcohol is
not eligible for reimbursement.
Per diem allowance for each day of conference or seminar attended
containing business sessions not to exceed three days.
Notwithstanding 4.1 c) and f), hotel accommodations and per diem allowance
will be increased under the following circumstances:
Per diem allowance will be extended to a maximum of four days for
conferences which are held geographically 500 road kilometres or more
from the County Administration Building to recognize travel time to the
conference and back.
Hotel accommodation will be extended to a maximum of four days for
conferences that are held geographically 500 kilometres or more from the
County Administration Building to recognize travel time.
Councillors attending conferences for which they are members of
Executive Committees of Associations will receive up to an additional day
of per diem if their Executive Committee meets the day prior to the
associated conference.
The payment of expenses will be subject to the submission of the expense
and the proper receipts in support thereof and in the approved submission
method as determined by the Clerk.
Companion programs or expenses are not eligible for payment under this
policy. County Councillors will be invoiced or deducted costs for companion
costs.
Non-Attendance at Conferences
It is recognized that the early confirmation deadlines imposed by the
associations may result in situations where a Councillor must cancel their
CCR-CW-14-26 6 September 10, 2026
attendance at the conference. All efforts will be made to transfer the
registration and/or accommodation to another participant.
In the event that a transfer or refund is not possible, the conference will be
counted as one of the Councillor’s eligible conferences for the year.
Councillors who cancel attendance because of health or bereavement related
reasons for either the Councillor or an immediate family member will be
exempted from this section.
Membership of Councillors on Municipal Associations
Campaign expenses of County Councillors running for office on Municipal
Associations will be paid subject to the prior approval of County Council.
Expenses of County Councillors holding positions on Municipal Associations
or their Committees will be reimbursed in accordance with Section 4 of this
Procedure.
Reporting
7.1 At the next practical meeting following a conference, an item will be added to
the Committee of the Whole agenda for councillors and staff to share information
on the conferences attended.
7.2 At the end of each calendar year, the Clerk will submit an annual report to
Council outlining the attendance at the forums or seminars attended.
Hospitality Events
The use of hospitality events will be at the discretion of the Warden and subject
to budget availability.
CCR-CW-14-26 7 September 10, 2026
7.c PDR-CW-40-26 County Official Plan Amendment 28 H. Bye Construction Final Report
Agenda item 7.c: PDR-CW-40-26 County Official Plan Amendment 28 H.
Final Report for OPA 28 Industrial Redesignation
The Committee Report recommends receiving PDR-CW-40-26 and approving OPA 28 to redesignate lands in the Township of Normanby for industrial use. The proposal facilitates Viking Cives expansion and Yardistry relocation while retaining some Rural designation. Agencies including Enbridge Gas, SVCA, and MTO expressed no objections or concerns regarding the application. Staff noted that archaeological work requires further clarification from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism before final approval.
OPA 28 Archaeological Assessment and Settlement Expansion
The report reviews County Official Plan Amendment 28 regarding the redesignation of lands for Viking Cives and Yardistry, noting that a Hydrogeological Feasibility Study and Traffic Impact Study were submitted without outstanding comments. Staff determined the proposed expansion to the Industrial Business Park Settlement Area is orderly despite proximity to Mount Forest, as the site is sandwiched between two settlement areas with undevelopable wetlands to the west. While provincial standards allow private on-site servicing in limited circumstances, a revised Stage 1–2 Archaeological Assessment found artifacts at a former homestead and Indigenous sites, leading Saugeen Ojibway Nation staff to withhold final sign-off pending clarification from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport. A proposed holding symbol would cover these sensitive areas until the assessment is accepted into the provincial register, though County staff believe this approach may not satisfy SON standards.
Redesignate 10 Hectares for Industrial Development
The County Official Plan redesignates approximately 10 hectares of Rural land to an Industrial Business Park Settlement Area to permit future industrial development in the Township of Normanby. The amendment excludes Hazard Lands from changes and relies on a Planning Justification Report alongside technical studies for support.
Agenda item 7.c: PDR-CW-40-26 County Official Plan Amendment 28 H. Bye Construction Final Report
---
Attachment: County Official Plan Amendment 28 H. Bye Construction Final Report - PDR-CW-40-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/43e0fcd1f3e32324e6d480496fc34544e6a2070dc95bc738897b97a2381f9dd5/7-c-1-county-official-plan-amendment-28-h-bye-construction-final-report-pdr-cw-40-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: September 10, 2026
Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-40-26
Title: Final Report for Grey County Official Plan Amendment 28, H.
