Good kneading number one. It's now a 6 p. m. So we'll begin. If you can have your seats. Looking at you, Paul. The meeting being held tonight, our public meetings held under the planning act. Please note that this meeting will be live streamed on the city website, audio and video are being collected by the city of Kingston and the meeting recording will be archived on the city website for public consumption. I will take this opportunity to remind everyone in the room to please ensure the sound on your cellular devices is off. Notice of collection, personal information collected as a result of the public meetings are collected under the authority of the Planning Act and will be used to assist in making a decision on this matter. Person speaking at the meeting are requested to give their name for the recording in the minutes. All names, opinions, and comments may be collected and may form part of the minutes, which will be available to the public. To be notified of the decision, you must either fill out and sign in sheet at the door, or you must email the file planner or committee cleric requesting notice of the decision. The first portion of tonight's meeting is to present Planning Applications in a public forum as detailed in the community meeting report. This report does not contain staff recommendations, and therefore no decisions will be made this evening. Each application in the community meeting report will be presented individually and following each presentation by the applicant. The meeting will be open to the public for the comments and questions. The second portion of tonight's meeting is to consider public meeting reports. These reports do contain East Aft recommendation and the recommendation is typically to approve with conditions or to deny. After the planners presentation, committee, members will be able to ask questions of staff followed by members of the public following the question and answer period. This committee then makes a recommendation on the public applications to city council who has the final say on the applications. Following Council's decision, notice will be circulated in accordance with the planning act. Members of the public cannot appeal a decision. Only the registered owner of land to which the amendment applies or prescribed person under the planning act has the ability to appeal a decision. Of Council. For more information on the appeal rights or how to be added as a party to an appeal, please contact the assigned planner. So I'll now call the Community Meeting to Order. The purpose of the Community Meeting is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to present a potential development proposal in the early stages of the development process and to seek feedback from the public and members of Planning Committee. Anyone who attends a community meeting may present an oral submission and or provide a written submission on the proposals being presented. The first application is for 368 Retaw Street. I invite the applicant to present the proposal. Thank you. Hello and through the chair. My name is Nolan Adeberry and I'm a planner at Foten Playing InDesign. I'm joined by my colleague Kelsey Jones, who's a senior planner at Foten. Photen has been retained by BPE development incorporate to present the minor zoning biomendment application at 368 REDO Street. The site has an area of approximately 1, 545 square metres with approximately 29. 6 metres of frontage on Rideau Street. The property is currently developed with a 1 and 2 story mixed use commercial and residential building containing 13 residential units and commercial space closest to Rito Street. Access to the site is provided from REDO Street with the entirety of the site's front yard being paved. As you can see in these images, the top image shows the front of the building with the commercial portion closest to Rito Street. You will also notice that there is a significant grade change from the front to the rear of the property. Which is why this building is considered a one and two story building. The bottom right image shows the main residential entrance to the residential units. The CAI is located in the Inner Harbour neighbourhood. And the surrounding area consists of a mix of residential employment and commercial and community facility uses. The size immediately adjacent to residential uses to the south, the cating soccer field to the north and west, and the unopened road allowance of River Street directly to the east of the site across Rideau Street. The site is within walking distance to bus routes along Montreal Street, transit in active transportation infrastructure, including the KNP trail. The site is well located to accommodate residential intensification due to the proximity to parks and open spaces, commercial and community facility uses in transit. The site is currently designated residential in the city of Kingston official plan, which is intended for a broad range of residential uses, including low, mid, and high - rise residential buildings on full municipal services. The site is currently zoned urban residential zone five, which permits a house, a semi - detached, and it sent me detached house in a townhouse. Notably, the current zoning does not permit an apartment building on the site. The intent of the minor zoning bylaw amendment is to convert the existing commercial unit and commercial storage space at the front of the building to accommodate eight new residential units, increasing the total number of residential units on the site from 13 to 21. The pro's application will also include reconfiguring the site's front yard to provide initial landscape space and amenity area. The pros changes to the front yard will ensure that vehicle entrances to the site are appropriately defined in delineated and provide an accessible parking space and defined pedestrian walkways to access building entrances. A minor zoning bylaw amendment is required to rezone the site from the urban residential five zone to the urban residential zone two to permit department building. The proposed minor zoning bioamend will also establish an exception overlay on the site to address site - specific performance standards related to existing setbacks. The location of walkways, dry vial width, the location of parking, proportion of small car parking spaces provided and amenity area dimensions. In summary, the proposed minor zoning bylaw amendment represents good planning as it will facilitate the conversion of an existing underutilized commercial space to provide eight new residential units within the existing building and improves a functionality of the site. The proposed development promotes residential intensification within an existing building on a property in proximity to transit parks and open space, commercial and community facility uses, and active transportation infrastructure. Which is consistent with a provincial planning statement and conforms the city of Kingston official plan. Thank you, and Kelsey and I will be available following the presentation to answer any questions you may have. Okay, thank you very much. We'll turn to the public portion. Are there any members of the public in the attendance wishing to speak. Okay, go ahead, state your name and you have five minutes. Traction Dixon. Thank you for the presentation. Um, fairly familiar with The Neighbourhood. Walked by there and cycle. I'm used to golf at Belle Park Fairways. Um. So right now you have commercial on the top facing Reduil Street directly and residential and behind. It's my first question. Um, found elements of the presentation a little confusing. Will the commercial usage end of this application is approved. And I would really like to see more in the way of detail. On how the residential aspects of the property are laid out. It sounds like you have like a one and two story. So do you really have 13 residential units in the back there. I mean, that's not a parent at all. Just walking on the street. I was unaware of that there was any, uh, residential there at all. So you're going to increase. The residential element of the property by a boat's correct. Or maybe 60 percent is more accurate. So I'd just like to see how the residential is laid out. I think that's important because we're looking at, um, basically as long change to take it into an apartment building status. And your slides didn't really provide that, nor did you explain it. At least from my satisfaction in your presentation. So at this point, um, I'm undecided because I don't have that kind of detail. Um, why do you have like bachelors, one bedroom, two bedroom. Didn't have any of that. I think the presentation. Is, I almost see incomplete in terms of, you know, I don't really want to speak for the committee, but if I were on the committee, I would want to have much more on that. So I'm putting that on the record. As being important. And I'm going to reserve my, um, opinion on it. Until I hear more. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, I don't think anyone else is in the room. Is there anyone online. Wishing to speak. To 368 Retaw Street. Razorversal hand and zoom. If you wish to speak to 368 Rideau Street. Seeing as none. Okay. So we'll move on to the committee or do any committee members have any questions. Oh, sorry. I forgot. Um, yeah, so you can answer the questions. Thank you. Uh, and through the chair, um, I can confirm that, uh, correct the front portion of the building is currently commercial. And it is proposed to be completely converted to a residential building. So there will be no more commercial use. In the building. Um, I can provide a little bit more detail on the, on the residential layout. So you're correct that there are 13 existing residential units in the rear of the building. Um, it is quite a, uh, a deceptively deep sight if you walk the site. And those existing 13 residential units are mostly one bedroom units. The eight proposed units, uh, will provide, uh, a total of seven two bedroom units in the front portion of the building. Um, split between the top floor and the bottom floor of that front current currently commercial portion. And then one existing two bedroom unit in the existing residential portion will be converted into two one bedroom units. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So now we'll move on to the committee members. Any committee members have any questions. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, I didn't see too many issues with the actually development and the proposal. I do have one though. Um, not so much directly with the building itself, but more in regards to the residents current living at the site. What kind of impact will it have on the current residence and what kind of mitigating factors we have to prevent that such as noise and dust and other factors from construction. Thank you. And through the chair. I can confirm that the current commercial portion that is to be converted is currently vacant. So there are no, no units, um, that will be removed through this, through this conversion. Um, the existing commercial unit and commercial storage area is separated from the existing residential portion of the building by a concrete block wall and functions as an independent commercial unit with its own exterior accesses. That is to say it doesn't share a hallway with the existing, uh, residential units. So it's anticipated that all construction work occurring in this front section of the building will be mostly isolated and mitigated through that separation between the front and the back of the, of the building. Um, it's also anticipated that the concrete wall, which divides the existing front portion of the building from the rear could provide some noise mitigation, uh, for the construction related impacts that any dust or odours would be mostly concentrated in that, that front area, which really functions separately. From the rear residential portion. With respect to the conversion of unit nine, which is the two bedroom unit in the existing residential portion, which is proposed to be converted to two one bedroom units. This unit is located directly beside an exterior door on the building's north side. So that will hopefully allow contractors to access that unit without having to walk too far through the building, um, for the purposes of caring materials. Um, which will hopefully reduce any sort of, um, construction impacts in that way. Um, I'll also finally note that construction is anticipated to occur during daytime hours in accordance with the city's noise bylaws. And notice we'll be provided to existing residents in advance of any construction works occurring. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions. Seeing as none. We will move on. So the second item is the administrative amendments to Kingston zoning bylaw 2022 - 62. And I invite staff to present. Good evening. And through the chair, my name is Malcolm Norwood and I am supervisor in development approvals here at the city of Kingston. I'm here to talk tonight about everyone's favourite topic. Administrative amendments to the zoning bylaw. So I'm here to present a series of minor amendments to the zoning bylaw and receive feedback from this committee and members of the public. We are hoping that this feedback can continue to help refine our zoning bylaw so that we can implement our official plans development policies. While trying to streamline our own development approvals process as much as possible. First off, a little bit about the Kingston zoning bylaw 2022 - 62. This is a regulatory document that applies to all development in the city. It was passed in 2022 and had the effective amalgamating all of the former zoning bylaws of the city into one cohesive document. The city passed significant amendments to the zoning bylaw in 2024. That implemented innovative housing measures, such as the Express Transit Overlay and the fourth unit provisions for residential properties. Today we have a series of what I would consider minor amendments to the zoning bylaw that represent a collection of updates that have been identified by staff as necessary to help provide greater clarity in the document. Reduce the potential need for variances. And to close potential gaps and implementation. So many in this room are probably aware of the ongoing official plan project, so it does beg the question, why now? The answer is that while 2026 may see the adoption of the city's official plan, it will still be some time before the zoning bylaw completes its comprehensive update to implement the new direction that that official plan provides. The planning act requires zoning bylaws to be updated to conform with an official plan within three years of its adoption. And so the proposed amendments reflected the reality that the zoning bylaw 2022 - 62 will still be enforced and effect for some period beyond the adoption of the official plan. So we've tried to group together the amendments into a few general themes. As we see them, primarily landing as either adding flexibility, being an administrative correction or remedying and extraction area whose approvals were not carried forward into the original 2022 bylaw. So I will advise we do have a couple word heavy slides coming up. So please bear with me. Starting off with the adding flexibility, we're starting in the urban area where there are some changes that seek to recognise that the maximum bedroom limits that should not apply to apartment slash mixed use buildings that are proposed in the Express Transit Overlay. Already in section 4. 28 of the zoning bylaw, which is the section that regulates the maximum number of bedrooms. They do not regulate apartment buildings in the urban multi - residential zone. But most express transit overlay applications are located in urban residential zones. The maximum bedroom limits technically still apply. So while Express Transit applications do secretly from any different aspects of the zoning by - off for their development relief from the maximum bedrooms should not be one of them. Propose changes also include providing encroachment permissions for architectural features in most zones, such as window wells, canopies, and awnings that were previously not provided. And there's also some flexibility in front yards proposed for residential properties in the form of permitting air conditioning units, heat pumps, as well as recognising that existing townhouses may need to utilise their front yard for municipal waste collection bins with the new larger waistbands that are being adopted over time. Lastly, staffer intending to engage with heritage services to try to better align the Barriefield zone with the heritage permit process to potentially reduce the need for variances when a heritage permit process is the appropriate process for vetting the proper height of a building. Other provisions that we were trying to address are related to accessory structures. By permitting stretch restructures into legal nonconforming uses and not just legal noncompling buildings. Currently accessory structures are permitted for legal, not complying buildings, which are buildings that were legally established and then had a new quantitative provision in the zoning ballot that rendered them legal non - conforming. But we're looking to seek legal accessory structures as being permitted as a variety to legal nonconforming uses, which are uses that were established in the zoning bylaw prior to them being rendered, not permitted. In arterial commercial zones, there are currently no residential uses that are permitted, but this is not the case in the official plan, which does provide the ability for residential uses when they are accessory to a commercial use. And so we were looking at having being permitted explicitly in the zoning bylaw as well. Home occupations is another type of accessory provision that is permitted across the urban and rural areas. And currently the warning is restrictive to only having one employee, which we're hoping not clarified that multiple employees can't exist, but only one employee of the home occupation can be present at the property at one time. For the rural area, there are provisions that relax accessory structured standards, like in the rural residential zone lots, which are typically rural loss that are under a hectare in size. But these relaxed accessory structure standards do not apply to rural - zoned lots that are also under one hectare. It is proposed that these reduced accessory structure standards also applied to those rural zone lots that are under hectare as well. We have also introduced the idea of farmstands being exempt from the bylaw, which these are common in the rural area and typically do not pose a land user's concern, especially when limited in size. Under the current zoning, they are regulated and require step backs. That would be prohibited that are success. There is some flexibility added around replacement standards for private servicing. As the current wording in the zoning bylaw implies that replacement septic system can't go closer to water bodies than their existing setbacks. The revisions that are identified suggests that it can go closer to a water body, provided that it still meets the minimum setback that a new system would have to meet, which is currently 30 metres on both slots. Lastly, the amendment seek to remove the maximum 30 square metres area for DEX in the rural residential zone. This is a provision that does see a meaningful amount of variances for and recognising that the setbacks and maximum size of 10 percent of the lot area will still apply. The E's are still the appropriate measures in place when your properties are not overdeveloped and impact neighbouring lots. Moving on to the administrative corrections. There are several changes to the definitions and section of the zoning bylaw. First, the definition of an apartment building is proposed to be tweaked to specify that the number of units is relevant to a determination of an apartment building. Which currently is just defined as a residential building that is otherwise not defined in the zoning bylaw. This could result in an interpretation of a lower density building. That is not intended for an apartment building. New definitions are proposed for a perimeter foundation in terrorists, which are already terms in the zoning bylaw, which by having definitions will help their implementation. We'll add transparency to that. At farm stand definition is also proposed to be implemented in these for these structures for their exemption in the bylaw. And a few definitions are proposed to be deleted, such as a bachelor - dwelling unit, tourism use, which are no longer used terms used in the provisions of each zone. Amen in the area provisions are clarified in that the redevelopment clause is proposed to be added, which stipulates that we're buildings exist today that are deficient in amenity area, new development is not meant to make up that deficiency. But instead, that the new development is in and of itself to comply with the amenity area provisions. There are similar redevelopment clauses for parking spaces, bike spaces, loading spaces, and walkways. And it's appropriate to have this clarified as well within the amenity area. Secondly, in many areas proposed to be triggered for five unit apartment buildings instead of four unit buildings, since most four unit buildings are considered houses, which don't typically have amenity areas associated with them. Other clarifications that we're proposing include noting that as of right development is to occur on lots fronting on an assumed road by the city. Clarification that terraces are permitted on non - residential buildings. Clarification that three - unit houses in the urban multi - residential zone and the HCD - 3 zones are also subject to maximum bedroom limit, since currently the clause in 4. 28 stipulates that it's only two units or fewer. Also, there's clarification that existing uses, section of the newly Instituted Mixed UNES from the North Kingstown Project are to apply to houses, townhouses, and semi - detached houses, and not to apartment buildings. Since apartment buildings, which are permitted in the mixed use zone, should benefit from the MUN zone provisions that explicitly permit that use. The next section that we can talk about is schedule D1, and we're getting into some of the mapping changes. So Schedule D1 is the second residential unit overlay. And this is proposed to be repealed in the administrative amendments. We up on the slide, we do see what the current schedule D1 does show. We did receive a memo from Utilities Kingston in November 2025 that indicated that the mapping and policy set were not no longer accurate for the current condition of the servicing in the city, and that we should be repealing this section of the zoning bylaw. And so this is what you're seeing today. We have a few administrative corrections to some mineral extraction areas. Again, as I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation, that these just were previous approvals that did not move forward into the amalgamation of the former bylaws. So we're using the administrative amendment to ultimately rectify this issue by including them in the amendment. The first is over on Highway 15, which is the Canadian will astonite mine. Up on the screen, you'll see that we have the base general rural zoning that applied to the lot and on the right hand, you have the exception L169 zoning, which does permit the extraction. Uh, what we're proposing is to add the base mineral extraction zone to the RU zoning, believe the exception in place, which was what the original approval contemplated. And you can see that in the current official plan that this is more or less represented in terms of what the extraction, the approvals for the extraction of the mineral resource where we'll ask the night was previously approved. So we're trying to rectify that. Omission from 2022. The second mineral extraction area is on 3501 Pine Grove Road. Uh, this is the short - all pit. And we did have past approvals from 2015. For an OPA official plan amendment and a zoning by Lau Amendment. And. The zoning approvals were not carried forward in 2022, as you can see on the map. So on the left you have the official plan mapping, showing the full extent of the pit with the P located on it. And on the right - hand side with the zoning, you do see the two northern and southern portions that were omitted. And those were the explicit areas that were contemplated in the 2015 amendment. So overall, that's a high - level summary of the proposed changes, and I welcome any questions or comments. Alright, thank you very much. Uh, so now are there any members of the public who wish to speak to this? Okay, yeah, go ahead, state your name and you have five minutes. So Frank Dixon, thank you Mr. Norwood for presentation. Um, a couple of points. Now I've written these down to pass them to the clerk staff directly. To the system. So my first question has to do on what you termed as the accessory provisions. Under the home occupation, um, icon. Stated that only one, a multiple employees is to be allowed on the site at any given time. So that's an expansion from the existing situation, as understand it. Where only one employee is allowed. So I can appreciate the rationale for this, but it just seems to be needlessly restrictive. And impractical from the standpoint of actually running a business on a site. Like you have one employee who is there from say 8 a. m. until 5 p. m. And then let's say you're running another employee coming in at 5 p. m. until 11 p. m. So does the first employee have to step out of the building. Before the first employee, Shepard of the Building before the second employee steps in. So they can't actually discuss anything related to the business on the site. Inside building. It just seems to be very impractical and really unenforceable. So I'm supporting the rationale of this change. I'm just wondering if you could maybe talk about that. Um, and then my second point has to do with your section on the mining changes. And civically on the Canadian Wallace tonight, uh, project. Which