Committee of the Whole Agenda Preview — November 12, 2026

Summary

One-sentence summary: On November 12, 2026 at 10:15 AM, the Committee will consider awarding a nurse call system replacement contract to Wireless Resident Nurse Alert Technology Inc. for Grey Gables and Lee Manor; advancing the transfer of Neustadt storm sewer infrastructure to the Municipality of West Grey ahead of June 1, 2027; authorizing an agreement allowing West Grey to design an alternative intersection in Durham; adopting the Town of The Blue Mountains Official Plan Update; approving Official Plan Amendment 32 for Wilton Sanitation to redesignate lands for expanded on-farm diversified use and permit a new concrete septage holding tank; submitting comments on proposed Conservation Authority Act Regulatory Amendments regarding jurisdictional updates; reviewing a quarterly purchasing status for Q3 2026; and considering Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment PS-229-25 for the Walker Duntroon Quarry.

The Committee of the Whole is scheduled to convene to review a range of reports covering infrastructure transfers, land-use updates, and service system replacements. Staff presents recommendations on storm drain agreements, official plan amendments for The Blue Mountains and Wilton Sanitation, and funding approvals for regional initiatives including nurse call systems and conservation authority comment submissions. Specific consideration is given to: * Awarding the nurse call system replacement contract to Wireless Resident Nurse Alert Technology Inc. for Grey Gables and Lee Manor. * Approving Official Plan Amendment 32 to redesignate lands for expanded on-farm diversified use by Wilton Sanitation and permit a new concrete septage holding tank. * Authorizing an agreement allowing West Grey to design and assume full ownership and liability for a new intersection in Durham, alongside the transfer of Neustadt storm sewer infrastructure ahead of the scheduled June 1, 2027 road transfer. * Sending comments to the Niagara Escarpment Commission regarding an amendment for the Walker Duntroon Quarry that allows continued use of existing processing facilities after Clearview Township decided not to close Township Road 91. * Approving partial funding for the Development Charge Reduction Program application submitted in June 2026. * Submitting feedback on proposed Conservation Authority Act Regulatory Amendments regarding jurisdictional updates before the consultation deadline between November 21 and December 6, 2026. * Considering correspondence that urges reconsider

Top Newsworthy Developments

Key Topics & Sections

Full Transcript

Agenda item 1: Call to Order

Agenda item 2: Declaration of Interest

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

2.

Declaration of Interest

Agenda item 3: Business Arising from Minutes

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

3.

Business Arising from Minutes

Agenda item 4: Delegations

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

4.

Delegations

Agenda item 5: Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

5.

Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion

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.

Agenda item 6.a: Correspondence regarding the amended beaver by-laws, forms, and compensation

---

Attachment: Grey County Animal Claim changes (1).pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/e46e95d692eb34f753102c9ad2d6338807d6e2dcd8ab5c4b8f02b4b223afe8f9/6-a-1-grey-county-animal-claim-changes-1-pdf.pdf

18 September 2026

Re: Amended Beaver By-laws, Forms and Compensation

Attention: Grey County Staff

Although the increase in compensation for controlling flooding, damming and tree
cutting caused by nuisance beavers is welcomed, we believe several aspects of the
recent changes require further consideration. Some of the undersigned attended the
information session hosted by Grey County; however, the session was viewed more as
a presentation than a forum in which meaningful input from experienced trappers was
sought. None of the undersigned felt they had an adequate opportunity to contribute to
the development of these changes.

Collectively, we represent multiple decades of practical experience working with
Grey County Roads, municipal road departments and private landowners. Trappers
provide a genuine and valuable service to municipal governments by helping keep
drainage systems and culverts flowing, reducing the risk of flooded or damaged roads,
addressing nuisance-beaver activity and assisting in the protection of both public
infrastructure and private property. This work is often performed in difficult
conditions, on short notice and in locations where timely action can prevent more
significant damage and expense.

Trappers responding to municipal calls for service have historically been
undercompensated. They should be recognized as contractors and skilled service
providers, comparable to other individuals who supply specialized training,
equipment, vehicles, fuel and labour to municipal governments. The work is time-
consuming and carries real operating costs. With the value of pelts no longer
providing a reliable source of income, fair compensation for the actual service
provided is increasingly important. In our view, the recent change preventing County
beaver claims for animals taken on public land or road allowances moves
compensation in the opposite direction, particularly when this work directly benefits
municipal infrastructure.

The revised administrative process is also a concern. While an online option may be
convenient and is welcomed by some, not every trapper or landowner has the ability
or resources to scan, electronically sign and email documents. Historically, a one-page
form could be signed by the landowner when the trapper arrived to undertake the
work. The new five-page form and pre-approval process can require an additional trip
simply to obtain a signature before work begins. This results in additional travel, fuel
expense and lost time.



We are also concerned by any suggestion that trappers receiving both municipal
compensation and the County beaver payment are “double dipping.” Municipal
payments have historically not been sufficient, on their own, to make many road-
related calls financially viable. Many municipalities do not reimburse mileage, and the
County payment helped offset travel and operating costs. Receiving compensation
from more than one municipal source for different portions of the cost should not be
characterized as inappropriate when the combined amount is intended to compensate a
legitimate service and the expenses associated with providing it.

With respect to proposals involving the live trapping and relocation of beavers or
coyotes, our collective field experience leads us to view these options as impractical
for routine nuisance-wildlife response.

We respectfully ask Grey County to reconsider these changes in consultation with the
trappers who routinely provide this service. A workable program should recognize
trappers as experienced service providers, fairly compensate them for their time and
expenses, minimize unnecessary administrative requirements and draw upon both
sound evidence and local field experience. Our shared objective is straightforward: to
keep municipal drainage systems functioning, roads safe and open, and public and
private property protected in a practical and cost-effective manner, while properly
compensating those providing the service.

Key Concerns

• Meaningful consultation: Experienced trappers should have had a genuine
opportunity to provide input before program and by-law changes were finalized.

• Fair compensation: Compensation should reflect specialized skills, equipment,
vehicles, fuel, travel time and labour, particularly as pelt values no longer provide
reliable income.

• Public land and road allowances: County claims should recognize work performed
on public land when that work directly protects municipal roads and infrastructure.

• Administrative burden: The five-page form and pre-approval requirement create
additional travel, paperwork, time and expense compared with the former one-page
process. Going from a one page form to five pages needs to be revisited.

• “Double dipping” characterization: Combined municipal and County payments
should be viewed in the context of the total cost of providing the service, rather than
characterized as improper duplicate compensation.



• Evidence-based policy: Policy decisions should rely on credible, transparent
evidence and incorporate local field experience. The data relied upon (specifically for
beaver) appears to be single sourced and dated. Beaver do not produce more
offspring when facing trapping pressure.



Respectfully submitted,

Byron Schwass       Brian Aitken        Tom Eastman

Dave McAleese       Bob Kranenburg

__________________________________

Agenda item 6.b: PDR-CW-45-26 Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment PS-229-25 Walker Duntroon Quarry

---

Attachment: Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment PS-229-25 Walker Duntroon Quarry - PDR-CW-45-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/8190edbe36e64e0b99e91ab6895552ff3c5e24eb9ba3a53c2eba3eb12b5eedc0/6-b-1-niagara-escarpment-plan-amendment-ps-229-25-walker-duntroon-quarry-pdr-cw-45-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                             Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                 November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:            PDR-CW-45-26
 Title:                          Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment PS-229-25 Walker
                                 Duntroon Quarry
 Prepared by:                    Becky Hillyer, Senior Planner
 Reviewed by:                    Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:


Recommendation
   1. That report PDR-CW-45-26 be received; and
   2. That staff be directed to send report PDR-CW-45-26 to the Niagara Escarpment
      Commission (NEC) as County Comments for Niagara Escarpment Plan
      Amendment (NEPA) PS-229-25 Walker Duntroon Quarry; and
   3. That staff be authorized to proceed with providing comments to the NEC prior to
      County Council approval as per Section 26.6(b) of Procedural By-law 5134-22,
      given the preferred commenting deadline of the NEC.


Executive Summary
Walker Aggregates has applied to the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) to amend the
Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) for its Duntroon Quarry operations in Clearview Township,
Simcoe County. The proposed amendment seeks permission to continue using the existing
aggregate processing facilities located in the south quarry for the entire life of both the south
quarry and the north quarry expansion. Currently, the site-specific NEP policies limit the
duration of aggregate processing in the south quarry until such time that Township Road 91,
owned by Clearview and formerly Simcoe County Road 91, is closed and conveyed to Walker
Aggregates in order to process aggregate material below the roadway.
Clearview Township has determined it is no longer viable to close Township Road 91. As a
result, several amendments are now required to the site plan, as registered under the
Aggregate Resources Act, as well as the site-specific policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.
Grey County had previously raised concerns with the closure of Township Road 91 and staff
support the direction of the Township to keep the road open.
There is no annual tonnage increase proposed through the Niagara Escarpment Plan
Amendment (NEPA), although a related site plan amendment under the Aggregate Resources
Act does propose to lower the quarry floor. As Township Road 91 will remain open, staff do not


PDR-CW-45-26                                     1                             November 12, 2026



anticipate any further impacts on nearby Grey County Road 31 and therefore have no further
comments or concerns with the NEPA as proposed.


Background and Discussion
The Walker Duntroon Quarries ‘North’ and ‘South’ are located along Township Road 91,
approximately 4km west of Duntroon, in the Township of Clearview. Township Road 91 (owned
by Clearview Township and formerly Simcoe County Road 91) intersects with Grey Road 31,
immediately west of the subject lands. The site includes the original Duntroon Quarry on the
south side of the road, and the Duntroon Quarry Expansion to the north.
The two sites function as a single integrated operation. Materials extracted from both quarries
are processed at the south quarry, with a tunnel beneath the road providing access between the
properties.
When the north quarry expansion was approved through NEPA 161, permission was granted for
processing to occur at the south quarry only on a temporary basis. The expectation was that a
processing facility would eventually be relocated to the north quarry once sufficient space
became available.
The original approval was linked to a broader transportation plan involving:

       Closure of the portion of Township Road 91 between the quarries.
       Transfer of that road section to Walker Aggregates.
       Upgrading of Nottawasaga Sideroad 26/27 to provide an alternative public traffic route.
Grey County (and other agencies) raised concerns with the proposal to close Township Road
91 at the time of the north quarry expansion. The NEC initially refused the application, and
subsequent environmental review processes identified additional impacts to natural heritage
and hydrologic features. The application proceeded to a Joint Board hearing, consisting of
members of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT)
at that time. After a complex legal process, it was decided that Township Road 91 would
eventually be closed to permit Walker to extract aggregate beneath the roadway. Ownership of
that portion of the road was also transferred from Simcoe County to the Township of Clearview.
In 2023, Clearview Township decided that it was no longer feasible to close Township Road 91.
The Township also withdrew their development permit application to the NEC to upgrade
Sideroad 26 and 27. These actions have since triggered a number of amendments to the
registered quarry site plans under the Aggregate Resources Act, as well as the site-specific
Niagara Escarpment Plan policies. The Niagara Escarpment Plan (as was previously amended
by NEPA 161) currently contains the following site-specific policy language:
       “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, uses accessory to the extraction of
       aggregate from Lot 25, Concession 12 (associated with Amendment 161 to the Niagara
       Escarpment Plan) shall be permitted on Lot 24, Concession 12, Township of Clearview,
       ARA Licence No. 3514, including all processing facilities, but only for such a period of time
       as is necessary to: (i) create an area of 18 hectares on the quarry floor in Phase 1 of the
       ARA Licence on Lot 25, Concession 12 (associated with Amendment 161 to the Niagara
       Escarpment Plan) and (ii) to discontinue or relocate the accessory uses. An asphalt plant,
       concrete plant, brick manufacturing plant and any other similar manufacturing use shall


PDR-CW-45-26                                     2                             November 12, 2026



not be permitted as an accessory use on Lot 24, Concession 12, Township of Clearview,
       ARA Licence No. 3514.”
Given that Township Road 91 will no longer be closed, the quarry operators have suggested
that it is no longer feasible to change the location of the quarry processing site. The north quarry
cannot practically operate independently and relocating processing operations to the north
quarry would create safety concerns associated with truck access to Township Road 91.
Therefore, the currently proposed NEPA would simply remove the text underlined in the site-
specific policy above to recognize and permit the existing location of the processing facilities
throughout the lifespan of the quarry.
A related site plan amendment application under the Aggregate Resources Act proposes to
lower the quarry floor and make several small adjustments related to the location of processing
material. Numerous studies and letters of opinion have been completed to support the
application(s), including:

       Planning Justification Report
       Hydrogeology Study
       Natural Heritage Impact Assessment
       Air Quality Review
       Noise Review
       Haul Tunnel Geotechnical Assessment
       Blasting Review
       Revised Quarry Site Plans.
County staff would generally defer to the Township of Clearview, County of Simcoe, and the
Niagara Escarpment Commission for a detailed review of these documents and subsequent
planning analysis. Grey County Planning Ecology staff have not reviewed the application with
regard to matters of natural heritage. Grey County Transportation Services have reviewed the
file at a high level and indicated no concerns.
In summary, given that Township Road 91 is now proposed to remain intact, and no additional
annual tonnage is proposed to be extracted from the site, County staff would suggest that the
application is unlikely to further impact Grey County lands or road infrastructure and staff have
no further comments. It is recommended that this report be shared with the Niagara Escarpment
Commission for their records on this file.

Legislated Requirements
This application is being processed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission in keeping with the
policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan. The application is open for public and agency
comment at this time.

Legal Considerations
None.




PDR-CW-45-26                                     3                             November 12, 2026



Financial and Resource Implications
None.


Relevant Consultation
☒       Internal: Transportation Services, Planning Ecology

☒       External: Niagara Escarpment Commission


Appendices and Attachments
Initial NEC Staff Report NEPA PS-229-25: Walker Duntroon Quarry NEPA




PDR-CW-45-26                                   4                       November 12, 2026

Agenda item 6.c: CCR-CW-19-26 Waiving of Portions of Procedural By-law for Inaugural and Warden Nominations

---

Attachment: Waiving Procedural By-law for Inaugural and Warden Nominations - CCR-CW-19-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/12993fc85133404b1990f38cf8a19df8e78a0f33b1eedb08f4e2aeff8795ea51/6-c-1-waiving-procedural-by-law-for-inaugural-and-warden-nominations-ccr-cw-19-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                            Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:           CCR-CW-19-26
 Title:                         Waiving Portions of the Procedural By-law for Inaugural and
                                Warden Nominations purposes
 Prepared by:                   Tara Warder, Clerk
 Reviewed by:                   Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:


Recommendation
   1. That Report CCR-CW-19-26 regarding waiving portions of the procedural by-law
      for the purposes of the inaugural meeting and facilitating warden nominations be
      received; and

   2. That Sections 3.1 – Date of Inaugural Session and 5.3 – Nominations of Grey
      County’s Procedural By-law 5134-22 be waived for the purposes of the election of
      the 2027 Warden and that the meeting be held at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December
      1, 2026 and further that nominations for Warden be accepted by the Clerk until
      noon on Monday, November 30, 2026.


Executive Summary
Grey County’s procedural by-law governs the calling, place and proceedings of meetings,
including the inaugural meeting for the purpose of electing the Warden each year. The report
proposes a change to the time of this year’s inaugural meeting from the time that is embedded
into the procedural by-law, as has been done in past years. Further, it proposes to change the
deadline for Warden nominations to Monday, November 30, 2026 to better facilitate appropriate
communications on this topic for the incoming Council.