Bye Construction
Prepared by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO and Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO
Lower Tier(s) Affected: Municipality of West Grey
Recommendation
1. That report PDR-CW-40-26 be received; and
2. That all written and oral submissions on official plan amendment number 28 were
considered and helped to make an informed recommendation and decision; and
3. That proposed County official plan amendment number 28 to permit the
redesignation of the subject lands from the ‘Rural’ and ‘Hazard Lands’
designations to the ‘Industrial Business Park Settlement Area’, ‘Rural’, and Hazard
Lands’ designations to permit additional industrial development on land legally
described as Part Lot 32, Concession 1, Divisions 1 and 2, and Parts 7, 8, and 9,
17R2039, and Part 1 17R2090 T/W/ GS171216; geographic Township of Normanby,
now in the Municipality of West Grey, be approved, and;
4. That a by-law to adopt the County official plan amendment number 28 be prepared
for consideration by County Council.
Executive Summary
Grey County has processed a County official plan amendment (OPA 28) application by H. Bye
Construction. The proposed OPA would facilitate the expansion of an existing industrial
business (Viking-Cives) and the relocation of an industrial business (Yardistry). OPA 28
proposes to redesignate a portion of the subject lands from the ‘Rural’ and ‘Hazard Lands’
designations to the ‘Industrial Business Park Settlement Area’ and ‘Hazard Lands’ designations.
The remainder of the subject lands would remain in the ‘Rural’ designation. There is no
development proposed within the ‘Hazard Lands’ portion of the property. A corresponding
zoning by-law amendment (ZBLA) has also been approved by the Municipality of West Grey.
Future consent, site plan control, and an additional ZBLA application would also be required for
this development.
PDR-CW-40-26 1 September 10, 2026
The subject lands are located north of Mount Forest and immediately adjacent to the Industrial
Business Park Settlement Area. These businesses would gain access from Viola May Crescent,
Harry Bye Boulevard, and could also have future access to a Coral Lea Drive extension (shown
as Watson Drive in some of the supporting materials). This development is proposed to be
serviced via individual well and septic systems, similar to the other businesses in the Industrial
Business Park Settlement Area.
This report recommends that Committee of the Whole support OPA 28, and that a by-law be
prepared for consideration by County Council.
Background and Discussion
Grey County has processed County official plan amendment application (OPA 28) to permit the
expansion of Viking Cives, which produces snow-plow equipment, and the relocation of
Yardistry, which produces gazebos and outdoor shade structures. A summary of the proposed
industrial development is as follows:
1. The Viking Cives expansion is proposed on approximately 7.6 hectares and would
facilitate “a new 3,900 m2 manufacturing building (with additional space to accommodate
a future 3,900 m2 expansion), and 448 truck body staging spots where finished products
are parked until they are shipped or delivery is taken.” The total Viking Cives expansion
would also include an additional 2 hectares of land which are already designated as
‘Industrial Business Park Settlement Area’, however these lands are not subject to OPA
28.
2. The Yardistry relocation, on approximately 2.5 hectares, would facilitate “a 4,645 m2
manufacturing building with ancillary parking and loading spaces.”
Proposed OPA 28 would redesignate a portion of the subject lands from the ‘Rural’ and ‘Hazard
Lands’ designations to the ‘Industrial Business Park Settlement Area’ and ‘Hazard Lands’
designations. It’s only a portion of the Rural designation that requires the OPA, and the
remainder of the subject lands would remain in the Rural designation. There is no development
proposed within the Hazard Lands portion of the property. Appendix B to the County plan maps
some other wetlands and watercourses on or near the subject lands.
Map 1 below shows the lands proposed to be redesignated, as well as the surrounding area.
The subject lands are legally described as Part Lot 32, Concession 1, Divisions 1 and 2, and
Parts 7, 8, and 9, 17R2039, and Part 1 17R2090 T/W/ GS171216; geographic Township of
Normanby, now in the Municipality of West Grey.
PDR-CW-40-26 2 September 10, 2026
Map 1: Location of Subject Lands (Map 1 courtesy of MHBC Planning)
The lands are north of Mount Forest immediately adjacent to the Industrial Business Park
Settlement Area. Access to the subject lands would be from an extension of Viola May
Crescent, Harry Bye Boulevard, and potentially a future extension of Coral Lea Drive (shown as
Watson Drive on map 1).
PDR-CW-40-26 3 September 10, 2026
A corresponding zoning by-law amendment (ZBLA) has also been approved by the Municipality
of West Grey for the Viking Cives and Yardistry lands as shown on map 1 above. This ZBLA is
contingent on OPA 28 also being approved. Future consent and site plan control applications
would also be required for this development. A further ZBLA is also proposed for a portion of the
southeastern section of this development (i.e., a small portion of the Viking Cives lands).