I have seen presented in here. So I'm somewhat familiar with it. So what I'm wondering is, uh, this change, will this permit, it's approved. A potentially allow for greater extraction of the resource. Is that why it's being done. Or I'm just a little confused as to the rationale for the change. Thank you. All right, thank you. Um, seeing as thebody else in the room, is there anyone online who wishes to speak? Please raise your virtual hand in Zoom if you want to speak. I'll ask one more time. Raise your virtual hand and zoom. Okay. So, um, you can respond to the comments. Great. Thank you for the questions and through the chair. Uh, in terms of the home occupation, the current wording in the zoning bylaw is more restrictive in that it could be interpreted to apply that only one employee is allowed for the home occupation. So the shift change that you anecdotally referred to wouldn't ultimately occur because under the Kern zoning by law, there would only be allowed to be one employee plus the owner of the building of the, of the house. Um, so under the proposed change, we're looking at facilitate the fact that an owner of a home business may have more than one employee. And that should change could occur ultimately. Provided that the nature of the provision is still intact, which is that, um, only one employee is present at the property at any given time. I agree that there would be challenges to enforcing that at the end of the day home occupations are intended to, um, keep the predominant residential nature of the property in which they reside on. And so a minor exchange through a change of shift as you kind of alluded to. I would suggest is not impact that intent of the bylaw in terms of keeping it a predominantly residential, uh, property for a home occupation. In terms of the Canadian one last night, really the change is administrative and that's why it was kind of grouped in terms of the administrative corrections. The L169 already permits the extraction and were really just looking to align the base zone with the exception and the official plan. This is currently, um, the base zone is for the general rural zone. And we're looking to have that extraction zone applied as the base in addition to the L169 exception, which is just more in line with the past approvals as well as the official plan designation for that site. So it does not, um, enhance the extraction ability that was previously contemplated or currently exists. All right. Thank you very much. Um, so now we'll move on to the committee members. Is there any committee members who wish to speak or ask questions Councilloc. Thank you Mr. Chair through you. Um, yeah, just going back to Mr. Dixon's question about home business. So I had a situation in my district where a home business had five employees working in the basement. And the problem was that, um, they were all perking on the CODASAC. And it was, you know, preventing any of the other neighbours from parking on the CO2SEC as well. So the change we're making, like that would still be not allowed. Right. You wouldn't be able to have so many people. It was still just be like one person and the homeowner allowed working at a home business at a house residential house is, is that correct? It took a long time to resolve this for the neighbourhood. Three, Mr. Chair, that would be corrected. Still only allow for one employee at one time, but it would allow the owner to have multiple employees to work at the business, but just still one at any given time on the property. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. And my second question is that the, um, the big ad we had in the advertised in the wig, I might've missed this at the beginning, but it said one of the changes is, um, waste recuperals in front yards in some situations. So I suppose that would be our new, well, they're garbage, but they're grey. So it's our new rolled cart garbage pins and green bin. So can you just go over that? So in some situations in the front yard, what are those situations? Thank you. Uh, thank you. And through the chair, the, the proposed change is to recognise that there may be existing townhouses. That don't have sufficient space like in a garage to store the new waist bins. And so the proposed changes are to recognise that, um, there may have been past developments like a townhouse that doesn't have a garage that may need additional waste solutions to accommodate the new programs that the city's rolling out with the larger waistbands. Um, so when we discuss this with public works, this was the kind of suggested limited approach to take at this time to recognise what they've seen in terms of the initial, uh, problem areas that have kind of come up through the pilot project. I see. Okay. So town, three of you, Mr. Chair Town Homes only, um, yeah, and already for some of the road out area in the pilot prop in the pilot project, uh, there are some townhomes in that situation. Is that correct. Through the chair, I'm not aware of a specific incident, but this was a result of a discussion that we had with public works about how we could somewhat a lesson learned from the first project and what we could be proactive about moving forward with, um, with potentially rolling it out to larger areas in the city. That may have a bit more density as well. I see. Thank you. Anyone else have anything. Yeah Councillor Shapes. Thank you. Um, thank you for the presentation. And just to follow up in a few questions that we had. I did notice right off the bat that within the document, it stated that all new construction must comply with the zoning bylaw. So just to confirm. If developers or applicants want to make some major variances or changes to the zoning bylaw, that would still occur. Through the chair yes, there still would be the ability to make an application to amend to the zoning bylaw, like the resuming by law amendment or through a minor variance through a minor variance application to the Community of Adjustment. Okay. That's glad to hear. So I was about to go into withdrawal. If I wasn't going to be here with all the fine people on the committee and behind me and the staff. So I'm glad to hear. It's to parking. Section seven. We're referrs to car sharing. Uh, with minimum standards. Um, these seem to be higher than what the recent application seemed to be. So what seems to be, um, beneficial for the environment, and especially for the Apkin as well when they don't parking spaces might be limited. So, uh, is this new or has this been upgraded. Three, Mr. Chair. I believe that the car sharing provisions were implemented in the 2022 zoning bylaw. Uh, we're not proposing any amendments to those at this time. Um. But I agree that they are subject to applications. Especially in the downtime area where space is more constrained. Um, and various applications sometimes exceed those requirements in some secretly from them. So, uh, I think it depends on the site specific application. Okay. It's nice to know. I'd rather see these numbers go up and down and, uh, maybe something I'll have to bring up more often when my standard questions, which I have. Regards to short term. Bike spaces. Uh, just looking at under 733 with guards to daycares, mostly within elementary schools and secondary schools. The minimum requirement seems to be 1. 5 per classroom. To me, that seems a little low. Especially if we're encouraging them to walk, roll, or, or cycle to school. Um, so Councillor Scheerman, this stop you there. You're asking questions about the bylaw as a whole and not necessarily about the application. So if you could focus your questions. To the application presented, that would be good. Is it a part of the application. No. Okay, maybe this one is, but, uh, Mr. Bark can clarify. Thanks and through you, Chair, but I don't believe we're amending any bike parking regulations as part of this. I think maybe the confusion here, Mr. Chair, I don't think I've ever called you that before. But chair, uh, through the chair is that as part of the amendments to demonstrate what's changing in the zoning bylaw, we uploaded a total volume of the zoning bylaw with track changes in it so that anybody looking at it could understand how, uh, various aspects of the bylaw were changing through redline revision just so it was clear and evident to everybody. But, uh, a complete copy of the bylaw was updated, but the, the two questions so far from Councillor Shaves, uh, haven't pertained to those, um. Amendments that we've proposed. And we're outlined by Mr. Norwood. Um, we'd be happy to have the conversation Councillor Shaves about other general aspects of the bylaw outside the meeting. Okay. Let's try this one. Um, so section two, The Urban Residential Zones, uh, where I read that, um, the Mims frontage, uh, in metres of townhomes would range from six metres per lot to eight. I am aware that they're, and I brought this many times up during planning that, uh, I have difficulty parking with my venue in front of certain townhomes. Because it's not that, uh, wide in frontage. So just mean this has changed and I won't have to worry about commenting parking for townhomes and the impact it will have on the neighbourhood. Uh, through the chair, we are not proposing any changes to the frontage for, uh, any, any lots. Um, the only thing that's changing relative frontage is, um, what is considered frontage that be considered and assumed a street that's assumed by the city. So there's no numerical changes. Okay. So I guess it's good information going forward with planning committees in townhomes to come to this platform. Thank you. Okay Councillor, we're stir off. And thank you very much. Um, I guess I'm going to go back to what we, um, Frank has said, uh, someone else mentioned too. I'm still uncomfortable with the changes regarding home occupation. I'm afraid that still doesn't help people very much. Uh, I would imagine many, many, many, um businesses. And maybe I'm imagining the wrong one. Um. I'm wondering if we've, as Frank has said, our needlessly restricted. And is there room to discuss this, Mr. Chair? Is there like. Has staff considered the reality that exists out there. Yeah. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we could certainly look at, uh, what other municipalities are doing in terms of home occupations? I know certainly the bylas I've looked at, typically the one employee is fairly common, but I'm certainly we can take this feedback back. And that's part of the reason why we're having the meeting. And it's to look at, you know, what, where we can make even further improvements. And so I think that's certainly we can simply take back as a team and look at what other municipalities are doing and what is appropriate to maintaining that residential character while still facilitating, then kind of new reality that home occupations provide for, for people. Yeah. Thanks. I'll come for that. And I, I think so. I think that we got to think outside the box a little bit. I do also understand Councillo Sanic scenario and I'm familiar with, um, many different scenarios as well. And I don't want, I don't think we need to think we're increasing neighbourhood complications. I wouldn't want that either, but I do think that, um, and I can think of 10 things to suggest to make this, I don't think any, any business wants to, um. Break the law or whatever we're talking about. So I think that we can just make this, um. Easier and flow batter and without, you know, trying to be legalistic. That's what I, um, I think. So, uh, I think that we, we can do better. So I look forward to hearing that. And I'm happy to engage as well. But, um, thank you for your willingness to do that. And, uh, I appreciate it. Councillor Stephens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, um, you have split the changes into, what was it, administrative corrections. And then also adding flexibility. I have two questions with the flexibility part. Well, two specific things. First one is just tagging back to the waste storage in front of, um, buildings. So the, the staff summary, or sorry, the staff report, it says, um, blah, blah, blah permitted to have waste storage facility in the front yard. That is not, da, da, da, da, da. The waste storage facility part, sorry, it's probably in the glossary, but is that basically saying you can't just have your cart strewn about your front yard. Like you can have them, but they need to be covered. That's kind of my interpretation of facility. Is that right? Through the chair and thank you for the question. That's certainly the, the idea of having requiring or covering in the front yard is something that we did talk about. Um, right now the limitations were really just not being located within, uh, a parking space or a walkway. Um, but I, but I think that this is part of the community consultation that we're hoping to have. And even with air conditioning units that are currently restricted in the front yard, we're trying to understand like what the nature of that and the concern with that is, and maybe that's also another provision that would maybe warrant a kind of a cover from the streetscape. So, um, currently what's proposed in the amendment is not requiring a cover and it would be just municipal waste storage. So it wouldn't just be, you know, any type of waste at all. So, um, it is again, something else. We could look at in terms of adding a provision for that to, to buffer from the street scape. But yeah, currently that's not proposing the amendment. Three, Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, yeah, that sounds interesting. I mean, it makes sense that that opportunity would be provided to people. So, um, yeah, some community consultations definitely sounds like a good idea. Kingston's so unique in that we have all these different neighbourhoods with different setups and different needs. Um, the other question I had around The Flexible. Amendments is one of the points in the staff report says maximum number of bedrooms will not apply for apartment buildings being developed under the Express Transit Overlay. Can you decipher that for us, please? For sure. And thank you. And through the chair. So currently section 4. 