Background and Discussion
Section 3.1 of the County’s Procedural By-law states that “Council will, in accordance with the
By-law, hold its first meeting on the first Tuesday in December at 7:30 p.m.” The Warden is
elected annually at this meeting. The inaugural meeting is currently scheduled for Tuesday,
December 1, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. at the Grey County Administration Building.




CCR-CW-19-26                                    1                            November 12, 2026



Similar to past years, staff are recommending the inaugural session be held at 5:30 p.m. This
change requires two thirds vote from Council to waive the subject section of the procedural by-
law. This portion is procedural in nature, needed to comply with the procedural by-law.
Section 5.3 speaks to the deadline for nominations for Warden, noting that in both a regular and
election year, nominations will be received until noon in writing seven days prior to the Inaugural
session. Staff’s recommendation is to waive this portion of the by-law and change the 2026
deadline for nominations to Monday, November 30, 2026 in order to communicate Warden
nomination deadlines to the incoming Council. Outside of an election year, it is still preferable to
have an earlier deadline for ease of planning.
Staff plan to incorporate the message about the Warden nomination deadline during the Joint
Councillor Orientation in November. This will give extra time for nominations to be submitted.

Legislated Requirements
The vote on the recommendation requires two thirds support from Council to waive the relevant
sections of the Procedural By-law.

Legal Considerations
There are none.

Financial and Resource Implications
There are no additional costs associated with the recommended change to the inaugural
meeting. Any expenses related to the inaugural meeting are budgeted annually in the Council
operating budget.


Relevant Consultation
☐       Internal (list)

        ☐       AODA Compliance (describe)

        ☐       Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)

☐       External (list)


Appendices and Attachments
None.




CCR-CW-19-26                                     2                             November 12, 2026

Agenda item 6.d: FR-CW-25-26 Quarterly Purchasing Report Q3

---

Attachment: FR-CW-25-26 Quarterly Purchasing Report Quarter 3 2026.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/43d09ab3455b5f4aa91277d614fcb40945c76bfad878f74ba342bce6e6bbfc79/6-d-1-fr-cw-25-26-quarterly-purchasing-report-quarter-3-2026-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                           Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:               November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:          FR-CW-25-26
 Title:                        Quarterly Purchasing Report Quarter 3, 2026
 Prepared by:                  Mike Alguire, Purchasing Manager
                               Sherri Adams, Buyer
 Reviewed by:                  Sue Murray, Acting Director of Finance
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:       N/A


Recommendation
   1. That Report FR-CW-25-26 regarding the quarterly purchasing report for Quarter 3,
      2026 be received for information.


Executive Summary
Grey County’s purchasing policy 7-9, as endorsed by County Council on December 12, 2024,
through By-law 5209-24, gives Directors the authority to award items and services up to
$500,000 that have prior budget approval. This policy requires Directors to provide a summary
of all purchases between $75,000 and $500,000 quarterly.


Background and Discussion
The attached chart summarizes all purchases made between $75,000 and $500,000 by
departments between July 1, 2026, and September 30, 2026.




Transportation Services




FR-CW-25-26                                   1                            November 12, 2026



Contract          Description          # of     Awarded Bid(s)        Budget        Awarded
                                        Bids                           Amount        Amount
                                                                                     (excl. HST)

                                                 Walker
                                                 Aggregates, Arnill
 RFT-TS-21-26      Winter Sand           4       Construction, JT      $591,523      $478,710
                                                 Excavating,
                                                 Robinson Haulage


Economic Development, Tourism and Culture

 Contract              Description # of               Awarded Bid     Budget         Awarded
                                   Bids                               Amount         Amount
                                                                                     (excl. HST)


                       HVAC at                        Maurice
 RFT-EDTC-05-26                              2                        $231,400       $223,872
                       Sydenham                       Mechanical




Housing

 Contract              Description # of               Awarded Bid     Budget         Awarded
                                   Bids                               Amount         Amount
                                                                                     (excl. HST)

                       Exterior
                       Doors at                       Murphy
 RFT-HOU-11-26                               9                        $120,000       $124,980
                       Twin Pines                     Construction
                       OS




Legislated Requirements
There are no legislated requirements.

Legal Considerations
There are no legal considerations.

Financial and Resource Implications
Deficit for RFT-HOU-11-26 to be offset by any realized surplus, or through Housing Capital
reserve funds at year end.

FR-CW-25-26                                       2                              November 12, 2026



Relevant Consultation
☐       Internal

        ☒      AODA Compliance

        ☒      Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets

☐       External


Appendices and Attachments
None.




FR-CW-25-26                                   3                     November 12, 2026

Agenda item 6.e: PDR-CW-46-26 Wilton Sanitation - Official Plan Amendment 32

---

Attachment: 42-08-180-OPA-32 Wilton Sanitation - Final Report - PDR-CW-46-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/85aaeab10f9cccfdb21c2ef2a16b3ecba97cf8dc55b7e33023185a05ce124c67/6-e-1-42-08-180-opa-32-wilton-sanitation-final-report-pdr-cw-46-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                            Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:           PDR-CW-46-26
 Title:                         Grey County Official Plan Amendment 32 – Wilton Sanitation –
                                Final Report
 Prepared by:                   Cassondra Dillman, Intermediate Planner
 Reviewed by:                   Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:        Municipality of Grey Highlands


Recommendation
   1. That report PDR-CW-46-26 be received; and
   2. That all written and oral submissions on Official Plan Amendment Number 32 were
      considered and helped to make an informed recommendation and decision; and
   3. That proposed County Official Plan Amendment Number 32 on lands legally
      described as Lot 21 to 22, Concession 3 NDR, geographic Township of Artemesia,
      now in the Municipality of Grey Highlands be approved to redesignate a portion of
      the subject lands from the ‘Agricultural’ designation to an ‘Agricultural with
      Exceptions’ designation; and
   4. That a by-law to adopt the County Official Plan Amendment be prepared for
      consideration by County Council.


Executive Summary
This report provides a recommendation on County official plan amendment 32 (OPA 32),
submitted by Wilton Sanitation. The application seeks a site-specific policy to permit the
expansion of an on-farm diversified use (OFDU) on lands municipally known as 405549 Grey
Road 4.
Wilton Sanitation is seeking to formally recognize the existing on-farm business and expand the
operation to occupy a larger portion of the property. The amendment would redesignate a
portion of the lands from ‘Agricultural’ to ‘Agricultural with Exceptions’ to permit the OFDU to
occupy 8,630 m², or 2.62% of the 33-hectare property. The proposed holding tank location is
adjacent to the existing gravel yard, which minimizes the removal of agricultural land, and is
more than 500 metres from the nearest off-site residence.
Grey Highlands Council has adopted the related local official plan amendment and approved the
implementing zoning amendment, subject to the County official plan amendment coming into
force and effect.


PDR-CW-46-26                                   1                            November 12, 2026



County staff reviewed the application against the Planning Act, Provincial Planning Statement,
County official plan, and Municipality of Grey Highlands official plan. Staff conclude that OPA 32
has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and
meets the goals and objectives of the County official plan. Approval is recommended, together
with preparation of the adopting by-law.


Background and Discussion
Grey County has received a County official plan amendment application (OPA 32) to add a site-
specific exception to the subject lands to recognize the existing on-farm business and permit an
expansion for the construction of a proposed septage holding tank and associated buffer area.
A copy of the draft OPA 32 is included in the Attachments section of the report.

Location
The subject lands are legally described as Lot 21 to 22, Concession 3 NDR, geographic
Township of Artemesia, Municipality of Grey Highlands and have a civic address of 405549
Grey Road 4.
The lands are located on the north side of Grey Road 4, approximately 650 metres west of
Ceylon. The property is approximately 33 hectares in size and has approximately 536 metres of
frontage on Grey Road 4.
The applicant’s residence and detached garage are located on the property, along with a
workshop and outdoor storage area associated with Wilton Sanitation. The workshop and
outdoor storage area are located approximately 250 metres from Grey Road 4. A mature,
forested area, approximately 35 metres deep, extends along the full frontage of the subject
property and along approximately 180 metres of the easterly boundary. Rows of trees also line
both sides of the driveway leading to the residence and business area.
Surrounding land uses include agricultural and residential uses. Grey County owns a property
across Grey Road 4 where a public works depot is being constructed. The applicant also owns
the property to the west of the subject lands, including the former road allowance between Lots
21 and 20. Staff understand that the road allowance was acquired in the late 1960s when it was
closed by the Township and merged on title with the abutting property; the western property is
43.3 hectares (107.1 acres). The legal description for the farm parcel to the west also includes
reference to the road allowance (RDAL): Lt. 19-20 Con. 3 NDR Artemesia; RDAL BTN Lt. 20
and Lt. 21 Artemesia Con. 3 except R419249; Grey Highlands. Map 1 below shows the subject
lands in blue and surrounding land uses.




PDR-CW-46-26                                    2                             November 12, 2026



Map 1: Location of Subject Lands




Proposal
The applicant, Wilton Sanitation, is seeking approval to expand the existing on-farm business.
The proposed OPA would facilitate construction of a holding tank for hauled sewage, specifically
septage pumped from septic system holding tanks, and would recognize the existing on-farm
business. The tank would accommodate 1,932,150 litres (425,000 Imperial gallons) of septage
and occupy an area of 730 m2. The tank and its 5-metre buffer would occupy 1,490 m2 of land.
Approximately 710 m2 of land would be removed from agricultural production as a result of the
development.
The applicants have indicated that the proposed tank location was selected based on site
topography, accessibility, and separation distances from neighbouring uses. The tank would be
located along the existing gravel area to minimize impacts to surrounding agricultural fields. The
proposed tank location is more than 500 metres from the nearest off-site residence.
The tank will be constructed of concrete and finished with a liner. The proposed concrete tank
will be approximately 30.5 m (100 ft) in diameter with 3.05 m (10 ft) high sidewalls, of which no
more than 1.2 m (4 ft) will be visible above ground. As a safety measure, a 1.5 metre high wire
fence would be installed at the top of the tank and the tank area will be entirely enclosed by
lockable post and wire fencing to prevent unauthorized access. Engineering drawings for the
tank would be required at the building permit stage.
The amendment would redesignate a portion of the property from ‘Agricultural’ to ‘Agricultural
with Exceptions’ so that the OFDU may occupy up to 2.62% of the property, or approximately
8,630 m². Under the County official plan, an OFDU is generally limited to 2% of the total lot




PDR-CW-46-26                                    3                             November 12, 2026



area, which is approximately 6,600 m² on this property. The OPA would recognize the existing
on-farm business and permit the construction of a new holding tank and associated buffer area.
Map 2 below shows the areas occupied by the following uses:
   -   agricultural uses (indoor / outdoor farm equipment storage) in green – 2,960 m2,
   -   the existing parking and outdoor storage area occupied by the business in blue, the
       existing office, workshop and indoor storage area in orange – 7,140 m2 (combined total
       of the blue and orange), and
   -   the proposed holding tank and buffer area in pink – 1,490 m2.

Map 2: Site Plan




Staff note that while the size of the existing gravel parking area is indicated as 10,100 m2 above,
any shared areas also used by the farm (i.e., shared laneway, farm buildings, landscapes
areas) are not included in the total use size calculation for an OFDU, per 5.2.2.16) in the County
official plan.
Wilton Sanitation was established in 1969 and provides services including septic system holding
tank pumping, portable toilet rentals, and large garbage bin rentals. As part of its operations, the
business has approval from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to
spread septage pumped from septic system holding tanks on licensed fields, including the
subject lands and the property to the west, between April 1 and November 30. During the winter
months, this sewage is taken directly to municipal sewage treatment plants, including facilities in
Markdale and Flesherton. Waste from portable toilets cannot be land-applied and must be
treated at a municipal treatment plant year-round. There is an existing storage tank on site for
waste collected from portable toilets, with Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) to store
up to 4,500 imperial gallons. For clarity, waste from portable toilets would not be permitted in the
proposed new tank.




PDR-CW-46-26                                     4                             November 12, 2026



Wilton Sanitation has indicated that municipal sewage treatment facilities in Grey Highlands and
surrounding areas may not always be available to service rural areas as the population grows
and plant capacity becomes more constrained. Septage stored in the tank would be spread on
approved land application sites during the period specified in the site’s ECA, as conditions
permit. Staff understand that the tank and increased storage capacity would also aid
stewardship of the land by providing flexibility for when spreading can occur and the business
would require fewer transfers at a wastewater treatment facility.
Pre-submission consultation occurred between Grey Highlands, the County, and the applicant.
The draft County OPA is included in the Appendices section of this report. Copies of all
background reports and plans can be found on the County of Grey website.

Public Engagement and Comments Received
A joint public planning hearing was held on August 24, 2026. A link to the public meeting
minutes can be found in Attachments section below.
No members of the public spoke at the public meeting. One written comment was received from
a member of the public.
A summary of the comments received is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.
 Agency              Comment Summary
 Grey Sauble         All proposed development in this application is located outside the
 Conservation        aforementioned regulated areas, and therefore, a permit under Ontario
 Authority           Regulation 41/24 will not be required prior to commencement of
 (GSCA)              development.

                     GSCA has no objections to the proposal for the described zoning by-law
                     and official plan amendment applications.

 Saugeen Valley      Given the majority of this property and the site plan is within the GSCA
 Conservation        watershed, SVCA will not be providing formal comment.
 Authority
 (SVCA)
 Bruce Telecom       Bruce Telecom has no conflict with the scope of work.
 Canada Post         Canada Post does not have any comments for this application.
 Hydro One           No comments.
 Historic            The Historic Saugeen Métis (HSM) Lands, Waters and Consultation
 Saugeen Metis       Department has reviewed the relevant documents and has no objections to
                     the proposed official plan amendment / zoning by-law amendments as
                     presented.
 Grey Highlands      No comments or concerns at this time.
 Transportation
 and Public
 Spaces




PDR-CW-46-26                                    5                            November 12, 2026



Grey Highlands          No comments or concerns at this time.
Environmental
Services
Council of the          Resolution Number 2026-600
Municipality of
Grey Highlands          That Council receive report PL.26.214, OP02.2026 & Z24.2026 Wilton
                        Sanitation for information;

                        That By-law 2026-093 being a by-law to approve the Official Plan
                        Amendment be approved;

                        That By-law 2026-094 being a by-law to approve the Zoning By-law
                        Amendment be approved; and

                        That Council recommend approval of the County Official Plan Amendment
                        to County Council.

                        CARRIED.


Table 1: Agency Comments Received
Public Comment            Response
(summarized by
theme)

Environmental             The use of the proposed concrete storage tank as a Hauled Sewage
Impact                    Transfer Site is regulated through the Ministry of Environment,
                          Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Compliance Approval
                          (ECA) process for a waste transfer/storage site under Section 27 of the
                          Environmental Protection Act (EPA). The applicant will need to obtain
                          an ECA prior to a building permit.

                          The proposed development is outside identified natural heritage and
                          hazard areas, and no concerns were received from the GSCA / SVCA
                          or County Planning Ecology staff.

                          Staff note that preliminary geotechnical investigations have also
                          occurred and five test pits and monitoring wells were excavated in the
                          area of the proposed tank location to determine the soil and
                          groundwater conditions and support the proposed design and location.

Nuisance                  The proposed tank is centrally located on the property and is buffered
concerns, such as         by existing dense vegetation along most property boundaries, which is
odour, truck traffic,     expected to help mitigate potential odour impacts. The area to be
noise, dust               rezoned is also located more than 450 metres from the nearest
                          dwelling. Truck traffic is currently limited to approximately 12 to 15



PDR-CW-46-26                                      6                            November 12, 2026



return trips per day and is not expected to increase with the operation of
                   the proposed septage holding tank.