Pre-submission consultation between the Municipality of West Grey, the County of Wellington,
the Township of Wellington North, and Grey County identified the submission requirements for
the County OPA. The draft County OPA is included in the Appendices section of this report.
Copies of all background reports and plans, as well as the joint public meeting minutes, can be
found on the County of Grey Website.
Public/Agency Comments Received
As part of the development application process, County staff received comments on the
proposed development. Correspondence was received from the following agencies:
Municipality of West Grey
Several municipal staff contributed comments throughout the development review process. The
Municipality of West Grey has no concerns with the proposed OPA, and has passed a related
ZBLA.
Enbridge Gas
Enbridge Gas does not object to the OPA, but reserves the right to amend or remove
development conditions on future applications where applicable.
Grey County Transportation Services
Transportation Services has no concerns with OPA 28.
County Planning Ecology
County Planning Ecology staff reviewed the submitted Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and
Stormwater Management (SWM) Reports. Ecology staff highlighted some technical
recommendations from the EIS that are recommended to be incorporated into the design of the
SWM via the site plan control and detailed design stage.
Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA)
The SVCA provided comments to indicate no concerns. SVCA did note some technical
comments relating to the SWM which the final SWM report should address.
County of Wellington
Wellington County has no concerns or comments on the proposed applications.
Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
MTO staff provided the following comments on OPA 28:
“A portion of the subject property falls within the MTO’s permit control area however the MTO
have no requirements for current proposal and the scope of work. Should the proposal change
PDR-CW-40-26 4 September 10, 2026
in any way, MTO will be required to be circulated for review and our comments and
requirements may change based on the scope of the change.”
Township of Southgate
Township of Southgate staff provided the following comments on OPA 28:
“Township staff recommend applicability of D-6 Guidelines to the proposed development.
Township staff have no concerns regarding the application and defer to Grey County for
comments on the proposed boundary expansion.”
Historic Saugeen Metis (HSM)
HSM staff provided the following comments on OPA 28:
“The Historic Saugeen Métis (HSM) Lands, Waters and Consultation Department has reviewed
the relevant documents and has no objection to the proposed development, provided that the
mitigation measures outlined in the relevant Scoped Environmental Impact Studies are
followed.”
Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON)
The SON Environment Office (EO) provided a series of comments throughout the development
review process. Initially SON EO staff raised concerns with the Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological
Assessment completed in support of OPA 28. The proponent then had their archeologist
complete additional archaeological work (an updated Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment)
on the subject lands in response to the SON EO staff comments. SON’s archaeologist and
monitors were on-site as this additional work was being completed. SON EO staff have asked
for additional clarification on the additional archaeological work from the Ministry of Citizenship
and Multiculturalism (MCM). As of the date of writing this report, the MCM clarification has not
been received, and nor has the County received the final SON EO technical comments on the
additional archaeological work.
Further review of the SON comments and archaeological work will be explored in the Analysis
of Planning Issues section below.
Public comments:
One member of the public submitted written comments with some concerns about the proposed
stormwater management for the new development. That comment was later followed up on to
note that they were working with the proponent on a resolution to their concerns.
Analysis of Planning Issues
When rendering a land use planning decision, planning authorities must have regard for matters
of provincial interest under the Planning Act, be consistent with the Provincial Planning
Statement (PPS) 2024 and conform to any provincial plans or County / Municipal official plans
that govern the subject lands. In this case, the County of Grey official plan has jurisdiction over
the subject property. West Grey’s official plan only covers Durham and Neustadt, and as such,
does not pertain to the subject lands. There are no provincial plans in effect for this area of the
County.
PDR-CW-40-26 5 September 10, 2026
The Planning Act
Section 2 of the Planning Act outlines matters of provincial interest which planning authorities
must have regard for. Amongst other considerations, the Planning Act speaks to the need to
have regard for;
(a) the protection of ecological systems including natural areas, features and functions;
(b) the protection of agricultural resources of the Province;
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological
or scientific interest;
(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and
water services and waste management systems;
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities;
(o) the protection of public health and safety; and
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development.
Staff comments on each of these matters of provincial interest are provided below.
(a) the protection of ecological systems
EIS and SWM reports were submitted in support of OPA 28. The EIS and SWM reports were
reviewed by the circulated agencies including HSM, SVCA, West Grey, and County Planning
Ecology. Within the comments on the application, there were some matters flagged to be
considered as part of the final site plan control and detailed design stage, but there are no
outstanding concerns on OPA 28.
