Hello and welcome to this meeting of the Planning and Development Council of the Town of Oakville. Madame Clerk, do we have any regrets for this meeting? >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. We have regrets from councelor Algar. >> Okay, thank you. I I imagine the other counselors will join us in progress then. Um, council, are there any declarations of conflict of interest? Uh, madame clerk, I see none. Uh, moving on to the approval of previous minutes. Can we have a mover and seconder? Councelor Longo and Councelor Chisum. Thank you. Any objection? Madame Clerk, there being no objection, the minutes are adopted. And um, that brings us to the consent agenda. Are there any requests to pull an item from the agenda for discussion? And if not, can I have a mover and seconder for the consent items? Councelor Adams and Councelor Grant. Thank you. Any objection? Madame Clerk, the consent items are adopted. That brings us to our first public hearing item, the zoning bylaw amendment for Thieve Investments, Inc. uh at 580 Burloop Drive. And uh I'd like to call on Arlene Bowmont representing Thieve Investments to provide a presentation. >> Thank you very much. My name is Arlene Bulmont. I'm with Outrid and Associates and we are the agents for The Investments. We submitted a zoning bylaw amendment application to permit a commercial development with a mix of retail, restaurant, service establishments or service commercial establishments and offices. The uh zoning bylaw amendment is not for the development itself for but for two of the uses which are the retail and the service commercial establishments. Next slide please. So, the site is um almost a perfect triangle located at the far west side of Oakville at the at the intersection of Burllo Drive and Great Lakes Boulevard. Uh Rebecca Street is to the south and Harvester Road is to the north. Um at the bottom of our triangle, uh you can see there's a a a path, a pedestrian trail, and a row of trees. That is actually um part of unused road allowance that is owned half by the town of Oakville and half by the city of Burlington. My client is proposing to purchase from the city of uh sorry from the town of Oakville their portion of the unused road allowance. The city of Burlington is not selling their portion. So that remains as is today. Um, in terms of uses, the residential subdivision that you see um, underneath the site is actually within the city of Burlington. Other uses in the area are generally all employment uses. There is also a place of worship across Burloke Drive on the um, right hand side of this photo. Next slide, please. So this uh shows the lands that are being uh purchased from the town of Oakville. They will be folded into the development site and the total area of the development site is um a little over 7,000 square meters or.7 hectares. Um as you can see those that that path with the adjacent line of trees within the city of Burlington will not be impacted by this development in any way. Next slide, please. So, here's our um proposed site plan. We have two buildings. They're both roughly triangular in shape to be consistent with the triangular shape of the site. There's going to be quite a large pedestrian walkway between the buildings. And at the second level, there will be a pedestrian bridge that connects the two buildings. Um, two site accesses are proposed. Both are on Burllo Drive. The one on the left side of the drawing will be a right in, right out only. The one on the right side of the drawing will be right in, left in, and right out. Cars will not be able to go left out from this site. And that's due to our recommendations from our traffic engineers who felt that the sight lines were were better served by uh write outs. We're proposing 92 parking spaces. That is 11 more than the bylaw requires. Um within that 92 are four handicapped accessible uh spaces. We're also proposing eight bicycle parking. Um the we have submitted a landscape plan and the landscape plan shows a line of trees at the bottom of the triangle that will screen the parking area from the um uh residential development behind and that's in addition to the trees that are already there. So this development will be very well screened from the residential neighborhood. I should also mention that there will be no outside storage of garbage. All garbage will be uh stored interior to the building. Next slide, please. This is our architect's concept of what the uh development will look like. As you can see, the seconds story um walkway between the the two buildings and the pedestrian um the pedestrian area, congregation area between the two buildings. Next slide, please. So, in the official plan, uh this site is located within an employment area, but is at the very edge of that employment area. Uh the lands are designated business commercial on schedule F. The uses there are many uses permitted in this in this designation but they include limited retail service commercial including restaurants, motor vehicle uses, offices, hotels, public halls and commercial schools and a number of others. The official plan says that retail and service commercial uses should not exceed 2500 square meters of total floor area. So um all the uses that we are proposing here meet the bylaw land use designation and the retail uh uses will not exceed 2500 square meters. Next slide please. So the subject lands are currently zoned E2 which is a business employment and that permits a number of uses including a mix of restaurants, offices and medical offices. However, retail and service commercial establishments are not permitted in the E2 zone. Therefore, we're requesting reszoning to E4, which is business commercial. So, that would permit the retail and service commercial establishments that my client is proposing. Again, retail uses cannot exceed 2500 square meters of net floor area for all the retail on the site. We do require a little bit of sight specific zoning because in the E4 zone the required um uh lot area is six hectares. We have 7020 hector. So we do require um uh some sight specific. However, the parking provided does exceed the bylaw requirement. Next slide, please. We had a community information meeting about a year ago. Um and there was many issues brought up. I've sort of tried to condense them into uh a a few major issues. So traffic and parking uh were concerns. We have pro provided a traffic impact statement. Um as I said, both driveways will be uh restricted access as per the re recommendations of that report. Parking exceeds the bylaw requirement and there will be no access either pedestrian or vehicular from the development site or from the uh commercial development into the um residential neighborhood. Um there was concern that the development will not benefit the neighborhood. Well, it's obvious that people living in that neighborhood may use the uh may patronize the businesses that are going to be located in the commercial development, but there's also opportunities perhaps for um part-time employment. Retail and restaurant uses um often require part-time help. And so for students or stay-at-home parents that are looking for part-time jobs, this might be a great opportunity. Noise and nuisance associated with fast food was another concern. Um, first of all, we're not sure exactly what the mix of restaurants will be. It may be fast food or it may be restaurants with tablecloths and real silverware. We don't know at this point. Um, however, steps are being taken to make sure that the residential neighbor to the neighborhood is screened as much as possible from this development. Um, and as I said, all waste is going to be stored indoors and all bylaws require with respect to opening and closing hours for retail and restaurant businesses would be adhered to. Tree removals and an increase in hard surfaces. That was another concern. There are four trees, one on the subject property and three on the road allowance that's being purchased from the town. Those are the only trees that will be removed for this development. So, a total of four trees. We've also submitted a storm water management plan to account for the increase in hard surfaces on this site. One of the things that was brought up is the people in the residential neighborhood have just lived through um considerable do considerable disruption that was created when the overpass was done on Burlo and they were concerned about more inconvenience um you know more problems related to construction and of course the reduction in property values again all bylaws governing construction will be followed there is that buffer as I I've said and um that existing screening of the site the uh the trail and the and the trees that are there will will be remain unt untouched that public trail will remain as is. Next slide please. So in summary we're proposing two twostory commercial buildings retrail restaurant and service commercial uses at grade with offices or medical offices on the second floor. Uh there will be the pedestrian mall in between the two buildings, the two vehic vehicular access points which are both going to be restricted. Um and the site requires resoning from E2 to E4 just for the retail and service commercial establishments so that we can permit those uses. The property's small size and the shape of it make it really not very suitable for a lot of employment uses. It's also immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood. So we feel that the proposal for retail restaurant office is an appropriate use for a site at the edge of an employment area and adjacent to sensitive land uses. Next slide, please. So that's my dog and pony. >> All right. Well, thank you very much for your presentation. You've generated some questions starting with councelor Chisum. >> Thank you worship. Can we go back to the slide where the parking stalls uh in the back have that site come up? >> Okay, thank you. So just out for my own clarification, the parking stalls are right adjacent