                   The applicant also has advised that no complaints related to noise,
                   odour, dust, traffic, or visual appearance have been received during the
                   site's 57 years of operation.

                   Staff understand that the ECA will include a complaint response
                   procedure.

Technical Review   As part of the ECA application, technical studies such as a Soil
and Required       Characterization report, Design and Operations Report (which includes
Studies            monitoring and reporting plans, and contingency plans), Financial
                   Assurance Evaluation, and details related to the tank design and
                   construction drawings would be required.

                   For example, with regards to monitoring plan, staff understand that the
                   following procedures would be recommended; fully emptying the tank
                   once a year for visual inspection, minimum monthly tank inspections,
                   and measuring the tank volume before and after each withdrawal.

                   Annual reporting to the MECP could include details such as detailed
                   monthly summary of all waste to and from the site (including date,
                   quantity, source, and disposal location), inspection details, and a
                   statement of compliance with the conditions of approval.

                   Staff note that there is also a public engagement process for an ECA
                   application, regulated by MECP under the Environmental Protection Act
                   and Environmental Bill of Rights, which involves formal public notice by
                   mail, comment periods and posting on the Environmental Registry of
                   Ontario (ERO).

Safety             The use of concrete storage tanks for agricultural (i.e., manure) and
                   non-agricultural source materials (i.e., food processing waste) is a well-
                   established practice across Ontario. Staff understand that the proposed
                   concrete storage tank is engineered with containment measures to
                   prevent leakage.

                   As part of the ECA process, a contingency plan will be required to
                   address potential issues such as spills, emergencies, and tank leakage.
                   Financial assurance will also be required to ensure sufficient funds are
                   available for waste analysis, transportation, site cleanup, monitoring,
                   disposal, and/or decommissioning, if required.

                   An employee training program can also form part of the ECA approval.




PDR-CW-46-26                                7                             November 12, 2026



Table 2: Public Comments Received

Analysis of Planning Issues
When making 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), and conform to applicable provincial plans and County and municipal official plans. In
this case, the County of Grey official plan and the Municipality of Grey Highlands official plan
apply to the subject property. There are no provincial plans in effect for this area of the County.

Provincial Policy and Legislation
Planning Act
The Planning Act requires planning authorities to have regard for matters of provincial interest,
including the appropriate location of growth and development, the protection of agricultural
resources and ecological systems, and the protection of public health and safety.
Staff comments on matters of provincial interest (in italics) related to the proposed development
are provided below.
(a) the protection of ecological systems including natural areas, features and functions;
The proposed development would be located within a previously disturbed area, and outside of
the lands containing natural heritage features. The proposal has also been reviewed by GSCA /
SVCA and County Planning Ecology staff and no concerns were identified.
(b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province;
The lands subject to the OPA are designated ‘Agricultural’ and zoned ‘restricted agriculture –
A2’. The storage tank is proposed to be located with the farm cluster, on lands adjacent to the
existing yard used for both agricultural purposes and the on-farm business. While approximately
710 m2 of land would be removed from agricultural production as a result of the development,
this represents approximately 0.3% of the 23 hectares of tillable lands on site and the primary
use of the property would remain agricultural, with a secondary on-farm diversified use.
(o) the protection of public health and safety
The proposed storage tank is also subject to an ECA under Section 27 of the EPA. The ECA
process focuses on the technical design and operational aspects of a facility to ensure
compliance with applicable environmental standards. Staff understand that pre-submission
consultation occurred with the MECP and the work required to support the ECA application,
including site investigations, design drawings, and supporting documentation were provided to
the Ministry’s technical support section for comment. A site visit also occurred. No surface water
or hydrogeological related concerns were identified.
The Planning Justification Report submitted with the application notes that OFDUs are typically
considered to be a Class 1 Industrial Facility for the purposes of applying the MECP’s D-6
Guidelines. The intent of these guidelines is to prevent or minimize the encroachment of
sensitive land use upon industrial land use and vice versa, as these two types of land uses are



PDR-CW-46-26                                     8                            November 12, 2026



normally incompatible, due to possible adverse effects on sensitive land use created by
industrial operations. The potential area of influence from Class 1 facility is considered to be
within 70 metres. The area to be rezoned is situated approximately 450 metres from the closest
neighbouring dwelling (405507 Grey Road 4) and the storage tank itself would be more than
500 metres from the dwelling, thus maintaining an adequate buffer between sensitive land uses.
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

The subject lands are designated as ‘Agricultural’ in the County official plan, which permits
OFDUs.

The County’s recent Growth Management Strategy update (2026) identifies Grey Highlands as
experiencing a moderate rate of population growth, with the Municipality’s population projected
to increase by nearly 20% over the next 25 years. While most of this growth is anticipated to
occur within settlement areas, a portion can be expected in the rural area. Staff note that
Markdale is the Municipality’s only fully serviced Primary Settlement Area. The existing
wastewater treatment facility in Markdale currently has limited capacity to accommodate future
growth, and upgrades are being planned through an ongoing Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment process.

As noted above, Wilton Sanitation’s operations include the collection and transportation of
sewage from private septic systems. Regular septic system maintenance typically involves
pumping the septic tank every two to five years, depending on factors such as household size,
water usage, and system capacity. The collected sewage is transported by approved haulers
and may be managed through land application in accordance with an ECA or treated at a
wastewater treatment facility which can receive hauled sewage and is subject to an ECA. In this
context, the proposed storage tank would be located on agricultural land as part of an OFDU
and in proximity to both the primary source of the sewage, rural properties, and agricultural
lands where approved land application may occur.

Planning Act Summary

Given the above, County Planning staff suggest that the proposal has regard for matters of
provincial interest under the Planning Act.

Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024
The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning
and development.
Chapter 2.5.1 of the PPS states that healthy, integrated, and viable rural areas should be
supported by building upon rural character, leveraging rural amenities and assets, promoting
diversification of the economic base and employment opportunities, and providing opportunities
for economic activities in prime agricultural areas.
On-farm diversified uses (OFDUs), in accordance with provincial standards, are permitted in
prime agricultural areas under chapter 4.3.2.1 of the PPS.
The PPS defines OFDUs as:



PDR-CW-46-26                                    9                             November 12, 2026



“Uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and are limited
       in area. On-farm diversified uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home
       industries, agri-tourism uses, uses that produce value-added agricultural products, and
       electricity generation facilities and transmission systems, and energy storage systems.”
Proposed OFDUs shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural
operations. Criteria for these uses may be based on provincial guidance or municipal
approaches, as set out in municipal planning documents, which achieve the same objectives
(chapter 4.3.2.1).
The Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas (Publication 851) are
intended to complement the PPS and assist with interpreting provincial policies and definitions
related to agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses. These
guidelines are the most current provincial standards/criteria for OFDUs and recommend that an
OFDU can occupy up to 2% of a farm parcel, to a maximum of 1 hectare (10,000 m2).
The guidelines also provide a list of criteria that must be met to qualify as an OFDU. The criteria
are summarized with staff comments below:
       1. Located on a farm. OFDUs must be located on a farm property that is actively in
          agricultural use, to ensure that the farm operation remains the primary use.
       There are approximately 23 hectares of active tillable land on the subject lands. No
       change to the farming operation is proposed. Staff note that while the adjacent lands
       remain a separate, legally conveyable parcel, they form part of the existing farm
       operation and contain an additional ~26 ha. of tillable lands.
       2. Secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property. Agricultural uses
          must remain the dominant use of the property. The Guidelines allow this criterion to
          be measured in spatial and temporal terms. Spatially, the use must be secondary
          relative to the agricultural use of the property, while temporal considerations apply to
          uses that are temporary or intermittent, such as events.
       This intent is that the use is compatible with and able to coexist with surrounding
       agricultural operations and that little-to-no agricultural land is permanently displaced
       (within the limits discussed below). The storage tank is proposed within the existing farm
       cluster, adjacent to the gravel yard area used for both agricultural operations and the on-
       farm business, occupying 1,490 m² (includes a 5 m buffer). The proposed development
       would remove approximately 710 m² of land from agricultural production, which
       represents about 0.3% of the 23 hectares of tillable land on the property. Staff also
       understand that alternate locations were considered (such as to the north of the gravel
       yard), and the proposed location represents the least impact to existing operations,
       minimizes the amount of land taken out of agricultural production, considers topography,
       and maintains setbacks required by MECP.
       3. Limited in Area. The preferred approach is to base “limited in area” on the total
          footprint of the uses, on a lot coverage ratio basis (relative to the size of the farm
          property). The guidelines recommend that the standard for the acceptable area
          occupied by an OFDU use is up to 2% of a farm parcel to a maximum of 1 hectare
          (10,000 m2). Should the area of an OFDU exceed the recommended area



PDR-CW-46-26                                    10                             November 12, 2026



thresholds, consideration should be given to the non-agricultural use policies in the
        PPS.
     The subject lands are approximately 33.1 hectares (81.7 acres). The total area occupied
     by the OFDU would be 8,630 m2 which represents approximately 2.62% of the total lot
     area. While the proposal is within the recommended 10,000 m2 maximum size, it does
     exceed the 2% lot coverage ratio recommendation. As such, the non-agricultural use
     policies in the PPS are considered below.
     Chapter 4.3.5 of the PPS speaks to non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas.
     Limited non-residential uses on agricultural lands can be permitted when the following
     criteria are met:
        1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area;
        2. the proposed use complies with the minimum distance separation (MDS)
           formulae;
        3. there is an identified need within the planning horizon identified in the official plan
           as provided for in policy 2.1.3 for additional land to accommodate the proposed
           use; and
        4. alternative locations have been evaluated, and
               i.      there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime
                       agricultural areas; and
               ii.     there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural
                       areas with lower priority agricultural lands.
     The lands do not comprise of specialty crop area. The submitted Planning Justification
     Report indicates that there are no livestock facilities within 750 metres of the site, as
     such compliance with MDS has been demonstrated. While there is no specific identified
     need for additional lands to accommodate the proposed use, the County official plan and
     PPS encourage economic diversification in rural areas and permit OFDUs. Staff
     understand that alternative locations on the property were evaluated and the applicants
     indicated that the proposed tank location was selected based on site topography,
     accessibility, and separation distances from neighbouring uses. The applicants have
     also operated the family business for over 50 years, and it may be impractical to relocate
     their business and home to another property.
     4. Includes, but is not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-
        tourism uses and uses that produce value-added agricultural products. The
        PPS definition provides several examples of OFDUs. Beyond these examples, other
        uses may also be suitable, subject to meeting all PPS criteria.
     The examples provided within the PPS, the Guidelines and Table 7 in the County official
     plan are not meant to be exhaustive. Provided the criteria can be met, other uses can be
     contemplated as OFDUs.
     Staff understand that the existing on-farm business began in 1969 and it would appear
     to have legal non-conforming status due to it’s ongoing and continued operations that
     predates the enactment of the zoning by-law. The Planning Act recognizes legal non-
     conforming uses and the ability to enlarge or to alter a non-conforming use. Regarding




PDR-CW-46-26                                 11                              November 12, 2026



this proposal, however, staff recommended a formal zoning by-law amendment and
       official plan amendment application during pre-submission consultation.
       As a result, the purpose of this application is two-fold: to recognize the existing
       operations as an OFDU (being the temporary storage of portable toilet waste and hauled
       sewage, rentals of portable toilets and garbage bins) and to permit the expansion of this
       use through the addition of a septage holding tank.
       5. Shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural
          operations. Compatibility considerations include, not hindering surrounding
          agricultural operations, appropriate to available rural services and infrastructure, and
          maintains the rural character of the area.
       As noted above, the proposed development would occur largely in a previously disturbed
       area at the edge of the gravel yard and farm field and is screened from the public realm
       by a landscaped buffer. The subject property is located within a broader agricultural area
       where farming remains the dominant land use. The agricultural character of the lands
       will be maintained, and the primary agricultural nature of the property will not be
       impacted. No changes to the existing services are proposed. The applicant has advised
       that there would be no changes to the number of employees, hours of operation, and no
       expected changes in truck traffic (being 12-15 return trips per day).
Other chapters of the PPS outline policies for the wise use and management of resources
(chapter 4), which includes protecting natural heritage features and agriculture, and protecting
public health and safety (chapter 5), including avoiding development in hazardous areas. The
proposed development will be located outside of natural heritage features and areas designated
as Hazard Lands.
Chapter 4.6 outlines policy direction for the protection and management of archaeological
resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. While no formal comments
were received from Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) Environment Office during the circulation of
this proposal, staff note that the subject lands are not identified as an area requiring review with
the SON Sector Mapping (Map 5, 2026). These maps identify areas within SON Territory that
may require review to determine the appropriate level and type of assessment based on a
project's location and potential impact on areas of importance to SON (such as historical
passage routes, or important ecosystems). The maps outline areas that require review, may
require review, and areas of no comment/do not require review.

Provincial Planning Statement Summary

County Planning staff suggest that the proposal is consistent with the PPS.

County of Grey Official Plan
The subject lands (+/-33 ha) are identified as the following in the County official plan:
   - Schedule A: Land Use Types – Agricultural
   - Schedule B: High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resources - Aggregate Resource Area
   - Appendix B: Constraint Mapping – Other wetlands, lakes/rivers
   - Appendix D: Functional Road Classification – Frontage on Grey Road 4



PDR-CW-46-26                                    12                             November 12, 2026



Please note that in some instances an abbreviated analysis has been provided below, as many
of the policies in the County official plan mimic those in the provincial legislation and policy
covered above.
Schedule A of the County official plan designates the subject lands as ‘Agricultural’, which
permits OFDUs. Section 3.2.5.1 of the County Plan identifies OFDUs as a rural employment
generator, and Section 5.2.2(1) supports on-farm diversification as a means of protecting and
improving economic development in agriculture.
Table 8 of the County official plan provides size criteria for OFDUs based on land use type and
property size. For parcels greater than 20 hectares in the Agricultural designation, the maximum
OFDU area is 2% of the total property area, to a maximum combined area of 8,000 m2. As the
subject lands are approximately 33 hectares, the County official plan would permit the OFDU to
occupy up to 6,600 m2. Section 5.2.2(19) provides criteria to consider when establishing a new
OFDU.
Staff have illustrated the proposal in Table 3 below for ease of reference.
 OFDU Criteria                  Permitted                       Proposed

 Agricultural, 33 ha in size

 Maximum Size (including        The lessor of:                  8630 m2
 all buildings, servicing,
                                -   2% of 33 ha (6,600 m2);     -   which is 2.62% of 33 ha
 parking, outdoor storage
                                    or
 areas, etc.)
                                -   a max of 8,000 m2

 Maximum Gross Floor            Up to 20% of 6,600 m2           365 m2
 Area (of all buildings)        (being 1,320 m2)


Table 3: Permitted vs. Proposed On-Farm Diversified Use Criteria
Schedule B of the County official plan indicates that the subject lands are within the Aggregate
Resource Area. Section 5.6.2(1) states that where the Aggregate Resource Area overlaps with
an Agricultural land use type, the policies and permitted uses of the underlying land use type
apply until the site is licensed for sand or gravel extraction. The expansion of the OFDU is not
anticipated to have any impact on the aggregate resource on-site.
Appendix B of the County official plan indicates that the subject lands contain other wetlands
and ponds. No development is proposed adjacent (within 120 metres) to these areas. County
Planning Ecology staff identified no concerns with the proposal.
Appendix D indicates that the subject lands have frontage on County Road 4. County
Transportation Services staff had no concerns with the proposal.

County Official Plan Summary
In summary, County staff believe that the proposal meets the goals and objectives of the County
official plan.