(b) the protection of agricultural resources
The subject lands are currently designated as ‘Rural’ and not ‘Agricultural’. While the subject
lands have been farmed in the past, they do not qualify as prime agricultural land within the
context of the PPS or the County official plan.
Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) calculations were submitted in support of the
development, demonstrating that OPA 28 will not further negatively impact nearby farming
operations.
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological
or scientific interest;
Throughout the development review process there were discussions with SON EO on the
review of the Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment. The initial Assessment and an updated
Assessment in relation to the SON EO comments were submitted to the County and circulated
to the SON EO. MCM has entered the original Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment into the
provincial register. The revised Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment will also be submitted to
MCM for their review. A holding symbol is being recommended for the future ZBLA on the
southeast portion of the Viking Cives lands, to ensure MCM’s review is completed prior to
further site disturbance. SON EO staff have not provided additional detailed comments on the
revised Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment, but have recommended the proponent first
seek clarification with MCM on a technical aspect of the report, before SON EO provides
PDR-CW-40-26 6 September 10, 2026
additional comments. This matter will be reviewed in greater detail in the PPS analysis which
follows later in this report.
(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and
water services and waste management systems
A Hydrogeological Feasibility Study, Nitrate Attenuation Study, Traffic Impact Study, and
Grading Plans were submitted with the development applications. There are no outstanding
comments with respect to these studies. As noted above, should OPA 28 be approved, site plan
control will be required for the proposed development. There are further drainage and SWM
considerations to be finalized at the site plan control and detailed design stage.
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities
The proposed development is located adjacent to the current Industrial Business Park
Settlement Area, as well as the town of Mount Forest. A central principle to modern land use
planning is to keep settlement area boundaries firm, except where there is a justified need for a
logical expansion to the settlement area. Prior to submitting the applications, there were pre-
submission consultation meetings between the Township of Wellington North, County of
Wellington, Municipality of West Grey, County of Grey, and the proponent. Wellington County,
who provides planning services for Wellington North has also since provided comments on OPA
28. Additional commentary on the settlement area boundary expansion will be provided in the
analysis of the PPS and County official plan, but staff are satisfied that this represents an
orderly expansion to the Industrial Business Park Settlement Area, without compromising Mount
Forest’s long-term growth prospects.
(k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities;
The redesignation of these lands would create additional employment opportunities in southern
Grey County, while also serving northern Wellington County. OPA 28 would support a
significant expansion of Viking Cives which is a long-standing employer with operations in both
Canada and the United States. Given the global economic uncertainty, support for local industry
is important, including fostering the growth of businesses already located in our region.
(o) the protection of public health and safety
The proposed development will be serviced by private on-site servicing and would not
negatively impact the surrounding businesses or any nearby farms. SVCA has also reviewed
the development with respect to the Hazard Lands on the property and has no outstanding
concerns. The Hazard Lands on-site will not be developed and will be situated on the retained
lands (i.e., not the lands proposed to be severed and sold to Viking Cives and Yardistry).
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development
The subject lands are ‘sandwiched’ between Mount Forest to the south and the Industrial
Business Park Settlement Area to the north and east. To the west of the subject lands is
wetlands and Hazard Lands which are undevelopable. The expansion of industry here does not
negatively impact any sensitive receptors in Mount Forest, or present any land use
incompatibilities, and will safeguard any significant natural features in the area. Map 2 below
shows the location of the lands, including the County official plan designation boundaries,
relative to Mount Forest.
PDR-CW-40-26 7 September 10, 2026
Map 2: Subject Lands and Current County Official Plan
Designation Boundaries
Although OPA 28 includes two parcels of land to be severed from the subject property; the
remaining retained Rural lands, and the abutting lands to the south are also likely future
candidates for industrial growth. Future growth of this nature would require additional
applications, as well as communication and coordination between West Grey and Wellington
North.
Based on the materials submitted, and the ability to implement a holding symbol as part of the
future ZBLA, OPA 28 has regard for matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act.
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 2024
The PPS is based on four fundamental planning themes, specifically, “Building Homes,
Sustaining Strong and Competitive Communities”, “Infrastructure and Facilities”, “Wise Use and
Management of Resources” and “Protecting Public Health and Safety.”
Chapter 2.3.1 of the PPS notes that ‘Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and
development’. Chapter 2.3.2 provides policies on settlement area boundary expansions. Up until
2024, the expansion of a settlement area used to require the completion of a ‘comprehensive
review’, which was a provincially mandated study needed to justify a settlement area expansion.
In 2024, the PPS removed the requirement for a comprehensive review, and provided some
additional flexibility to municipalities to consider such settlement area expansions. The
proponent’s Planning Justification Report (PJR) has assessed the PPS 2024 and concluded
that this site-specific expansion is warranted.
