Check one two. Testing audio. Check one two. Hi Deputy Mayor Sing. Can we test your audio? >> Testing. 1 2 3. >> Thank you. Hi, councelor Brier. Can we test your audio? >> Good evening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi counselor power. Can we test your audio? >> Hi, good evening. >> Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. We're good to go. >> Welcome to the planning development committee meeting. I'll do roll call. Deputy Mayor Singh >> present. >> Councelor Santos >> present. >> Councelor Vicante. We'll give him a minute. Councelor Ber >> present. >> Oh, both of you gotcha. Thanks. Councelor Keenan >> present. >> Councelor Maduros. >> Thank you. >> Who's that? Is that council maduros? >> No. Councelor Forini >> present. >> Uh councelor T. >> Councelor Power >> present. >> We'll try councelor Madiros again. Okay. Okay. The clerk's office will look out to see when if he shows up. Uh we have our next item is the approval of the agenda. And to try and move things along, we have a few people in the audience. There's three items on the agenda that similar to last week, if you'll remember, in a similar motion, the criteria of the walkability score. We'd like uh staff report to come back to council next week rather than it coming to planning as council next week. Uh okay. We're going to move that motion for that criteria to come back to uh to council next week and a supplement a sub >> July council. Yes, that's fine. Yeah. Do we have we have a meeting in July? >> Yes. Okay. a July council meeting um with the uh preliminary report and your meeting with area counselors um prior to that is everybody was there any questions to that? I know it's confusing but if you remember last week members of committee uh a similar motion was was put on the floor and that's for items 74 76 77 am I missing any? 74 was an application amendment and zoning bylaw draft plan of subdivision DMHH partnership Madame and Durazzio Corsiac urban planning at 10512 Missaga Road 76 was TFP Heritage Wless Developments Corsiac Planning 10869 Heritage Road and 7.7 was Zero Heritage Road Ward 6 Dempson Properties 1761540 Ontario Limited Corsiac Urban Planning 7 7.8 as well. >> So through Mr. Chair, I believe the items that it's to relate to in particular are 74, 77, and 78 being the recommendation reports. >> 74. >> Yep. 77 and 78. >> Okay. 76 isn't asking for a reduced setback. >> So that is uh an OPA application for the precinct plan. Not needed for it. >> Okay. My apologies. So 76 is not. So 747778. Okay, that's with the motion. I see no speakers. All in favor? That carries. We'll go back to the items. Uh declarations of conflict of interest. Seeing none, consent motion. The only thing that I'm going to ask to be put into consent then is 76. That was approval of the agenda moved with the motion. Can we take that as the motion and the approval of the agenda at the same time? Moved by councelor Keenan. Um 9.1 9.2 2 sorry 9.1 is Bmpton Heritage Board 9.2 two is the active transportation advisory committee and then we'll put seven six also into consent the application official plan TFP Heritage Wness developments um to permit the development of scope precinct plan for sub area 522 west within the Heritage Heights secondary plan located east of Heritage Road and west of Highway 413 west of Missaga Road between Can Rail to the south and Wallace Drive to the north. >> 72 82. And where is the Where's the Stellantis one? If you have the item number, shout it out. >> Thank you very much. 75 will be consent if nobody wants to hold and then the window wells. >> I'd like to hold the window wells. >> Hold the window wells. Okay. So, those are the items. >> 7.5 as well. >> Holding 7.5 as well for what? >> I see me a >> Yeah, they're going to speak. They're going to speak at public question period, but they I advise them that it probably be held. There's no opportunity for them to speak prior to that motion to that item coming before us. >> They're not on the delegation list, >> but they're going to ask questions at the question period on the agenda. >> Okay. So, that'll stay into consent. Uh moved by councelor Tour. All in favor? That carries. Okay. Next, the public uh statutory public meeting. Uh we have is anybody in attendance here to hear the application from 2798536 Ontario, Inc. to permit the permanent use of subject lands for a second phase of development consisting of one-story multi-unit industrial building zero highway 5 W 10. We have a staff presentation from SATF. We also have three delegations, but I don't think I see them or do I see them in the audience. Do we have Amanda Corbett, Carmela Powski, Franksani? They are online. Perfect. Okay. So then we'll have Saf come and uh present the the application. just for members that are listening. Uh, this presentation of the public meeting is for the public only. It's not for members of council to ask any questions. It is only Please come. I'm killing time as you walk up. It's not for uh anybody to uh any members to ask any questions. It's only here for uh for the public. Thank you very much. Take it away. Good evening, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee, members of the public and city colleagues. My name is Saddaf Shahed Hussein, and I'm the planner assigned to process and review the subject application. The purpose of this public meeting is to provide information to the public and seek feedback on the application filed by Blackthorn Development Corp. on behalf of 2798536 Ontario, Inc. Next slide, please. The subject property is located in W 10 with the municipal address of zero highway 50. The site is located west of Highway 50 and south of Countryside Drive. Next slide, please. This map shows an overview of the subject site within the property and surrounding land uses. To the north, vacant land subject to an application proposing an industrial building reviewed under file number SPA 20250048 beyond which is Countryside Drive. To the south, lands approved for industrial developments. To the east, Highway 50 beyond which is the city of Vaughn and to the west existing industrial developments. Next slide, please. This map shows an aerial photo of the subject site and its surrounding context. Next slide, please. The following slides show the site visit conducted looking west from Highway 50. Next slide, please. On June 17th, 2024, a statutory public meeting was held for the subject application proposing the temporary storage of an outdoor truck and trailers. Following technical review and comments prov provided by staff, the applicant has also submitted an application proposing a permanent use for a one-story industrial building with a total GFA of approximately 9,336 m. The permanent use will consist of 89 associated truck and trailer parking spaces, 104 vehicle parking spaces inclusive of five accessible parking spaces, and one access proposed from regional road number 50, which is highway 50. Next slide, please. Prior to finalizing recommendations and advancing associated final report to council, this development application is further evaluated for compliance with the planning act as amended, consistency with the provincial planning statement, conformity to the in effect city of Bmpton official plan, council approved Bmpton plan and its highway 427 industrial secondary plan. Next slide, please. The subject site for the proposed zoning bylaw amendment is designated industrial and within a corridor protection area in the city of Bmpton's official plan which permits the development of light to heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, processing, repair, and service, warehousing, and distribution. Please note that these lands have recently been removed from the MTO's Highway 413 corridor protection area. An amendment to the official plan is not required for the proposed development. Next slide, please. Under the council approved Bmpton plan, the subject site for the proposed zoning bylaw amendment is designated employment areas within schedule 1A city structure of the BMPON plan and employment within schedule 2 designations of the Bmpton plan. These designations permit land uses such as warehousing, distribution, construction, light and heavy industrial uses, trades, outdoor storage, and other uses requiring a range of land parcel sizes. Next slide, please. The subject site is within the highway 427 industrial secondary plan SP47 and is designated as logistic warehouse transportation. The proposed development falls within this use and an amendment to the secondary plan is not required to facilitate the proposed uses. Next slide please. The site is zoned agricultural A. This provision allows for agricultural per purposes as defined in section five of the comprehensive zoning bylaw as well as non-aggricultural uses such as a single detached dwelling supporting housing residence type one or a supportive housing residence type two, a cemetery, an animal hospital, a kennel, and a home occupation. Purpose accessory to the other permitted uses permitted purposes is also permitted. An amendment to the zoning bylaw is required to facilitate the proposed development. Next slide, please. The applicant has filed applications proposing both a temporary use for open storage, including truck and trailer parking for a period of 3 years, as well as a permanent amendment to the zoning bylaw for an industrial use, which includes 9,336 m of GFA. Proposed sight specific provisions for the temporary zoning bylaw include permitted uses of outside storage of oversized motor vehicles and accessory office including a mobile office trailer for a period of 3 years. Proposed sight specific provisions for the permanent zoning bylaw include permitted uses of a dry industrial use excluding any use which is obnoxious because of the noise or vibration created or the emission of dust, dirt, objectionable odors or gases. a warehouse and the manufacturing, cleaning, packaging, processing, repairing or assembly of goods, foods or materials within an enclosed building, including a motor vehicle repair shop. Please note that staff have prepared an associ associated recommendation report listed as item 7.1 on tonight's agenda. Please note that there should there be any concerns or questions from members of the public that are the recommendation report can be deferred to a future meeting. Next slide, please. This shows the proposed concept plan of the proposal at this time. Preliminary issues and considerations that have been addressed through the bylaws are appropriateness of the proposed temporary use relative to surrounding context, appropriateness of the proposed permanent use of industrial building relative to surrounding context and adjacent approved site plan applications. Implementation of appropriate buffers, landscape treatments and noise mitigation measures through the zoning bylaw amendment. landscape treatments to adequately screen storage areas for the proposed industrial building and temporary truck and trailer storage. Pro property implications and traffic impacts from implementation of required right turn lanes as part of the highway 50 road widening project under review by the region of Peele. These issues and considerations have been addressed as part of the recommendation report. Next slide, please. staff is hosting a statutory public meeting this evening to share information of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment on the subject site and provide an opportunity for members of the public to express comments, perspectives, and opinions. Staff will advance a final recommendation report for council this decision this evening based on the details of the proposed development and applicable planning laws and policies while incorporating comments and considerations from community