PDR-CW-46-26                                     13                           November 12, 2026



Municipality of Grey Highlands Official Plan
The subject lands are designated as ‘Agricultural’ in the Grey Highlands official plan, which
permits OFDUs.
Grey Highlands staff prepared a staff report, dated August 24, 2026, regarding the related local
official plan amendment (amendment No. 52, file OP02.2026) and zoning by-law amendment
(file Z24.2026), and County OPA 32. The report provided a Municipal planning analysis. County
staff would generally defer to their report and draft OPA document as it relates to conformity
with the intent of local Official Plan. A link the Grey Highlands staff report can be found in the
attachments section of this report.
Staff note that the Council of the Municipality of Grey Highlands adopted OPA 52 and approved
the implementing zoning by-law amendment on September 16, 2026. These approvals,
however, are not yet in effect as the County OPA must first be approved and come into force
and effect. Once that occurs, approval may be granted for the local OPA. After which, the
implementing zoning by-law amendment would then come into force and effect.

Legislated Requirements
The application has been processed in accordance with the Planning Act.

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: Planning, Planning Ecology, Transportation Services

☒      External: The public, Municipality of Grey Highlands, and other prescribed
       agencies/bodies under the Planning Act


Appendices and Attachments
Draft Official Plan Amendment and By-law
Schedule A
Public Meeting Minutes – August 24, 2026
Staff report PDR-CW-29-26 – July 23, 2026
Grey Highland Staff report 2026-53




PDR-CW-46-26                                    14                            November 12, 2026

Agenda item 6.f: LTCR-CW-22-26 Nurse Call Replacement System – Grey Gables and Lee Manor: RFP Results and Award Recommendation

---

Attachment: Nurse Call Replacement System - Grey Gables and Lee Manor RFP Results .pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/783daf0ec023a1624859c7e72cc1eb47bdaeec37ccd95a25f49254476cc96675/6-f-1-nurse-call-replacement-system-grey-gables-and-lee-manor-rfp-results-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                           Warden Matrosovs and Members of County Council
 Committee Date:               November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:          LTCR-CW-22-26
 Title:                        Nurse Call Replacement System – Grey Gables and Lee
                               Manor: RFP Results and Award Recommendation
 Prepared by:                  Jennifer Cornell, Director of Long-Term Care & Senior
                               Services
 Reviewed by:                  Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO and Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:


Recommendation
   1. That report LTCR-CW-22-26, Nurse Call Replacement System for Grey Gables and
      Lee Manor RFP Results and Award Recommendation be received; and
   2. That the award of RFP-LTC-02-26, Nurse Call and Real Time Location System
      (RTLS) at Two Locations, to Wireless Resident Nurse Alert Technology Inc., for
      the supply and installation of replacement nurse call systems at Grey Gables and
      Lee Manor be approved, in the amount of $864,648.98 excluding HST and that staff
      be authorized to execute the necessary agreement(s); and
   3. That action be taken prior to Council approval as per Section 26.6 (b) of
      Procedural by-law 5134-22.


Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide Committee of the Whole with the results of the
competitive Request for Proposal process for the replacement of the nurse call systems at Grey
Gables and Lee Manor and to seek approval prior to County Council approval to award the
contract to Wireless Resident Nurse Alert Technology Inc., the highest-ranked respondent. The
proposed system meets the operational, clinical, technical, and regulatory requirements
identified through the procurement process and represents the best overall value based on the
evaluation criteria established in the RFP.


Background and Discussion
On March 19, 2026, the Committee of Management received Report LTCR-CM-07-26 regarding
the planned replacement of the nurse call systems at Grey Gables and Lee Manor. As
preliminary vendor pricing exceeded the approved capital budget, staff were directed to
undertake a competitive Request for Proposal process to evaluate available solutions, confirm


LTCR-CW-22-26                                 1                            November 12, 2026



project costs, and identify the option that best met operational, regulatory, and financial
requirements.


Request for Proposal Process
RFP-LTC-02-26, Nurse Call at Two Locations, was issued to the open market on June 11,
2026, and closed on July 16, 2026. Four submissions were received and are listed below.

 Bidder Name

 GMS Sécurité Inc.

 KR Communications

 Wireless Resident Nurse Alert Technology Inc (Advance Care)

 Media Multi-Com Communications Inc.


The evaluation committee included representatives from Long-Term Care, Information
Technology, Facilities, and Purchasing. Committee members independently evaluated
submissions prior to a consensus review in accordance with the County's Purchasing Policy and
the evaluation methodology established in the RFP.
 Criteria Topic                                                              Weighting %

 System Architecture & Compliance                                                      12

 Functional Performance                                                                15

 Device & Equipment Capability                                                         10

 System Integration                                                                    10
 Wander Management/RTLS Performance                                                    10

 Reporting & Analytics                                                                 8

 Installation, Commissioning & Training                                                5

 Vendor Qualifications & Support                                                       5

 Overall Cost                                                                          25


Wireless Resident Nurse Alert Technology Inc. achieved the highest overall evaluation score
and was identified as the highest-ranked respondent. The proposed solution demonstrated
strong alignment with the functional, operational, regulatory, and technical requirements outlined
in the RFP and will support resident safety, staff response requirements, and long-term
reliability at both Grey Gables and Lee Manor. Staff observed a demonstration, engaged in
follow-up discussions, and verified positive past performance through reference checks. Staff
also had an opportunity to visit a home in Stayner, Ontario, to observe the nurse call and RTLS
systems in use. Staff therefore recommend awarding the contract to Wireless Resident Nurse
Alert Technology Inc. as the highest-ranked respondent.


LTCR-CW-22-26                                    2                             November 12, 2026



Legislated Requirements
The County’s Nurse Call System Policy (V-C-30.30), together with Ontario Regulation 246/22
under the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, requires that long-term care homes maintain a
reliable, accessible, and continuously operational communication and response system that
allows residents to summon assistance safely.

Financial and Resource Implications
The 2026 capital budget includes funding of $150,000 for each of Grey Gables and Lee Manor
for nurse call replacement, as identified through the Building Condition Assessment and
included in the County’s approved 10-Year Capital Plan since 2022. In addition, Lee Manor has
an approved capital budget of $55,000 for Wander Guard replacement, resulting in a total
available allocation of $355,000 across both homes.
Based on preliminary vendor pricing, the estimated cost of the nurse call replacement exceeds
the available funding, resulting in an estimated funding shortfall of approximately $540,000.
On March 19, 2026, Staff brought forward LTCR-CM-07-26 for an increase to the upset limit for
tendering for Grey Gables and Lee Manor to $300,000 and $595,000 respectively. Increased
upset limit was offset by the deferral of two projects GGG-019 Parking lot Replacement and
LLL-041 Air make up system to offset the reserve draw created by an increased budget cost.
Award amounts are $302,346.64 at Grey Gables, and $562,302.34 at Lee Manor. Budget
surplus considering both locations is $30,351.02.
Long-Term Care capital reserves are managed on a consolidated basis and are currently
sufficient to support the approved 10-Year Capital Plan. A reserve fund review is scheduled for
later this year to assess reserve adequacy and to determine whether adjustments to annual
contributions are required to support sustainable asset management.


Relevant Consultation
☒    Internal – Executive Directors, Directors of Care, Manager of Finance, Purchasing
Manager, Building Maintenance Managers, Resident Care Coordinators


Appendices and Attachments
None.




LTCR-CW-22-26                                  3                            November 12, 2026

Agenda item 6.g: CAOR-CW-30-26 Development Charge Reduction Program - Funding Approval Update

---

Attachment: Development Charge Reduction Program - Funding Approval Update - CAOR-CW-30-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/34cdb87045e750bc2544ec1357891b5dfde7a996790e957a2097cc01b62996bd/6-g-1-development-charge-reduction-program-funding-approval-update-caor-cw-30-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                             Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                 November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:            CAOR-CW-30-26
 Title:                          Development Charge Reduction Program – Funding Approval
                                 Update
 Prepared by:                    Niall Lobley, DCAO
 Reviewed by:                    Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:         All municipalities


Recommendation
   1. That report CAOR-CW-30-26 regarding a Funding Approval Update in respect of
      the County Development Charge Reduction Program submission, be received for
      information.


Executive Summary
This report presents Committee of the Whole with an update in respect of the County’s
application to the Development Charge Reduction Program (DCRP) in June 2026. The Province
has started to provide further details and announcements to municipalities in respect of their
applications, and Grey County has been informed of being partially successful in its application.
As per direction received from Council at the meeting on June 11, 2026, to submit a DCRP
application, County staff submitted an application that requested a total of approximately $25.2
million of DCRP funding for three capital projects with a combined total estimated cost of
approximately $32.7 million.
The Province has conditionally approved partial funding for one of the capital projects put
forward. Acceptance of the funding would require the County to enter into a transfer payment
agreement with the Province and to implement a 50% reduction in residential development
charges, applied retroactively from March 30, 2026 through March 30, 2029.


Background and Discussion
In June 2026, through report PDR-CW-24-26, staff provided Council with an overview of the
Development Charge Reduction Program (DCRP). The program allows municipalities to seek
capital funding from the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada for development-
related infrastructure projects. In exchange, participating municipalities must reduce residential



CAOR-CW-30-26                                    1                             November 12, 2026



development charges by at least 50% for a minimum of three years, from March 30, 2026, to
March 30, 2029. Projects must be completed within five years of application, and municipalities
were asked to identify the anticipated residential growth associated with each project.
Municipalities could submit up to three projects and request funding equivalent to the
development charge revenue that would otherwise support those works.
Report PDR-CW-24-26 was originally put forward as an information report and following further
discussion, the Committee of the Whole passed the following resolution, directing staff to apply
to the program:
       “That staff be directed to apply to the Canada-Ontario Development Charge Reduction
       Program for a 50% reduction to the County's residential development charges with the
       County covering 10% of the eligible program costs; and
       That staff be authorized to proceed prior to County Council approval as per Section
       26.6(b) of Procedural By-law 5134-22.”
Staff subsequently submitted an application for the following three projects:

      Grey Road 5 Urban 4-lane with Storm Sewer, Grey Road 5 and 16th Ave E Intersection
       Upgrades, and Grey Road 5 and 20th Ave E Roundabout
      Grey Road 19 and Grey Road 21 Roundabout and Grey Road 19, Blue Mountains, 4
       Lane Rural Reconstruction with Paved Shoulders
      Grey Road 4 East end of Hanover - Urban 4-Lane with Storm Sewer
Grey County’s total application requested $25,228,554.87 of DCRP funding toward three
projects with a combined estimated capital cost of $32,737,833.52. The balance would be
funded through other funding sources as per the County’s 10-year capital budget.
The Province has recently confirmed that Grey County has been approved for partial funding,
substantially supporting one of the above projects. Acceptance of the funding would require the
County to enter into a transfer payment agreement with the Province and to implement a 50%
reduction in residential development charges, applied retroactively from March 2026 through
March 2029.
The County’s current 2026 residential development charges are as follows:

      $10,537 for a single and semi-detached units,
      $7,276 for row housing and other multiple residential units, and
      $6,058 for apartment units.
The County’s non-residential development charges would not be reduced through the DCRP.
The Province and Federal Government have both identified increased housing supply as a
priority. In Ontario, the Province has established a target of 1.5 million new homes. The
updated Growth Management Study projects that population, housing and employment
projections will continue to increase and therefore more housing will be required in order to
support the anticipated growth.
Through successive terms, the Province has expressed concern that municipal approval
processes and municipal fees are barriers to housing growth. In response, legislative changes
have shortened approval timelines, narrowed areas of municipal oversight and engagement,


CAOR-CW-30-26                                   2                               November 12, 2026



reduced the planning role of other agencies, including Conservation Authorities, and
constrained some costs eligible to be covered via development charges.
These changes have challenged the long-standing principle that growth should pay for growth.
Costs previously supported through development charges are increasingly shifted to other
sources, including the existing property tax base and future debt. At the same time, the Province
is exploring alternative service delivery models, including municipal service corporations for
water, wastewater, and potentially other municipal services. The policy direction appears to be
that growth should contribute to growth, with some costs also supported by future residential
users and the broader property tax base.
The DCRP is a three-level-of-government framework intended to reduce development-related
costs for residential development by shifting a portion of those costs to federal, provincial, and
municipal funding sources. The underlying premise is that lower upfront costs can support
increased development activity and improved housing affordability. The program provides
provincial and federal funding to offset some of the revenue lost through a 50% residential
development charge reduction over three years.
As noted, the DCRP application included three projects with a total estimated capital cost of
$32,737,833.52 and requested $25,228,554.87 from the Province.
The Province has offered support toward one of the three projects applied for. The project is
anticipated to be funded by DCRP Funding, DC Reserves and other funding sources including
potential use of OCIF, CCBF and transportation service reserves. The DCRP funding towards
projects cannot exceed 90% of project costs, excluding soft costs. Soft costs include those
related to design, engineering, legal fees and permitting and insurance.
Staff note that revenue from the DCRP program may be less than could have been achieved
from maintaining DC rates and funding may not fully offset the revenue loss associated with a
50% residential development charge reduction.
As part of the application process, staff reviewed historical residential growth patterns. Based on
that review, staff estimate that a 50% residential development charge reduction from March
2026 to March 2029 could reduce development charge revenue by approximately $10,167,736.
Based on earlier Council direction, staff have indicated to the Province that Council is supportive
of accepting the Province’s offer of DCRP funding toward the project and implementing a 50%
DC reduction effective between March 2026 and March 2029.
The County is currently preparing a new development charges background study and by-laws,
which are estimated to be completed in 2027. The DCRP would have the effect of ‘freezing’ the
County’s residential development charges over the three-year period between March 2026 and
March 2029. Although the County can still update its by-laws, those residential DC rates will be
frozen at 50% of the County’s 2026 development charge rates. After March 2029, the County’s
residential new development charges rates, established by the forthcoming 2027 by-laws, could
take effect.
Next Steps:
Staff anticipate receiving a Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) in coming weeks and acting
under earlier directions anticipate signing this and returning it to the Province.



CAOR-CW-30-26                                    3                             November 12, 2026



Staff anticipate bringing a revision to the DC Bylaw to County Council in January 2027 to
implement a rate reduction to be effective at the time of the bylaw passing, through to March
2029.
Under a separate process, staff anticipate issuing refunds of collected DC’s from March 2026
through to the passing of the revised DC Bylaw. After signing the TPA, staff will work with
member municipalities who collect development charges on the County’s behalf, to coordinate
issuing those refunds.
The Province has indicated a desire that the County pass an amended DC Bylaw prior to the
Province’s signing of the TPA releasing funds.
Staff are already working on the required detailed planning for the improvements as included
within the DCRP application.

Financial and Resource Implications
In June, staff submitted a DCRP application seeking $25,228,554.87 in grant support for three
projects with a combined estimated capital cost of $32,737,833.52.
On August 13, the Province offered partial funding toward the County’s application for projects.
Due to the ongoing work by the province to finalize funding arrangements, the amount of DCRP
funding and specifics of the work to be undertaken by Grey County under the application is not
yet publicly available. It is anticipated that the Province will lead a public announcement once
further details have been confirmed.
Acceptance of the funding requires the County to implement a 50% reduction in residential
development charges from March 30, 2026, to March 30, 2029.
The funding offer is significantly lower than requested as it provides substantial support for one
project, but no funding support for the other two.
The project the Province has indicated support for through funding is already included in the
County's current Development Charge Background Study and 10-year capital plan, with funding
anticipated from development charges, levy-supported capital, reserves and CCBF.
Staff have confirmed that any project-specific shortfall between the Province’s offered DCRP
funding and the capital costs of the project, can be funded by existing DC reserves, as well as
other municipal funding sources. Staff anticipate this can be accommodated within the existing
10-year capital plan through adjustments to development charge reserve funding and the
redistribution of CCBF, levy and reserve funding across projects.
Development Charge Revenue Impacts
The County's Growth Management Strategy forecasts an average of 618 new residential units
annually between 2026 and 2029. Assuming a development mix consistent with recent trends
(80% single detached, 15% row housing and 5% apartments), residential development charges
are estimated to generate approximately $20,335,472 during this period.
A mandatory 50% reduction in residential development charges would reduce this revenue to
approximately $10,167,736.