PDR-CW-40-26 8 September 10, 2026
As noted above, another key component of OPA 28 has been coordination with Wellington
County and Wellington North, who have both been engaged from the pre-submission
consultation stage onwards, and have been excellent partners to work with. Although the
subject development is not proposing to extend services from Wellington North, they are in very
close proximity to Mount Forest and provide employment for people living in Mount Forest, as
well as Wellington and Grey Counties. Grey County and West Grey staff have both ‘wrestled
with’ how to treat the expansion of one settlement area (i.e., the Industrial Business Park
Settlement Area) on the periphery of another fully serviced settlement area (i.e., Mount Forest).
Had it not been for the existing business park already established to the north and east of the
subject lands, and the fact that these lands represent a finite land supply ‘sandwiched’ between
the two settlement areas (see Map 2 above), County staff could not have supported additional
settlement area growth in this location. However, given the site-specific context, and the support
from Wellington County and Wellington North, staff are supportive of a settlement area
expansion in this location.
Chapters 2.5 and 2.6 of the PPS provide guidance on land uses and economic growth within
Rural Areas and Rural Lands within municipalities.
Chapter 2.5(2) of the PPS states that in Rural Areas:
“In rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development and
their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.”
The subject lands are not within a designated rural settlement area, however, are proposed to
be redesignated to a privately serviced settlement area.
Chapter 2.8 of the PPS supports the protection of and the expansion of employment lands
throughout the province. The proposed industrial growth aligns well with provincial objectives in
this regard.
Chapter 3.6 of the PPS provides direction on servicing and stormwater. Full municipal services
are atop the servicing hierarchy; however individual private on-site services can be considered
in limited circumstances. A Hydrogeological Feasibility Assessment and Nitrate Attenuation
Study were submitted with the applications and determined that the subject site, with the lot
sizes proposed, can be adequately serviced by private on-site water and septic servicing. As
noted earlier a SWM report was submitted with some further details to be finalized at the site
plan stage.
Chapter 4.1 of the PPS contains policy direction on natural heritage features and areas. The
policies of this section of the PPS have been satisfied by the EIS and related mitigation
measures being proposed.
Chapter 6.2.2 of the PPS states the following:
“Planning authorities shall undertake early engagement with Indigenous communities and
coordinate on land use planning matters to facilitate knowledge-sharing, support
consideration of Indigenous interests in land use decision-making and support the
identification of potential impacts of decisions on the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty
rights.”
PDR-CW-40-26 9 September 10, 2026
Chapter 4.6(5) of the PPS further states that “Planning authorities shall engage early with
Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting
and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage
landscapes”.
A Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed to determine if there were any
archaeological resources within the area proposed to be developed and severed. This report
was accepted into the provincial register in 2025. Upon review of the Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological
Assessment SON EO staff raised concerns and asked for additional works to be completed on-
site. The proponent reengaged their archaeologist and completed additional work on-site with
SON EO monitors and their archaeologist present. A revised Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological
Assessment has since been issued, but not yet entered into the provincial register.
The subject lands used to be a farm, with a farmhouse, barns, and outbuildings. Map 3 below
shows an airphoto from 2010 where the previous development is visible in the southeast corner
of the property. When the revised Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed,
several artifacts were found relating to this former homestead. Of these artifacts found, there
was a large density of artifacts in the location of the former homestead and outbuildings, as well
as others scattered across the site.
The revised Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment also found some Indigenous artifacts in
three locations. Of the three locations, two were approximately in the location of the former
homestead and outbuildings, and the third site was not on the subject lands, and not covered by
OPA 28. Since the revised assessment was completed, a draft has been shared with SON EO
staff. SON EO staff recommended that the proponent’s archaeologist seek clarification from
MCM on components of the study and the materials found. SON EO staff have withheld their
further detailed technical comments, pending the clarification from MCM.
In discussions with the proponent, they have requested that the County move forward and issue
a decision on OPA 28, based on some deadlines needed by one of the industrial clients looking
to buy the lands. Their archaeologist is confident that the revised Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological
Assessment will be accepted by MCM and no further on-site works will be needed. SON EO
staff believe further on-site works are needed, particularly in the location of the former
homestead and two Indigenous find sites.