28 of the zoning bylaw establishes maximum bedroom limits for, uh, urban residential zones, uh, which are predominantly zones that have houses in them. It does also establish limits for urban multiresidential zones and the HCD zones. So which are multi - residential zones are more like for apartment buildings. And the HTT zones are like our heritage district. When they're under two units right now. So generally the maximum number of bedrooms is limited to low density housing development. The Express transit overlay is a special overlay that is established in the zoning bylaw that recognises that where we have express transit routes in the city, we can contemplate higher density development only for apartment buildings and mixed use buildings. Currently those express transit overlay applications have to request relief from the maximum bedroom amounts because they're mostly located in urban residential zones. And so what we're trying to do with this amendment is recognise that the maximum number of bedrooms in section 4. 28 currently doesn't contemplate apartment buildings. And it also shouldn't contemplate apartment buildings when they're proposed in the express transit overlay as well. So we were just trying to align that with the overall vision for additional density apartment buildings and mixed use buildings that are proposed in the Express Transit Overlay. Three, Mr. Chair, that makes sense. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else. All right. Seeing as none. Thank you very much. So I will now call the regular meeting to order at 649 PM and I need a mover in the second order to approve the agenda with the addendum. Move my Councillor Stephen, seconded by Councillor Osanik. Um, all in favor. And that passes. So I need a mover in a secondary to confirm the minutes of the planning committee meeting 2026 - 05. Moved by Councillor Shave, second - byte Councillor Wusterhoff. And, uh, is there any discussion. Yeah. You have a discussion. Yeah, I just want to make sure. Are we making the correction about the chair? Okay. That's all. Thank you. All right. So I'll lose in a favor. And that passes. All right. So are there any disclosures or pecuniary interest. Seeing as none, delegations, no briefings. So moving on to business, item for this evening. The first item is the supplemental report for 1429 highway 15. The St. Lawrence Business Park Expansion. Go ahead. All right. Thanks in through you chair. My name is James Barnham. I'm the manager of development approvals for the city of Kingston. And tonight I'll be presenting the recommendation for, uh, 1429 highway 15, which is a city initiated application to expand the St. Lawrence business park on lands north of Irvin Boundary. This item was deferred in December, uh, to allow a process to unfold whereby we release the natural heritage study for the official plan. Uh, the site development guidelines and the shovel worthy framework have been presented to council. And we are now prepared to bring this back for consideration by committee this evening. This is an official plan amendment. A zoning bylaw amendment and a draft plan to subdivision to redesignate rezone lands and lay down the base subdivision framework for lands located just north of the urban boundary in the city's east end. The application address is 1429 highway 15, which includes the totality of the lands that you see here before you in both blue and green. These are all owned by the city. But the actual application tonight centres on only the lands highlighted in blue. For context, this is one of many applications that are before the city in this area. But I just wanted to lay a bit of groundwork that this application is separate and independent from the work that's happening with the new official plan and the urban boundary expansion requests. Again, the lands that we're talking about tonight are highlighted in blue. Those are the city - owned lands that are under application this evening. But the other items on this agenda just north of here in purple and yellow do not form part of this application. Over the next few slides, I am going to walk you through the different various aspects of the subdivision and how it's laid out. But the purpose of tonight is to expand the urban boundary and include a portion of the subject property, uh, in the urban boundary to allow new commercial business park industrial and open space uses as well as to divide the property into new blocks and create a new road. Laying down a good portion of the framework for this subdivision has been applying the principles of the newly created shovelworthy framework that has been under consultation for the past two years. And the spine of this is located in green here on the plan. This is the ecological naturalized corridor that has been proposed at the top end of the subdivision that will go from east to west. So right or left to right. East to west, west to east, left to right. Off on the left - hand side, it does come up against the city - owned stormwater management block that will form part of this subdivision. And it will traverse all the way to the east on the right - hand side where it will come up against the butternut creek wetland complex area. At the southern portion, the trapezoidal block that you see on here is a restoration block that the city has also proposed as part of this planet subdivision. The two blocks highlighted in blue are the stormwater management blocks for the site. The one on the left - hand side, which is the west end of the subdivision. We'll butt up against highway 15, and that will be a city - owned stormwater management block. On the right - hand side will be an additional storewater management block contemplated through any sort of redevelopment of the private block that will happen at that end of the subdivision with new development. This will not be city owned. This will be privately owned and sized for the development when it goes forward. The details of which will be ironed out through any future site plan control agreement. The blocks highlighted on here one through four are the development blocks. Block one is being proposed as a commercial block, butting up against highway 15, and we'll gain access directly from highway 15. Blocks two, three, and four are being designated in zone for business park Industrialuses. So that's anything from light manufacturing through two office uses. And they will gain access from a new internal street that I'll talk about in a minute. Proposed along the west side of the subdivision along highway 15. We are taking a road widening. We're ensuring a utility corridor space in a three metre reserve along that end to help control access. But this is also being put in place for any future expansion of any active transportation up and down highway 15. We have the multi - use trail that currently runs up the east side of highway 15 in this area. And we're taking future allowances. Should there be extensions up to this point. Think I'm going the right way. Yep. Uh, and this one, sorry, does show the extension of innovation drive now that I'm looking at it. It's the part highlighted in grey. It's street A. That will be an extension of innovation drive, uh, from the current location where it is at now by the Industrial Building known as TDL, which is Tim Horton's distribution limited. Uh, and we'll go north up next to the block that's currently being developed and then go, uh, westward through the subdivision and up north and potentially connect to any urban boundary expansion that may be contemplated there in the future. So the proposed official plan amendment, when you look at this, uh, there are several amendments proposed through the instruments that are attached to the report this evening. There are more schedules than usual because we are trying to apply the layered policy that is typically found on any property in the city. So there are amendments to schedule two to bring it in the urban boundary. And if you're looking at it, typically when we do official plan amendments, you will normally see the land use designations on schedule three land use. But because this is a secondary plan, the schedule is actually the reado community secondary plan schedule, uh, which is located here on the right - hand side where we are designating it for commercial business park industrial, uh, open space and applying a site - specific policy area. The site - specific policy area in this zone is specifically to deal with the highway commercial zone and permitting it to include outdoor storage. Should there be uses there that require it like a hardware store. Additionally, what we are seeing through this expansion, because of the new provincial definition for employment lands, typically something in a business park industrial is classified as employment land in the city official plan, but there's a specific policy being laid over top of that, saying that for the purposes of this application, we are not considering an employment land because we want to be able to permit new office development in this area, uh, that does not meet the definition under the planning act or provincial planning statement as an employment area. So we want that flexibility in these lands. So we're applying that site - specific policy. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment includes both base zoning and exception overlays. So on the left - hand side for the zone map, we are changing the zoning to CA highway commercial M1 business park Industrial, an OS1 and OS2. Both open space zones that have different classifications that go along with what are permitted uses. On the right - hand side are the several exception overlays that are being applied to the property. And I'll go through each of those independently following this slide. So for the highway commercial block, we are putting in some very specific provisions about the uses that are not permitted given the general uses of the highway commercial zone because we wanted to hone them for compatibility and adjacency to potential employment uses. So we are not including things like daycares, hotels, or place of worship, because those would be considered sensitive land uses and could have an impact on future employment lands ability to develop to the east of them. We're also not including dwelling units, which is another sensitive land use. And then there are specific provisions around outdoor storage, but also because there is a designated heritage property located along highway 15 adjacent to this property. We're including additional SEPAC and mitigation options in order to buffer that, uh, cultural heritage resource. E209 is a site - specific provision that is applying to the business park land that has increasing the landscaped open space from the typical 10 percent of a permeable material to be included in the landscape open space calculation. So typically that will form softscaping. We're also saying that outdoor storage is permitted on these lands in order to allow that type of flexibility for future employment uses. For the open space zones, uh, which is the dark grey box highlighted on the zone map. We are applying E216. And that's specifically to fulfill and implement aspects of the shovel worthy framework by limiting the permitted uses on those lands to store water management, passive recreation and naturalized landscaping. Just to really hone the permitted uses that are allowed on those lands. I did mention that at the beginning, uh, these lands have been developed in accordance with the shovelworthy framework that has been under consultation for a number of years and recently reviewed by Council. And there are several ways that they are implemented through this development application. This is a city lit application. So we do have the ability here to lead by example with the development of our own lands. So through this work, we are increasing the landscaped open space through the zoning framework of this site. We are creating