CAOR-CW-30-26                                    4                             November 12, 2026



Future development charge revenues remain inherently uncertain and will be influenced by
economic conditions, provincial policy changes, housing market activity and actual growth
patterns.
       If growth exceeds current forecasts, overall development charge revenue would
        increase; however, the proportional loss associated with the 50% reduction would also
        increase, creating additional pressure on development charge-funded infrastructure
        projects.
       If growth falls below forecasts, overall development charge revenue would decrease, but
        the gap between the fixed DCRP funding and development charge revenue would
        narrow, reducing the financial impact of participation in the program.
As noted earlier in the report, the impact of Grey’s new DC background study and by-laws, with
potential rate changes in 2027 is also unknown. Unlike development charges, the DCRP grant
is fixed and not tied to actual growth. As a result, accepting the funding shifts a portion of future
growth-related infrastructure funding risk from development to the County.
The County has collected $832,000 in residential development charges since April 1 2026 and
on passing of a revised Development Charge background study, 50% of this will be returned to
developers who have remitted payments.
Broader Financial Considerations
Residential growth also expands the property tax base, generating assessment growth that
helps offset increasing service costs at both the upper- and lower-tier municipal levels. If the
Province's objective is realized and reduced development charges accelerate residential
development, a portion of the foregone development charge revenue may be offset through
growth-related assessment increases.
However, forecasting the timing and magnitude of these impacts is highly speculative and
cannot be estimated with confidence.


Relevant Consultation
☐       Internal (list)

        ☐       AODA Compliance (describe)

        ☐       Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)

☐       External (list)


Appendices and Attachments
None.




CAOR-CW-30-26                                     5                              November 12, 2026

Agenda item 7: Items For Direction and Discussion

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

7.

Items For Direction and Discussion
Page 2 of 66

34

Page 3 of 66

Agenda item 7.a: TR-CW-33-26 Storm Drain Transfer Considerations – Neustadt and Proposed Intersection – Durham, West Grey

---

Attachment: Storm Drain and Intersection Considerations - West Grey - TR-CW-33-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/2948c7bc3d1c5543531b8dae19c0bc21d2dcb3b387517231a2d0c25853af98dc/7-a-1-storm-drain-and-intersection-considerations-west-grey-tr-cw-33-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                           Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:               November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:          TR-CW-33-26
 Title:                        Storm Drain Transfer Considerations – Neustadt and
                               Proposed Intersection – Durham, West Grey
 Prepared by:                  Pat Hoy, Director of Transportation
                               Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Reviewed by:                  Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:       Municipality of West Grey
 Status:


Recommendation
   1. That staff be directed to work with the Municipality of West Grey to advance the
      transfer of all storm sewer infrastructure located within County road rights-of-way
      in the settlement area of Neustadt to the Municipality of West Grey prior to the
      scheduled road transfer date of June 1, 2027; and

   2. That staff be directed to work with the Municipality of West Grey on an agreement
      regarding the proposed intersection between the Saugeen River and College
      Street North on Grey Road 4, in the settlement area of Durham to allow for design
      work to take place on the proposed intersection from the Roseate and Khanani
      subdivisions; and

   3. That staff be authorized to negotiate any agreements outlining the terms and
      conditions associated with these matters, and that the Warden and Clerk be
      authorized to execute the agreements provided the agreements are to the
      satisfaction of the County Solicitor and CAO; and

   4. That action be taken prior to Council approval as per Section 26.6 (b) of
      Procedural By-law 5134-22.


Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide Committee with information regarding storm sewer
infrastructure located within County road rights-of-way (ROW) in the settlement area of
Neustadt, as well as a proposed signalized intersection on Grey Road 4, settlement area of


TR-CW-33-26                                   1                            November 12, 2026



Durham. The intent is to seek direction regarding the potential advancement of the transfer of
these storm sewer assets in Neustadt to the Municipality of West Grey and to authorize entering
into an agreement regarding the proposed signalized intersection in Durham, in advance of the
scheduled road transfers.


Background and Discussion
Grey County currently owns and maintains portions of the storm sewer system located within
County ROWs in the settlement area of Neustadt. The remainder of the stormwater system
within the community is owned and maintained by the Municipality of West Grey.
As part of the previously approved road transfer of County roads within urban areas, ownership
of the storm sewer infrastructure located within the County ROWs is scheduled to transfer to the
municipalities effective June 1, 2027.
As a result, the existing arrangement represents a temporary ownership situation whereby the
Municipality owns and operates the majority of the storm sewer network while the County
retains ownership of relatively small sections located within County ROWs.
Intersections on County roads are owned and maintained by the County. As part of the
scheduled road transfers of County roads within urban areas, intersections and the associated
infrastructure will be transferred to the municipalities on June 1, 2027.
As part of the review and approval of two subdivision developments on either side of Grey Road
4, West Grey wants to explore alternative intersection treatments with the anticipation that the
developer be requested to design and construct an alternative intersection to that considered
under the draft subdivision approval to connect the two projects.
West Grey is seeking to advance approval of these matters as soon as possible to support
developers on the projects and enable them to advance works through the balance of the year.
With County Council support, staff anticipate that required agreements could be in place before
the end of 2026.


Stormwater Infrastructure Proposal
Proposed Development - Neustadt
A development proposal has been provisionally approved in Neustadt which includes the
installation of a catch basin on the development lands that would connect and discharge into an
existing storm sewer located beneath County Road 9 (Queen Street). The storm sewer
ultimately connects into the broader municipal stormwater system operated by the Municipality
of West Grey.
During the County's review of the proposed stormwater design, questions were raised regarding
the capacity of the existing storm sewer infrastructure and potential risks and liabilities
associated with accepting additional flows. The County's concerns relate primarily to ensuring
that the infrastructure currently under County ownership is capable of accommodating the
anticipated flows from the proposed development and that any future deficiencies are
appropriately addressed given that the County is partially responsible and liable for portions of
the storm drain. Additional information was requested in order to ensure that there would be no


TR-CW-33-26                                     2                            November 12, 2026



impacts to the storm drain section currently owned by the County as well as the County road
itself.
Municipal Review - Neustadt
The Municipality of West Grey and its consulting engineers have reviewed the proposed
stormwater design and have advised that they are satisfied that the municipal storm sewer
system can accommodate the additional stormwater generated by the development.
The Municipality owns and maintains the majority of the overall storm sewer system and will
ultimately assume ownership of the remaining County-owned sections as of June 1, 2027,
pursuant to the proposed road exchanges. As such, County staff recognize that allowing the
Municipality to determine the servicing requirements associated with the proposed development
and any future system improvements that may be required will streamline the approval process.
The developer has indicated a desire to proceed with the project as soon as possible, making
timely resolution of ownership and approval considerations important.
Potential Early Transfer of Storm Sewer Assets - Neustadt
With the scheduled transfer of County roads and associated storm sewer infrastructure less
than a year away, staff have considered whether it would be appropriate to advance the transfer
of the storm sewer infrastructure only, prior to the June 1, 2027 road transfer date.
Advancing the transfer would provide several benefits:
      Consolidate ownership of the entire Neustadt storm sewer system under a single
       authority (right infrastructure, right owner approach);
      Allow the Municipality of West Grey to work directly with the developer on final
       stormwater servicing requirements;
      Reduce potential risk and liability exposure to Grey County associated with stormwater
       capacity and future system performance;
      Eliminate uncertainty regarding responsibility for future improvements required to
       support development; and
      Align ownership responsibility with operational responsibility for the broader stormwater
       network.
Should Council support this approach, staff would work with the Municipality of West Grey to
develop an agreement outlining the terms of the transfer.
The agreement could include provisions that:
      Transfer ownership of all storm sewer infrastructure located within County road rights-of-
       way in Neustadt to the Municipality of West Grey;
      Indemnify Grey County from future claims or liabilities associated with the transferred
       infrastructure;
      Confirm that any upgrades or improvements required to support development prior to
       June 1, 2027 would be the responsibility of the Municipality of West Grey; and


TR-CW-33-26                                     3                            November 12, 2026



   Address planned Transportation Services improvements to portions of the storm sewer
       system that were anticipated prior to the scheduled road transfer date.


Intersection Proposal
Proposed Developments – Durham
Two subdivision developments on the west side of Durham are being proposed, one on the
north side of Grey Road 4 (known as the ‘Khanani Subdivision’) and one on the south side of
Grey Road 4 (known as the ‘Roseate Subdivision’), both of which have been draft approved.
Development of these subdivisions will result in the need for construction of an intersection in
the area of Grey Road 4 to connect the two projects.
Grey County Transportation staff reviewed the traffic studies submitted as part of the
subdivision process. These studies indicated that the addition of turning lanes at the newly
formed intersection would be required to support the proposed developments. County staff
support the findings of the traffic impact studies, do not believe that the road warrants an
alternative approach to the intersection to be considered and, that the proposed turning lanes
meet county policy. The draft approved plan conditions contain conditions to this effect.
West Grey staff and their engineering consultant have noted that the proposed intersection
design may not meet West Grey’s desire to support pedestrian movements through the
intersection and between the developments in the future and have proposed alternative
intersection treatments that could address this concern. However, these approaches are not
supported by County staff and policy.
Alternative Intersection Considerations - Durham
Given that this road section is scheduled to be transferred to the Municipality of West Grey on
June 1, 2027, any planned or proposed intersections, including any required infrastructure,
which could include traffic signal infrastructure, would also be transferred to West Grey at that
time.
In light of the pending road transfer, West Grey has requested that the County permit West Grey
to proceed with requiring the developer to design an alternative intersection. In an effort to
permit West Grey to move forward with implementing its preferred traffic approach for this area
of Durham, it is recommended that County staff be authorized to enter into an agreement with
West Grey (and possibly the developer(s)), that would allow an alternative intersection to be
considered as part of the conditions of draft approval and potentially allow the advancement of
the design prior to June 1, 2027 so as not to delay the future construction of the intersection and
the related subdivision development(s).
The agreement could include provisions that:

      West Grey would assume all ownership of the intersection, including (if installed) any
       traffic signal infrastructure, and that the County would not be responsible for any costs
       associated with the design, construction, maintenance, and liability of the intersection.
       For clarity, this is intended to continue to apply in the event that the road exchanges are
       delayed or otherwise do not proceed.



TR-CW-33-26                                      4                             November 12, 2026



   Indemnify Grey County from any future claims or liabilities associated with the design,
       construction, and maintenance of the intersection.

      If the installation of the proposed intersection is required to proceed ahead of the
       proposed road transfers then the developer(s) would be required to apply to Grey
       County for a Work-in-Right-of-Way Permit prior to proceeding with construction.
If the timing of the developments and the installation of the proposed intersection ends up being
after the road transfers, then this matter would end up being the responsibility of West Grey to
work with the developer(s) to finalize the design and construction as well as take on any future
maintenance and liability of the intersection.
Staff would report back to Council if any matters arise during discussions that require additional
direction regarding these two matters.

Legal Considerations
Should Council support advancing the transfer of storm drains and the agreement regarding the
proposed intersection, legal documentation would be required to formalize the transfer of assets
and establish responsibilities between the parties.
Any agreement would be reviewed by the County Solicitor, in consultation with the CAO, to
ensure that appropriate indemnification, liability, ownership, and maintenance provisions are
included and that the County's interests are protected. Note that there will still be risk to the
County particularly while the County remains owner of the land where the infrastructure is
located as it is likely that the County will be named if any issues arise; but the intention of the
agreements are to protect the County to the fullest extent.

Financial and Resource Implications
Staff in County Transportation and Legal Services are currently working with member municipal
staff to advance the Road Transfer agreements as previously directed. Developing additional
agreements to advance portions of this work on a shorter timeline was not contemplated during
the Road Transfers discussions and requires additional efforts by both Legal Services team
members and Transportation staff.
As such, in order to meet West Grey’s timelines, external legal counsel will be engaged to
develop the required agreements and provide advice. The County is in the process of seeking
costs associated with this work and anticipate that as this work is being undertaken at the
request of West Grey, that all costs associated with the early transfer will be met by West Grey.
Advancing the transfer may reduce future County expenditures associated with the
maintenance, repair, and replacement of the affected storm sewer infrastructure prior to the
scheduled road transfer date.
Discussions with the Municipality of West Grey will be required to determine how any planned
County improvements to the infrastructure will be addressed as part of the transfer agreement.




TR-CW-33-26                                       5                              November 12, 2026



Relevant Consultation
☐       Internal: County Solicitor, Clerks, Planning

        ☐      AODA Compliance

        ☐      Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets

☐       External: Municipality of West Grey


Appendices and Attachments
None.




TR-CW-33-26                                      6                  November 12, 2026

Agenda item 7.b: PDR-CW-47-26 Blue Mountains Official Plan Update

---

Attachment: Approval of Town of Blue Mountains Official Plan Update - PDR-CW-47-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/74f55823e85e6b19d7db1137079914e95fee22722c5b739d98db6980f09200cd/7-b-1-approval-of-town-of-blue-mountains-official-plan-update-pdr-cw-47-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                           Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:               November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:          PDR-CW-47-26
 Title:                        Approval of Town of The Blue Mountains Official Plan Update
 Prepared by:                  Liz Buckton, Senior Policy Planner
 Reviewed by:                  Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:       Town of The Blue Mountains


Recommendation
   1. That Report PDR-CW-47-26 regarding the approval of the Town of The Blue
      Mountain’s Official Plan Update be received; and,
   2. That the Committee of the Whole hereby approves the Town of The Blue
      Mountains Official Plan Update as adopted by By-law 2026-59, subject to those
      modifications attached to report PDR-CW-47-26, as Appendix 1.


Executive Summary
In September 2026, the Town of The Blue Mountains (TBM) readopted a comprehensive update
to its official plan. The amendment considers many recent changes to the Planning Act, the
Provincial Planning Statement, the Grey County official plan, as well as input from members of
the public and agencies. County staff are recommending approval of the official plan
amendment, subject to modifications as described within this report, and outlined in detail at
Appendix 1. The proposed modifications have been shared with the Town in advance of this
report. When readopting the amendment, Town Council endorsed its staff’s recommendation to
support County approval of the Town of The Blue Mountains Official Plan 5-Year Review. This
endorsement was subject to any final modifications recommended by County staff to ensure
conformity with the County official plan, consistency with provincial policy, and completion of
related technical, mapping, legislative, and administrative updates.