PDR-CW-40-26 10 September 10, 2026
Map 3: 2010 Airphoto of the Subject Lands and Surrounding Area
A ZBLA for the broader Viking Cives and Yardistry development has already been approved by
West Grey, and no appeals were submitted on that application. Should OPA 28 be approved,
the development will still require consent applications, as well as site plan control. The
proponent is also proposing a further ZBLA application, which would implement a holding
symbol in the southeast corner of the lands, approximately one hectare in size. This holding
symbol could not be removed, and development could not occur on that one hectare portion of
the site until MCM had accepted the revised Stage 1 – 2 Archaeological Assessment into the
provincial register. The holding symbol would cover the former homestead site and the two
Indigenous find sites on the subject lands.
In discussions with SON EO staff, both on this file and on other files, SON EO staff are not
satisfied that archaeological and cultural heritage matters have been satisfactorily addressed
based on acceptance into the provincial register of an Archaeological Assessment. The
province maintains their own Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, including
what’s required for Stages 1 – 4 Archaeological Assessments. However, so too does the
Saugeen Ojibway Nation have their own development consultation protocols and Standards and
Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology within Saugeen Ojibway Nation Territory. SON EO staff
have noted that their archaeological standards differ from the provincial standards. There have
been numerous instances where an archaeological assessment was entered into the provincial
register, which does not meet SON’s standards. SON further notes that acceptance by MCM
into the provincial register comes with the following caveat by MCM.
PDR-CW-40-26 11 September 10, 2026
“Based on the information contained in the report, the ministry is satisfied that the fieldwork and
reporting for the archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards
and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological
licences. This report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological
Reports. Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the
completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register.”
Given that the SON standards are different than Ministry standards, SON EO staff have
consistently impressed upon County and Municipal staff the need for early engagement on new
development or policy projects in their traditional territory. When a developer engages with SON
EO staff early in the process they will offer feedback on a development proposal, including the
terms of reference for technical studies, such as Archaeological Assessments.
Neither the PPS nor provincial standards require ‘approval’ from a First Nation, but rather speak
to ‘engagement’. In recent years, staff have encouraged proponents to engage early with First
Nations and Metis communities, similar to wording in the 2024 PPS. In some cases,
engagement results in Indigenous communities noting that they have no further concerns with a
proposed development. In other instances, a proponent may engage a First Nation, but not fully
‘satisfy’ said First Nation.
In this case, the proponent has engaged SON, but SON EO staff have not yet ‘signed off on’ the
work completed. The proponent has however completed additional archaeological work, with
SON staff present on-site, to ensure that any significant archaeological resources are duly
protected on-site. The above-noted holding symbol to be placed on the homestead portion of
the property is meant to protect this site until MCM has accepted the revised Stage 1 – 2
Archaeological Assessment into the provincial register. County staff believe that this approach
will not be supported by SON EO staff, but that it may satisfy the policies of the PPS. Staff have
provided additional legal considerations for Council’s information via a separate in camera
report.
Based on the materials submitted, and the ability to implement a holding symbol as part of the
future ZBLA, proposed OPA 28 is consistent with the PPS.
County of Grey Official Plan
Similar to the PPS, the County official plan directs most new growth to fully serviced settlement
areas. Much of the County official plan policies overlap with the subject matter in the Planning
Act and the PPS. For the sake of brevity, County staff will minimize the duplicative subject
matter reviewed below.
The subject lands are designated as ‘Rural’ and ‘Hazard Lands’ on Schedule A to the County
official plan. Appendix A identifies a watercourse on the subject lands, in the location of the
Hazard Lands, but outside of the areas proposed for development under OPA 28.
Section 3.4.2 of the County official plan requires a comprehensive review prior to the expansion
of a settlement area. As noted in the PPS section above, the comprehensive review
requirements were removed from the PPS in 2024. The County has not completed a fulsome
official plan update yet to be consistent with PPS 2024, and that update is scheduled to
commence in 2027. Based on the direction in the PPS, and the fact that all decisions need to be
PDR-CW-40-26 12 September 10, 2026
consistent with the PPS, the County did not require a comprehensive review to be submitted
with OPA 28.
The current Industrial Business Park Settlement Area designation applies to lands just north of
Mount Forest west of Highway 6 in the Municipality of West Grey. The boundaries of this
designation were meant to encompass the existing business park, and did not designate a
surplus of future growth lands as part of the designation. The PJR submitted with the application
addressed this expansion, as well as reviewing sections 3.10 and 3.9.4 of the County official
plan relating to the Industrial Business Park Settlement Area and related development criteria.
The servicing, stormwater, transportation, and natural heritage policies have generally been
covered above in the Planning Act and PPS analysis.
