Seconded by Alderman Mabbett: a June 10th, 1974

That as recommended in a teport from the City Administrator, June 7th, 1974,

the City's current Civil Defence By-law not be amended. ~ . Carried.
From the City Administrator, June 7th, 1974, referring toa request of Alder- City Adm. re

sandbaggite-
man Traboulay that he find out the ‘Teason for ‘the ‘sandbageing operations on Col- Colony Farm

dykes, etc.
ony Farm property, and advising that it appears Colony Farm has undertaken to
construct some secondary sandbag dykes as back-up on. a portion of its property
which does not come under the control of the Dyking Commission where some aykes
are not wide enough to drive a vehicle along to dunp gravel for dyke protection
in times of high water; further, that at a meeting held with the Water Resources
Branch, Department of Highways and sone members of Council on May 8th, the Water
Resources Branch advised that. the City' s dykes were in good condition and are ae
cessible to trucks via a road along the top; therefore, it is not necessary to
carry out any sandbagging operations at this stage.

From the City Engineer, June 3rd, 1974, advising that Lots 256, 262, 265, and City Eng te

frtg.éxempt
273 of a proposed subdivision of Lot 194, Plan 42141, do not meet the frontage Subdiv.Lot

194 ,P1.4214
requirements of the City's Subdivision cf Land By-law; however, they do comply
with the requirements established by Council yeslution June 5th, 1972. .

Moved by Alderman Laking:

Seconded by Alderman Ranger:

That as requested in a memorandum from the City Engineer, June 3rd, 1974,
frontage exemption for Lots 256, 262, 265, and 273 of a proposed Subdivision of
Let 194, Plan 42141, from the Suodivision of Land By-law as permitted under Sec-
tion 712(2). of the Municipal Act and in accordance with Council resolution of

June 5th, 1974, be granted, Carried.
Aldermen Traboulay and Mabbett voted against the resolution.

Prior to the question being called on the foregoing resolution, Alderman
Traboulay referred to the limit placed on the number of building permits to be
issued this year, and stated he felt that by giving the developer permission to
subdivide, the iimit would be exceeded. Alderman Traboulay further suggested
that the Council should hold up the subdivision and a ise the developer. to re-
apply next year. Alderman Mabbett stated he agreed with the comments made by
Alderman Traboulay, and expressed the view that further development should be de-
layed until l schools and basic“services ‘catch up’. The City Engineer advised
that if the request was turned down, the developer would have to make some ad-
justment in order to submit a plan which ‘would comply with the City's require-
ments in every way, and Alderman Keryluk pointed out that-the cost of re-plott-

ing would probably be passed on to the purchasers.