Background and Discussion
The Town of The Blue Mountains adopted updates to their official plan (OP) on September 28,
2026. Links to the as-adopted updated plan and schedules have been included at Appendix 3
and 4 of this report.
The official plan amendment (OPA) had previously been adopted by Town Council in June
2025. However, due to a legislative change to the Planning Act occurring around the same date


PDR-CW-47-26                                  1                            November 12, 2026



and being applied retroactively to a date prior to the local adoption of the OPA, the OP was
deemed not to have been adopted per the provisions of Section 17 (21.1 & 21.2) of the Act.
These new provisions required Minister’s approval to be obtained prior to adoption, in relation to
any proposed changes to the other information and complete application requirements of the
official plan.
Town, County, and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff worked together to prepare a
submission to the Minster and to obtain the required Minister’s approval, as was granted August
18, 2026. Four minor modifications to the wording of the amendment have been woven into the
final adopted version in September 2026.
Concurrently, County staff have reviewed the OPA to discern any required modifications, and
also to evaluate several individual/site-specific requests that were submitted to the County as
approval authority. Some of these requests address new matters, while others request
reconsideration. For example, reconsideration included instances where requested changes
may not have been actioned within the original OPA, but where site owners/agents continued to
feel the changes may be appropriate to be addressed through this comprehensive update
exercise. Readoption of the OPA by Town Council in September 2026 reflects adoption of the
same amendment as June 2025 (subject only to those few Minister’s changes). Any further
changes are to be addressed via County modification, as part of the County’s approval process
of the comprehensive plan amendment.
As part of the update process for the OP, the Town hosted public consultation sessions and
circulated draft amendments to the required agencies. The OP was changed between the initial
drafts and the adopted version to reflect feedback received, where warranted. The final OPA
incorporates much of the feedback received, as was detailed within the TBM
staff/recommendation reports at Appendix 5 of this report.
Grey County is the delegated authority for approving comprehensive updates and new local
municipal official plans. Since adoption, County and Town staff have been working together to
explore certain modifications to the adopted plan. Proposed modifications to the plan are being
recommended to ensure conformity and consistency with planning legislation and policy.
The proposed modifications have been shared with Town staff in advance of this report, with the
Town staff’s recommendation being:
       “That Council support Grey County Council’s approval of the Town of The Blue
       Mountains Official Plan 5-Year Review, subject to any final modifications recommended
       by Grey County staff to ensure conformity with the Grey County Official Plan,
       consistency with provincial land use planning policy, and completion of related technical,
       mapping, legislative, and administrative updates.”
This recommendation was endorsed by TBM Council.
Should the County approve TBM’s OPA, notice would be given to agencies and the public who
requested notice, and there would be a 20-day appeal period, per the provisions of the Planning
Act.




PDR-CW-47-26                                    2                             November 12, 2026



Public and Agency Comments
There were several public and agency comments submitted as part of the development of the
new OP review process. These comments are discussed within TBM staff report PDS-24-141
and detailed within the local Comment & Response Matrix, both included at Appendix 5 to this
report.
Staff note that much of the input received appears to have directly informed the content of the
adopted OPA, where Town staff and Council found the input to be appropriate and changes
warranted. Comments offered through the consultation process by County staff, were largely
addressed prior to adoption. County modifications have been proposed to address conformity
with the County official plan, for example in relation to the updated provincial agricultural,
agricultural-related, and on-farm diversified use framework applicable to the rural areas, and the
related permissions and development criteria of the plan.

Analysis of Planning Issues – Legislation & Provincial Policy
Planning authorities must have regard for matters of provincial interest, as set out under the
Planning Act, and must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 2024.
Decisions must also conform to the County of Grey OP and any provincial plans that are in force
and effect.
The adopted OPA revises the TBM OP to reflect recent changes to the PPS, the Planning Act
and other related legislation, among other pertinent housekeeping matters. Proposed County
modifications have been drafted to address further legislative changes occurring during the
finalization of the local plan update, and during the period where the Town was pursuing
Minister’s approval, prior to readoption in September. No major changes are proposed with
respect to areas of the Town within the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP). The Town’s OP
generally directs readers to the NEP for the land use designations and policies applicable to
these areas and requires development to conform to the NEP. Where the NEP and the Town’s
official plan may conflict, NEP policies generally prevail, unless the local policies are more
restrictive, in which case the more restrictive policies prevail.
Section 2 of the Planning Act sets out the matters of provincial interest which all land use
decisions shall have regard for. The matters under this section of the Act cover a broad
spectrum of interests, which will not be explored in detail in this report but form the basis for
many of the policies within the TBM official plan.
Chapter 2.1 of the PPS speaks to planning for people and homes, directing that appropriate
growth management be undertaken to ensure sufficient land supply is available to
accommodate anticipated growth over a time horizon of at least 20 years, and to ensure
appropriate designated lands for residential development. The Town’s OP includes population
and growth expectations through 2046, with minor modifications proposed by County Staff to
align the figures within the local plan with those presently included in the County official plan. A
clause is also recommended for insertion by modification, which supports future update of the
growth forecasts within the local plan without amendment, at such time that the forecasts within
the County’s official plan are updated in this regard. Growth management is an upper-tier
municipal responsibility. A recent growth management update has been undertaken by the
County extending growth forecasts and allocations to 2051 and assessing land needs to


PDR-CW-47-26                                      3                              November 12, 2026



accommodate this growth. The updated growth forecasts and allocations arising from the recent
Growth Management Strategy update will be embedded into the Grey County official plan
through a future amendment process. TBM was found through this recent exercise to have
sufficient designated lands to meet growth expectations over the extended planning horizon.
Chapter 2.3 of the PPS speaks to the provision of housing, directing planning authorities to
provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet project needs
of the community, now and over time. The updated TBM OP includes a substantially revised
Section D7.4 ‘Affordable and Attainable Housing’, which adds description around the required
‘Affordable/Attainable Housing Report’ to be offered in support of new development proposals of
more than 10 dwelling units. Within this report, an applicant will be required to demonstrate how
affordable housing units may be provided within the proposal, offering specific commentary
around how they have considered the potential for:
   i.       a contribution to the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to increase the funding
            available for offsite housing; or
  ii.       a commitment to construct homes that can be easily converted to accommodate future
            Additional Residential Units (ARUs), such as basement rough-ins for plumbing
            and/or appropriate ingress and egress for basement units; or
 iii.       the development of affordable housing units; or
 iv.        any other option to the satisfaction of Town Council; or
  v.        a combination of the above options.

It’s noted that such measures may be pursued by Council on a voluntary or negotiated basis,
unless in relation to a development subject to the more formal ‘community benefits’ framework
under the Planning Act. County Staff understand that the intent of these updated policies is to:

           encourage and require applicants to evaluate and demonstrate how their project may
            contribute to meeting the targets of the official plan relating to affordable housing, and
           demonstrate how policies and objectives regarding housing have been addressed.
Chapter 2.3 of the PPS promotes settlement areas as the focus of growth and development.
Thornbury/Clarksburg is designated as Primary Settlement Area within the Grey County OP.
Chapter 2.3 further promotes the efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, public service
facilities, and promotes intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of
complete communities and the provision of a range and mix of housing options. The Town’s
updated plan contemplates a range of land uses and mix of housing types to support the
community’s needs as it continues to grow including updated and refined permissions for ARUs
and converted dwellings. The OP also establishes policy requiring new development be
serviced appropriately, at densities that provide for the efficient use of land and infrastructure.
The Town’s updated height and density framework considers a variety of planning contexts
(e.g., greenfield development, infill development, residential conversions, etc.) and unit type
scenarios (e.g., single detached, duplex, townhouse and multis/apartments) establishing
applicable minimum densities that reflect these settings and typologies. These policies generally
satisfy Section 3.5 (5)(a) of the County OP, which directs that municipalities achieve an overall
minimum residential development density of 25 units per net hectare, for Primary Settlement
Areas. Residential density provisions have also been updated via the OPA for the Blue
Mountain Village Area, where maximum densities have been increased from 15 units/gross ha
to 20 units/gross ha.


PDR-CW-47-26                                          4                             November 12, 2026



Chapter 2.8 of the PPS speaks to employment and economic development, and together with
definitions of the Planning Act, was revised in PPS 2024. The new framework;

      establishes specific use prohibitions for employment areas (i.e., no residential uses,
       institutional uses, or non-ancillary retail and office uses are permitted), and
      ensures that development on lands within 300 metres avoids, minimizes or mitigates
       potential impacts on the long-term viability of those employment lands.
Updates with respect to the amended PPS and Planning Act considerations were included via
the adopted OPA, with further elements proposed for addition via County modification. County
staff have recommended additional wording in Section B3.2.3 of the Plan to maintain the
‘Employment Area’ status of the lands, notwithstanding any pre-existing non-conforming uses
established prior to October 20, 2024. The proposed modification also embeds the provincial
guidance relating to the avoidance or mitigation of impacts arising due to existing or planned
uses within 300 m of Employment Areas.
Chapter 2.9 directs that planning authorities shall plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
prepare for the impact of a changing climate, through various recommended approaches. The
Town’s OP includes policy goals and strategic objectives relating to these matters. More
specifically, within Section A3.3 ‘Climate Change Action’ it outlines the intent to increase the
community’s climate resilience through energy conservation, innovation and nature-based
solutions, and commitments to be adaptive in order to protect the community, economy, and
ecosystems from the impacts of climate change.
Chapter 4.1 of the PPS provides for the protection of natural heritage features and areas. It
directs development and site alteration away from certain sensitive features, unless it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on those features or their ecological
functions. The updated official plan contains policies to support implementing the PPS direction.
County modifications are offered in several places to additionally reference applicable County
OP mapping and/or natural heritage policies that are not directly reflected in the TBM plan.
Modifications also revise section B5.5.5 ‘Threatened and Endangered Species’ to reflect the
changing provincial framework, with recent repeal of the Endangered Species Act, and ongoing
implementation of the new Species Conservation Act that replaces it.
Chapter 4.6 of the PPS provides policy direction around cultural heritage and archaeology. The
Town’s OP includes policy regarding these resources and encourages consultation with
Indigenous communities through the development process and to ensure their interests are
considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological and cultural heritage
resources. County modifications provide minor updates relating to naming of the responsible
provincial ministries (i.e., now falling within the purview of Ministry of Citizenship and
Multiculturalism). Future iterations of the plan may seek to further expand or detail these
policies, for example as may arise following the preparation of an Archaeological Management
Plan, currently in process by Grey County.
Chapter 5.2 of the PPS speaks to directing land away from areas of natural hazard. The Grey
Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA)
reviewed the proposed amended policies and mapping and have provided their comments to
the Town, given their related mandate. As noted above, these comments have generally been
incorporated within the OP.



PDR-CW-47-26                                    5                            November 12, 2026



County Planning Staff are satisfied that the updated official plan, with the proposed
modifications in Appendix 1 to this report;

      has regard for matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act, and
      is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

Analysis of Planning Issues – County Official Plan
The TBM OP must conform to the County OP; however, the Town plan may provide more
detailed or restrictive policies than may be provided for in the County plan.
The County plan provides a broad policy framework for Primary Settlement Areas but defers to
municipalities to implement their own community specific vision within their municipal plan. In
this regard, the Town’s OP addresses and conforms to the designation-specific County policies
applicable to Primary Settlement Areas. The County’s official plan also designates extensive
lands as Recreational Resort Settlement Area within TBM. To avoid policy duplication, County
policies generally defer to municipal policies for these lands. The Town plan provides detailed
policies for these recreational settlement area lands. Beyond these designation-specific policies,
the plan also successfully implements many of the County plan’s general policies. In some
cases, the Town OP directly refers to expanded policy or more detailed mapping as found in the
County plan, rather than duplicating within the local plan. This approach appears to align well
with the provincial and County initiatives to streamline official plans and reduce duplication
between plans.
The rural area/countryside policies of the County OP structure use permissions for lands
designated Rural, Agricultural, and Special Agricultural across the County. These policies
implement the provincial land use framework that permits agricultural, agricultural related, on-
farm diversified and other Rural uses, subject to implementation guidance as offered within the
‘Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas Publication 851’ and as
further detailed by County OP policy. This framework replaces the outdated ‘small-scale
commercial and industrial uses’ framework as existed prior to the County’s 2019 OP.
Staff note that several modifications are recommended with respect to the rural
area/countryside policy framework within the local plan. The Town’s adopted language and
policy permissions often reflected the prior small-scale commercial/industrial uses approach,
making conformity with the County OP challenging to confirm. Related changes are included
within the proposed modifications at Appendix 1, that include, but are not limited to:

      Suggested Modification # 25 regarding Wineries, establishing as-of-right permissions on
       a small scale, and outlining expansion review considerations as may fall under
       ‘agricultural-related’ or ‘on-farm diversified uses’ policies of the plan.
      Suggested Modification # 27 regarding on-farm diversified uses, that clarifies and
       corrects sizing criteria for these uses, per the Grey County official plan and provincial
       guidance.
      Suggested Modifications # 46 & # 47, that update policies relating to resource based
       recreational uses and recreational tourist-based clusters, as well as residential farm
       cooperatives and agri-miniums, to align with revisions to the Grey County OP via County
       OPA # 23.




PDR-CW-47-26                                    6                             November 12, 2026



   Various clarifying modifications relating to consent provisions in the Rural, Agricultural,
       and Special Agricultural designations, for alignment with the County official plan, and for
       clarity.
Staff note that outside of these rural area changes, the majority of other modifications
recommended in Appendix 1 to this report are;

      minor or correcting in nature;
      intended to offer greater clarity, or clearer conformity to the County’s OP and PPS; or
      to reflect ongoing changes to legislation which occurred during the interim period
       between the initial adoption, and final readoption of the OPA by TBM.
Draft modifications and staff commentary/rationale were shared in advance with Town staff and
discussed and refined together. Blue Mountain staff report PBS.26.074, recommended local
Council support of the County’s approval of the OP update, subject to final modifications
recommended by Grey County staff.
Subject to the detailed modifications in Appendix 1, County staff consider the updated TBM OP
to conform to the County OP.

Analysis of Individual/Site-Specific reconsideration requests
As noted, the County received several requests for reconsideration, e.g., where requested
changes may not have been implemented in the original Town OPA, but where site
owners/agents continued to feel they may be appropriate to be addressed through this
comprehensive update exercise.
It is not the County’s practice to seek to override decisions of local Council around a site-
specific request. Separate letters have been submitted directly to the County acting as approval
authority, and thus due diligence review is necessary, at a minimum. In this case, technical
delays associated with the retroactive Minister’s approval requirement created some added time
and opportunity to review the individual requests in greater depth, in discussion with TBM staff
and certain agencies, such as the GSCA. In this regard, modifications # 99 to # 106 are
proposed to address site-specific requests and related matters. Not all changes requested have
been suggested for modification. In several cases, it’s instead recommended that such changes
be best pursued via a site-specific amendment, or advanced through detailed consultation with
Town or agency staff. Town staff are supportive of the site-specific changes through
modifications # 99 to # 106.
These request items are described within Appendix 6 to this report, outlining the
matters/changes requested; the prior responses offered by Town Staff within their Council
reporting, and an updated recommendation as it pertains to the suggested modifications to the
Town’s plan, by the County.




PDR-CW-47-26                                     7                            November 12, 2026



Legislated Requirements
Sections 17(34) and 21(1) of the Planning Act requires that the County approve, modify,
or refuse local official plans and plan amendments for which the County is the
designated approval authority.
Following a decision by the County, a notice is to be issued per Section 17(35) of the Planning
Act, beginning a 20 day appeal period.


Financial and Resource Implications
At this time there are no expected financial or staffing considerations beyond those normally
encountered in processing an official plan update. While there is always the possibility that the
OPA could be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, County staff are of the opinion that the
Town has appropriately addressed the various comments that have been brought forward
through public outreach and consultation and via circulation of notice within the scope of their
discretion.


Relevant Consultation
☒       Internal: Planning Staff; Ecology Staff

☒       External: Town of the Blue Mountains; Grey Sauble Conservation Authority;
        Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing;
        Notices to public and agencies as required per the Planning Act.