Section 4.5.1 of the County official plan provides policies on cultural heritage. Section 4.5.1(2)
contains a more detailed policy framework on archaeological resources. Similar to the policies
of the PPS analyzed above, the policies speak to the important and irreplaceable nature of
cultural heritage features. Section 4.4(6) of the official plan speaks to consultation and
collaboration with Indigenous populations including the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. As per the
PPS analysis above, the proponent has engaged with SON EO staff, and prepared additional
archaeological work, including proposing a holding symbol, to ensure the protection of
archaeological resources. This revised work is proposed to be completed to MCM’s standards,
but may not meet SON’s standards.
Section 9.3 of the County official plan contains policies on amending the plan. Staff are satisfied
that the criteria in section 9.3 have been satisfactorily addressed.
Based on the materials submitted, and the ability to implement a holding symbol as part of the
future ZBLA, OPA 28 generally conforms to the goals and objectives of the County official plan.
Going Green in Grey
Similar to Recolour Grey, Going Green in Grey (the County’s climate change action plan),
generally supports new non-farm development in mixed use settlement areas, where services
and amenities are in place. The proposed development would require an expansion to a
settlement area, but is in close proximity to Mount Forest, where many employees of these
future industries would live. The proposed lots would not negatively impact natural heritage
features and have minimal impact on farmland.
Municipality of West Grey Official Plan
As noted above, the West Grey official plan only covers Durham and Neustadt and does not
cover this section of the Municipality. West Grey staff have already amended the zoning by-law
in support of OPA 28 and have been active participants in the review process. Should OPA 28
be approved, the Municipality would then process the additional consent, zoning by-law
amendment, and site plan applications.
Legislated Requirements
OPA 28 was processed in accordance with the Planning Act.
PDR-CW-40-26 13 September 10, 2026
Legal Considerations
Staff sought legal advice on elements related to this OPA application. A separate in camera
report will be presented at the September 10, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting with a
summary of that legal advice.
Financial and Resource Implications
There are no anticipated financial, staffing, or other resource considerations associated with the
proposed County official plan amendment, beyond those normally encountered in processing
such applications. The County has collected the requisite application fee and peer review
deposit for this application.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: CAO/Deputy CAO, Legal Services, and Planning
☒ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (contained in the body of the
Report)
☒ External: The Public, Municipality of West Grey, Township of Southgate, Township of
Wellington North, County of Wellington, Saugeen Ojibway Nation, Saugeen Valley
Conservation Authority, Ministry of Transportation, external legal counsel, and required
bodies/agencies under the Planning Act.
Appendices and Attachments
Appendix 1: Draft Official Plan Amendment 28 By-law
PDR-CW-40-26 14 September 10, 2026
Appendix 1: Draft Official Plan Amendment 28 By-law
Corporation of the County of Grey
By-Law __-26
A By-Law to Adopt Amendment No. 28 to the County of Grey Official Plan affecting
lands described as Part Lot 32, Concession 1, Divisions 1 and 2, and Parts 7, 8, and 9,
17R2039, and Part 1 17R2090 T/W/ GS171216; geographic Township of Normanby,
now in the Municipality of West Grey.
The Council of the County of Grey, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 and 21 of
the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, hereby enacts as follows:
1. Amendment No. 28 to the County of Grey Official Plan is hereby adopted.
2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing thereof,
subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.
ENACTED AND PASSED this ___ day of_________, 2026.
___________________________ ______________________________
WARDEN: Andrea Matrosovs CLERK: Tara Warder
Certified that the above is a true copy of By-Law __-26 as enacted and passed by the Council of
the County of Grey on the ___ day of _________, 2026.
______________________________
CLERK: Tara Warder
PDR-CW-40-26 15 September 10, 2026
Amendment No. 28 to the County of Grey Official
Plan
Index Page
The Constitutional Statement 3
Part A – The Preamble
Purpose 4
Location 4
Basis 4
Part B – The Amendment
Introductory Statement 6
Details of the Amendment 6
Part C – The Appendices
Appendix A Planning Justification Report and associated Technical Reports
Appendix B Initial Merit Report PDR-CW-62-25
Appendix C Public Meeting Minutes – November 18, 2025
Appendix D Planning Report PDR-CW-40-26 and Committee of the Whole Resolution
PDR-CW-40-26 16 September 10, 2026
Amendment No. 28 to the County of Grey Official
Plan
The Constitutional Statement
Part A – The Preamble does not constitute a part of the Amendment.
Part B – The Amendment consisting of the following text and Schedule, constitutes
Amendment No. 28 to the County of Grey Official Plan
Part C- The Appendices attached hereto do not constitute part of this Amendment.
These Appendices contain background data, planning considerations and public involvement
associated with this Amendment.