members, technical reviewers, and other stakeholders. Next slide, please. For more information on this development proposal, the applicant submission materials, including architectural plans, drawings, and supporting studies. These are publicly accessible through the city's brand plan online portal. Type the file number of the application in the required field, which is in this case is Oz 2024008. This brings up the file page where by clicking the file info tab, you will be allowed to view all drawings and documents associated with the development application. Next slide, please. This public meeting presentation will be available online as part of the planning and development committee meeting minutes shortly. The final recommendation report is posted on the city's PDC meeting agenda. For any questions or comments about this development application, please contact myself or the applicant, Blackthornne Development Corp. who is representing 2798536 Ontario, Inc. The corresponding contact information is shown on the screen. Next slide, please. Thank you and have a good evening. >> Thank you very much. U we'll go to our list of delegations in order. We have Amanda Corbett, Carmemella Poco Pocowski, Franki. Those the three of you >> or two online >> online. Okay, Amanda, welcome. You have five minutes. >> Great. My name is Amanda Corbett. Uh I'm a resident of Bolton and I'm also a director of the Kaledan Community Road Safety Advocacy Group. Um we're here to provide some comments and I have quite a few questions regarding uh this application. Um I had also sent in some photos so hopefully those can be brought up. Yes, I see that photo is there. So great. Um so um first off uh I would like to say that I'm very thankful to see that this application is coming forward before a truckyard exists on the property. Uh that's very refreshing because there's lots of instances where they're not. So very glad to see that. Um however we do have some concerns. Uh in reading the staff report it mentions the application has regard for the protection of public health and safety. It's not anticipated to result in adverse environmental effects. Uh it's an appropriate location for growth and development and is well designed as per uh section R2 sorry 2R ensuring storage area is appropriately screened from the adjacent lands. Um my major concern with this property uh is highlighted by what's shown on the screen here. Um really it's about risk to public safety uh based on the traffic chaos that already exists here. So the aerial photo that was in um the agenda item uh is missing a lot of the context um that I've included based on this Google Maps photo. So you'll see the subject property in red. On the Vaughn side, you'll see several illegal truck yards. The one further furthest south has just received a temporary zoning uh courtesy of City of Bon. Uh the one just north of that um has uh an application that's in and recently had a public meeting. And then the other two that are a little further north uh that are also illegal uh currently have zoning applications before City Vaughn. They haven't yet um gone to great discussion. So our concern really is the traffic chaos here. Um and you'll see in yellow there there's a center median. So that particular trucking yard that has been approved in Vaughn on a temporary basis. What is happening is that trucks are exiting that property and heading north waiting on the shoulder and pulling U-turns into oncoming traffic. Uh we have videos on our um on our CCRSA Facebook page showing this. This happens on a regular basis. Routinely there's traffic lined up in both directions. And I assume what's going to happen is trucks are going to be in the center turn lane waiting to turn in or out of that property. Um, and with all of the chaos that's going on here right now, public safety is a huge concern and we're really really worried that somebody's going to die here because of all of the the congestion. Um, so adding more trucks and having the access coming onto Highway 50 uh is really kind of untenable. Um, and from a public safety perspective, it's not not okay. So, this particularly, this particular yard is going to add 42-way truck trips onto Highway 50 in the morning peak hour and in the afternoon. Highway 50 can't handle more trucks. I do have questions about um why the background developments aren't really considering the Vaughn context considering it's on the same road. Um, and I have some confusion about the temporary truckyard site plan. Um, I believe the the temporary yard is supposed to have a full moves access, but the industrial building in phase two will not. And I think some of the concept drawings show a center median that's going to be put there. I'm not sure when that's happening and like how that will be a full moves access. Um, I also want to know if the site plan considers snow storage because often we find that that's a problem. um especially when we have big snow dumps that you know the trucks can't come and go if that's not properly planned in advance. Um and lastly, I'm curious to know what the reason is for having a public meeting. Um and a decision on the planning application on the same day. Um, I would hope that this means that the public's comments are going to be considered and if there's comments that need to be addressed, either the decision will be deferred, but it's a little concerning seeing a public meeting and a decision happening right on the same day. Um, and those are my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um, we'll make sure that staff um have those comments when they come back. Well, you'll be notified um when this well technically the report's on the uh the agenda, but councelor Tour, do you want to we'll go through the delegations and then we'll we'll speak to the report. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thanks so much for your delegation. >> Carmela, >> welcome Carmela. >> Thank you so much. >> You have five minutes. >> Great. Good evening, chair, mayor. I'm not even sure if the mayor is on today. because we got here a little bit late. But counselor, staff, members of the public, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Carmemell Peloski. I'm also one of the directors of the Kaledan Community Road Safety Advocacy Group or the CCRSA. While I'm a resident of Bolton, I'm here tonight on behalf of residents from Kaledan, Bmpton, and Bon, communities that are all connected by and share Highway 50. For those of us who travel Highway 50 regularly, there is a common theme in our conversations. Regardless of which municipality we call home, the theme is danger. It's fear. It's a growing safety crisis. Residents are increasingly concerned about the volume of truck traffic in this corridor. We witness transport trucks making U-turns in front of vehicles, crossing into oncoming lanes, cing creating hazardous situations on a daily basis. At the same time, truckyard applications continue to come before municipalities and continue receive approvals. The reality is that this is not a question of if a tragedy will occur. It is a question of when. And that tragedy could involve any one of our family members, friends, neighbors, or even yours. You have the authority to deny these applications. The roads in this area cannot safely accommodate additional truck traffic. We have reached a point where congestion and safety concerns are no longer manageable. We must stop concentrating more truck related uses in this corridor. We recognize that there is a legitim legitimate need for truck parking and truck related facilities. However, those facilities should not be located in areas with the with appropriate infrastructure to support them or they should be. They should not be concentrated along a corridor that serves as both the front and backyard of our established residential communities. I urge you to consider the communive impact these approvals are having on Highway 50 and on the residents who use it every day. The safety of our communities must come before intensification of truck related operations in this area. Please do the right thing, not only for our families and friends, but yours. Do not approve any further truck parking on or around Highway 50 until this mess has been dealt with. I thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. >> Thank you. >> Uh we have Frankie Frank uh France, my apologies. Franka Pani. Franka, are you online? >> I am. >> Hi, Frank. Uh, you have five minutes. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. Frank Pisani, resident of Bolton also. Good evening all members of council and the public. Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I'm here to speak about all three agendas in general. Um, is it possible that they could be documented on all three uh matters? Uh, that's what I would like. I'm here tonight to speak about the safety risk associated with the continued approval of temporary zoning for trucky yards along Highway 50 and their surrounding areas. The situation has become so serious that many residents generally pray for themselves and their loved ones every day, hoping they make it home safely. That is not an exaggeration. It is reality in living in the area overwhelmed by heavy truck traffic and trucking operations. This issue is deeply personal to me. I have lost two people I knew because of careless commercial truck drivers. One was a friend's daughter was only 23 years old. The other was a friend's husband, 60 years old, with two children at home. Their lives are cut short, and their families will carry the loss forever. Yet, despite these tragedies and many more, the cycle continues. Every time a truckyard receives temporary approval, it sends a message to others that they can do the same. Let's just set up shop and ask later. Although there is one that is doing it the right way. One receives approval, five more appear. Before long, agricultural rural lands are transforming trucky yards without proper zoning oversight or accountability. At the same time, the governments continue to speak about fighting organized crime. Yet, we have seen countless PEL regional press conferences involving organized criminal activity linked to trucks in our area. We have seen extensive media coverage, including CBC and other outlets, highlighting unqualified commercial drivers operating on our roads. Despite all of this, Highway 50 and the surrounding areas remained filled with hundreds of trucks with unqualified drivers and unsafe vehicles. There is nobody controlling them, nobody watching. The problem has become so severe that the province of Ontario is considering a truck inspection station on Highway 50. That alone should tell us there is a problem. I've had people tell me they refuse to visit me in Bolton because they're afraid of driving through the Calum Bmpton Vaughn area corridor due to the sheer volume of truck traffic. Think about this for the moment. For a moment. Residents are becoming known for living in an area people are afraid to drive through. So why would this council make it worse by approving more temporary truck zoning? What is particularly frustrating is that many of the companies seeking temporary zoning approvals are the same companies repeatedly appearing before council or companies associated to one another. They operate first and ask permission later. And I do thank the uh the one that is asking for permission first, but we just can't handle the trucks uh on Highway 50. Calid is now introducing a new entrance permit bylaw and the province is bringing forward legislation this fall specifically aimed to helping municipalities combat illegal land use. These actions are being taken seriously because governments recognize there is a serious and growing problem. What I do not understand