Appendices and Attachments
Appendix 1 – Final Recommended Modifications to TBM Official Plan
Appendix 2 – Final Recommended Modified Schedules & Appendices

       Schedule A
       Schedule A-2
       Schedule A-4
       Appendix 1
Appendix 3 – As Adopted OPA #5 (Track Changes Text)
Appendix 4 – As Adopted OP – Schedules & Appendices
Appendix 5 – TBM Staff Reports re: Adoption

       PBS.24.141 – Recommendation Report – Official Plan 5 Year Review
       TBM Comment & Response Matrix
       PBS.26.023 – Update Report (Requirement for Minister’s Approval)
       PBS.26.071 - Final Recommendation/Re-Adoption Report
Appendix 6 - Site-specific Reconsideration Requests Matrix


PDR-CW-47-26                                      8                           November 12, 2026

Agenda item 7.c: CAOR-CW-29-26 Conservation Authority Act Regulatory Amendments - Grey County Comments

---

Attachment: Conservation Authorities Act Regulatory Amendments - County Comments - CAOR-CW-29-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/d1e6a00a2b71dd29902c7cc24c8d21ba5c3570ac57629a8613044a32d6a494dc/7-c-1-conservation-authorities-act-regulatory-amendments-county-comments-caor-cw-29-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                            Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                November 12, 2026
 Subject / Report No:           CAOR-CW-29-26
 Title:                         Conservation Authorities Act Regulatory Amendments –
                                County Comments
 Prepared by:                   Niall Lobley, DCAO
 Reviewed by:                   Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:        All


Recommendation
   1. That report CAOR-CW-29-26 be received;
   2. That County staff be directed to submit report CAOR-CW-29-26 as the County of
      Grey comments on Environmental Registry Postings 026-1067, 026-1070, 026-
      1071, 026-1075, and Ontario Regulatory Registry Posting 26-MECP017; and
   3. That report CAOR-CW-29-26 be shared with Grey County’s respective Members of
      Provincial Parliament, as well as member municipalities, and conservation
      authorities having jurisdiction in Grey County; and
   4. That staff be authorized to carry out the above prior to County Council approval
      as per Section 26.6(b) of Procedural By-law 5134-22.


Executive Summary
On February 1, 2027, it is anticipated that Ontario’s 36 existing conservation authorities (CAs)
will be amalgamated into nine regional conservation authorities (RCAs). The Conservation
Authorities Act has been amended in a number of places to facilitate this amalgamation, and the
Province has issued subsequent regulatory amendments and new regulations to further
facilitate these changes. Further legislative and regulatory changes are being consulted on, with
comments due between November 21 and December 6, 2026.
Governance of RCAs will be through boards of directors appointed by single- and upper-tier
municipalities. Grey County’s nine member municipalities, which have traditionally both funded
and appointed board members to conservation authorities, will see this role uploaded to Grey
County. Grey County will hold seats on two boards, with the Lake Huron RCA having the largest
footprint across Grey and the Eastern Lake Erie RCA also including parts of Grey County. The
draft regulations propose that Grey County appoint two members to the Lake Huron RCA and
one member to the Eastern Lake Erie RCA.




CAOR-CW-29-26                                  1                             November 12, 2026



Staff have prepared a summary of these changes and comments in response to the
consultations and are seeking County Council’s review, input and support prior to submission.


Background and Discussion
Conservation authorities are formed by municipalities under the legislative framework of the
Conservation Authorities Act and also play a key role in delivering programs under other
legislation. The Province is consulting on changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, the
Clean Water Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Act to align them with the new RCA
framework. The following background outlines the roles of CAs and municipalities under the
latter two Acts.
Clean Water Act, 2006
The purpose of the Clean Water Act, 2006 is to protect existing and future sources of drinking
water. It takes a preventative, watershed-based approach: identify where municipal drinking
water comes from, determine where it is vulnerable, identify activities that could pose significant
threats, and establish policies to manage those risks.
It forms part of Ontario's broader “multi-barrier” drinking-water framework, addressing risks
before water enters a municipal treatment system rather than relying solely on treatment after
withdrawal.
Conservation authorities have had a significant statutory and technical role in drinking water
source protection. Their watershed jurisdictions became the basis for most of Ontario's source
protection authorities, grouped into source protection areas and regions.
Their responsibilities have included:

      supporting source protection committees;
      providing scientific, technical and administrative support;
      undertaking the watershed science necessary to identify vulnerable areas and drinking-
       water threats;
      supporting the preparation and updating of source protection plans;
      implementing policies assigned to them;
      monitoring implementation and preparing annual progress reports; and
      supporting planning for new or changing municipal drinking-water systems.
Municipalities are equally important because many of the actual land-use and operational tools
needed to protect drinking-water sources sit with municipalities.
The Act specifically addresses conformity of official plans and zoning by-laws, implementation of
source protection plan policies, and municipal enforcement of drinking-water threat provisions.
Grey County's own source protection material describes municipalities as implementing bodies
for policies dealing with such matters as land-use planning, education and outreach, septic-
system inspections and restricted land uses.
Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008




CAOR-CW-29-26                                    2                             November 12, 2026



The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 applies specifically to Lake Simcoe and its watershed,
with the purpose of protecting and restoring the watershed’s ecological health.
The legislation establishes the framework for the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which took
effect in 2009 and is a comprehensive, watershed-based plan addressing the ecological health
of the lake and its watershed.
Its scope goes considerably beyond drinking water. The legislation recognizes pressures
including:

      population growth and development;
      climate change;
      invasive species; and
      the cumulative effects of land and water uses on the watershed.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has historically provided the watershed-scale
technical and implementation capacity needed to support the Act and Plan.
For example, its planning function works with municipalities and other stakeholders to ensure
municipal planning documents, development plans and projects conform with the Lake Simcoe
Protection Plan, while also addressing natural hazards and watershed health.
The authority brings together expertise in water science, ecology, engineering, planning and
forestry to support this work.
Municipalities translate much of that watershed-level framework into local land-use decisions
and municipal policy.
The Act expressly addresses official plan conformity, prescribed instruments and
implementation of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
In other words, protecting the lake is not exclusively a conservation authority responsibility. It
relies on coordinated provincial policy, watershed science and municipal decisions.
While these two pieces of legislation address different priorities, there are key similarities in that
they seek to:

      protect public health;
      protect people and property;
      protect ecological systems; and
      support growth while managing risk.
These overlap considerably with the traditional role of CAs in establishing environmental
conditions that have to be understood and addressed as communities grow. Recent
amendments to the Clean Water Act framework, for example, were explicitly intended to
accelerate use of new municipal water sources while maintaining environmental and public-
health safeguards.
As conservation authorities are amalgamated, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Clean
Water Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Act must also be updated to reflect the new regional
conservation authority model.




CAOR-CW-29-26                                     3                              November 12, 2026



For Grey County, this introduces a new governance consideration: the Lake Huron RCA, to
which the County will appoint members, will assume responsibilities under the Lake Simcoe
Protection Act, although Grey County lies outside that Act’s geographic scope.

Changes Being Proposed
Many proposed changes update references to predecessor CAs to reflect the new RCA
structure. Others address governance, funding and program delivery, as outlined below. The
Province’s overview bulletin brings together the related legislative and regulatory proposals.
Legislative Updates to the Conservation Authorities Act
A number of changes are proposed to the Conservation Authorities Act. These include:

      Updated provisions to enable the Ministry and the Ontario Provincial Conservation
       Agency (OPCA) to update jurisdictional boundaries of RCAs under a clearer process,
       including determinations of participating municipalities.
      Providing authority to OPCA to identify the first chief administrative officers (CAOs) of
       RCAs and to direct boards to employ them, including authority to determine the terms of
       their employment contracts. This authority is specific to the initial CAO appointments,
       and it is anticipated that OPCA’s Project Executives will be the initially appointed CAOs.
      Clarity around OPCA’s direction-setting powers, including areas in which it does not
       have authority over RCAs.
      The ability to waive, by regulation, the requirement that all participating municipalities
       have a seat on an RCA board, and to allow more than one participating municipality to
       collaborate in appointing a shared member.
      Removal of the requirement that 70% of municipal appointees to a CA be members of
       municipal councils. This change is being cited specifically to address the gap between
       the October 26, 2026 elections and the formation of new RCA boards in early 2027,
       enabling existing CA boards to continue to operate regardless of whether municipal
       members sought or were re-elected.
Legislative Changes to the Clean Water Act
A series of administrative updates are being proposed to align references to CAs with the new
RCAs. Further changes include:

      Maintaining 38 source protection plans and 38 source protection areas.
      Maintaining 19 source protection committees to oversee these plans and areas until the
       new RCAs appoint watershed councils under the Conservation Authorities Act.
      Transferring some roles from source protection committees to source protection
       authorities once watershed councils are established.
      Providing regulatory authority to the Minister to identify which source protection
       committees report to which RCAs.
      Providing the Minister with authority to require a source protection authority outside a CA
       watershed area to enter into an agreement with a source protection authority that is an
       RCA, involving its watershed council, to define the assistance that the RCA will provide
       to the non-RCA source protection authority. This has local relevance for the Lake Huron
       RCA, as it addresses Northern Bruce Peninsula, which is currently not part of the RCA



CAOR-CW-29-26                                   4                            November 12, 2026



or a predecessor CA but has both a source protection authority and a source protection
       plan.
      Directing that each new RCA become the responsible source protection authority for the
       source protection areas within its predecessor CAs’ boundaries and, as above, assume
       certain additional roles from source protection committees once watershed councils are
       appointed.
Legislative Changes to the Lake Simcoe Protection Act
Administrative changes would update names to reflect the new RCA structure. Further changes
include enabling the Minister to make changes to certain parts of the Act by regulation without
consultation. The examples provided indicate that these would be limited to minor changes,
such as updating RCA or predecessor CA names within the Act. The related regulatory proposal
is set out in ERO Posting 026-1071.
Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA) Funding
The Province established OPCA as a board-governed agency to oversee RCAs, which also
remain under the purview of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. OPCA is
initially provincially funded, with the stated intent that RCAs fund it over time. A proposed
regulation would apportion OPCA’s annual, board-approved budget among the nine RCAs in
proportion to their approved budgets. Each RCA’s contribution would therefore vary with
OPCA’s costs and the relative budgets of all RCAs. These contributions would be a new RCA
operating cost and would likely create levy pressure for participating municipalities.
Administrative Amendments to Budget Setting Regulations
Two regulatory amendments update language to reflect that RCA budgets will no longer be
presented to lower-tier municipalities, but only to single- and upper-tier municipalities. These
amendments maintain the current weighting process for budget allocations and the requirement
that new RCAs develop a board-approved budget and present it to participating municipalities
and OPCA no later than December 31 of the year preceding the budget year.
Administrative and Technical Updates to O. Reg. 41/24
Traditionally, each of Ontario’s 36 CAs controlled activities in its watershed through its own
regulations. In 2024, the Province introduced a single regulation that promoted consistency in
how CAs protect their watersheds and guide development.
A series of technical and administrative updates are being proposed to this regulation to
promote further consistency and standardization across RCAs.
Administrative Updates to Mandatory Programs and Services
Delivery of programs and services under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act is currently a
mandatory responsibility of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. The regulation is
being updated to assign this responsibility to the Lake Huron RCA, one of Grey County’s two
RCAs.
Regulatory Changes under the Clean Water Act




CAOR-CW-29-26                                   5                            November 12, 2026



The proposed regulatory changes reflect the proposed legislative amendments to the Act. In
essence, they will replace references to the 36 CAs with references to the nine RCAs, identify
the source protection areas for which each RCA will be the authority, and clarify that
participating municipalities in each source protection area will align with those of the RCA and
therefore include only single- and upper-tier municipalities. See ERO Posting 026-1070.
Watershed Councils
Under a separate consultation, the Province is seeking feedback on the formation and role of
watershed councils, posing specific questions to consultees on their potential role and function.
Grey County Impacts
While most proposed legislative and regulatory changes are administrative in nature, there are
issues of local relevance that staff wish to highlight for Council’s awareness.
The Lake Huron RCA will become a key agency in delivering on the Lake Simcoe Protection Act
and its regulations. This is defined as a mandatory responsibility for the new Lake Huron RCA,
in which Grey County will be a participating municipality. The new board will determine how to
implement this responsibility and its financial and governance implications.
The proposed funding model would create a new cost pressure for RCAs and potentially their
participating municipalities. Each RCA’s share would vary with OPCA’s approved budget and
the relative budgets of all RCAs. Grey County is concerned that municipalities could be required
to fund these costs without a direct role in approving OPCA’s budget. The County had
previously raised concerns about municipal levies funding the OPCA, through its initial
comments on CA amalgamations via report PDR-CW-70-25 (linked to in the Attachments
section of this report).
Grey County’s participation in two RCAs will include oversight of four source protection
committees:

      Lake Huron RCA will be the authority for:
          o Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Committee
          o South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee
          o Saugeen, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula Source Protection Committee
      Eastern Lake Erie RCA will be the authority for:
          o Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee
Northern Bruce Peninsula also presents a local consideration because its source protection
area lies beyond an existing CA boundary. Grey Sauble and Saugeen Conservation Authorities
currently support this work through a regional agreement. The proposals would enable
agreements between RCAs and non-RCA source protection authorities for continued support
beyond RCA boundaries. Such an agreement would not, in itself, extend the RCA’s jurisdiction.
The future RCA board will determine, through agreement with the source protection authority,
how support is provided and the financial and governance implications.
The proposals also indicate a potential future role for watershed councils in source protection.
Introduced following early feedback on CA consolidation, watershed councils could maintain
more local input within the larger RCAs. Each RCA is legislatively required to appoint at least



CAOR-CW-29-26                                   6                             November 12, 2026



one watershed council, and the current proposals suggest that councils could be formed around
existing source protection areas.
The Province is seeking early comments on the potential future role of watershed councils.

Financial and Resource Implications
Most proposed changes are administrative. However, the proposals could create future costs for
RCAs and participating municipalities, including OPCA funding, initial CAO employment
commitments and watershed council administration. These costs cannot yet be quantified.
Staff continue to seek clarity on future apportionment of RCA budgets and understand that Grey
County will receive its first levy requests from the Lake Huron and Eastern Lake Erie RCAs for
the 2028 budget year. As noted during budget discussions, Grey County staff have included a
placeholder budget request of $2.8 million in the 2028 budget, based on the collective member
municipal levies to existing conservation authorities.
The principal potential cost pressures are outlined below.
   1) The new provincial agency, OPCA, is proposed to be funded by the new RCAs.
      Costs associated with OPCA are unknown at this time, as it is funded provincially and is
      administering both one-time transition funds and operating funds. OPCA has an initial
      budget of $3 million; future budgets may be higher or lower and will need to be met by
      the RCAs. RCA contributions to OPCA’s 2028 budget will not be clear until all RCAs and
      OPCA have developed budgets; the proposed regulatory changes indicate that this
      process should be completed no later than December 31, 2027. Staff understand that
      the assumption by RCA's of OPCAs costs will be phased in over several years. The
      approach of proportionally funding OPCA based on total RCA budget is a concern as
      RCA Budgets are based on both mandatory and Category 1 services and Category 2
      and 3 services and other non-mandatory elements. While all RCAs must deliver
      Category 1 services and it is this mandate that OPCA oversees, individual RCAs are
      able to enter into local agreements for Category 2 and 3 services as well as other
      service delivery agreements that influence their budget. If OPCA costs are to be
      downloaded to RCAs, it is suggested that these cost be proportional to only the
      Category 1 and mandatoryu service elements of their budgets.
   2) Appointment of new CAOs. OPCA currently funds Project Executives through
      provincial transition funding and determines their employment terms. The proposals
      would authorize OPCA to appoint initial RCA CAOs and set their employment terms; it is
      anticipated that the Project Executives would fill these roles. The RCAs and their
      participating municipalities would then bear the costs of commitments established by
      OPCA rather than by the RCA boards.
   3) Operation of watershed councils. The Province has shared a general intent to
      establish one or more watershed councils within each RCA in the future and, through the
      proposals under consultation, has potentially linked these with source protection work.
      The Province is seeking input into the role and function of watershed councils,
      suggesting that they could have a broader remit than source protection. While there is
      no clarity around their number, size or role, they will create an additional governance
      and administrative function for RCAs to manage and will have some budgetary impact.