to the building. What about shipping receiving for if you're putting commercial and restaurants in um pickup and deliveries? Uh is there is there room of access? How is that going to work with the the parking so close to the building? So um I don't know if you can see it but on the far left sort of at the the corner of the the bottom left corner of the triangle there is a loading space there and goes into loading area where they will be keeping the uh garbage and that kind of thing. So there is a loading space provided on this plan. So, what I'm trying to understand, if you had a restaurant, say, in the middle of the triangle or down the other end, how do they access how do the vehicles access to drop off uh food products and so forth to the to the restaurants? >> They would probably have to deliver at a time that's not too busy and park in one of the vehicular parking like the the car parking spaces. I would think that's what's going to happen. So, what about uh garbage storage and so forth for the commercial restaurants and so forth? Would that would that be behind the building um adjacent to the parking lot? >> No. >> What I'm trying to understand is there any access to those back doors uh for deliveries and pickups and uh garbage disposal? >> Oh, yes. So the garbage will be where the loading uh loading area is uh on the bottom left corner and then yes there will be doors um throughout the plaza doors and windows throughout the plaza uh along where the the top row of parking is that people can access those stores through there. They can also access stores through the pedestrian mall. So having the parking at the back. So really the store we're guess I'm getting concern the storefronts are in the front of the top of the triangle. Okay. But to access those stores or commercial they would have to go through walk up that um um concourse and go to the restaurants in the front. Is that correct? >> Yes they probably would. Yes. >> Okay. So they can't access from the back. To me, the logic is you reverse it, but your storefronts in the back. Anyways, that's just me. Um, okay. The question is also with um Burlington. Why didn't Burlington didn't want to sell that that piece of property? What was the rationale? >> Sir, I I don't know their rationale. We they were approached and they said they did not want to sell. >> Okay. So the grading and so forth for that part, are they concerned about any flooding with this development flooding uh their back? Is there a concern about that? >> That would be all handled in our storm water management plan and in our grading plan. I don't have those in front of me, but it all would be dealt with through those uh that the plan and and the storm water management report. They are taking into consideration pre- and postdevelopment flows. >> Yeah. I just find it interesting that it's all the back and your storefronts are on the front for access. Anyways, thank you very much. >> Thank you, counselor. Counselor Mcnes. >> Thank you. Uh through your worship. Um I attended the uh the virtual uh public meeting. I guess it was about a year ago. Um so I I can say I mean it was largely attended by Burlington. I think probably all Burlington residents and uh who are obviously largely opposed to it because residential neighborhoods abuting it. Um and I think that's why Burlington's unwilling to sell. They want to provide a a bit of a buffer uh from the residential neighborhood to the uh commercial. Um a couple questions I have. So, you're switching zoning from sorry E2 to E4 and you said you're looking to add retail and service commercial, but you mentioned a lot of restaurant uses and a lot of the uses you mentioned are allowed in E2. Um, retail's allowed. Uh, restaurants are allowed. So, I'm just trying to understand what you're hoping to achieve by going to E4. So uh retail and service commercial are not permitted in E2. So we have to go to E4. They have a lot of uses in common. >> Oh sorry re retail store. Okay. I see what you're saying. Uh so it's the retail and then service commercial. Can you give an example of what type of retail and service commercial you're looking at? So service commercial would be something like a hair salon, a nail salon, barber shop, that kind of thing. Um, retail could be a convenience store, could be, I guess, any kind of retail. They are small spaces. They're not like, you know, huge department store style units. They're smallish spaces. So, somebody's looking for a small retail footprint. An art store maybe or something to that effect. >> Um, okay. Yeah. I mean, I do see art. Well, art gallery has allowed me to um >> Okay. So, it's largely you're just trying to be able to have a convenience store uh and a few things like that and that's the purpose of the zoning change. >> Yes. To to permit that retail >> and so commercial. >> And then a question to staff just about this presumption of the purchase of land from the town of the road rightway. Is that something that's going to be evaluated in the report back and we'll get staff's opinion or is this something that's already been discussed >> through your m Mr. Mayor? Uh that is something that we would be uh covering in the final uh report to council. But in terms of the disposition of land, that would ultimately be a council decision and that would have to have a corresponding report to it. >> Okay. And we'll we'll get a better understanding of the value of land and things like that. That's correct. >> Okay. And I imagine you'll suggest I mean I can't think of al alternative uses but you know at one point a road went straight through there. You know I don't I don't know why we'd straighten Burllo again but that used to be burllo. Um so if there anything on the horizon in the future you'll let us know before we make a final decision. >> It's here mayor. Yes councelor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you then councelor Mcnes. Councelor Omira. >> Uh, thank you very much for this. Um, I just my question, why why uh why would there not be a fence that that uh goes between the parking lots and the the residents? I mean, light light shadow pulling in is going to flash through even with trees there. And a lot of the residents are concerned about um light pollution obviously in and out for the evening. So, why not consider a fence um or or a fence and tree combination? >> We can absolutely do that. >> That would be great if you could do that. Thank you very much. Do you know the distance between the back of the plaza and the residential homes in Burlington? >> I do not. I think the my client did measure it. Now, I don't know how he measured it. I'm not sure how accurate, but I thought he said it was over 100 meters. 120 sounds about right, maybe, but I don't know. He didn't he didn't use a surveyor to measure that, so I'm not quite sure how he did it. >> Okay, no problem. Um, and then maybe just to uh to staff, if you could um include in your your report, there's a plaza just to the north. I'd like to know what the distance between that plaza and those residences uh is so we can get a a sort of apples to apples um uh understanding of of you know are the residents on the other side of the street you know that that much um in place or are they that much closer so we can sort of gauge you know what what to expect going forward um and and just as well whether Burlington the city of Burlington has commented on this application or not I don't know ma'am maybe you know that or maybe that's a question for staff, but I'd like to know if the city of Burlington has put any comments forward on this application. >> Mayor Burton, um the city of Burlington is a commenting agency and they have provided comments on this application. >> Do so we'll get those comments in the final report then I guess. >> Oh, sorry. They were in there. I think that's right. >> Yes. for you, Mayor Burton. Um, >> the comments are still coming in, so there will be a more detailed outline of the comments included. Um, and I can incorporate that into the matters to be considered as part of the future recommendation report. >> That would be great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Councelor. Councelor Adams, >> thanks very much for the presentation. Can you walk us through the bike facilities that you've got on the site again? >> If you go back has a slide that shows them adjacent to the pedestrian uh walkway. Um, next slide, please. You can see the silver bike. Um, >> I see you've got a small number of bike lock up circles. >> There are eight in total is what we're proposing. >> Um, I wonder if that's adequate um given what you're trying to do. So, that's piece of feedback that I've got for you. Um, second is the northbound traffic out of this site. How would it how would somebody go northbound? >> So, the only way you can go out of this site will be right. You will not be able to go left, which would be northbound. They will some if you need to go northbound immediately, you're going to have to make some sort of a a turn and then come back around northbound because you can't we will we won't be allowing northbound out. >> And and where would the logical place be for that? probably um I'm I'm just guessing here would be people would turn right, go into the subdivision and then come around to come out the subdivision on the other side. >> I could see why people might be kind of annoyed by that. Um and in the alternative, they're going to be trying to go into, I don't know, the church property and doing a turnaround there, or they're going to be doing a U-turn on Burllo. um >> hopefully not the ladder >> or or worse Great Lakes or at the intersection there. It that sounds like a problem to me and I wonder if our staff could report on that particular issue. Um the last question I've got for you is in the change from going from uh going to the um the business commercial, there's a I believe a greater allowance for restaurant uses, what percentage of the space do you think is intended to be