a new naturalized corridor, which is not there today. Uh, and if studied through an environmental impact study, by a private landowner, uh, would not qualify as a significant feature. And therefore would not be able to be protected. But through the development of these lands by ourselves, we are able to program such juices into, uh, whatever lands we are creating. The draft plan is subdivision also contains, uh, requirements and specific conditions that all publicly own lands be designed and developed in accordance with the shovel worthy framework. So that's everything from the municipal rights of way to the, um, the active, uh, corridor and ecological corridor at the top end of the subdivision. It also notes that the draft plan of subdivision conditions are to finalise the site development guidelines, which have recently been finalised. And that there is an additional provision in there that the site guidelines apply to privately conveyed lands. So when the city goes to sell properties to private individuals, we have the ability to. Require things about and beyond what we typically be required through development application because we can enter into agreements with those who are purchasing the property to have a development agreement register on the title of The Lands to do a couple pieces above and beyond. So that could include everything from naturalized landscaping to the property, uh, specific orientations of the buildings, looks and feel as well. So we do have a robust planning framework and conveyance framework in place in order to have a development that exceeds minimum criteria. We did receive a communication and I do want to go over this and address this, uh, as part of this application, but we did receive a communication yesterday about the subdivision not conforming with mapping that's available through the provincial mapping website GO warehouse, which outlines where wetlands are in the province. Specifically, the property that we're talking about tonight on Highway 15 is highlighted here in red. And then they're highlighted in yellow is a projection of an unavaluated wetland on the geo warehouse site that projects into the property. Excuse me. This item was uploaded to the database by an environmental consultant who reviewed aerial mapping in December of 2025. And the mapping for this property was updated in February of 26. It is important to note that the wetland evaluation on the ground has not happened. And this wetland is not deemed to be provincially significant at this time because that work hasn't proceeded. We as the city as part of this application have done and contracted an environmental consultant to do work, to evaluate these lands for their delineation to figure out exactly where the wetlands are. So as part of the submission applications reflected in the environmental impact statement, uh, the wetland has been mapped as a feature through this property, uh, and noted in the staff report, the, the wetland feature itself actually doesn't form part of any of the development blocks, restoration blocks, or otherwise of this development application. And that's represented here where you can see the butternut creek EPA area, the large, the hard purple lines that are around it are the wetland delineation boundaries that were mapped on the ground. And then the 30 metre sent back in orange program from there. The nearest part of the subdivision application that we're talking about tonight is 46 metres away from the wetland feature. So we are well clear of the wetland and it is not an area that we're proposing to develop in, change land use permissions around, whether it's through the official Plan Amendment or zoning by law amendment. We do have a natural heritage study going on as part of our new official plan, which is comprehensively looking at these aspects citywide. And our environmental consultant will also be conducting the work in order to make the submission to the provincial database about the extent of this wetland. So if the other questions about that, we do have the team here available to answer that tonight. So the recommendation before you this evening is to approve an official plan amendment. As owning bylaw amendment in a draft plan of subdivision to extend the urban boundary and program these lands for future employment uses. It does meet all, uh, municipal and provincial requirements being in consistent with and conforming to the provincial planning statement and the official plan and does represent good land use planning. The next steps after this is, uh, work with the applicant team, which is here this evening as well, including city real estate to work through the details of a final plan of subdivision approval, which will include detailed design around the ecological corridor, the stormwater management design and the road extension. Each of the individual blocks and they develop will have to proceed through a cycline control application. And there will be future applications for a municipal servicing allocation as the blocks come online, whether in whole or individually one by one. And afterwards, we'd be happy to answer any questions. So thank you. And thank you very much. Um, so are there any questions from committee. Councilloc Sanic. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair question to Mr. Bar. So in our, um, motion, I guess it was in December maybe. I think it was before Christmas, um, but I'm not sure. We deferred this until the natural heritage study like was done. And consultation on the natural heritage study on the second draft was just last night. Like it was just last night and we're still accepting comments until April 21st. So like really I wanted tofer planning like approving that block four. Like I guess you're fine for block one, two, and three, but four has that, you know, unavaluated creek. Right. That we say it's not a significant wetland, but still has to be evaluated. And in our email today from Commissioner Agnew, it says that, um, there still is going to be a site visit with Stinson and fire mental and our city ecologist. And let me just see, uh, who else. And so like, I'm just wondering Mr. Bar, what's the consequence if we defer, um, the approval of block four tonight. Thanks. And through you, uh, chair. It's a great question Councillor Sanic. Deferring the application for block four. I don't think we'd cover this in its entirety because there is also the restorative block to the east of it. Um, but I would also like to point out that tonight's approval, uh, for official Plan Amendment zoning bylaw amendment. And draft plan of subdivision. Um, while it does bring in the, uh, fisher plan and zoning framework for this site, it is a draft plan of subdivision. So there are conditions that have to be met in order to finalise the blocks and move forward with them and program those last pieces. So if there are changes to the environmental work associated with the site visit that would happen in the spring between the environmental consultants, any blocks that may be subject to any future wetland. Uh, through the final plan of subdivision process, that is work that would still require an environmental impact study if that work is there. But tonight's provisional approval would just move this application along to the next step, which would start to, to pull these lands into the urban boundary and allow us to move on to the detailed work associated with the programming of the final planet subdivision. Okay. Oh, Mr. Bar. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify in the motion that was. Sorry, Mr. Park. I just wanted to clarify through, uh, The chair that the motion that was made at the December, uh, planning committee for deferral. It was until the natural heritage study and related mapping was released to the public. For, uh, their ability to review it. It is not upon completion or acceptance of the report. It was a release of the report. Thank you. Yes. Through, through you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that the, um, that there are concerns with the shovel worthy team, right? The, uh, the food Psalm for tea team. And, um, that they want in the minutes that the methodology, they want to record the methodology that, uh, IGIS had used to end. It's apparently not on DASH. Maybe to the clerk, I'll put in there. If we had instead use the OWES compliance methodology, um, you know, it would, it would have been better. Or a land classification methodology. And so like this site visit is really important to the land sovereign team that has done so much work in the shovel worthiness of this project. The OWES methodology is considered a gold standard for evaluating a wetland, which entails assassinates ecological function. Uh, whereas the EGIS may have used a land classification method. So that's the problem. Uh, we want the site visit so that we can look at the OWES methodology. Mr. Bar. Okay. So Mr. Bar, can I also just have assurance that the draft subdivision plan could be altered if the site visit changes the wetland boundary discrepancy. Thanks. And through you chair, uh, the full environmental impact study that was done by Aegis is available on DASH. So if there are additional questions on that staff, we're happy to answer them. Um, but to your second point, Councillor Sanek, yes, if there are, we do have the ability broadly to modify blocks between draft plan and subdivision and final plan of subjunt through a process that's known as redlining. Uh, so the final arrangement of the blocks could in theory change between draft plan approval and find a plant approval if there are additional and new information that's presented that would result in, you know, the need to modify those blocks. So that is something that we would be looking for post draft plan approval if it happens tonight. And then post on site meeting with the environmental consultants in the spring once that's arranged. But we do have confidence in the work that has been done to date, uh, by the environmental consultant alongside of the review that has been done by the city's ecologist for the wetland boundary. And its location, we have walked the site and mapped it, uh, with survey grade equipment, understand exactly where that significant, no, I'm not going to say significant because that would mean it's significant under the act, but we're that feature is, uh, located on the property because we want it to be mindful of that. And the location and co - location of the restorative block also helps to create an additional buffer adjacent to the creek from the development that would happen to the west of it. Oh, great. Uh, thank you. My last question through you, Mr. Chair is just, if there is a change in the, uh, in the boundary, can we be made aware of it? Or can it be put in like the weekly council update at that time, like just so we're aware of what the outcome of the site visit is. Thanks, Andrew. Yes. Thanks. And through your chair. Staff will be happy to do that, especially as this is a city - led development application that has, uh, high levels of public scrutiny around it and very large interests from council. So we'd be happy to provide any updates as this move through final planet subdivision. And post - site visit. Thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak. Councillor Stephen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just want to commend everyone who has worked for years on this. It's really exciting to see again that the city has this opportunity to actually lead by example. Um, you know, it's, it's one thing to say you want something. It's another thing to do it. Um, so while I can certainly appreciate concerns about wetland and I'm glad that there will be some follow - up conversations about that, um, I think this has been a long time coming. And I think it's been done very responsibly ethically, um, and with great consideration for the indigenous food, sovereignty garden and nature in general. So thank you for that. Anyone else wishes to speak. All right. Seeing as no one. We'll move on to, um, questions from the public. Are there any members of the public? Okay. You know, five minutes and state your name. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thanks for the presentation. Um, you'll see that I'm very much like the general trajectory of this work. Um. Three points. I've written them down for the clerk to help with their recording. I'm going to continue on the theme that's been raised on the eastern end of the sector. So I'm concerned about potential flooding in the spring and after peak rains. In this area, um. Chicken into account what was presented on the report. Apparently the 45 metre setback there. So I'm speaking on, uh, from experience as a member of the garrison golf club in past years. And that's a location that is to the south of this sector. And this creek, um, flows through part of the course. Uh, civically hole number 15. And there have been a number of years. Where this is flooded heavily. And it is closed that hole for a number of weeks. So I'm just wondering if the city could consult with the garrison golf club on their history with this. Drain interchanges have been made, uh, but. Um, you're looking at it. And this is just a little bit of practical input from maybe an aspect that you hadn't considered. I'm just wondering, uh, so second question, um, this is a question I often ask. On the big picture, gradient for the sector. And its impact on the future of the parcels development. So I'm just wondering if you have an east to west downward slope. As you head toward the Colorae River. Would that be an accurate, uh, sort of not show assessment. And have you factor that into work that you're doing. Okay. And my final point is just a continuation on points that were raised by Councillo Sanek, um, on the environmental investigatory work on Bartonaug Creek. And I'm just wondering at this stage, you can say anything more about the proposed timeline on the completion of that work. Certainly you're putting, uh, excellent care into the work. Of very impressed with that. And, um, even the official plan, um, new, uh, new work is being done. With a summer, um, possible completion. How would that tie into that official plan work. Thank you. Wants to take that on. Oh, there's some online. I forgot about the on. So used to not being in the online people. Um, so is there anyone online? We should speak. Leslie Norris. If you want to unmute. Yeah, five minutes and then state your name, even though I just said it. Les Lenores. Yeah. So thank you for the presentation. I have a few comments and questions. Um, one, I like that there's the quarter along the back. We talked in earlier meetings about making that larger, but, um, I guess that's not something that's happening, but I question the idea of having the corridor and then the restorative piece in the bottom corner, but then having the piece that would be connecting the tube as privately owned. Uh, my concern with that is that, well, it's two concerns. One is that. If it was publicly owned by the city, then it could be factored in as an element that relates to these two other pieces, the corridor and the, um, the renaturalized sort of park space in the, in the bottom there. Um, and the second one is that if it's privately owned by whoever builds on this site, they're going to do the bare minimum and draw it as you had drawn it as sort of two, two little basins with zero qualities. And it's sitting adjacent to the butter net freak. I know it's not connected, but if ever there is a problem where, uh, untreated water spills out from that space into the creek, it's sitting right there and the company that would be owning that lot or occupying that lot isn't. I mean, they're going to have, they're not going to be invested in making sure that it's a site that's more than the bare minimum. Um, I'm also wondering one thing we had talked about potentially doing in other meetings is having an accessible connection between the blocks. Like I'm envisioning something maybe at the end of the cul - de - sac between block three and four. Something the width of a pedestrian path that would let people access the back corridor. And I'm thinking about this more if the sites on the east side of this get developed ever as the subdivisions that have been talked about being developed, as you showed in one of your maps. And the, uh, 1376 Byronet Creek Road in 1623 highway 15 sites. That I think one thing that this plan is missing is that there's no connections through the site and it's just been developed as these Industrial very blocky sites. So I think it'd be worth looking at how it actually connects, uh, the pedestrian level. Another thought would be potentially to have it connect. Back to that little park space from the cul - de - sac going down to the park space and creating some sort of loop around there. But before workers at lunchtime, it could be for people in the area. Um, it feels, it feels right now like it's disconnected. And this is being developed as a parcel in isolation knowing that there are other pieces that will be developed at some point, but it's sort of ignoring those elements right now. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else online who wishes to speak. Okay. Uh, I'll call on Vicky Schmoka. If you want to unmute, state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. Very much. Thank you, Schmalka here. Um, I support very much what I just heard Leslie Norris say. So, um, I think there is a concern of not connecting the blocks. Um, I also, when I looked at the agenda for today, I was surprised, excuse me, I was surprised that this item was on the agenda. When I look at the December 4th Planning Committee, uh, motion that was passed, which Mr. Park referenced, but I reading on, he said, well, the natural heritage study has been released. So we've met that, uh, that requirements or direction from Planning Committee. But it says released to the public early in 2026. Well, it was just released a few weeks ago. And then it goes on allowing the public time to review the draft NHS report. And for more consideration to be given to the concerns raised by the public relating to the city initiated official planning by law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications. And I feel like the public meeting was last night to explain the new natural heritage study information. It was a good meeting, but it didn't cover everything. And I do feel that this, uh, this application from the city is really jumping the gun. Um, there was also direction from planning committee at the federal, February 19th meeting that senior agenda on page 361 talking about, uh, that extension of the time period to bring the recommendation back to planning committee honour before June 5th, 2026. And I guess I appreciate what Wendy Councillor Steven said about, um, how the city has worked a lot with other people to get this subdivision looking the way it is and the strip and the setback. Uh, I do think though that it feels really uncomfortable that the city is moving ahead with its own application when everybody else is waiting, all the other applicants, you know, people who are invited to say we'd like the urban growth boundary to move. They're waiting their turn and the city has gone ahead. And I'm not sure that's actually modelling by example. I haven't heard any justification for rushingness. And I do feel we haven't had a chance to look at the, um, natural heritage study fully. I also wonder if Mr. Bar could bring back up the map that showed where the wetland evaluation now is that had the sort of yellow spaces. And the setbacks that he referenced, um, that are shown on another map. Because when I looked at them, they don't read to me like the proposed map from this application from the city for itself. Actually maps where the wetland now is registered with the Ministry of the Environment. I mean, they created this. They said anybody with the credentials can go map a wetland. And that's what's happened. So I think that has to be respected. So I'm very worried that the city is actually not really using the new mapping and fair enough. You're going to go out again with people hopefully soon while the water's up and you can really see where the water is and where the, you know, vegetation is for the sweatland. But, um, is the city really respecting what is currently registered with the province. And I think a review of those two maps would be really helpful. It's too bad they weren't prepared as an overlay. So I think those are my comments. I'm, I mean, I support the buffer area. Um, and I'm glad to see this respect for nature in this area. It just seems to be an odd timing to bring this forward now. And I think Councillor Rosanic spoke to deferral. And I, I think that might be a good committee strategy just to respect the motions that committee already made on December 7th and February 19th. As in the staff report. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else online who wishes to speak. Please raise your virtual hand and zoom. All right. Sing as then I'll go to staff for answering the comments and questions. Thanks. And through you, Chair, I'm going to answer the questions that I can answer. And if my colleagues have anything additional to ad, I will look to them afterwards. I'm going to start at the end. Uh, with the last comment about why this is being brought forward in advance of all of the urban boundary expansion requests that we've received as part of the new official plan. It is worthy to note that we receive direction from council to initiate these applications in 2024. Uh, in order to start to develop and expand the city's roster of employment lands so that we could achieve new employment uses. So we have been acting on a direct motion from council in order to bring these applications forward. So thank you, Mr. Dixon. Miss Norris submissione wolka for your questions. Going back to the beginning of them, uh, there were concerns about potential flooding with peak rains. There was discussion about a golf course downstream of here. And if there was any discussion about that, um, and about how the property was graded, um, whether it goes east to west, there is a bit of a break in the property. It does parkhoast. It does park go west, which is why there are other two stormwater management blocks contemplated for it. Uh, there was a stormwater management report done as part of the application, which looked at those catchmen sub areas and how best to deal with the stormwater management from this site. The basic principles of stormwater management applied to this like every other development. So Primus equal post and we can't create additional flooding hazards on adjacent properties or add to the stream and stormwater has to be dealt with on site comprehensively. With the proposed timeline of completion of, okay, so this then went on to discuss the questions around the work that's going to be happening between the cities ecologist, Egypt, who's who's the city's consultant and then sent in environmental. We have a commitment to undertake that work in the spring of 2026 when the weather turns appropriate. Winter seems to be eternal this year. So we do need appropriate conditions for the environmental consultants to go out and do that evaluation on property. Uh, so we are looking at undertaking that in the spring of 2026 as soon as we possibly can. Hopefully sometime in April. Sticking to the point of the ecological corridor that happened after that and about making it larger, uh, it is 30 metres proposed on this property, but as part of the new official plan work in the phasing work for the two highway 15 properties north of here that directly abut this site. There is an official plan policy. It's not on the mapping anywhere, but it is in the official plan second draft under the 1504 and 1623 highway 15 phasing development requirements under section 10 C. It's 10 C 1. 5. It specifically talks about those two properties to the north and trying to develop them with criteria that creates a provision of an ecological corridor along the southernmost portion of those lands. Um, that have the effect of doubling the ecological corridor provided on 1429 highway 15. So if the ecological corridor is approved, uh, at 30 metres as part of this application, we do have future policy that will help guide any sort of redevelopment of those two additional parcels to widen that corridor, an additional 30 metres for a total width of 60 metres. The ability to take that land as part of those applications will form part of our future considerations through draft plan of subdivision and the negotiations that happen with that. So we do have policy in it looking to make it larger as any part of, uh, future redevelopment of the lands to the north. Dealing with this stormwater block and the ecological corridor and the restorative block on the east end of the site next to Butternut Creek. That was the natural location for a stormwater block, especially since with the ecological corridor. There is the ability to, uh, potentially convey through a naturalized stormwater management channel. The stormwater block from the west end of the property down through the property to butternut creek. It is just a natural location for it. Um, through the agreements of purchase and sale as well, the city has the ability to require different types of stormwater management blocks that could be slightly more naturalized. Uh, we could require vegetation around it through the agreement of purchase and sale and future development agreement. These items are contemplated through the site development guidelines in order to provide more native and naturalized plantings on property. So that is something that staff will be investigating through that additional work at the time of cylink control. Regarding a privately owned stormwater management block, those do have to meet all technical engineering requirements, uh, engineers do have to stamp and sign off on those. Those are reviewed by the city. But in addition to, uh, city requirements, four Stormwater Management blocks, stormwater management blocks on Industrial