is why the existing regional entrance bylaw on regional roads, which is Highway 50, is not being fully utilized to shut these the ones that have are operating illegally down. If unauthorized commercial entrances and truck traffic are part of the problem, why are the tools that already exist not being used to protect the residents today? And I know that this specific one um is asking for permission first, but you've got the other two coming up. Um, and that way I won't waste time afterwards. Um, and I believe they're in courts already. So, when these applications came forward seeking temporary approvals, I asked myself two questions. First, why are the environmental impacts and contamination risks often overlooked? But more importantly, why is the safety of residents not even being considered? Every day we w we witness speeding trucks, red light runners, tailgating, illegal U-turns, trucks driving on the shoulder on the opposite side. It clearly demonstrates lack of training and qualification. Most almost every day there is another collision involving commercial vehicles in our area that cannot safely navigate our roads and intersections. Council cannot say it is unaware of the problem. The evidence is everywhere. It's in the media. It's in the police reports. It's in the provincial discussion. It's in the federal discussions. Most importantly, it is in the experiences of residents who live with these impacts every single day. Change starts with this council. Tonight, I'm asking you to put the safety of residents front and center when considering each of these applications. Even this one that is not illegal and they're asking for permission first. We cannot take the truck traffic there. We can't take anymore until this issue is resolved. Please consider the broader consequences of continuing to permit trucking operations. Residents deserve to feel safe on the roads. Our lives matter more than business interest. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. See, Kaledan is well represented here today. Um those were our delegations. Is there anybody else that'd like to come down and delegate on this matter? Seeing none, anybody online that'd like to come and delegate? Seeing none, I'll get councelor Tur to move receipt of the staff report and the uh delegations, the the public meeting report and the delegations. And uh council tour, would you like to bring forward that report now? and the members of committee. The report is now before you >> tour. >> Thank you uh through you Mr. Chair. Thank you to the delegations that uh came forward and spoke to this as well. Uh I'll keep my remarks brief because I uh I believe that we're receiving the um public portion of the meeting. uh seeing that the recommendation report was on there uh under 7.1 um and and speaking with staff as well I think it's best that we refer this matter back to planning uh so that they can uh incorporate the comments that we have received today uh from the delegations I believe there's written correspondence as well that I I've been emailed from uh the surrounding land owners as well if any of those comments could also be incorporated uh and then that come back for recommendation ation report um at a later date. Um I don't know if that comes back to next planning meeting, but whenever is appropriate uh for that recommendation report to come back at that time uh addressing uh all the all the commentary that we've heard here today. >> Not sure if that can come back next planning meeting, but um and councelor Turan talking to you, there's a lot more of uh your residents that have been reaching out to you. So, you need to get that those correspondents to to staff. Um, so it's and they didn't delegate, but uh I know that they've been reaching out to you. So, let's get that uh to staff to be able to uh do a a report based off of all the questions, statements, and comments that have been made here tonight and from the counselor's office, both councelor Tour and Deputy Mayor Singh. And that I think that's a proper motion been moved by councelor Tour. All in favor? That carries. Did you want to speak? No. All right. So, that's been referred back to staff for Okay. Um our that's adjourns that item. The next item is 7.1 is done. Delegations done. We have uh 7.2. Madam clerk. 73 >> 72 consent 721 consent 73 >> 73 were delegate same listed delegations wasn't that the property we just did >> uh councelor tour >> thank you through you Mr. chair. Uh I believe the delegations that just came forward uh for the previous item were their wish was to have the same delegation duplicated for this as well. I think they were addressing >> except for >> Okay, we can bring down Amanda for that delegation. >> Okay, perfect. English. Thank you. >> This is 73. >> Yep. >> Welcome Amanda. You have 5 minutes. >> Sorry for the confusion. >> N I have some different comments >> for that one. >> Um, okay. So, I have a few uh photos up, but um I'm going to go through my little blurb and try and get as much as I can in in the five minutes. Um I'm very curious to know what the special study area on the official plan designation map relates to. Um that that wasn't clear to me uh within the document. Um, and I noticed that the aerial and existing land use map uh that was included in the agenda completely does not represent the current land use. I think it shows a farm on this property and as you can see from Google Maps and for quite some time uh it has not been a farm. Um it seems that that site came into operation illegally sometime between 2022 and the photo in 2023. Uh so number one, again, huge traffic concerns with this particular site. Um which may not be completely obvious when you first look at this map cuz they come out on Old Castlemore. So what could the problem be? Uh well, on Highway 50, um Old Castlemore Road is actually, I believe, supposed to be closed. Um and it's also not supposed to have trucks on it, uh at Highway 50. Um, and frequently that's the entrance and exit that they use. The amount of crazy driving and number of trucks that have been lined up in the center turn lane trying to turn left into this property is amazing. And a lot of times they get frustrated with waiting and sometimes you have two trucks trying to turn in at the same time, cars trying to drive around them. Like it's it's like living in a circus. uh but in the worst possible way. Um so huge traffic safety concerns here. Uh and a lot of times they can't see how fast the oncoming traffic is coming. So I've seen so many near misses here. Uh it's it's quite shocking. Uh if you can go to the next photo. Um I want to show the condition of the road at Old Castlemore and Highway 50. So this is just a Google Maps photo. In that Google Maps photo, you can see how bad the road condition is. You could actually lose a car in some of those potholes. And I am not exaggerating. And routinely trucks are coming in and out of there. Um dragging dirt on the road. It's it's really really really crazy. Um I'm curious to know um one of this the secondary plan photo talked about this um particular intersection being a secondary gateway uh to this community. I'm not sure that that's what a secondary gateway should look like, but I I I assume that means after it gets developed. Um I also wanted to know if there's second there are any outstanding bylaw infractions on this property or legal proceedings against it. And my other major concern is that in September of 2023 um they had an approved temporary zoning with four holding provisions. They needed to provide a satisfactory functional servicing report, a satisfactory noise impact study, a satisfactory traffic impact study, and old Castlemore to Highway 50 had to be rebuilt to the city's industrial road standard. The new temporary zoning bylaw that's up for discussion has those same four conditions. So, they had temporary zoning in September of 2023. They have not met any of those conditions. They have still been in operation and they're back asking for an extension for another 3 years with those same conditions. Um, I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think it makes any sense to even consider approving this application. They had no intention of meeting those requirements before. Why would they know? Um, the traffic response letter uh from September of 2023 was particularly laughable and also completely inappropriate and infuriating to read. Um I will read if you give me the liberty just a couple uh and then I'll be finished with my comments. Uh so one of the comments from City of Bmpton was uh section one states it may be several years before the site can reach its full parking capacity. However, aerial photography reveals that this site is currently operating in excess of the proposed 144 truck parking space capacity with several hundred cargo containers currently being stored on site. The response from the applicant acknowledged. Uh, another one, section four, the city requires further clarification of the subject site operations. This section repeats what's mentioned in section one that the site does not have a tenant. It's the current use is the current use of the site with the storage of cargo containers to be stopped. and is this site to be repurposed for storage of tractor trailer units or is the current site operation to be maintained? Response of the applicant. Based on the information received thus far, the proposed temporary use bylaws to support the storage of tractor trailers together with a maintenance building. It's our understanding that the current cargo containers are to be removed. Considering that they're not meeting any of the other conditions, I find it highly unlikely that that's going to happen. Um, I'll end with the last one. Old Casserore Road is required to be rebuilt to industrial road standards before this proposed current development can operate. This is a question. The response from the applicant. The current development is already in operation without obtaining permit from the city. Uh, city of Bmpton's leading this road reconstruction through a draft plan of subdivision. Their response noted and the conclusion based on the turning movement counts collected at the existing access the peak hour truck traffic is negligible and will have no impacts to old Castlemore road or highway 50. Does that picture look like there's no impact? Uh I think this needs to be rejected. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. Uh councelor Tour. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Uh that was a really thorough uh delegation. I wish I can hire you on retainer on future industrial commercial matters. Um you did a good good review and I know there's a lot of questions here and perhaps if Mr. Chair we can if I can address the report at the same time as well. >> This is the report. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um so some of those questions are similar to the questions that I have. Uh number one, I'll go off with what's on screen here. The old Cosmo road. I remember this discussion three years ago when the site came forward it got deferred once came back again uh and we decided okay let's approve uh the temporary zoning we'll put a holding symbol we want to see the road get completed one I want to know what's the status of that road and is that is that portion counted as city-owned property is that technically a road because um madame clerk if you can go back to the old picture the another another picture that was there that one there that's a culde-sac that ends over there and then it's like a gravel dirt area. Is who owns that area? Is that city owned property? Is that going through a developer property? Is that a city road? I know on Google Maps it shows a road because that's a matter of GPS traffic. It's picked up. That's why it shows a road, but is it actually a road past the culde-sac? >> Sorry, councelor Tori. While staff's answering that, um, we received the delegation. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for your delegation to staff >> through the chair through to councelor to uh first I can't speak to the particular limits of old castmore ownership I know because it uh touches highway 50 the region appeal would own a portion of that intersection and then that the rest of cast would be under the city's ownership. I am happy to report though that uh uh to your point earlier about Old Castlemore being discussed at council about its um timing for reconstruction. So the city has now worked with the land owner to the south of this property who's charged with uh leading the reconstruction of Old Castlemore. That process is currently well underway and um the land owner to the south is going to be working with all of the land owners on Old Castmore for the appropriate cost sharing. To the um delegates earlier comments, if I could touch on those about the holding provisions, Old Casmore being one of them. All of the required studies have been submitted into uh the various departments and uh checked all the boxes. I understand the applicant has also submitted an application to remove the holding provision once those studies are um uh completed. The staff's recommendation report before committee tonight recommends the holding provision still stay on the three-year temporary until such time that Old Castmore is reconstructed. I'll defer to staff to fill in any details that I may have missed. >> I can just add to um Steve's commentary. So the old Castlemore intersection is also being upgraded with the region. So through the conditions of approval for the Glenshore subdivision, which is the land owners to the south, um they've paired that with the called the sacking of Old Castlemore Road. So that will terminate at Rainbow Creek be upgraded to industrial class A standards along with intersection improvements and signalization at Old Castlemore Road. So we are anticipating the completion of that road hopefully sometime in this calendar year. It is a developer-led project um with to Steve like Steve said with cost share and um lifting of the holding condition obligations all tied to everybody's temporary use bylaw. >> Okay. And on the previous temporary use bylaw, was the holding was the whole lifted? >> I can speak to the lifting of the H. So the the applications filed. So there's actually three applications filed on the subject property. It's uh it's in the report, but there's a site plan um which would implement any conditions associated with landscaping access arrangements and any required land conveyance for Old Castlemore Road. My understanding is they're just required to convey a portion of the boulevard. Old Castlemore Road is in the municipality's ownership. Um so it's just boulevards that are required through the site plan. There's also a lifting of the holding symbol application which was filed with supporting functional servicing report noise studies. Those studies are satisfactory to us, but we haven't lifted the hold because the road's not reconstructed. So, right now we have three applications um with staff. A site plan, a lifting of the holding application, and a reszoning application to extend um the three-year temporary use, which can be done through the authorization of council um from the existing approval. So um three three in total still with us. >> Okay. So if the previous holding symbol wasn't lifted yet, the site has operated for the last four years under the temporary use. >> Yeah, I think um we can follow up on the enforcement related pieces there. I know um we we'd have to work with our legislative staff and enforcement just to confirm what exactly the situation is with in terms of compliance. >> Okay. Yeah. Because there there are other enforcement issues of this as well highlighted by the delegation as well is uh what the temporary use should it get approved which it did holding simple lifted site plan submitted is for truck and trailer parking. It wasn't for containers on ground. Uh that activity has been ongoing for the last 3 to four years. Um and that has been an issue there. I've got numerous complaints about it. I've personally brought up those complaints as well with bylaw services. Uh we have been working on this file for a very long time. Um that's where a lot of the hesitation comes in terms of supporting um an extension on the three-year uh period here. Uh at the region appeal, I've heard similar delegations as well uh along Highway 50 and how dangerous Highway 50 has become. Again, Highway 50 is a big industrial corridor. We're always going to see trucks. There's never going to be a day where there's no trucks on the road. Um, but to ensure that trucks can access and and get off of Highway 50 safely. If you go by that intersection anytime at night, there's not even a street light there that tells you there's a driveway from which a 53-footer could just come on to Highway 50 and could possibly turn north, which I've seen happen multiple times. If you look at those photos of the condition of that intersection, that is proof of how many trucks and what speed they come into the intersection. Those big potholes are caused by trucks when they come to a sudden stop. uh that's what's causing those that's not just weather related events. So imagine the impact it's going to have if that if that stop is instead a collision uh with any of the vehicles that travel north and south on that street. What what kind of damage that would cause. Um I've heard about we've heard uh from the delegate online about uh the loss of loved ones. Uh we've seen many instances in the news again and again. I've talked about this in this council before. Um, I've talked about this at the region of PEL as well multiple times about how the the condition of highway 50 today and I feel like we're just still headed in that direction. I'm happy to see that after 3 years that finally the landowner group there is coming to a point where construction could start this summer on the delivery of that road. But we've still allowed them the grace for three years for four years in fact um to operate on that site. that has been unacceptable and to to allow them the grace to do that for three more years. I don't see the goodwill from that landowners group there, not just the site alone, but but that group there on completion on So there's that truckyard. I know the the platinum freight truckyard that's right next to them. I'm assuming they're also coming to a end of their use this year as well because they got done at the same time to allow them with this use again is is going to be problematic. Um, I see the applicant's uh uh representative wanting to speak. I don't know. Mr. Chair, is that would that be okay to um allow him to answer I guess address some of the comments I've made? >> We have to open the agenda and sorry we have to uh open the agenda. Adam has a delegation. I I I'd be happy to do that if council would support it because I feel like uh the applicant or their representative uh should be able to address some of these comments here today. So if I can request that >> let's do that. So um councelor Tur move to reopen the agenda the twothirds all in favor add the delegation Maritzio Regado from Blackthorn Developments. Uh all in favor also moved by councelor Tour. In the meantime item 6.2 Two was an application amend the zoning bylaw draft plan subdivision km planner partners upper Mayfield estates caliber homes was a public meeting anybody in attendance to hear that an item on that uh staff presentation on that seeing none item 6.3 was also an application by blackthorne development Royal Empire Group uh to permit the development of 12story mixeduse apartment buildings commercial uses at grade along with 52 townouses there was no delegations but there's a staff presentation anybody here to hear a staff presentation on that item. That item is also adjourned. Back to the added item now, which would be 7.3 >> 3.2.4 >> 7 3 >> 2 >> two and a half. >> Mio, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I I want to begin by saying I'll be very brief. I I apologize for imposing on the agenda. Uh I wanted to make some remarks uh through you, Mr. Chairman, and councelor T. Uh and I thank you for your concerns. In fact, as a registered professional planner, I share your concerns and with uh the greatest amount of respect, I believe, um the matter of land use and truck parking in particular is pretty wide ranging across the entire Golden Horseshoe. And the way to deal with it sincerely and in a safe and proactive manner is to ensure compliance. And the way we do that is uh relying on the process we have here that this committee oversees which is the planning act process. In regards to this application, as the commissioner and manager me mentioned, uh we've been working very diligently uh to try to bring the use into compliance. And the good news on that is out of the remaining holding symbol conditions, the only one that remains is the functional servicing report condition and the construction of Old Castmore Road, uh the extension of this bylaw in essence allows that process to continue with sincerity. uh denying the bylaw would have the effect in essence of that process not being being interrupted, the road widening for Old Castle Moore not being granted to the city and the works not proceeding. So again, I would encourage committee to allow our process our planning process to continue uh to let us bring this use into good compliance, safe compliance. We do that by enhanced engineering features on site, proper grading, proper storm water management, and ultimately the improvements to the road for which the trucks use. Um, you know, generally speaking, I think we all would agree that, you know, truck traffic mixing with resident traffic is not a good thing. Um, so we do that through traffic calming measures, road improvements, and again, uh, I recognize councelor Tur remarks. You're on point. Uh my only request is that you allow us to continue the process. We finally got all the land owners together. We finally got a cost sharing agreement now that's uh in play to get these road works advanced properly and the road widening would be conveyed to the city through the site plan application which has also been filed. Uh so I just wanted to shed some light on the facts and what we're doing here um to try to bring the use into better compliance, Mr. Chairman. and I thank you for allowing me uh to make remarks and I'm here to answer any questions. >> Thank you for your delegation. We do have some questions. Councelor T. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you uh Mr. Rogado for um that commentary and I believe that is sincere uh from a planning perspective. Absolutely makes sense. That's what we want to see at the city. Anybody that's not compliant, let's figure out how to get them compliant. We four years ago, councelor Plesi and myself did a round table with all land owners that were perceived to be non-compliant uh and explain how the process should work. This is exactly how the process should work. I have no issues with the process. I have no issues with the planning file the way it is, what's been proposed. There's no issues with the temporary use of that site as well. It helps service the CP Railard, the neighboring area. I totally get that. We understand that. My problem is with the implementation of what's going on there or what's happening on the site currently. What's happened there for the last four years for the last four years that has been an illegal use. They are coming to terms and trying to come into compliance especially with that uh road and I would love to see that intersection get signalized so that you can have proper movement there. uh but without any of that to continue that use for the last four years asking to continue that use for the next three years is sort of saying one thing and doing another thing and that's not representative of you. You're their planner. Uh you're doing the the good part of it, the planning and and coming before council and and doing it the right way, asking the right permissions. Um but on the applicants uh um actions for the last four years I'm having a very hard time to believe that is in good faith to support this to say that let's give them three more years for their site to be in compliance for that road to get done for that signal to get uh that intersection to get signalized. That is going to take probably three years. in those three years they're gonna they're going to expire their use of the site their temporary uh use of the site which is still going to be non-compliant throughout. So you understand the position I'm in and in sitting here again we had this discussion three years ago. I don't want to keep going in circles about this. It is a very hard discussion especially when you have residents. I was away for a week. All week long I've got my residents calling me off the hook. I was with my family answering calls just talking to residents again and again. I've we've seen the videos. We saw at I believe either at this council or region appeal council about trucks and the way they move on Highway 50 right now and we've been pressing staff at both levels to improve Highway 50. We've got a lot of progress that's happened there, but if I do this here today, I'm being hypocritical of my decisions in the past on council and I don't want to do that. Um um I I'm happy to move receipt of the delegation, but if I can go back to just addressing the report, I do have some questions for staff. >> No questions of the >> No questions of the delegation. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Councelor Tour, back to you for the staff report. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for allowing me the the additional time to speak about this as an issue. Uh I want to understand if this bylaw doesn't get enacted, does that hold off on old Castlemore Road getting completed? Because I believe that the developer to the south is front ending that and moving ahead >> through the chair through to you council tour. Your um your belief is exactly right. So old Castlemore has been tendered by the developer to the south. the tender has been awarded. Uh staff and I are working with that developer on a fairly regular basis to ensure that that road is constructed. Um there may be elements of the boulevard perhaps um that may not be fully constructed which we would work with various land owners to the north to capture through subsequent site plans but the road casmore is on schedule to be constructed. >> Uh thank you um for that clarification. So that developer there that's to the south that's front ending and completing the road. They've done it the right way for the last how many ever years. Nothing's moved on that site other than probably some earthworks that they've got permitted for. Um similar to the other application that we dealt with earlier where the applicant has not used the site at all and has come forward to ask for the use. Those are good. That's good planning. That's what I've learned in the in the last four years here. what's happening here is I I don't believe that is is where we support uh the extension of this temporary zoning bylaw uh would hurt us. I am happy to see that old Castlemore road get fully developed all the way to Highway 50 become a safe intersection. If we want to enter entertain a temporary uh use at that point, I have no problem doing that. If we want to talk about industrial development there, no problem in doing that because that will move at that that means at least the truck traffic that moves there will move safely. economically we benefit as well from the CP interotal and all the activity around. I would love to see that happen. That's not what I'm seeing uh right here in front of me. I know my council colleague has uh has comments as well on this. Perhaps after he's uh done speaking, I'll get back on the board uh for direction. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Tur. Deputy Mayor Singh. >> Thank you and uh thank you councelor Tur for your comments. Um couple of questions. one, did they get their building permits after their last uh last temporary uh when they got their temporary permission >> through the chair to the deputy mayor that so there would be no permits associated there's no building so there would be no building permit per se >> but there are site plan >> um so site plan but one the site plan's not approved um in in these cases you would essentially get a site alteration permit which would allow you to grade um but that would you know an approved servicing plan with grading plan would be required to get that permit which to date we don't have. So they never >> well in absence of site plan approval due to old Castlemore road not being reconstructed right so everything kind of comes back to the completion of the road and our inability to do that is directly tied to that road >> okay um so they already had three years correct me if I'm wrong they can ask for three more than they have to build on there >> so the uh through the chair the planning act um through the temporary use section of the planning act essentially allows a municipality ility of council to approve a temporary use on a three-year basis, but those extensions can essentially be authorized by council every 3 years. Um, so the planning act is structured in a way where every 3 years we we'd have to go back to council seeking an extension and uh that three-year period expires September 2026 of this year. >> So there's no restriction. They can keep coming back cuz I thought one time we were talking that the temporary um parking can only be extended once. No. Okay. >> We uh through the chair. We might want to just section the best. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. >> Through the chair through to you to deputy may sing. the temporary use bylaw that um under the planning act an applicant can reapply for extension of that temporary use and that can be brought forward to committee or council as it is today and then that is a second extension of that. So in essence you would get six years of temporary use. >> Okay. And last question is um like the previous uh report that uh councelor Tour uh referred back um they had uh discussed getting the temporary zoning and then moving to full uh building and and a final sort of outcome for the site. Is is that similar to this site as well? Is there any anticipation of you know a full building or anything >> through the chair? No, not not at this time, but um I think that's always our goal is to get a permanent development um on site. You know, recognizing in some cases temporary uses may be appropriate, but I think the goal is to get a permanent use there and happy to have that discussion with the applicant. >> Mhm. Cuz if I look at the success stories in in that area, they they are the ones that got the temporary zoning for 3 years and built something and you see the you know which ones I'm talking about. you see the actual applications coming in now for uh the full building and everything. So, they did honor their their word. So, I get I guess I do understand councelor Tour's concerns with this. I don't mind doing temporary zoning if the the final pro product is going to be a building with with office space and everything, but this is a little bit uh deviates from that uh norm, especially for that area. Uh, so I'll leave it for councelor tour to um see how we're gonna move forward. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you. Before I go to councelor tour, I'll just uh maybe say that so I've worked with um uh trucking outfits that have gone through the the three-year temporary use um and have done significant work during that time to come into compliance. Um, and it's unfortunate because they're on a street like Winston Churchill as opposed to Highway 50. I've been around the council chambers here at the region long enough to listen to former mayor Thompson, former councelor Andis, former councelor then Downey now Shiovalier, and Mayor Groves. Um, and I it's extremely difficult with all of these trucks on Highway 50. Um, Highway 50 is a road that wasn't built for truck traffic. Highway 50 is is it's kind of like a miniature of Hart Lake Road where it's something that shouldn't be um part of it. That being said, uh the region has um a timeline for the improvements to Highway 50. Yet, they're not um they're not timelines that, you know, are are starting anytime soon. And with the downloading of roads, then you have to start asking yourself, are their timelines the same as our timelines? That we don't know, right? So, difficult questions. And I don't envy the counselors of the area uh because they certainly know the fatalities on that road. They certainly know about the amount of accidents and and um the uh unfortunate incidents that have taken place on that road. Uh so but we're we're here for whatever you want to do with this and councelor Tur I'll now move it over to you. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Well said. Um, I would like to actually move this refer this back to staff. Um, because we need some additional information on this as well. Um, and you made me think about this. Um, Mr. Chair, if I can get information on the timelines, uh, the new timelines that the region appeal has. I know they're taking undertaking a lot of work on Highway 50. They're working with the region of York. There has been good movement. if we can uh get those timelines. I'd like to see comments from them as well on uh signalization of that intersection. I I didn't find that myself. Uh but if we can get those comments as well from the region appeal, I'd like to understand that. I'd like to get updated timeline on the construction of Old Camore uh from the developer that's front ending it. I I believe the construction is starting this summer. I want to know when the construction is ending. uh I'd like to find out those three things uh before we can even contemplate uh supporting this application in any form. Uh supporting this would mean doing the same thing we did 3 years ago hoping that the world's magically going to appear and it didn't. Um we got to do it differently this time. So if we can get that information back uh and perhaps that is a good opportunity for the applicant to work with our staff, address these concerns, understand uh what's going on on site here. Um, Deputy May Singh made those comments as well. There is a building on site, a pre-fabricated metal building. It is part of the application as well. There's no building permits for it. And I get there's no building permits cuz there's no site plan. There's no site plan because the zoning hold hasn't been lifted. Why? Because the bolt's not done. We're going in the circle through years again. Uh, I don't want to do that. Uh, let's put the horse before the cart this time. Let's make sure that that road is getting completed before we can contemplate supporting the site at all. I am not willing to look any of these people in the eye and say that good job on delegating at the region multiple times about safety on Highway 50, but here you go. I'm going to put hundred more hundreds of trucks back onto the road there through a driveway that that is not visible at all to people. And God forbid something happens there. We're all wearing it. At least I'm wearing it