for restaurants? At this point, I I have no idea of what uses will be there. We're probably two years away from leasing any space and um it will just be what's in demand at that time. But there will be a cap on the amount of of retail space at 2500 square meters >> of retail. But what about the restaurant? >> There's no cap on the restaurant in the zoning. we could potentially if if that's something the town would like potentially tap that as well in our site specific. >> So I I wonder what the the intended mix is there and I wonder if our staff could report on that recognizing that you are in a effectively um on the edge of the business community and and the intent is to support the business community there um as opposed to being a a pure retail location. Um the there was some questions about what's going to happen on the Burlington side of the the right ofway at the back of the property. Um is there intention there to continue having I think there's a some kind of bike trail or walking trail space back there. Is that going to stay? What's the what's happening to that? And what's the uh potential connection point between this property and that? >> So that was something that did come up at our community meeting and the residents were very clear with us. They did not want any connection between the development property and at least on a direct connection between the development property and their neighborhood. They were concerned about uh security issues and that kind of thing. And they were very clear that they did not want a connection. >> I I appreciate they don't want a connection into their neighborhood. They don't want some kind of connection directly to uh Thelma Street or Stella Lane, for example. Um, but do they is there going to be So, I asked you about bicycle parking earlier. Is there going to be a connection point for pedestrians to walk onto that trail from um the site that you've got? So, if you go back in your slide deck, uh I think it was maybe two slides earlier or something where you showed the site plan. Um there um one more um Not that one. >> That one. >> Okay. So, um, where you've got your parking lot, you have no, um, there there's no addressing the back of the property with respect. You've got this Burlington portion of unused road allowance and, um, you're there's no there's no effort in your site plan really to address the fact that you've got this adjacent property other than you've got a parking lot there, >> parking lot and and screening, whether that be fence and trees, trees or or both. um that was very clear, they made very clear to us that they wanted, you know, a a real barrier between themselves, >> a complete barrier as opposed to being able to access the bicycle trail u or walking trail wherein people would from this site would have to go uh to the far north or the far south, which I guess maybe it's no difference because they're um >> I'm sorry. >> I guess there's no difference. If somebody's on the site and they want to go south or north on that trail, they're going to have to go to the end of the triangle um to get to the connection point. That's all. There's no way to walk from your plaza, your pedestrian mall directly onto the Burlington portion of unused road allowance where there's that trail. >> No. >> Okay, that's all. Thanks so much. >> Thank you, counselor. So, um you're spotlighting interconnectivity, I guess. Uh, councelor has deal. >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. Um, this is more for staff. One of my comments is I'm a bit concerned about the site how the site plan would be uh configured. I I've I've heard your explanation about the loading. Um but given the the number of of units that could potentially be there and the varying uh demands they'll have um I'm while we normally won't look at site plan. Can you when you come back have some assessment about uh loading and unloading and uh the flow of that um and how conducive that is to uh the site. And I concur. I thought that the amount of bicycle parking looked uh low and I also uh was wondering uh the location of it if that if if that was the ideal spot for it. >> Thank you, counselor. >> I'll just respond if I may that Yes, certainly. >> We certainly we're going to be going through site plan approval with this development. So things like bicycle parking can certainly be dealt you know maybe we need more spaces, maybe we can move them around it. Certainly that would be something we can consider at site plan. >> All right, I think that's exhausted our questions. Thank you very much for your time and your information. >> Thank you. >> Um, council, we have a registered delegation, a uh Nadim Actar and is uh Nadim here or joining us virtually? Madame Clerk. All right. Are there any other members of the public here with information for council to consider? I'll uh I'll add in case it isn't clear. This is not a u decision-making meeting. This is an issue gathering meeting and staff are listing all the issues raised by council and any raised by the public to uh be dealt with in their recommendation report when that finally comes back to us later. And so I will uh since there are no volunteers from the public, I'll confine this to table and I'll ask uh for a mover and seconder of the uh agenda listed motion to consider the to receive the information. Councelor McNiss and a seconder please. Councelor Adams. Thank you. Any objection? There being none, that's carried. And that moves us along to the uh recommendation report for inclusionary zoning enabling official plan amendment 77 supplemental information. And I'm going to call on Sabel von Kersle the manager of Midtown Oakril and Special Programs to provide a presentation. And then we'll have questions from council and and see if we're ready to adopt that. Good evening, council. Here I am again. Um, two weeks ago we talked about a community improvement plan which were sort of the carrots to um receive affordable housing within Midtown and tonight we're talking about inclusionary zoning which is sort of the stick to require um affordable housing. So tonight I'll just quickly go over the recommendations of the staff report, talk a little bit about the proposed official plan amendment 77 and the impact it has in terms of providing for affordable housing. Um and then we'll talk about next steps in terms of the implementation of the official plan amendment. In terms of the recommendations, the first one is to adopt official plan amendment 77, which is the enabling policies to allow the town to in the future um pass in inclusionary zoning bylaws. So, this is just to set the framework and and permit the town to move forward with inclusionary zoning at a future date. Uh the second re recommendation is our standard recommendation which is that council um that the notice indicate that council has considered all written and oral submissions um and uh and that they've been addressed appropriately. The third recommendation is just a note to advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing who is um the approval authority for OPA70 which was the Midtown official plan amendment to indicate that one of the policies that are in that amendment are now being repealed through this one and being replaced with a new policy. Uh so that's just to inform the minister of that change. And then the last uh recommendation is with respect to the uh peer review that was prepared by Nberry Line Consultants. Uh the the Ontario regulation requires that council um sort of acknowledge and accept uh in NBLC as qualified to have reviewed the inclusionary zoning financial viability and housing market impact analysis that was prepared by SHS consulting. And uh you'll remember that uh in the appendices of the report there is an explanation of why NBLC is considered to be qualified to do so. In terms of the purpose of OPA7, as I mentioned, it is um policies in the official plan uh that authorize the town to require the provision of affordable housing within new development. Um this is the enabling policy framework and within that we have addressed all of the required uh policies as per the planning act and Ontario regulation 23218. So those uh policies speak to the location in terms of where inclusionary zoning would be permitted which are within prevent uh protected major transit station areas like Midtown and Bronte go. And if the minister was to order the town to adopt a community planning permit um bylaw, then the we could also use it in in those instances, even if it's not a PMTSA. Um the OPA also requires that there be prezoning um at at the same time or uh prior to adopting inclusionary zoning bylaws. So we want to make sure that the official plan is um sorry the zoning to implement the official plan is up to date before we start to require the affordable units. Uh there is um provisions policies regarding what is the threshold uh number of uh units. Um right now we're using the the the the minimum that's required per the planning act which is 10 units or more. the future zoning bylaw that would provisions could have a higher number, but we're just going to kind of start with the the minimum as per the planning act. Um, we also have policies regarding the target household. So, to whom these inclusionary zoning units are intended to be um to be used in terms of that household income threshold, which is between the 40th and 60th percentile. um what the maximum price or rent per unit would be and where you would get that information is also established in the policies which speak to the same affordable housing um thresholds that we use for our development charges bylaw. Um it also requires us to include the affordability period. So again, we're using the maximum which is 25 years. the inclusionary zoning bylaw in the future could be less than 25 years. Uh the maximum share of net proceeds are also established in the policy and again we're using the maximum per the planning act when we actually go ahead and adopt the inclusionary