PDR-CW-40-26 17 September 10, 2026
Part A – The Preamble
Purpose
The purpose of the County official plan amendment (File #42-05-010-OPA-28) is to
redesignate approximately 10 hectares of land from the ‘Rural’ designation to the
‘Industrial Business Park Settlement Area’ designation to permit future industrial
development on the lands. The ‘Hazard Lands’ will not be amended through OPA 28 and
development is not proposed in that section of the property.
Location
The lands affected by the proposed official plan amendment are described as Part Lot
32, Concession 1, Divisions 1 and 2, and Parts 7, 8, and 9, 17R2039, and Part 1
17R2090 T/W/ GS171216; geographic Township of Normanby, now in the Municipality
of West Grey.
Basis
The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) and Grey County official plan both include
policies to direct new development to settlement areas, while promoting and protecting
employment lands. The proposed development would allow for the expansion of an
existing business park to facilitate additional employment growth, including the
expansion of an existing industry. A Planning Justification Report, an Archaeological
Assessment, Environmental Impact Study, Traffic Impact Study, Nitrate Attenuation
Study, and Hydrogeological Feasibility Study have been provided to support the
amendment.
The County and the Municipality held a joint public meeting on November 18, 2025.
Comments received are summarized in Planning Report PDR-CW-40-26, which can be
found at Appendix D.
The minutes from the public meeting are attached as Appendix C.
Based on the supporting material, the official plan amendment was recommended for
approval to the Grey County Committee of the Whole. The reports of the Planning
department (PDR-CW-62-25 and PDR-CW-40-26) are included in Appendices B and D.
Part B – The Amendment
All this part of the document entitled “Part B – The Amendment” consisting of the following text
and Schedules constitutes Amendment No. 28 to the County of Grey Official Plan.
Details of the Amendment
The Official Plan of the County of Grey Planning Area is amended as follows:
PDR-CW-40-26 18 September 10, 2026
1. Schedule A – The “Rural” designation of the County of Grey Official Plan is hereby
amended by changing the designation of the lands shown on Schedule ‘A’ affixed hereto
to the “Industrial Business Park Settlement Area” land use designation.
2. The “Hazard Lands” and remaining “Rural” lands on the subject property are not being
amended.
Implementation and Interpretation
The changes to the Official Plan described in this Amendment shall be implemented in
accordance with the implementation policy of the Official Plan of the County of Grey as
contained in Section 9.3 thereof.
Part C – The Appendices
The following Appendices do not constitute part of Amendment No. 28 but are included as
information supporting the Amendment.
Appendix A Planning Justification Report and associated Technical Reports
Appendix B Initial Merit Report PDR-CW-62-25
Appendix C Public Meeting Minutes – November 18, 2025
Appendix D Planning Report PDR-CW-40-26 and Committee of the Whole Resolution
PDR-CW-40-26 19 September 10, 2026
MUNICIPALITY OF WEST GREY
Grey Road 109
Norpark Avenue
Highway 6
Harry Bye Boulevard
Viola May Crescent
Watson Drive
MOUNT FOREST
N
Grey County
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NUMBER 28
to the
GREY COUNTY OFFICIAL PLAN
Land Use Types
SCHEDULE A
LEGEND
Subject Lands
Lands Subject to Official Plan Amendment
Agricultural
Special Agricultural
Rural
Primary Settlement Area
Secondary Settlement Area
Inland Lakes & Shoreline
Recreational Resort Area
Sunset Strip Area
Industrial Business Park
Space Extensive Industrial and Commercial
Niagara Escarpment Plan Boundary **
Niagara Escarpment Development Control
Escarpment Natural Area
Escarpment Recreation Area
Hazard Lands
Provincially Significant Wetlands
BY-LAW NUMBER
SCALE = 1:6,000
GREY COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
2025 - 11X17 - OPA28_SchedA_WG.mxd
Please be aware this map is for illustrative purposes only. Do not rely on this map as being a precise indicator of routes, location of features or surveying purposes. This map may contain cartographic errors or omissions
PDR-CW-40-26
20
September 10, 2026
8 Closed Meeting Matters
The
Agenda item 8: Closed Meeting Matters
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
8.
Closed Meeting Matters
That the Committee of the Whole does now go into closed session pursuant to
Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to discuss:
i.
advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications
necessary for that purpose (OPA 28)
9 Other Business
The agenda item for Other Business is listed in the combined package.
Agenda item 9: Other Business
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
9.
Other Business
10 Notice of Motion
The agenda lists a notice of motion as the tenth item.
Agenda item 10: Notice of Motion
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
10.
Notice of Motion
11 Adjournment
Council adjourns the meeting.
Agenda item 11: Adjournment
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
11.
Adjournment