on my conscience. Uh, so I'd like to refer this to staff to get that additional information back and perhaps work with the applicant to address the comments that we're hearing today and come back to a a committee um at a future committee date and perhaps that's when we can make a decision on this. But I'd like to make that well-informed decision. I'm not just trying to give the applicant some more grace on this to make sure that they can do it right. And in the interim, I don't know if it's through this process, but maybe I will give direction as well, is that I want our bylaw services to go back out there to look at that road. That road is still open. There's barricades, city barricades that are supposed to be at the end of the culde-sac that are no longer there. Trucks are still accessing Highway 50. I don't want to see that again. Tonight when I go home, thank you. >> From my understanding, back when this was an issue, we put the barricades up. The next day, they moved them. I think that's what he's referring to. Um, okay. So, just procedurally, councelor Tur, I can't let you move a referral, Deputy Mayor Singh or myself. We've all spoken to it. I've spoken to councelor Keenan who's happy to move the referral. Based off of your comments, the area counselors, the delegations, um, and any correspondents that have run through the counselor's office as well. Um, so that referral is before you staff are good with that. No formalization, just that referral based off of that. And I'm sure there's going to be meetings with the area counselors in the near future. All in favor? Carries. Our next item is that's along with the delegations. Madame clerk, our next allegation, our next item 74757677 8.1 is a staff report from Andrew Remi Planner development services window wells and path of travel for additional residential units been it was held by deputy mayor Singh. Deputy mayor. Yeah, >> I've been um trying to just understand the ramifications of this to make sure I'm making an informed decision. So, we're talking about window dwelling units and access uh for an entrance that's below grade. Correct. So, what I'm understanding is the path from and and I'm trying to as I'm explaining this, I'm learning this uh so forgive me if I get anything incorrect. Uh but what I'm hearing is the path to the entrance that needs to be um there there should be no window dwelling um in in that direction until the um entrance to go to the basement. Not not the whole house like just Yeah. Yeah. through the chair. You have it correct. It's from the front wall to the actual entrance itself. It needs a 1.2 meter path of travel and that cannot be obstructed by a window well encroach window well. >> Okay. And when a builder builds a new house for example we have area 47 coming. Are those uh do they include window dwellings in the house like does it come with window dwelling or that something people add after? >> Sorry. Mr. Chairman I I'm understanding. >> Sorry. Well dwellings is it or dwelling? It's window dwellings. >> Window wells. >> Wells. Sorry. Well, yeah. >> Yeah. through through Mr. Chair. Yep. Councelor, I'm understanding that like typical arrangement from the home builders is that yes, they'll add windows to the basement, but there are those typically those small windows, but they're they're not the larger windows that require then a window. Well, so sometimes it is after the fact when it is that a a landowner is making some improvement to their basement, putting in a basement, apartment, etc., They'll then increase the size of the window and by way of their needs for accessing those windows allowing for larger windows they then construct the window well. So yeah, it's that window well that as per the current comprehensive zoning by light does not allow the encroachment of that window well into the 1.2 2 meter required area >> because my fear is those houses because I've been seeing the new house are much much tighter like extremely tight as and so I'm just concerned that um I don't want to restrict um secondary units just everything else is approved except that portion um doesn't allow somebody to do a secondary unit. So um and what about if the entrance is from the back of the house? through Mr. Chairman Press. >> Would that make the whole side of the house? They can't do any window wells. That's what I'm trying to figure out. >> Yes. Through the chair. They would still need a 1.2 meter path of travel through one yard to the entrance. That's the rear of the dwelling. And that would not be allowed to have a window well encroach into it. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. is what what are the ramifications with this across the city like some a policy like that? Is that going to restrict because my goal is to make sure everybody legalizes their basement? I don't want to have people having everything else hit the building code except be significantly restricted if this is going to restrict. That's what I'm trying to ask staff. Is this going to restrict people significantly? >> Perhaps I can speak to a little bit of that uh deputy mayor Singh through through Mr. The implication as I see it as we know currently the comprehensive zoning by requires that there be no encroachment of the window. Well, the our report on tonight speaks to uh having that same uh arrangement applied to our current zoning bylaw. But that requirement of not having a window well permitted within that 1.2 2 meters uh to the entrance of the unit. I think what that really uh results in is the layout of a basement then basement apartment can still occur. It's just the the configuration of how they lay out the rooms and such would have to be done in a way that there isn't like typically it's bedrooms that have that larger window and then then therefore a window well. So the way you're planning out a basement wouldn't then have a a bedroom located along that side of the house that has that in that 1.2 meter wide area through to the entrance at the side of the house. So you can arrange your basement in a different manner so that the window well or any window well isn't in that specific location. You can have it located in other areas of that basement apartment along the other outside walls of the dwelling itself. Okay. And if if somebody has currently is registered in the RL and then we go we do the yearly I think um get them to register or whatnot. Um and they have a window well on the way to the entrance. Are they going to be affected now? If through the chair if they were legal legally it was created at the time it was the the was created it was legal then it would be have legally non-conforming status and would be allowed to continue. >> So it would be kind of grandfathered in. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh the the one that concerns me is the back entrance. I just I don't know the ramifications of that. I get it the pathway to the house. It's just all the way to the back end. Um, you know, I I don't it's not yes or no. I'm just I'm trying to juggle with that in my mind because that seems excessive. That means on the whole side and sometimes we want to we rather have them entrances from the back anyways because it doesn't bother any neighbor and then now we're kind of disincentivizing that as well. So, um yeah, I'm not sure. I think uh we have a delegation >> and if I can and we're going to bring up a delegation but maybe um um for discussion maybe there's other opportunities but um let's uh let's move over to the delegation who is Tanvir Ray Ray Tanvir come on up I wanted the deputy mayor just to uh get it out speaking there before you before you came up but uh let's uh have your delegation you have five minutes and welcome thank you my name is Tren Ry from Noble Prime I work as a senior designer in an engineering firm that deals basically with the accessory dwelling units in the basement. So, um the gentleman over here was absolutely right. The basement can be designed in a certain way that can avoid the windows on the side, but 99% of those basements will be bachelor apartments. 80 to 90% of the house in Bmpton have either four ft set back on one side and two fts on the other side. This is how the detach homes are built right now. And then the rest are semi corner towns. So all those house are eliminated. I cannot design any of the houses in a way that I can only have windows on the back. I need windows on the side. And 80 to 90% of the house the brand new homes that we go and see a builder's house. They have windows already there. I understand they are not egress window but they are regular window wells which are encroaching 1 ft into the sideyard. So that still leaves me with the 3 ft of setback for me to walk into the backyard. 4 ft of setback. I'm not saying it's an overkill but that matter can easily be resolved if city allows us to do some kind of covering on top of the window well that can be grading that is done mostly in Toronto cities but city is not even accepting that fact as well so city just wants no window well no matter what happens but I think based on that we cannot design the basement unless it's a really big detached home I can design it but a regular Sammy or a corner townhouse there's no way I can design it unless it's a b a bachelor apartment without ready with the bills. >> Okay. Thank you for your delegation. Any questions? Council Tour has a question. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your delegation actually helped answer a lot of the questions, especially given that you're a designer. Yes. >> I was going to ask you that question. Um perhaps for a little bit more clarity in a case where uh if if we enact this and you can't have window wells on the sides and most windows now will have window wells based on building code, based on design, you need to have window wells. So if you don't put any windows on the sides, your only windows you're left with are on the rear. Correct. >> That's it. >> Doesn't that limit your design on where your bedrooms are going to go? Where the sun's going to go in a unit? >> There is no bedroom then. It's an open concept bachelor apartment. So there's no bedroom realistically. So that basically you won't have a bedroom apartment anymore. It will be only bachelor apartments. So who will live in those bachelor apartments? Like family would love to have a bedroom. >> Yeah. So then by design you'll just have a kitchen, a living and an open >> that's the whole reason why I'm here because it technically takes the whole purpose of making an accessory apartment. If you can't have a bedroom in an accessory apartment, what's the point of building it? And if you can't don't want to build an accessory appointment, why do have such bylaws set up that you cannot even create anymore? Like 10 years ago, the things were different, but now it should be >> Yeah, I I just I I I totally get your point. Sorry to cut you off there, but I do have additional questions. You made this comment about how this would restrict uh semis and corner lots. Yes. >> Could you just expand on those two different things on how this affects those? So I would say 95 to 98% of semis have only four feet set back on one side and on the other side obviously there's another house. >> Yeah. >> So >> sorry. Can I ask you where you're getting your percentages from? >> Well I work with so many numbers because we do roughly 12 to 15. >> You don't have actual percentages. >> No that's based on my assumption. I'm not saying it's a statistics. I never said it's a statistics. >> They're yeah you don't have to believe it. Yes. But I work with so many numbers. So I'm giving based on my work. So based on how many I do a year, it's roughly close to 2,000 basements. That's part of Bmpton as well. Based on that, I see that all those numbers