zoning bylaw. The maximum could be less. Um and then finally there are policies regarding a commitment to monitor and review and those are also in accordance with the planning act which requires uh monitoring on a on a two-year B every two years and a review within five years of the um adopting of the policies. So adopting OPA7 is another measure uh way that the town demonstrates its ongoing commitment to facilitating development of affordable housing. And this commitment started with the town's uh um strategic priorities. Um and then it's also identified as one of the implementing actions in the town of Oakville housing strategy and action plan. Um by adopting this bylaw uh or these policies, we begin to facilitate the development of affordable housing to address the housing needs that are uh explained and identified in the housing needs assessment. And um by adopting these policies, we begin to create greater certain certainty for the provision of affordable housing units. And we also encourage uh partnerships between non-for-profit and for-profit providers uh to build and maintain affordable housing units as was explained in the planning act tools to facilitate the development of affordable housing. By adopting the OPA, we complete the the succession of steps that are required in terms of uh following through with inclusionary zoning. So the first step being the establishing protected major transit station areas which was first done through the region of Peele uh then to undertake the housing needs assessment um and do a peer review of the um inclusionary zoning assessment. So those two steps have been completed and so the next step is uh adopting the pol enabling policies and then in the future we would then proceed to adopting the zoning provisions inclusionary zoning provisions um in in our zoning bylaws or community planning permit bylaw. Uh again monitoring on a bianual basis and then updating the policies and uh bylaws as needed within five years. So in terms of the next steps in implementation, should council uh adopt OPA77, the next step would be to undertake an additional um inclusionary zoning assessment to then narrow down and and be more specific in terms of our inclusionary zoning provisions uh for the forthcoming bylaw. And once that bylaw is in place, then we start to uh work with the development community and um identify the inclusionary zoning units. Those are registered and um uh there are agreements that are registered on title with those units to ensure that they are maintained as affordable for up to 25 years. Um, and then in terms of the longer term implementation, it's that ongoing monitoring and then as units are sold, the town would begin to receive a portion of net proceeds that result from the sale of those units. Um, and then we continue to review our assessment and official plan policies and update them accordingly. And that brings me to the conclusion of my presentation and I welcome any questions or comments. >> Thank you very much. Let's see if we're ready to question or even adopt. Uh councelor, how's it deal? >> Thank you through you, Mayor Burton. Um thank you for the report. Um just a few clarifying points. So uh in the report on page 10 of 18, there's a growth funding tools analysis. Can you just confirm for me uh are DC's payable on affordable units? >> So because these are below the the threshold in the ministry's bulletin the inclusionary zoning units or actually any inclusionary zoning units are exempt from DCS. >> Right? So this is so in this analysis this isn't money that we would pay out. This is money we would be foregoing. Um but in fact we would it would already be foregone because the province has said we don't collect DCs on this housing >> right >> so so a lay person reading it and looks at the 21 million might go uh but it's really not 21 million that we are uh providing it is it's in compliance with what the province has indicated and enables us to to get those 650 units over the course of decades. >> Right. >> Okay. Um uh as well uh reading some of the um um letters from the developers etc. um there was a question about offsite units. So if uh if they have four um uh sorry three unit three uh buildings on their property uh and uh choose that they would uh like to put some of the affordable units on a different property. When you say offsite, do you mean outside of Midtown or the PMTSA or um off that one specific building? >> Through you, chairs. So, yes, uh the the offsite still needs to be inside the protected major transit station area, but not on their specific site. Um and those comments were received per the draft of the OPA. Since then we've done some further clarification to to to make that distinction. >> Okay. Thank you. Um in some discussions um over the last few years about affordable uh homes, the importance of having a mix of uh housing within uh a a tower, if you will. um and that there's some dignity and uh uh that it is not quote unquote an affordable housing unit um but rather it they are mixed within all of the other market-based in the language that um I looked at you changed the words to say uh maybe so does does that mean when you're reviewing the the actual application you may allow them to put their required units um uh all in one building or uh I mean is it is that the flexibility that you've left in >> through you chair so just for clarification are you talking about the offsite units >> sorry I'm talking about the the the affordable units all being in one building >> uh so the inclusionary zoning would only allow 5% to be required as that meeting that affordable threshold So, they're always going to be in a um a a mix of different uh valued units uh within like market units because it's just the 5%. Now, what might happen is that um that 5% may not be in one building but could be sorry transferred over to another building through phase development. So if you have a three building proposal and um altogether they were going to be 300 units uh am I doing my math right? Um the 5% would instead of having them in individual buildings could be into all put into one building. Um but again uh >> but that would still be mixed market. >> It'd still be mixed market. Okay. Thank you very much. just uh a question that came from uh a resident. I wanted to be sure. Um I think um and just for clarity, the M zo uh places uh calls out that there will be no requirement for inclusionary zoning on the TOC lands. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And so you've got it you've you've documented in the report that uh 50% of the of the sites are actually exempt from inclusionary zoning through you chair. Yes. So there are a number of applications um and 50% of those applications because of the timing of when those were deemed complete and what those applications are would be exempt. and they actually um are take our large proportion. Um but we still have much more development to come and so that's where we get the 650 units of every site maximized um the their uh their density based on the calculations we had done for um the Midtown uh work. So, an a a building that is now considered a complete application. Uh it this wouldn't uh uh they would still have an opportunity to participate in affordable units by taking affordable units onto their site, but it wouldn't be required. >> Everyone is very welcome to provide affordable units, but those ones that are transitioned, we wouldn't have the ability to require it. >> All right. Thanks very much. >> Thank you, counselor. Councelor Mcnes, >> thank you. Through your worship, um, would this or could this apply to our other PT or PMTSA and Bronni? >> So, oh, >> yes counselor. >> Okay. Now, it through OPA 70 or I get sorry, I guess it would be 77. It wouldn't directly apply to Ronnie, would it? >> Through you, chair. So the OPA77 would apply to any area that's identified as a protected major transit station area. And right now that's just Midtown and the Bronty Go areas. >> So okay, just just so I'm clear. So in OPA7, it wouldn't because that applies to Midtown. Although pulling it out of OPA7 into OPA7 allows it to apply to both MTSAs or P MTSAs >> through you chair. So the one change we did in um in OPA70 was just that the policy was speaking to one day we will adopt a zoning um inclusionary zoning. So now if we go ahead and adopt it then we don't we would just change the language to reflect that it is a policy that's in effect. >> Um but the OPA70 um >> yeah did it made the enabling policies for the community planning permit system and also identified Midtown or updated Midtown policies. This one is just about enabling inclusionary zoning in those PMTSAs. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. And uh obviously I'm I'm for something like this. I think you know the the post residence was a great example of affordable housing coming to life and I think we just need many tools in our our tool belt to uh bring affordable units to life and this is one of the tools we have available to us. So um I'm certainly in favor of this. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor counselor null. >> Thank you worship. Thank you for the presentation. I have a question with respect to the defensibility of the uh restrictive covenants on title for selling prices or resale prices. Um my understanding is in common law uh resale prices for subsequent owners are hard to enforce. I'm wondering if there's a specific is there stat and I looked up quickly I couldn't find a quick answer. Is there a statute um that that uh reinforces that um ability to enforce that on subsequent owners for the full 25 years so that it's un unassalable in in a court >> through you chair. I'm not a lawyer, but the planning act does say that in terms of implementing inclusionary zoning, we have the right to have these agreements registered on title uh which would uh cap the sale of the units um so that they are maintained affordable uh for the 25-year period. >> Is there statute like is there statute to back that up? statute actually states that in in the revised statutes of Ontario that that gives that that coverage for defensibility in the future. >> The Yeah, I was going to say the planning act, but I was kind of looking to the lawyers to make sure I'm not being uh out of >> Miss Jandra, we welcome your wisdom on the subject >> through you, Mayor Burton. Um, yes. I I don't have much to add. I I think the question has been answered correctly that there are provisions in the planning act that would um provide for that level of affordability for up to 25 years. >> Great. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. >> Thank you, Councelor Null. So, the planning act is a statute. Counselor has a tail again. >> Thank you. Um could you just um help uh maybe the public understand when this is in place and we finally can put shovels in the ground and the market has reestablished itself individuals that would qualify for an affordable home. How do you see that uh being managed? Is it uh if they have a partnership with Halton Region, that's an easy one, but independent of Halton Region and the Hatch program, you know, what are some examples you could share about how this would uh would come to life for for other residents >> through you, chair. So the the the policies um the fact that you're capping the resale value of the unit, I think does mean that certain persons may not want to purchase those units, which leaves it open to those who would benefit from the uh better, you know, the the more affordable price with the recognition that they may not be able to leverage that unit in a future, you know, future market sales. So there is one version of the implementation where we let the market do what the market does. Uh the other way in which this could be implemented which um could address the you know uh specific families and households is through the partnerships with nonforprofits whether that's Halton Region or some of the other organizations that we heard from a couple of weeks ago. Uh so those are the two two ways in which um that can be addressed >> and is there any additional language that would encourage that partnership? >> I mean there's there is uh encouragement for those partnerships but there isn't a direction for it. There isn't a requirement. >> Okay. Thanks very much. >> Thank you counselor. Um, I know when they were here they were very encouraged and very encouraging of us to do something. Um, perhaps I could look for a mover and seconder. Councelor has a deal and uh, councelor Mcnes, you spoke so eloquently for it. Let me recognize you for that. Uh, madame clerk, uh, I would like to have a recorded vote for this uh, historic event. So, could you please call the vote? Councelor Omira. >> Yes. >> Councelor Mcnes. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dick. >> Yes. >> Councelor Chisum. >> Yes. >> Councelor Haz Theo. >> Yes. >> Councelor Giddings. >> Yes. >> Councelor Longo. >> Yes. >> Mayor Burton. >> Yes. >> Councelor Null. Yes. >> Councelor Grant. >> Yes. >> Councelor Adams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Lchina. >> Yes. >> Councelor Nanda. >> Yes. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you everybody. That's unanimous. Let's uh move now to the recommendation report for the town initiated official plan amendment 338 uh for the North Oakville East commercial study implementation. And uh uh I'm going to call on Anna Petus the planner and in policy planning and uh and she's going to provide us a presentation and we have a delegation uh also which I would propose to go to uh after the presentation and then we would have questions from council. Shall we proceed? Miss Petrus. >> Good evening mayor, counselors and members of the public. My name is Anna Petrus. I'm a policy planner. I'm pleased to bring forward agenda item 8.2, the recommendation report for the town initiated official plan amendment for updated retail and service commercial policies in North Oakville East. The OPA known as OPA 338 is attached as appendix one to the staff report. The purpose of the staff report is to recommend adoption of OPA 338 and to pass the related bylaw. The OPA is implementing findings of the North Oakville East commercial study and represents the advancement of strengthening retail and commercial policies to support Oakville's growing communities. In the presentation tonight, I would highlight why this matters, set the context with the North Oakville East commercial study and the policy framework, provide an overview of the key components of the OPA, and highlight matters raised by council and the public. I'll recap the key revisions to the OPA, and I will close with the recommendations that are in front of you tonight for your consideration. The muchneeded retail and service commercial uses are now being delivered in terms of the quantity, scale, and build form. Through the North Oakville East commercial study, a key finding was that a projected demand of approximately 1.8 to 2.2 million square feet of retail and commercial space is needed in the long term to satisfy the needs of the growing community. In response to the limited retail and commercial uses coming online, this OPA provides an updated policy direction. It strikes a balance to allow policy flexibility while also providing direction that aligns with the secondary plan vision for compact complete communities through the North Oakville East commercial study. It was a comprehensive process and engagement with interested parties both from the project consultants and town staff. The study assessed the current and future needs of North Oakville East and provided the in-depth analysis in terms of the quantity, size, location, and building formats and it provided a set of policy based recommendations which have informed the drafting of this official plan amendment. The policy based recommendations also reviewed the existing policies of the secondary plan. North Oakville is part of the town's urban structure which is intended to manage growth and direct that intensification to strategic growth areas. The secondary plan clearly sets the vision for North Oakville to guide development of an urban community that is compact, walkable, mixeduse, and achieves the vision of mixeduse communities. Various sections of the existing policies apply to retail and commercial uses and overall provide a a framework that is flexible in terms of the location and amount of retail and commercial that could be developed. In response to this current policy framework, the commercial study recommended solutions that build on the existing maint policies and maintain the town's urban structure. Engagement with interested parties was initiated through the commercial study and specifically included the landowners group NOCBI and industry experts who are participating in the development of non-residential projects in Oakville and other municipalities. As staff imple advanced the implementation, NOCBI was kept informed on key steps and we've engaged along the way. In January 2026, two meetings were held with NOCBI to share the policy directions where staff were headed and received NOCBY's comments. On March 23rd, 2026, staff held the statutory public meeting and received both council comments and written submissions, which are addressed in the staff report and appendix B, the comments table, which is before you this evening. More recently, town staff met with Knockby earlier in May to share information and answer questions. And on May 7th, the public notice was issued and the public and the official plan amendment was posted publicly online. And that has helped us lead to where we are tonight. I will turn my focus now to the key components of the official plan amendment. And the effects of the OPA include changes to the secondary plan by adding a new section 7.3.4 with policies for retail and service commercial uses directed to commercial nodes, primary activity nodes, and secondary activity nodes. It's updated area specific retail and commercial policies to support new commercial areas. It's updating land use policies in sections 7.5 and 7.6. six in the Trafalar Urban Court area and Dundas Urban Court area to strengthen policies that clarify development direction, clarify building typologies for mixeduse buildings, add minimum commercial requirements, protect for replacement of existing non-residential uses, and strengthen policies for intram commercial uses and phase development, which is coupled with the urban design direction. Lastly, the commercial nodes and specific locations of primary and secondary activity nodes have been reflected on the community structure figure which is shown on this slide. During the statutory public meeting, council raised matters to consider and the detailed staff responses are provided in appendix B the comments table. The matters have been addressed and some matters have led to the following official plan amendment refinements. Council had asked about the intram uh retail and commercial policies and we've provided clarification that the intram retail and service commercial uses will follow the planning and development principles that form the basis of all intram and phase development. Council had asked about um grocery and food stores and we've responded by adding a specific provision for a food store within commercial note 4. We received comments about modifying um the color scheme of the community structure figure and we've done so in terms of all the commercial areas that are reflected on figure NOE1 the community structure plan and we've added a policy to encourage parking structure that aligns with the urban design directions through the public process. Written submissions were received from land owners. Matters raised are included in the staff report. I will highlight some of the comments we've received and relates to the following uh as seen on the slide. It was policies related to the intram uses and phase development. The