CAOR-CW-29-26                                   7                          November 12, 2026



Some additional costs could be offset by efficiencies. For example, each RCA will have one
board in place of the multiple boards serving its predecessor CAs. However, neither the
additional costs nor potential savings can be quantified until RCA budgets are developed.


Relevant Consultation
☐      Internal (list)

       ☐        AODA Compliance (describe)

       ☐        Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)

☒      External (list)

       ☒        Area CAOs

       ☒        Area Conservation Authorities


Appendices and Attachments
Past Reports:
December 11, 2025 — PDR-CW-70-25: Proposed Changes to Conservation Authorities in
Ontario. Initial review of the consolidation proposal and Grey County’s proposed comments to
the Province, including concerns about local representation, service delivery and funding.
June 25, 2026 — CAOR-CW-19-26: Regional Conservation Authorities – June 2026 Update.
Update on the revised regional framework, transition arrangements and financial implications,
including the proposed $2.8 million allowance in the draft 2028 budget. Report included in the
June 25, 2026 Committee of the Whole agenda package, pages 73–76.
September 10, 2026 — CAOR-CW-23-26: Comments on Proposed Regulation under the
Conservation Authorities Act; ERO Posting #026-0740. Review of proposed RCA board
representation and OPCA board eligibility requirements, with draft County comments.
Webinar Presentation from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks – Received
November 5, 2026, in respect to proposals

Appendix 1: Draft Comments
Draft Grey County Comments
Based on staff analysis of the proposals, staff are recommending the following comments be
submitted:
To ERO Posting 026-1067 (due December 6th)
Regulatory Proposal under the Conservation Authorities Act to support the implementation of
the Regional Conservation Authority Framework




CAOR-CW-29-26                                   8                           November 12, 2026



Grey County Council has reviewed ERO Posting 026-1067 respecting proposed regulatory
amendments under the Conservation Authorities Act and appreciates the opportunity to provide
comments.
Grey County asks that the Province reconsider cost apportionment of OPCA to RCAs.
Since the mid-1990s, Ontario's conservation authority funding model has progressively shifted
away from provincial funding toward municipal levies and self-generated revenues. At the same
time, inflationary, capital infrastructure, growth and development pressures have risen, and an
increasingly complex and heavy legislative burden has been placed on conservation authorities.
Today, provincial funding typically accounts for approximately 4% of conservation authority
budgets. The balance is left to CAs to fund through municipal levies and user fees, some of
which the Province has prevented CAs from increasing over successive years.
This trend has seen an ever-increasing burden placed on the property tax base to support
implementation of the Conservation Authorities Act and associated legislation delivered by
conservation authorities.
The amalgamation of conservation authorities and the creation of OPCA as a new provincial
agency were undertaken under provincial direction. Municipal comments showed general
support for modernization, shared services and greater consistency, but general opposition or
concern about the scale, governance and implementation of the proposed consolidation model.
Many municipalities, including larger urban centres, stated clear opposition to consolidation.
The costs of a new provincial agency should be addressed provincially, and not downloaded
onto the property tax base as part of the amalgamation of conservation authorities.
If OPCA costs are to be met by RCAs (and therefore participating municipalities via levy) the
proposed formula appears to penalize RCAs that are active in delivering non-mandatory and
Category 2 and 3 services in partnership with participating municipalities. These RCAs may
carry higher overall budgets as a result of active partnerships and local service delivery. This
would, under the current proposal, see these RCAs carrying a higher proportion of OPCA
costs.
OPCAs primary role is overseeing the delivery by RCAs of mandatory and Category 1 programs
and services and so proportionally allocating OPCA costs to the portions of RCA budgets that
are established for mandatory and Category 1 programs and services would be a more
reasonable approach.
Grey County appreciates clarity around budget timelines and processes to be applied to
new RCAs.
Grey County urges RCAs to provide proposed budgets well before December 31 of the
preceding year, recognizing that municipal budgets may already be substantially complete.
As an upper-tier municipality, Grey County has not traditionally participated in CA budget
processes. The County seeks provincial guidance well in advance of December 31, 2027 on
weighted voting and budget apportionment within the new RCA jurisdictions, including how
mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services will be levied in 2028.
To Proposal MECP017 (due November 21st)



CAOR-CW-29-26                                    9                             November 12, 2026



Planned legislative amendments under the Conservation Authorities Act, Clean Water Act and
Lake Simcoe Protection Act
Grey County Council has reviewed Proposal MECP017 respecting proposed amendments to
the Conservation Authorities Act, Clean Water Act and Lake Simcoe Protection Act and
appreciates the opportunity to provide comments.
Grey County recommends that any authority provided to OPCA to adjust boundaries of
RCAs at a future date respect the traditional role of participating municipalities to seek
boundary reviews through their Board participation.
Grey County supports streamlined decision-making, but recommends that future boundary
changes be informed by watershed science, RCA expertise and the participating municipalities.
As principal funders with responsibility for RCA governance, municipalities should retain a
meaningful role in initiating and considering jurisdictional changes.
This approach would support local governance and the continued delivery of services
responsive to community needs.
Grey County supports the ability of OPCA to appoint initial CAOs.
To support transition, Grey County generally supports OPCA’s authority to determine the initial
CAO for each RCA and, for consistency, the employment contracts for those CAOs. However,
Grey County recommends that OPCA engage in discussions with each RCA board before
contracts are concluded so that contract length and termination liabilities are collaboratively
agreed upon. This would ensure incoming RCAs are not unduly liable for long-term
commitments that may no longer reflect the needs of the RCA, its board or participating
communities.
Grey County seeks confirmation that OPCA’s role in CAO hiring and employment conditions is
restricted to the initial appointment and that subsequent CAO hiring is a decision of the RCA
board alone.
Grey County supports limiting OPCA’s direction-setting powers.
Grey County understands that RCAs are formed, principally funded and governed by
participating municipalities under provincial legislation administered by the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks. The valuable role of provincial agencies in providing
oversight, guidance and support to provincial programs is recognized. However, this role should
largely avoid direction-setting, which should fall either to the Province through its ministries or to
local RCA governance through participating municipalities.
Grey County acknowledges the proposed amendments that provide flexibility in municipal
appointments and recognize the interim status of existing CA boards between the municipal
elections held on October 26, 2026 and the establishment of the new RCAs on February 1,
2027.
Grey County acknowledges and supports the continuity of source protection through the
transition to RCAs.
Source protection remains critically important to the communities we serve, and a seamless
transition to the new RCAs is vital.


CAOR-CW-29-26                                    10                              November 12, 2026



Grey County notes that the consultation indicates a potential future role for watershed councils
in source protection and is keen to understand more about this role.
Grey County acknowledges the need to update the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and provides
additional comments in response to ERO Posting 026-1071.
To ERO Posting 026-1071 (due December 6th)
Proposed regulatory amendments under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act to align with regional
conservation authorities
Grey County Council has reviewed ERO Posting 026-1071 respecting proposed regulatory
amendments under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and appreciates the opportunity to provide
comments.
Generally speaking, Grey County supports what it understands to be largely administrative
updates to the regulations under the Act to align language with the consolidation of conservation
authorities.
Grey County understands that, although it will be a participating municipality in the Lake Huron
RCA, its territory does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Act. However, Grey County notes
that, through its representation on the Lake Huron RCA board, it will now hold a collective role
on the RCA as a consultee on changes and proposals made under the Act.
To ERO Posting 026-1070 (due December 6th)
Proposed regulatory changes under the Clean Water Act, 2006, to align with new regional
structure of conservation authorities
Grey County Council has reviewed ERO Posting 026-1070 respecting proposed regulatory
amendments under the Clean Water Act and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments.
Grey County supports the proposed regulatory amendments under the Clean Water Act
to align its framework with the consolidation of conservation authorities.
Grey County appreciates that the future RCAs, as source protection authorities, will oversee
varying numbers of source protection areas and committees. The County acknowledges that
strong partnerships with source protection authorities and committees serving areas partly or
fully beyond RCA jurisdictions are important and supported by the proposed regulatory
amendments.
Funding for source protection work that RCAs provide outside their jurisdictions needs to be
clarified to ensure that participating municipal levies are not used to offset source protection
costs outside the RCA’s jurisdictional boundary.
To ERO Posting 026-1075 (due December 6th)
Discussion questions to seek early input for the development of a future regulation governing
watershed councils under the Conservation Authorities Act
Grey County welcomes further opportunities to engage on the role of watershed
councils.




CAOR-CW-29-26                                    11                            November 12, 2026



As part of the consultation on watershed councils, the Province has provided questions to which
Grey County offers initial responses. Further opportunities to engage on the role of these
councils are encouraged.
Questions about watershed council functions and activities
   1) Which CA programs and services would benefit from locally focused watershed council
      input, and which programs and services should watershed councils not be involved in?
Grey County has shared concerns about a loss of local governance and representation through
the consolidation of conservation authorities and sees watershed councils as a potential means
of reintroducing this within the RCA model.
Locally provided services that would benefit from sustained local involvement include recreation,
land stewardship, environmental education, forest management and planting programs, and
continued support for locally based foundations and charitable work frequently supported by
residents. These programs respond directly to community needs and are ideally managed and
delivered on a local watershed basis, with local representation to help guide and direct them.
The larger RCAs will contain multiple watersheds and sub-watersheds, each with local planning
and management priorities. Watershed plans identify these priorities, from planning and
development control to stewardship. Watershed councils could champion local plans, advise the
RCA board and seek resources for local initiatives.
As highlighted in other ongoing consultations, the role of conservation authorities in source
protection and planning is key and demands a local focus. Development of risk management
plans, implementation of those plans and monitoring of their effectiveness are local issues
responsive to land use, topography, soil and bedrock conditions. Grey County supports
watershed councils providing oversight and governance of source protection planning.
   2) What specific roles should watershed councils play in a regional CA’s watershed-based
      planning (e.g., identifying and prioritizing issues, proposing actions, collecting data,
      developing reports, leading public education and awareness, etc.)?
Watershed councils could operate similarly to standing committees in a municipal context, with
each council responsible for oversight of a specific area and providing a tangible connection to
the larger RCA board. The councils would have the most direct contact with communities and
support local staff teams in delivering services. Their role would be to advocate for local
priorities to the RCA board, seeking support and resources to deliver on those priorities.
The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) introduced new requirements under chapter 4.2
which require watershed planning by large and fast-growing municipalities (a defined list under
the PPS). Smaller municipalities are encouraged to undertake such planning, but it’s not
required. This work is to be done by municipalities, but they are encouraged to collaborate with
CAs. A watershed council could be an appropriate body for the municipal-specific watershed
planning required by the PPS. For example, fast-growing municipality ‘A’ in the RCA undertakes
watershed planning and this work is funneled back through the local watershed council vs.
needing to go through the full RCA board (given that it may only directly serve one municipality).




CAOR-CW-29-26                                  12                            November 12, 2026



3) In what circumstances, if any, should watershed councils provide formal advice,
      recommendations or reports to the CA in relation to the CA’s watershed-based
      planning?
Grey County would support watershed councils maintaining a governance role that is more local
than that of the RCA board, rather than an operational role. They would provide guidance and
direction to local staff, aligned with their mandate within the broader RCA, receive staff reports
as necessary and support staff in escalating issues to the RCA board and regional level as
needed.
The councils would provide advice through staff on planning applications, development files and
other matters within their mandate, such as effects on watershed planning or drinking-water
sources.
   4) Which functions would make sense for watershed councils to carry out to best support
      local drinking water source protection priorities?
As noted by the Province, leveraging watershed councils as source protection committees
would appear to be an efficient use of this governance resource.
Questions about number and composition for watershed councils
   5) Under what circumstances should a regional CA establish more than one watershed
      council? What criteria or factors would inform this?
Grey County would defer to existing conservation authority staff to help determine the scale and
number of watershed councils. Even if transitional in nature, watershed councils could initially
be based on existing conservation authority watersheds to support consolidation. This would
support continuity of source protection committees and governance during transition. Over time,
fewer or more watershed councils could be established as needed.
   6) What interests and expertise should be represented on watershed councils to ensure
      local perspectives and knowledge are reflected,
          a. for the purposes of CA watershed-based planning?
          b. for the functions and duties of SPCs under the CWA?
Watershed councils could maintain local community voices within RCA governance. Grey
County recommends a focus on governance and policy, informed by CA staff’s technical
expertise, rather than on technical or operational delivery.
Grey County encourages participation by local municipal councils and elected officials,
alongside community representatives nominated and appointed by local councils. Key municipal
staff, potentially including senior management, could also participate as a resource.
The work of conservation authorities traditionally, and the evolving work of RCA’s include work
on lands and waters that are intrinsically linked to First Nation communities. Representation
from local First Nations on watershed councils could be a meaningful way of building
relationship and seeking engagement in land stewardship and management. Further, this would
be an avenue through which, over time, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) could be
incorporated into RCA practices, applied on a local basis through watershed councils.




CAOR-CW-29-26                                  13                            November 12, 2026



A further valuable voice on watershed councils would be representation from foundations and
charities that have traditionally supported the work of local conservation authorities.
Watershed councils could also bring sector perspectives into RCA governance. Agricultural
representation could reflect both livestock and crop production. Other locally important sectors
could include industry, tourism, hunting, fishing and other recreational groups.
   7) How should members of the watershed council be selected?
Each RCA should establish an appointment process defining how representatives are identified
and selected for its watershed councils.
   8) How many members should watershed councils have?
Membership should reflect local needs and the scope of each watershed council’s governance
role, with balanced representation across sectors. Grey County anticipates that councils would
need at least 8–10 members, but recommends fewer than 20 to maintain effective and
streamlined governance.
Questions about “procedures” for watershed councils
   9) What should the ministry consider for the governance and operating procedures of
      watershed councils?
Grey County supports a governance role for watershed councils, with procedures similar to
those of source protection committees and municipal boards. Within their mandate, councils
should have scope to guide local RCA activities while making recommendations to,
collaborating with and remaining accountable to the RCA board. Watershed councils have the
potential to guide local service delivery input, but could become administratively burdensome on
RCA staff, if too many such councils were established.
   10) What length of time should members serve for?
Grey County suggests a minimum two-year term. Aligning members’ terms with the RCA
board’s term may have merit, while staggering terms relative to the board could support
continuity.




CAOR-CW-29-26                                  14                            November 12, 2026

Agenda item 8: Closed Meeting Matters

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

8.

Closed Meeting Matters

Agenda item 9: Other Business

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

9.

Other Business

Agenda item 9.a: ROMA Delegations

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

9.a

Agenda item 10: Notice of Motion

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

10.

ROMA Delegations

Notice of Motion
Page 3 of 66

53

Page 4 of 66

Agenda item 11: Presentation of Pins - Years of Service

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

11.

Presentation of Pins - Years of Service

Agenda item 12: Warden's Closing Address

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

12.

Warden's Closing Address

Agenda item 13: Adjournment

---

Combined agenda package (secondary source)

13.

Adjournment