Lands also require an environmental compliance approval from the Ministry of the Environment. So there is an additional regulatory requirement from the provincial government to maintain those, uh, two specific standard in order to mitigate adverse stormwater quality, uh, and control that appropriate appropriately to make sure it does not negatively impact natural systems. It was a great question. And I think Miss Norris Ford and Mish Milko for echoing it about having accessible connections between the blocks and through the site. I know right now with the draft plan of subdivision, it looks like we are contemplating a road that will go north - south through the property. And that is the only, I guess, movement through the site that's being contemplated. With the exception overlay for the ecological corridor, we are allowing passive recreation through there. So at 30 metres wide, we are potentially contemplating a passive recreation use. So a potential trail that would run east - west through there as well to provide access and accessibility and movement through that top end of the site. And to allow the occupants who go to the site, that ability to walk around and potentially get down to butternut creek or out to highway 15. But for contemplation of an additional loop, that is something that we can look at when we're talking about the development of those blocks and how to create more permeability from a pedestrian perspective. But we do have north - south vehicular connectivity through here. Um, the street itself will also contain sidewalks potentially on both sides. So there will be active transportation abilities to move up through this subdivision. But also potentially east - west through, um, a passive recreation trail that would run the length of that ecological corridor and utilise the stormwater management block on the west side to get out to highway 15. The design of that will be reviewed through the final plan of subdivision. So those details will come through that next stage of the application. Regarding the question for the February deferral motion, um, where we specified in it that we had to bring back the application honour before June 6th. That's just a technical matter. When we do put forward a deferral motion, we have to defer it for the maximum amount 90 days in order to allow us that flexibility. That just happened to be 90 days out from the previous end date. So we were just looking at a technical requirement in order to be able to pump that out to give us the flexibility to bring this report back in a timely manner. I don't have anything additional for the questions at this time. I'll look to my colleagues in real estate to see if they have anything additional that they would like to add. To you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the questions. Uh, they were really good comments, which we are already looking into. For instance, the North South connection between block three and fourth. The site development guidelines that we are working on. We are discussing those kind of connections between the blocks. And we'll continue working on that. Um, and second was a comment regarding the connection of ecological corridor with the natural light space. So the area which is east of this development site is all owned by the city. So there is a connection already there. Um, and it's a matter of just formalizing it. And again, as our discussions are going on with, with the garden group and our consultants, we are looking at all these possibilities. Uh, these things are very detailed work. And this will take place at the next, um, phase of the project, which is the final plan of subdivision. We are detailed design would be done. And, uh, we are eager to start that phase if we are able to get approval for this phase of draft plan of subdivision and OPNZB approval. Um, other than that, I would like to just mention, like Mr. Bar mentioned that, uh, in February, 2024, we got the approval from Council to start the planning applications. But this project started in February 2023 when consult directed staff to start working with the garden group to develop the show worthy development guidelines. And over one year with the extensive consultation and expert help from our, uh, professional consultants, we were able to develop those guidelines. And, uh, that the draft of which was presented to Council in February, 2024. And at that time Council gave us direction to start the planning applications. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Anyone else wanted to chime in. No. Okay. So there was one other person online who was unable to raise his hand. So I'll just, since we still have the public portion open, I'll recognise. I'll recognise Rob Miller's state your name. And you have five minutes. Oh, hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Great. Uh, hi, my name's Rob or Robert Miller. Um, I live at 800 Ruberview way. Uh, right above the Corey. So I, um, I know the city needs additional residential lands and employment lands, especially given the fact that the, uh, the hospital is going to go up by the 401 and is consuming a large block. Like as I mentioned, I just live off highway 15. And I'm wondering, um, if the city is looked at the cumulative effects, and I know it was mentioned and it was shown that there's all of these additional and separate independent parcels being developed. And I'm just wondering what the cumulative effects are going to be on be on that. The subdivision in the quarry hasn't really been built out yet. But the, uh, but highway 15 is, is already quite challenged. It's deteriorating. It's overloaded. And, you know, all of these additional homes and businesses are going to be, uh, added. So I'd like to know if there's some proactive planning taking place. And if highway 15 and the capacity of highway 15 is being looked at. So that's one, one major concern. Um, and then another one is it's more of a broad question for the city and the planners. I mean, I'm watching the urban boundary kind of sprawl east and west. I do not understand why lands north of the 401 are not being examined. Other, other cities near us, uh, are doing that. Um, and I will use, uh, full disclosure. I own a property on Sydnam Road. And I use Sydney Marota as an example. I participated in the process requesting an urban boundary expansion north of the 401 on Sydden Road. And for, um, whatever reasons, um, it was not supported. And, uh, and, and, and, and, you know, deemed not possible. I don't understand why there's already a significant commercial and In Industrial base north of the 401 in Sydham Road. The city owns and operates in arena. It has water, service north of the 401. There's no septic. I know the city and other, other, um, other businesses north of the 401 there have to, well, I know the arena has to pump out its septic system, which, which, which, uh, which seems fairly short - sighted. And lastly, a third point, um, I'm not sure anything can be done about this, but I, I have a concern about the consumption of, of, of farmland. That lot that's being, uh, proposed for rezoning from rural. To commercially. There's been no soil studies, no agricultural impact assessments. You got the glaucomorra farm that's being, um, kind of bulldozed. And then there's properties along butternut creek that are being proposed for, um, for development. So I know there's a attention and, and the city wants to and needs to expand to promote growth. But I'm just concerned about, um, consumption and, and loss of, of what might be good farmland. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Just going to make sure. Is there anyone else online while I still have the public portion open that we should speak? This is your, probably your last chance to raise your hand and zoom. Seeing as none. Okay. So we'll go back to staff. Things in through you chair, uh, two of those questions are applicable to the applications tonight. So I will be speaking about the cumulative effects of development in the area and the concerns about farmland, um, but this application is far removed from the urban boundary discussions about where we're expanding and is more appropriate for the discussion with the official plans. So, uh, thank you, Mr. Miller, for those comments. And I will relay them to the official plan team who, uh, if you would let additional dialogue on that can be in touch with you. Regarding the cumulative effects on highway 15, uh. Every application that comes in has to review the approvals that happened before it. So every new application takes into account existing traffic patterns based on existing and approved development. So that takes into account a cumulative aspect of effect of all the work that's happening in the area. But if you're thinking about the aspect of the new official plan, uh, contemplation of your boundary expansion, uh, going along with the work for the official plan is also an Integrated Mobility plan, which is looking at system wide city transportation networks. Uh, and it's also evaluating that. So there are two ways that existing development and proposed development or evaluated through, uh, the approvals process. One is that the city wide scale, which we're undertaking now through the official plan project. But at the individual application project, each application that comes in reviews everything that proceeds it and looks at the transportation network looks at the servicing network, looks at the stormwater management network for the understanding of cumulative capacity. We also have our, uh, individual departments that, uh, continuously monitor and review various aspects of the city systems to make sure that they are still functioning adequately for existing and proposed development. Regarding the concerns about the farmland and the lack of agricultural impact study that associated with this application, um, an agricultural impact study is not required at this location. Uh, that's required when you are converting prime agricultural lands into, uh, something else. And in this case, it would be an urban boundary expansion through the official plan work that happened in the late 2000s, early 2010s, the city undertook two LIR studies, which are land evaluation and area review studies, which review the agricultural potential of the city. And it mapped out appropriate locations for lands to be designated primaricultural and lands to be designated rural through both of those reviews. These lands remain designated rural and we're not considered for prime agricultural. So that work was not required associated with this application. Should the city have been expanding the urban boundary in a location where we were moving into primagricultural. It would have required an entirely different policy set to be evaluated. Um, that is triggered under the provincial planning statement, including the need for an agricultural impact assessment. But that was not required as part of this application. Uh, so that is why, uh, that specific requirement is not found on DASH and was not required. Anyone else have any comment. All right. Well, that closes that part. So now we need to move her in a second here for the recommendation. Move by Councillor Shave, second by Councillor Stephen. Is there any discussion. Councillor Glenn. Um, thank you. And three, you and Sr. Chair. I haven't, um, said too much because I really wanted to hear what was, uh, being contemplated here. Um, I'm actually really concerned just that we, we brought this back in a bit of a rush. And I want the community to feel confident about what we're doing. So I actually want to move emotion to defer this to our April 16th meeting to allow the community time to give consideration for what was in that study. Um, I myself have just returned from, you know, vacation over March break and have barely had time to scratch the surface on looking at this. I don't think that there's anything untoward here. It's just, um, it seems to me that if we're truly wanting the community to support us and to make sure that we're doing the right thing and protecting, uh, very sensitive areas, then an extra couple of weeks is just not that big a difference. Um, also, um, I thought that we had until June 5th to do this. So, um, is there any reason to, to rush? So I want to put the deferral out there and I'm happy to discuss it. So are you moving into furral now or are you just still discussing. Okay. Yeah, I'm looking for the deferral in there. I think we should just defer like a couple more weeks will not. You know, be the end of the world. Okay. So is there a seconder. I can't see everyone on the screen. So seconded by Councillo Sanic. Okay. So I guess you have one minute. To speak to it. Um, yeah. As I, I was leading up into putting the furlate there. Um, I think some legitimate, uh, comments have been made. I do think that the intent of the deferral was to give the community and ourselves time to actually review the material that came forward. We just literally got it. So, um, two weeks we'll give us an extra time. My understanding was we didn't have to have this recommendation come back until June 5th. So I'm wondering why it's, it's a bit rushed. Um, you know, given the intent. So I'm hoping that everybody understands that this is to make sure that we bring the whole community together. We don't miss any thing. We're in that final step to get this done. I think everybody's committed to wanting to have, um, more lands out there to develop. We understand we need them, but let's, let's nail this. Let's get it right. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to the deferral. No one. Oh, Councillor Shaves. I just want to ask staff, if there would be any impact on this proposal. Go ahead. Through you chair. Uh, Councillor, you just asked the question again. If there would be any impact on this proposal with the differ. Thanks and through you chair. A deferral of the application just means we're deferring the work that needs to happen next in order to start bringing on new employment lands to the city. Uh, every deferral just pushes the time I know further. I don't know if my colleagues in real estate have any additional, uh, pieces to add to that. But, uh, that is just a time delay. Um, in order to for us to advance the next round of work. Yeah. Three. So I think I've just only added to it as well. We've put a lot of time and money into this, uh, project. The more delays, the, the longer it's decided as to whether we continue to invest into the expansion and the project and further studies, like taking out and doing further reviews and further works studies we plan to do in the spring to, as we've referenced in other studies to get prepared for the design activity, not knowing if there's going to be expansion, kind of makes us hesitate as to whether we should be spending that money because it's more, uh, more investment into understanding the land, working with the partners on what to do with the property. So we, we do need to kind of understand the direction at some point. So and to confirm if we delay this, this was actually three weeks, not two. Concerning our schedule. That's correct, Chair. Yes. We have a planning committee next week on April 2nd. Then the gap week. So it would be the week proceeding that would be three weeks out. Okay. And I can understand the Councillor's concern of just returning back from vacation, but we that all happens to us. I was gone for a period of time and then had to catch up on my readings as well. So, um, I'm not sure if that should be factored into it. But we'll see. Okay. Councillor Straf, you have one minute. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I, I, I don't think we should postpone this or deferrant. I really think it's time to move it forward while I can go back a lot of years when I remember we also balked and I'm, um, I'm a little bit embarrassed about our cities sometimes of how we are so reluctant to move forward with certain things. And this is, this is a time that we need to do that and trust the staff. We've heard. I think they've answered the questions really, really well. So I would just ask my colleagues to let's move forward with this in the confidence that we have given it really serious look and dealt with so many things and staff have completed what we've asked. So I'm going to be, um, I would like to support this. And move forward. It's time. Thank you. Councillo Sanic. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I support this deferral. We all received a letter from, um, the land sovereignty group on Tuesday. And then we had that very late Council meeting. I don't know if other people on Council were able to send the letter to staff. But I only did so last night. And then we got the email this afternoon. Um, you know, some of us have full time jobs. I only was able to read it between five o'clock and six o'clock at the start of this meeting. And then I see right before this meeting that they're still concerns from the group, I think we deserve to give that group a chance to still come out with them, you know, more concerns because we just had that natural heritage study meeting last night. And we were asking questions right up until eight o'clock. Right. Um, and it didn't touch on everything in the study. It is hard to look at all that mapping. Cause it's, I don't know integrative. It's hard to figure it out. We need more time. We are spend a minute. Oh, okay. It's only two weeks. It's only hit like. Councillor Steven. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been listening to the arguments and the reasons and been thinking about what I think is the right thing to do here. I'm of the opinion that, well, I can appreciate, um, people wanting a little more time to have a chance to review. I think that this has been. Something that is so scrutinized and so carefully done. We've had so many check - ins along the way. I don't feel that more time is necessary to achieve what we're trying to do here. I think we need to bring these employment lands online as soon as possible. I think we've done our due diligence. And I think that there's enough wiggle room left that any of these concerns that have been brought up tonight, can and will be addressed over time. I'm just looking to staff for nods. Yes, I'm seeing lots of nods. Thank you. Um, so I won't be supporting the deferral. Um, I'm comfortable moving forward tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Can you take the chair. I have the chair. Okay. Um, so I just have a quick question. Um, so. The concern that Councillo Sanic brought about, um, can people still bring their concerns. And even if we pass this tonight. Mr. Bar. Right, sir. Thank you and through you chair. Uh. After tonight, if the application moves forwards to council, people can still bring their concerns forward to staff. Uh, we do have the final plan of subdivision application to move through, but should this get approved by Council. This application will close. It doesn't mean that staff are unreceptive to comments that would come in because we do have additional processes after this to move through, through the final plan of subdivision work. Uh, so there will be a new application eventually started for these lands. Um, we can continue to receive comments and feedback on the proposal and work that into, uh, our review of the next round of planning instruments. And since we control this LAN, we can, we can have more say or have more direction if something is needed, right? Through, you chair, that is correct. These are, these are city on lens under council's purview. So I don't see. Personally, I don't think that there's a need to delay. This because it's just one step. And then the more steps. And the more dialogue. And the, it's not like we're closing the door on anyone, um, it's just so we can move on to the next step and start planning the next step. And we got some assurances that if the mapping changes, then we'll change. So I won't be supporting this just because we're open and we will keep listening. Thank you. I return the chair. Okay. So. Councillor Glenn, do you want a final word? Yes. Thank you and through you. Um, first I should have called a point of, I guess, order or privilege or whichever it is. Um, I didn't appreciate the comments by Councillor Shays. I did read the material, but, um, didn't have lots of time to digest it. And the point that was being made was that the community hasn't either. So this is not about not doing this. This is about doing what we continue to say that we are going to do, which is allow the community to have the input that they so desperately have been asking us for to ensure that the process is clean, clear, transparent. Um, yes, it has been vetted. I hear you absolutely. But the job is also to represent that community. It is to hear the concern. It is to hear the voice that they're bringing to the table. Um, and we want them with us. My concern is when we don't do that, that what we end up with then is people who are disgruntled, who come back and, and, you know, if, if any small mistake gets made, they're going to call it into question because we didn't do that extra couple of weeks. Um, so I really hope that you'll give consideration to that. I understand the time. I understand the expense. I understand how complicated it is. Um, but I do think that having a mere few days to try and digest this with full - time jobs and other things going on just isn't really fair to those who did this. So why did we bother to defer to get this study in the first place? We should have just not done that in my opinion. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I'll call the vote. Aldo is in favor. I don't see everyone. Okay. Um, I'll opposed. And that loses four to two with Councillor Glenn and Oceanic and the minority. Okay. So back to the, um, the rest of the motion. You still had like three minutes left Councillor Glenn. So I'm going to speak now just because we're not deferring to the actual proposal. I don't fundamentally have any major issues with it. Um, I do think that it's, um, something necessary for the community. Um, I've already voiced my concerns. I think we've heard exhaustively about this. I've generally been again, supportive, uh, with the insurance is that it shovel ready. Um, so I'm not going to comment any further this evening on it. Uh, we've gone through this time and time again, I had just been very hopeful that we would, um, put our money where I'm Loth was and make sure that the community was also as satisfied as those of us more entangled in this of our, uh, our satisfied. Right. Anyone else was to speak. Councillo Sanic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I just have a question. Okay. It just came up that I was still muted. Um, I just have a question to Mr. Bar and Mr. Bar in your slide deck when you keep the presentation. Did you also have a slide that showed where the stemson, um, like work showed the, um, the creek boundary, like the setbacks. And then I think you showed where the city boundary was. Did you also have a slide that showed where the Stinson boundary was. For, um, the evaluation that they did and how closely it meshed or how different it was. Thanks. And through you chair, um, Councillo Sanik, the first slide I had up that showed the blue feature with the yellow highlight was the work that was uploaded to the portal by Stinson based on the aerial imagery review that they undertook. The second one, uh, that I put up was the, uh, work that was done by the city ecologist to map the wetland feature boundaries. We did not do an overlay of the two because we understand that we are going to go through this process with the, um, the ecologist on site in the spring. So that work is, is still to come. And through you chair, we do have additional comments from, uh, Director Forrest. Yeah. Thank you, through you. Just to clarify, Councillor Sanek, um, it's the city ecologist didn't do the mapping. It was the hired ecologist that did the mapping of the wetland. Just to, yeah, Aegis did that part. Um, yeah, the, uh, Stinson Environmentalist, they did on site, uh, evaluation of the wetland to the south. He has not completed on - site work to the north. So the lands adjacent to it. He's only done desktop. What we suggested in our response to the letter is that our consultant EGIS did do on - site ground truthing, um, but what we've agreed to is that in the spring, we will work with Stinson to get on site. Go on with him to make sure when he's grandma truthing, we share our data and review and update accordingly. Um, that's our plan. We are consultant have done that work, but we're more than willing to work with, uh, partners to do that as well. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak. Councillor Stephen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, one thing I didn't touch on, but I wanted to say thank you for was, um, in the supplemental report, I talked about tightening up the regulations with respect to the open space. Um, I really appreciated seeing that. So thank you for that work. Oh, Mr. Barrett. Thanks. And just to actually make a point about that, uh, the updated zoning by Land is included as an addendum tonight just because of such large document. We going over it today saw that one of the mapping pieces was incorrect. So I think if it's approved tonight, it's approved as amended. And I would look to The Clerk for that because it's in schedule B. I just want to make sure that the appropriate zoning bylaw is getting approved tonight. Should I go to that place? Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak. No. All right. Um. I think everyone has spoken. We wanted to speak. So now I'll call the vote. All those in favor. And opposed. And that carries unanimously. So there are no motions. There are no notices of motion. Is there any other business. None. Uh, there was no correspondence. The next meeting of the planning committee is scheduled for Thursday, April 2nd, 2026 at 6 p. m. Do I have a mover in secondary to a turn? Moving by Councillor Steven, seconded by Councillor Sanek, all those in favor. And that passes. Good night, everyone.