minimum requirements for all the commercial areas. So the commercial nodes, the primary and secondary activity nodes, the replacement policy for um existing non-residential uses, sight specific considerations and related to active development applications, and lastly, the urban design directions and policy stating that retail and service commercial uses should be located within mixeduse buildings. The comments have been addressed and where appropriate, it has led to the OPA refinements. I'd like to highlight some of those refinements now that um have led to this recommended OPA. So staff have maintained but clarified the interim commercial policies as this is an important response to public comments to satisfy the short-term needs and still allow initial development to proceed. The intent is to achieve intensification over the long term. The interim commercial uses have been linked back to existing policies that speak to how all interim uses and phase development should proceed. Staff increased flexibility for the minimum requirements at commercial areas. One specific change has been that the requirement at commercial node 2 and commercial node 4 has been adjusted for the commercial nodes. We have also defined the geographic extent by applying an approximate 10-minute walking distance radius in the urban core areas. This allows for more retail and commercial opportunities to be developed in that broader geographic area. And just to iterate again, within commercial node 4, we've added the provision for a food store to take advantage of the green field context and opportunities that are there. Staff have updated the policy language to increase flexibility for the replacement of existing non-residential uses and focus more on the intended function. Lastly, staff have made edits to provide sight specific clarifications in alignment with existing policies by making mapping edits to the community structure figure. All the comments received have been considered and addressed in advance of this recommendation presented tonight. The OPA strikes a balance and strengthens the policy framework to achieve both the short-term needs and the long-term municipal planning objectives. The OPA refinements have increased the overall policy flexibility and have clarified the development directions. The OPA maintains the intent of the policy framework that is within the secondary plan and at its core it is intended to deliver on the compact mixeduse complete communities that are the long-term vision for North Oakville. To close the presentation, I share with you the recommendations tonight to adopt OPA 338. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to take any questions or comments. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation, council. Are there questions? Councelor Omira. >> Uh, thank you so much and thank you for making some of those changes um and and working with uh um some of the the community who who who uh thought that maybe there there might be some inflexibility in terms of how we get retail and in particular grocery stores up there. Um I guess I'm I don't see any sort of a formal report back opportunity and I'm wondering um you know in terms of trying to set um you know set set you know reality and how we bring these things to fruition uh versus what a policy vision is. Is there is there something that we're going to have in terms of okay in 3 years we're going to report back on what we see and on whether this is coming on whether what we've done working um because I think there there is some concern that the um the interim measures you know might not provide the flexibility so can you comment on on any sort of a formal report back time to council or to future councils when they can expect hey it's working or we're on the right path or we're not. Uh thank you for the question councelor through you mayor Burton. Um so uh we're constantly reviewing the implementation of policies excuse me through the achievement of uh or through implementation through development applications. And so we'll be again monitoring uh how successful we're being in terms of achieving the policy vision and policy intent for North Oakville. Uh we also have our upcoming official plan review uh over the next year or two uh through the next term, the beginning of the next term of council. And so we'll be able to report back on on these matters as they evolve through that. Um our our concern really is to try and raise raise the floor more uh and and bring some requirements into effect that are going to further support and strengthen the need uh and the delivery of commercial in North Oakville. Uh so we'll be monitoring that quite closely and reporting on that as needed. Um and then I think um the market really will be a major player in in how we achieve these policies. And so as those begin to conditions begin to improve around uh market and real estate development and commercial development, we'll be able to to um to monitor those changes and to to adjust if needed through that. >> Well, I I appreciate the monitoring and adjusting. I guess it was just for council to to know that hey we're going to we're going to check back. I I mean I know that there's a lot of factors in there. There's the market. There's a number of these things but um yeah I guess so there's there's there's no formal mechanism. We'll we'll report back in 5 years or in 3 years or like we we'll just wait and monitor and see when staff bring it back to us and say it's working or not. >> Uh through Mayor Burton to the councelor. Uh just to clarify a little further, counselor, as development applications come forward, we can report back uh through those opportunities on how we're achieving those those policies that were brought forward tonight. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Null, >> thank you. Um I want to return to two of the issues I raised in the past. I I see other ones are are addressed, but the two that I I want to ask you about are specifically um with respect to floor plate and how space is allocated on the property. I see in the uh Q&A and the comments table, it talks about the fact that uh design guidelines would be created to support mixed use um and that it would be addressed on a case-by case basis. Is there nothing more prescriptive that we can do to establish uh uh reasonable size floor plates so that retail actually has a chance to succeed in these commercial developments >> through the mayor to the counselor. We did take a look at that internally as part of this work. We're definitely trying to strike a balance um to not be overly prescriptive that could actually hinder um proposals coming in. So, we did feel that a good balance could be struck by, you know, framing the policies um as we're presenting and leaving the more finer details through guidelines for mixeduse development. And that's something that our team is developing. They've started that work now. So there's definitely specific matters we can factor in if you would like to have more information on it and I will open it up to um my manager if if he would like to add more Kirk. >> Thanks Santa through you mayor Burton to councelor null. Uh so similar to the response around development applications when when we are when we have an application before us we'll be able to work with that applicant to refine um h how the the uses and the sizes and the spaces are deployed across that site. at the official plan level as as uh Anna mentioned, we want to keep it fairly open, fairly flexible, fairly broad, but point in a in a direction. Uh once again those applications come in, those applicants are bringing forward their um their market intentions through through possible tenants and those spaces will be determined uh in collaboration with with those uh that incoming application, those possible tenants and then staff through our urban design guidelines. and and in fact zoning as well will contribute at that time. >> Okay. I just remain concerned about the changing face of retail and um a lot of a lot of the uh proponents of these applications will take the lowest hanging fruit in terms of who will rent the spaces and you end up with commercial spaces filled with service providers as opposed to actual retailers and restaurants and things that animate um that that retail service experience that we expect in in our communities. We've we've suffered that in Nepttown CPS uh over the years in certain certain developments and I'm I'm always very much aware of that uh concern. The second one very similar and that is with respect to street animation. Again, it looks like um we're just going to provide guidance on that again instead of being more prescriptive in terms of uh you know where the entrances to retail uh spaces are as opposed to um to try to get them to be to animate the street presence as opposed to being basically dominated by parking spaces as we typically see in most of the commercial uh plaza developments that we're finding in North Oakville. through the mayor to the counselor. Yes, it is a similar response in the sense that we do think the details can be achieved through the urban design guidelines and I would like to also add that through the policy we do encourage that it is um fronting on these smaller roads and we do have policies that say the retail and service commercial uses should be oriented to the street. So that's the piece to help make that connection and create that street animation. We have fairly limited ability to control the specific uses that come in, but we definitely work through applicants in terms of the mix of uses and how we can um achieve a range of non-residential uses. So not just service, but also the the restaurants that you've alluded to >> on both of those issues. What kind of beyond guidelines and beyond working with the applicants to to try to do better? Do we have any stick on this at all? Is it a is there the ability to be able to uh horse trade to get better? I I just again I go back to