tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post8038565541192782887..comments2024-02-07T06:48:23.474-05:00Comments on Sudbury Steve May: The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 9: Going Through the Motions Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-6078041063840613582019-05-08T13:07:30.675-04:002019-05-08T13:07:30.675-04:00Moreover, because the words "AT LEAST ONE RES...Moreover, because the words "AT LEAST ONE RESIDENT..." are used in Planning Act s. 8(4) it prima facie means there can be MORE than just ONE resident on the Planning Committee therefore there could be 5 or 6 or 10 residents. Planning Act s. 8(4) evidences that ONLY city council gets to decide how many residents will be on the Planning Committee. Therefore the Planning Committee also failed to have a quorum at the Planning Committee hearing in 2018 which voids any decision the Planning Committee made in 2018. This is so because ONLY council can decide how many residents will be on the Planning Committee and, since the Planning Committee REQUIRES a quorum to conduct business, if council elected to have 5 (or more) residents on the Planning Committee, to go along with the five city council members who sit on the Planning Committee, then the Planning Committee would have 10 members and requires at least 5 of them at the 2018 Planning Committee hearings. Therefore the Planning Committee failed to have a quorum in 2018 because only 4 Planning Committee members were in attendance at any of the Planning Committee hearing in this matter. <br /><br />It is not for LPAT to say how many residents council would appoint to the Planning Committee. LPAT cannot say they should've had only 1 resident, which gives the Planning Committee 6 members, and since 4 were at the hearing the Planning Committee had a quorum. Again, Planning Act s. 8(4) articulates ONLY council determines how many residents will be on the Planning Committee and because the words 'AT LEAST' are used in Planning Act s. 8(4) it evidences there could be MORE than one resident. <br /><br />In any event, Council failed to include even the minimum one resident and in the result no Planning Committee decision regarding KED has been made that LPAT can rule on.<br /><br />And as I already told you long ago, the five city council members who sit on the Planning Committee UNLAWFULLY voted as city council members to confirm their own Planning Committee decisions. That's right; they illegally sat in judgment of themselves when ONLY the other 8 city council members who do not sit on the Planning Committee are entitled to vote on confirming the decision of the Planning Committee. <br /><br />The Planning Committee and City Council even video recorded all of their meetings as evidence to make it really simple to win this case. <br /><br />Planning Act<br /><br />PART II <br /><br />LOCAL PLANNING ADMINISTRATION<br /><br />Planning advisory committee<br /><br /><br />MANDATORY for certain municipalities<br /><br />8 (1) …<br /><br />OPTIONAL for other municipalities<br /><br />8(2) The council of a lower-tier municipality, THE COUNCIL OF A SINGLE TIER MUNICIPALITY THAT IS IN A TERRITORIAL DISTRICT or the council of the Township of Pelee MAY appoint a planning advisory committee IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION. 2015, c. 26, s. 16.<br /><br />Membership<br /><br />(4) The members of a planning advisory committee shall be chosen by the council AND SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE RESIDENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY WHO IS NEITHER A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NOR A EMPLOYEE OF THE MUNICIPALITY. 2015, c. 26, s. 16.<br />Conflict<br /><br />71 In the event of conflict between the provisions of this and any other general or special Act, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT PREVAIL.<br /><br /><br />Municipal Act <br /><br />Interpretation<br /><br />1 (1) In this Act,<br /><br />“local board” means a municipal service board, transportation commission, public library board, board of health, police services board, PLANNING BOARD, OR ANY OTHER board, commission, COMMITTEE, body or local authority established or exercising any power under any Act with respect to the affairs or purposes of one or more municipalities, excluding a school board and a conservation authority;<br /><br /><br />Power to dissolve or change local boards<br /><br />216 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to dissolve OR CHANGE A LOCAL BOARD.Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928516317427761625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-25691167349365070732019-05-08T13:06:15.348-04:002019-05-08T13:06:15.348-04:00Hey Steve, someone hacked your blog and is deletin...Hey Steve, someone hacked your blog and is deleting messages. I posted this last week and it's gone, so I'll report it. <br /><br />LPAT has no jurisdiction to hear any of these matters because no Planning Committee or City Council decisions were made yet. <br /><br />I already told you long ago that the Planning Act was amended in 2015 (amendments took effect July 1, 2016) and REQUIRES a Planning Committee in a single tier municipality located in a District MUST have AT LEAST one resident on the Planning Committee. This resident cannot be a city council member or a city employee. <br /><br />Sudbury is a single tier municipality located in the District of Sudbury therefore the city is subject to the July 1, 2016 Planning Act s. 8(4) amendment. <br /><br />The city has failed to include AT LEAST one resident on the Planning Committee. Therefore, like it or not, the Planning Committee was not duly constituted and the Planning Committee hearing was not duly convened because the city failed to have AT LEAST one provincially REQUIRED resident on the Planning Committee and at the Planning Committee hearings. This means the 2018 Planning Committee rezoning and Official Plan amendments are VOID. <br /><br />Something void doesn't exist. <br /><br />City Council could not confirm the Planning Committee decisions because there is no Planning Committee decision that was yet made that can be confirmed. <br /><br />Planning Act s. 71 confirms that in the event of conflict between the provisions of the Planning Act and any other general or special Act, the provisions of the Planning Act prevail. <br /><br />The Municipal Act is a general Act and Municipal Act s. 1 articulates a Planning Committee is a Local Board. Municipal Act s. 216 confirms the city can change a Local Board. The city was not required to have Planning Committee as council can directly deal with planning issues. Planning Act s. 8(2) gives a single tier municipality located in a District the OPTION of having a planning Committee. Once Sudbury elected to have that Planning Committee the city MUST follow the provincially imposed rules regarding membership of the Planning Committee. Planning Act s. 8(4) provides the Planning Act membership rules and IMPERATIVELY mandates that there MUST be AT LEAST one resident on the Planning Committee while Planning Act s. 71 articulates s. 8(4) trumps any provisions of any General Act including Municipal Act s. 216. <br /><br />Under Municipal Act s. 216 the city can still change the number of members on the Planning Committee, but it CANNOT fail to include AT LEAST one resident because by operation of law Planning Act s. 8(4) REQUIRES at least one resident on the Planning Committee and Planning Act s. 71 articulates Planning Act s. 8(4) trumps any provision of any general or special Act, including Municipal Act s. 216. <br /><br />Therefore since the City DELIBERATELY failed to include AT LEAST one resident on the Planning Committee no planning Committee decision has been made that the LPAT can adjudicate on. LPAT only have jurisdiction to hear valid appeals and these are not valid appeals because there has been no decision made by the Planning Committee.Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928516317427761625noreply@blogger.com