are 4 ft setbacks on the side of a semi- detached house. So if if I end up with 4 ft, I cannot put any window on those side. >> So I'm only left with the back windows. >> And is that the same for corner lots? >> Um not for cornered. How >> what's so what's the design challenge on corner lot? >> With corner I I can have more than fourt. So this this wouldn't affect >> No, this wouldn't affect the corner townhouse. It will affect mostly semis and a detached home. >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you. >> No more questions of the dele your questions of the delegation. Councelor Keenan, >> thank you. Thank you for your delegation. What's the reason that you put larger windows in the basin apartments? >> It's a building code requirement. So if there's a bedroom over there, it needs a certain amount of light in that bedroom that meets the 2.5% of the room room size. So if it's a 100 square feet bedroom, I'd need a minimum 30 x 24 window. So if I go with minimum 30 x 24 window, in most of the house it do needs a window well on the outside. >> Okay. Is the window well used for regress like for somebody to get out? >> Uh in some cases yes but that we try to put that in the rear yard so it does not come in that way. So we try not to have an eress window well in the pathway of 4 ft that can go into the back here. But if a regular window well which is only 1 ft out encroachment into the sideyard then we don't need any eress on the side. >> And this is just a a question cuz I don't know um if the if the window is for light and not necessarily for um egress based on building code. Do you need such a large window well? >> They're not that big of a window. Oh 1 ft is a regular window well. So the encroachment of 1 ft into the side there that's a regular window well. That's the minimum we get in the book. And and do you understand why we looked to enact a bylaw of this magnitude? Do you understand why we did it? >> I'm considering that it's a safety reason that nobody falls into the window world. >> Safety. So we need we need to make sure that emergency personnel can access the entryway to save lives. So when it comes to safety for me, I can't see me doing something different. I think we worked hard on this to have it approved. I feel like there's ways that you still may be able to um accomplish it, but when it comes at putting, you know, um our personnel because most a lot of the fires we get are in basements and that's no no saying no wrongdoing. It could be happen from cooking. >> Um but we also have a responsibility to our emergency services to be able to make sure that they can have access in there. So, anybody who's sorry. So, anybody who currently anybody who currently has a basement apartment that's legal, they're in for a legal non-conforming. Anybody who's looking at buying a new home and adding one should maybe understand that those are the parameters they might be held with. Um, for me, I'm very supportive of the staff recommendation here. This was actually put into our um our bylaw, which is going to take time. with staff's recommendation that we bring this here to make sure that it doesn't happen between now and then because we understand and staff understand that it's a massive problem. So, um I do understand what you're saying and I respect the fact that you're a designer in those, but I think it's our job to make sure that they're done safely and I think this is something that's going to make sure that that's done and that's why I'm going to be supporting the staff's recommendation on this. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> No. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Any other questions of the delegation? Sorry, I didn't hear your answer to the emergency. >> I didn't see I didn't hear in a form of a question, but >> I'll ask it. >> Okay. Yeah, please. >> So, >> so what do you say to that? Because that is a rationale. Uh >> uh what I was saying that you can have a grating on top of the window well that will allow you to walk on top of the window well. That's pretty common in Toronto area. I'm not suggesting you that take get rid of the window well or all I'm suggesting is if I can cover it with a window or with a grating I can walk on that I can still have a 1.2 m setback for the safety personnel that will solve my purpose of doing the design it will solve this person the safety personnel as well that they can walk on top of it you still have 1.2 2 meter and if safety is the concern it will solve the problem of the safety as well. >> Yeah and I think that's something that we had looked at and yeah um any other questions. >> No >> no council short question of the delegation. >> Okay. >> Uh thank you. Just you said you've seen this in city of Toronto. You're saying city of Toronto approves something like that to happen. >> If you walk on in downtown you will see those window coverings the steel window coverings on top. You can just walk on top of that. It's pretty common in Toronto. >> Okay. That's all my questions for the delegation. I do have questions for staff. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh councelor T questions of staff. >> Um three uh thank you uh three Mr. Chair. Uh just to confirm from staff then uh city of Toronto does have a provision like that where you can have grading over uh window wells >> through the chair through to you to councelor to I can't speak to the specifics of city of Toronto but the staff report before you does uh highlight that staff did look at the grading whatot I've seen that part of it and the and the challenges with it. I'm just trying to understand like other municipalities if they have something where they're okay with doing that then maybe we should look at hey can we do the same um but is that a no >> 100%? >> No no no I meant no I meant like other municipalities have something like that >> through through the chair through to councelor to I can't comment as to whether or not the city of Toronto does have that. >> Okay. I mean city of Toronto or any any municipality just trying to understand what kind of solutions there are over there. Um just further questions to staff I this could be my understanding it could be wrong here in this and that I appreciate the discussion around this now. um if this was enacted and if it limits the ability according to what we're hearing anecdotally that it limits the ability on uh conformity for existing units that are not um not in compliance or for somebody to build a new unit. This is going to limit our ability to add that housing stock through ARUS like this will limit our ability to achieve those housing targets as well. Right? you have a single detached house, no issues, nothing. The homeowner thinks, "Okay, let me put a aru here because I'm allowed to, but they cannot, they won't be able to do it because we've had a delegation here in the past where we looked at pictures of like roof lines almost touching from one house to another house. There's barely any space between those. I don't know if those even would be uh arus would be achie achievable on those sites even with existing potl. But I feel like this further restricts that as well. it will limit our ability to add on more housing in our city, especially in the form of ERUS. And if safety is the is the concern of that, which is a valid, super valid concern, uh we don't want to put our first responders in in in a in a risky position where they cannot access or they cannot leave safely from a dangerous environment. Um but if we can look into what other municipalities are doing similar to that, that may help answer some of those questions. My hesitation is coming from restricting the ability of of additional arus on sites. Um that that that that's where I I sort of struggle with this. Um lastly, if if we were to adopt this, would you recommend that future site plans or future zoning bylaws that come forward that we revisit the distancing between homes then and increase that to make sure that at minimum that every new house that we build, if it's a if it's a semi or a detach, at least not a townhouse, like I get the exceptions, but if it's a semi or a fully detached house, that any new application that comes in, any new site plan that comes in that we make sure they have that minimum distance there so that those homes without a doubt will have the ability if they choose to add au safely. Are we willing to look at that across the city to make sure that distance like the lots are getting smaller and smaller, narrower and narrower. They are getting tighter. Residents would love to have bigger lots. I get it. But I we we do this and then we allow >> these narrow lots to still exist and those applications to still come in. We're restricting the ability for people to add a basement and that's how most families including mine started their life here and that's what's going to h like I don't want us to restrict that in the city of Bon like that's my challenge like to the commission of planning like do you think we can if we can concurrently with this look at that zoning bylaw across the city to say here's the minimum distancing with all houses going forward new applications >> are we not going to have the ability through the planning act >> through the shared it through to councelor Torque. Maybe a couple things. Um, so council already approved this through the new comprehensive zoning bylaw >> and I voted against it >> and and leading up to the comprehensive zoning bylaw, staff brought forward um a number of reports on performance standards and setbacks. So if there's direction from council to today to or committee rather for staff to revisit all of that then staff will take that as direction >> but sorry just just on the on just and I sincerely ask this question are we willing to look at citywide to say all future applications should have this minimum distances between homes because I know in my area like Area 47. I know those lots are narrow. I know those like wall to- wall we're going to be very close like you could touch your neighbor's house >> through through the chair through council tour. Excellent question. So, uh, again, I'll go back to the comprehensive zoning bylaw and then maybe, um, an example that was brought forth to tonight's planning committee and last week's where, um, we had some, uh, plans and heritage heights where the ward counselors wanted opportunities to have further consultation with staff prior to draft plan, subdivision, and zoning bylaw enactment. Anytime staff bring forward a recommendation report to council, there's always an opportunity for council to do that prior to enactment of a zoning bylaw. So, I would say that process already exists and it's up to council's discretion to exercise uh that prior to enactment of a zoning bylaw. But >> and and I get that and and we have like done that work on our side of the city as well. But I mean as a default so that a council member doesn't have to go through that process on every single site plan application and look at it and say hey I want to change these lots so that they may meet meet this minimum requirement. I'd like to see that then happen by default. >> So so if if you can because I've worked on this and and I moved that motion for three items that was on the report. You have applicants coming before us now >> that want reductions in their setbacks >> and it doesn't work for a ton of residents that are out there. Where do you pile your snow? How do you how do you walk in between your you and your neighbor, your backyard? How do you enjoy your backyard life? So, we have minimums right across the city. Um and so it but it's up to like anybody can come before us as you know and ask for those ask for those reductions. >> What I'm asking is can we increase those minimums