some of the experience that that we've had in in in our ward and I've even seen happen in you know in in in ward 7 for example is that you end up with a lot of retail that or you end up with a lot of spaces that are not to what the community expects. you end up with again service businesses as opposed to retail businesses. And so um I just want to know if there's some sort of ability to be able to achieve what you're proposing in guidelines here. Is there is there flexibility in terms of the negotiation ability etc. or is this simply at the at the will of the developer >> through the mayor to the counselor? We we do have that ability to work through um applications. Um I don't know Kirk or Gabe if there was something else to add just in terms of at high level. >> Mayor Burton to the counselor. Um I know the exact situation you're talking about. Uh there's a number of spots along Oak Park where it's either parking facing the street or you've got the back end of the building facing the street, you've got utility pipes, etc. That doesn't really create the type of walkable environment that we're striving to achieve. We've been consistent in our messaging through the secondary plan and you see that reflected in the guidance as well which is it's a pedestrian first community. We want to ensure that it's oriented towards the pedestrian and therefore you you face the doors to the street. To your point, what happens though is you end up with parking because it's designed around the car first. It becomes very challenging for from a staff perspective too when we try to make make that point. Well then where do the cars go? of patrons who complain because now they have to park around the back, they have to walk to the front. There's rarely a win-win situation that that that we're into. All of that said, through the development applications, we strive to achieve what the plan intends, which is for it to be pedestrian focused. To ensure that there's a clear line of sight from the sidewalk to the building, that it's easy, it's accessible, it's safe for the pedestrian through the development applications, as Kirk and Anna are saying, that's often times the leverage that we use is to try to get to that exact state where we're focused on the pedestrian, where the bike's going to be parking. uh you saw through through the public meeting might be great a lot of people but maybe not the best spot for bikes. So all of those things go into the formula that we're working through when we're dealing with the site plan but in that step before we're using the official plan the direction from the official plan and the amendment to direct how we're going to implement the zoning. So we'll do things like maximum setbacks from the building phase to the sidewalk so that we're trying to pull the buildings forward and really create more of that animation, create that enclosure, that sense of enclosure along the street. All of these things add to that. there's not any one particular mechanism or tool that we can use. We have to use all of them to try to achieve what what we're looking for. >> Okay. And the the question about the stick here and that is with respect to the fact that we go through all this exercise and we approve the applicants, the uh building's built and all of a sudden now the developer is basically again taking the lowest hanging fruit and they're flipping all the units around like we experienced and you're you've you've nailed the you've nailed it on the head in terms of what I'm referring to. Do we have any stick in there? Is there anything we can legislatively put in that actually uh holds um the proponents to stick to what we negotiated in that original plan because we did that in the uptown core for example that was always the plan and it just never worked out. Uh, short answer, counselor, no. There there there isn't a real way. The the last set of of buildings that we did right at Oakw Walk and Oak Park, the buildings were designed, the doors were facing. It didn't matter. They they put the front door towards the parking lot because that's where patrons are coming from is using their car. >> Uh, it it's an ongoing tension that we have there. There has been a magic bullet. If we could have found it, we would have been doing it already. >> Yeah, I understand that. I'm not being critical. I'm being I'm more probing to see if there is opportunities here, whether there's best practices in other communities that have been used to achieve this or or whether we just we get luck of the draw, which is sounds like what we get. >> We seem the same we face the same frustration. Uh we push and we push and we push, but often times we we don't get exactly what we're looking for. So sometimes it's um a tension between do we go through an appeal process and we get nothing or do we try and push and get as much as we possibly can otherwise. Um the other factor and I think as Anna was mentioning is is we're working towards creating a design uh compendium which will help inform ways in which to use your term best practices of how to de to perhaps design and develop mixed use buildings so that it works not just for the driver but also for the pedestrians. >> Great. Okay. Well, I really appreciate that response. Thank you very much. Thank you for work on that. >> Thank you councelor Null. Uh councelor Nanda. >> Thank you to you mayor Burton. Thank you, Anna, for the report. Um, I appreciate it. Um, a few additional concerns, though, because I think one of the concerns is that we do we pass this, but we're not really getting out of it fully what we need as some of my other colleagues were talking about. One of my first questions though is we had the provision for a food store in node 4. Why do we not have one for node three? >> Through the mayor to the counselor. So node three is the Niagara urban core area and through that um appeal process my understanding is that provision has been successful and it is in the policies >> and it is an important element to protect for food stores and that's something we can um do the same in commercial node forward is to take advantage of those opportunities and be specific in ensuring the community has not just um you know convenience stores but actually grocery stores so a food Sure. >> So we so we will be able to get one in node three through the decision or >> Miss Chandra >> uh through you mayor Burton uh to councelor Nanda. Yes in the um knuck official plan policies there is a provision for a food store within the Nagawa urban corps. >> Okay perfect. So, that was one of my big questions because we really need that because we were talking about pedestrianfriendly 10-minute walk to and one of the concerns is if everyone had to go down to Nagawa and Dundas, it wouldn't be pedestrian friendly. Um and then I saw that one of the recommendations through one of the developer letters was to try to um put down the FSI minimum FSI. Would we ever do that through negotiations? Because I saw that in node two um staff reduced the minimum requirement for commercial. Now I want to ensure that we don't do that everywhere >> through the marriage to the counselors. I can definitely provide context and clarification to that. So some of the um landowner comments received that specifically in commercial node 2 which is at Dundes and Nayagawa um there are more constraints and more limited opportunities and there are some existing commercial and retail plazas there already and commercial node 4 which is primarily still a greenfield context at trfal Bernham Thorp um what we had done is swapped the requirement so the overall number has not changed but we made that adjustment to on the one hand better respond to some of the constraints and limitations in the one node and take greater advantage of the green field context in the other node. So we have not um lost out on any of the intended minimum requirements we are seeking that we've proposed through this OPA but rather just made the swap to be more um responsive to comments and the realities on the ground. >> Okay. And just uh for context again in node three for the Nagawa urban core um are we is it commercial both on the north and south side of Bernham Thorp or are we more looking at uh commercial on the north side? Is the southside corner gonna have something there as well? >> Through the mayor to the counselor through the NU um settlement OPA there are requirements for commercial on all the blocks that are around the intersection and that approach is a little different because they've taken a blockbyblock uh distribution. So there will be some retail and commercial on the south um properties on the south side. >> Okay. And then just for notes one and two because there's a lot of commercial on the south side is that so is it's going to reduce what is required on the north side of of Dundas like nodes one and two have south and north of Dundas. So because of all the retail on the south already, it reduces the requirement on the north side. >> Through the mayor to the counselor, it has not reduced the requirement because the study, the commercial study was done with the um you know boundary of the north Oakville East secondary plan area. The way we've written it into the official plan amendment is just to coordinate with lands on the south. So for example at Trafalgar in Dundas realistically a lot of the opportunities will be through intensification on lands that are south of Dundas. So the requirement that we have in there can happen on any or all four corners around the intersection within that approximate radius that we've identified. And uh similarly at Dundas and Nagawa it can happen on the north side as well as on the south side of Dundas through intensification. So we've had a specific policy added for that coordination to ensure that all four corners um have the opportunity and potential to develop that would all contribute to that minimum. So the minimums that we've identified have not uh changed. Um the only change we've done