so that it will by default achieve this as well going forward so that by default every house will have the ability to add au safely. So, I think that's a bigger discussion because of land values that's putting a lot of money back into it's making it a very overpriced house >> and that's that's where I exactly struggle with this cuz I know we won't be able to do that. We're going to make housing harder for developers to build at at a at a cost that they can they are able to bring housing to market, but at the same time, I don't want to limit the ability of a homeowner as well to add another unit. and we've achieved our housing targets by getting ARUS into compliance. This is severely going to restrict that. That's my concern. Uh just another question is I know we're just talking about window wells here, but for that path of travel, is this restriction applicable to like gas meters, hydrometers, air conditioning units, anything on the sides like if those are in the path of travel? Is that impacting this as well? Yes, the rules are not changed for things like air conditioners. So, right now the requirement is that there be an unobstructed path of travel and like an air conditioning unit would be considered an obstruction and that has been the interpretation. That's the been the approach for um over time. That that's hasn't changed at all. >> Sounds good. I don't I don't have any further uh questions about this, but I hope I'm able to address my I've been able to vocalize my concerns appropriately on this m to you, Mr. Chair, the commission. Good% >> through the chair, through to councelor to thank you very much for your questions. In addition to um my comments about council uh having the ability to exercise a revisitation of any sight specific zoning bylaw at any time. Um, just to remind council, there's been several pieces of provincial legislation that have been passed recently that further adds to this whereby landowners now have 10% as of right deviation and setbacks and whatnot. So to to look at something across the city, I would argue that's a fairly comprehensive exercise that staff could do if that is the will of council. But I believe a lot of work has already gone into that leading up to council's adoption of the comprehensive zoning bylaw. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, no further questions on this, but I I I right now I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I I if there was a way to have further discussion with staff on this and fully I I don't think I this I may be talking out of fear, but I don't think I fully understand the ramifications of this uh coming into effect. >> Thank you, councelor. Deputy Mir Singh. >> Yeah. Similarly, I think um my nervousness is around and I get it older mature areas, the the issues are different, but I'm driving by area 48 that's getting constructed now. I know what we've passed in area 47 and this policy has huge ramifications for those new developments. And so, I'm very nervous to just put my hand up on that when the ramifications are going to be immense. And I know we've talked about secondary units and how are those going to help with affordable housing numbers coming out of the area that's connected to half as well. So, it's like it's all connected and I think I I I need some more analysis on this, some benchmarking as well. Um and then the ramifications of the new developments because I know for example we talked about alternative design standards on Dixie and countryside and and you know it's easy to that wasn't in my term of council but it's easy to sit here approve it looks good on paper paper and the ramifications of that was the whole area you couldn't park on one side of the street and then we worked with staff to get that changed and now thanks to staff you in the new parts of area 48 you can park on both sides of the street but that those ramifications affected every single house All they kept saying is how was this approved? How was this approved? How was this approved? So, I'm not against this. I get I get some of the uh I obviously we all understand the safety behind it and that should be paramount as well. Um but if other municipalities are doing this has huge ramifications on future developments on the affordability um of of especially when we talk about WS 9 and 10, the new developments in area 47 have funding. We've been arguing uh we're hitting our targets with ARUS and then on top of that a a basement for personal use, you also need the similar uh permit too. Correct. Cuz I know many people get hit with a personal use uh and they have to go through the process as well. If I'm constructing my personal use basement, do I need with a kitchen and Yeah. The question is if you need a building permit then yes you will need permits but the path of travel requirement the a the window well encroachment applies specifically to an entrance for an aru >> to which one sorry >> it's applies specifically to entrances to arus >> to arus okay and the personal is different than >> basement >> okay and that's separate from a aru okay all right so but having said that the consequences on area 47 which is over like 30 40,000 houses the consequence of area 48 8. I need to understand that before I just um stick my hand up. So, I just asked for a referral. We don't need a long referral to go through it. Let's see what other cities are doing and let's get something that works for everybody, especially in the new developments. Like I said, I w I drove through area 48. I It's very very very very tight and and I don't want to put my hand out for something that's going to restrict the whole neighborhood and everything. So um yeah with uh understanding it's complex understanding safety side affordability numbers half everything let's let's just make sure we know the consequences of this um and we've had done some benchmarking as well. So I would ask that we refer it back to staff. >> Okay. Uh councelor Keenan. >> Thank you and uh through you Mr. Chair. Um, understandably, um, I I I I believe that my colleagues bring up some good points on a few of the benchmarking, um, things that they would like to see. Um, understandably, we've already passed this. This is just the in the in the mid in the term between when that's fully enacted because of the process and because of appeals that we're doing this a little sooner because of um, uh, the time frame that the other one would be enacted. Um, but we'll support it as long as staff can come back um in our July council meeting uh with that information so that we can just deal with it appropriately. I'm happy to support it if we can put that time frame on it. >> Uh yeah, that's absolutely what I'm going to request next. Um none of you can move the referral or me myself. I'll ask I see councelor Power is online. Ask Councelor Power to remove uh to move the referral uh to the July council meeting. Let's go. Committee meeting in July. Is there a committee meeting? >> The council meeting is tentative. Is there a committee meeting? >> Yep. Just today. >> Yeah, we're going with the July. >> July is going to happen. Yeah. >> So, there's a committee meeting in July. >> Okay, perfect. We'll >> we'll put it over there. If I have to chair, I can I'm happy to chair. >> Um, but then to staff, reach out to area counselors. I know that there was a big Well, I was I I certainly took part in the initial um moving and this was a little bit foggy to me like uh like the area counselors. So just that interrum period which I didn't fully understand now I understand that it's it's there for the interim but uh let's have uh word pairing meetings. Um been referred by councelor power. Can I get the okay for me to to refer this item? >> Yeah through your chair I'll refer. >> Thank you councelor power been moved by referred to council by councelor power. All in favor that carries. with along with the delegation as well. Madame clerk, the minutes were put into consent. There's no referred matter. There's no general correspondence. Councelor, sorry 8.2 growth management staging and sequencing secondary plan area 47. Minutes were on consent. Yes. >> 13. >> That's where uh council question period. Any members of council have any questions uh that they'd like to add or they'd like to ask on anything on the agenda? Councelor Tour. >> Just one quick question. Uh just for clarification, I believe there with this previous item. I believe there was another item that got referred to July meeting, right? >> Plus that last planning meeting, there was something that was referred to July as well. that report >> to confirm. There's a bunch of items that are going to >> or is that just to a PDC in July? >> The wording of the motion that we had on screen was simply to refer it back to staff for further consideration. We didn't indicate a specific date for it to return. >> Okay. I had thought I added it but it was not definitely not in the motion but I do staff are aware that it's coming back in July because it needs to prior to uh prior to the zoning enactment and uh drop. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Public question period. We have uh a little bit of time here for members of the public to come on up um and ask about sorry >> I wasn't going to tell them how much time we actually have. Um please state your name for the record. >> Thank you. Uh name is Veto Battle, president of Unifor local 1285 and I'm joined here by Artist Snow, the chairperson of the Bmpton assembly plant. Uh we really don't have any questions more of comments um and commentary. So >> need you to form them in a in a question. >> End with a question. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Procedural. Got it. Um so you know I believe we're speaking on it's 7.5 the zoning of the Brmpton Stanthis Brmpton assembly plan. >> Um you know we've been part of this process uh from day one with the city. Um I know this is a question period and we wanted to take this moment to to speak on it as well like we've done at every one of these meetings. Um we represent over 3,000 members at the Bmpton assembly plant, thousands of other members in the supplier base. And um this step that we're taking here at council to zone the land and make sure that it's automotive only is a huge step for our members is a huge step for our members in the supplier base and the whole community cuz we know that the Bmpton 70 plant is the bedrock of the city of Bmpton and we can't let can't not let it get away and we can't not let them skip away and that is the length is what we're talking about. So we're here again um standing in solidarity. We are applauding the city for standing with us in solidarity shoulder-to-shoulder uh with Unifor with local 1285 and the members that work at the plant and the supplier base as well. So we applaud you again and the question I guess would be um is this the uh uh sec second last step to the next council decision. I think they want to find find out about procedural for the zoning of the area before it goes to province. I can't speak to what step we're at, but I can answer the question by saying yes, it's on the agenda for today. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. Thank you. >> Thank you members of council. Um any other questions? Seeing none, there's no closed session. We'll now move adjournment. It's been moved by councelor Keenan that we adjourn the meeting. Our next regular scheduled meeting is not July 6th because that one is being cancelled because there's no pending. So our next one after that I think we might have a placeholder in August. If not September but like always if I want to call one you will come and we will deal with work. I've been moved by councelor Keenan we now adjourn. All in favor that carries. Have a wonderful evening everybody.