is essentially to swap commercial node two and commercial node four as I had already alluded to just really to respond to comments and take advantage of existing um opportunities in a green field context. >> Okay. And so I guess one of the major changes is that we are requesting that there not be standalone anymore. So like how we have the 14os plaza, we would not allow that or just not suggest that there's any kind of plaza in any of the other nodes. Is that what it means by not having standalone retail? Um they're removed from this through the mayor to the counselor. So the overall direction is definitely to move away from the standalone traditional um singleuse commercial buildings. However, through the interim use policies that we have, that is still um permitted. So, the policies still permit for a standalone, you know, a single-use grocery store to come in and be developed that, >> you know, could have surface parking. But the difference here is we've coupled it with the site configuration and urban design directions to have a design that could meet short-term needs today, but also help us achieve intensification over the long term through what was called an intensification plan. So if you would like to come in and do that traditional standalone um food store as an example, it could be something else. Then it is coupled with you know thinking of how future provision of roads will come online in the future and the intensification of blocks around this standalone building. So the intram policies allow that short-term need to still be satisfied and that was one of the key pieces also to respond to comments received. >> Okay. So, but if we had the food store, grocery store, node three or node four, if they were in the mixed use and they were a part of a development, we would still have minimums for what those food stores would have to be if they were incorporated into a condo building. Would we have minimums for what those would need to be through the mayor to the counselor? So the only minimums we've identified is at the commercial node as a whole. We're not identifying specific uses with specific minimums. We know um roughly how big a grocery store could be, but it may be designed in a more urban way where you could still achieve the intended function, a smaller footprint as you're alluding to perhaps in a mixeduse building. So there's no minimum or a standard specifically for a grocery store. It is captured mainly through that provision for a food store within the node. But exactly the size of it is not prescribed intentionally to allow for that natural um allocation of uses to come in and then determine what is an appropriate size. Is that something we could do if we wanted though? Just so we ensure that it's not smaller than what we would expect it to be. Like for example, them having to go to another grocery store because the one that's built up there now is not sufficient. So now you have that same problem again that it's not sufficient. So now they do have to drive to one that where they can where they can do their proper groceries >> through the mayor to the counselor. I can start a response and then perhaps if others on the panel would like to chime in sometimes um we're so we may want to move away from the model in the sense of the way that it's designed and the type of function you can achieve. So arguably you could achieve the same function and diversity of of of products or merchandise in a smaller footprint in a more urban context. So it's difficult to put a specific number on it in in which then um applicants would be required to to meet that minimum whereas perhaps they could demonstrate that in an urban context the same function um and intended use for retail could be achieved in a different way. So, we've intentionally stayed away from defining specific uses with a specific amount. And those type of details can always be fleshed out through a development application at the zoning level where they would identify a minimum as a specific uh development standard as part of the zoning bylaw to say how big's the grocery store, you know, where exactly on the block it's going to go and other related details. >> Okay. I think I would just be cautious about that one because I just feel like that would be something that would be important and I wouldn't want it to be downsized. A grocery store is a grocery store. We all know how much we need from it. Correct. >> Through your mayor Burton, if I can just supplement uh to what Anna was was commenting on, the challenge that we have with with the grocery stores in particular is that their formats constantly change. Uh you can have a farm boy, for example, which has a very small footprint, less than 10,000 square feet. >> Uh there it's very rare that you're going to be getting a large um superstore, for example. You're not going to be getting 150,000 square feet at the bottom of of a >> residential building. A number of things that that the retailers also do is they try different kinds of building floor plates, uh different sizes, because it really for them is coming down to how much can they sell per square foot. So they're not going to be putting in an overly large building. So hence it doesn't make a lot of sense at this point for staff to be suggesting a minimum size for a grocery store as part of a mixeduse development. It may not ultimately work for the retailer and then as a result of that you don't get any grocery store. So you have different formats whether it's a postetaries or a hasty or a rabba where you have slightly smaller more of that incidental type of grocery. For those that are doing their their big say every two week kind of grocery shopping, they may be going down to Forinos, they may be going to Longos, they may not be going to to perhaps all of these spaces, but we want to ensure that we can still accommodate them as well. So sometimes it's better to have the application come in, work through the zoning process to get it to the right size so that the size of the grocery store is also going to work with the provider of of the residential. We've seen it as a met at a metro uh as well on um in Toronto and Parkland. There's one there where they've integrated into the building, but it's a much bigger development overall where they've been able to accommodate the type of grocery store retailer. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> No, thank you, councelor. Councelor has the deal. Your turn. >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. Um, so continuing on with that thread, we're all concerned about making sure and I know you are about a complete community and you've given some examples of how you work through that through the development application. Do we ever showcase or look for opportunities to uh bring those new best-in-class kind of approaches to urban grocery stores? um uh to to the developers. I know I know they do their own research, but there's a high level of resistance it seems to how could we make this work and uh this is the kind of thing that's needed to to make it work when you read some of the letters. And yet there are clear examples in in Toronto of urban grocery stores that are really a full grocery store. Um, and in Vancouver it's the same. And so there are I'm just wondering is there a place or a role for us helping them see some of those unique approaches that solve the need uh in a in a very different way than what you would see in a large commercial plaza. >> Through the mayor to the counselor, we did best practice analysis through the commercial study. That was one of the first things we had done is background research and a jurisdictional scan of best practice and what other jurisdictions are doing. We can revisit that information and see what could we could pull up and definitely it never hurts to be proactive and as as a way to showcase um urban models of how mixeduse buildings with as an example grocery store could be achieved on the base of a podium with residential on top. Okay. Um, so thank you for that. I mean, I'm I think ACD could probably help as well. Um, my other is we've talked about uh uh residential development over top of commercial plazas in other reports that we've had in the intensification plan that you would require. Are there components that would uh not maybe a stick might be a stick Jeff that you you must provide you know a um uh in that intensification plan the ability to build on top of your uh your uh stores or um can you just expand a little bit? What are you going to look for in that intensification plan? So, we are not um counselor said the monitoring. How are we making sure that there really is a concrete plan that could come to life through the mayor to the counselor the kind of set of policies we've introduced in a in a specific context to to respond uh to the comments is with the interim uses. So as an example, those appropriate sighting and configuration policies that would accompany would require the provision of local roads, creation of safe active um and transit pedestrian routes, I'm sorry, transit oriented streetscape and routes, main entrances of buildings to orient the street, provision and configuration of parking, achievement of both short and long-term development objectives. So, this is one that could help us achieve that intensification of buildings and how that could look like in the future. Um, so those are some of the details of of what we've introduced through the recommended policies. Okay. I was hoping it would be a little meteor than that, but it sounds like you would look for that in the discussion around uh you know could it could we build on top of this with any level of ease just like they look at parking garages now and say is there something you could transform it to relatively easily but it sounds like that'll be an ongoing discussion. All right, thanks very much. >> Thank you counselor. Well, council uh we have a registered delegation. Uh, it's Marshall Smith from KM Planning Partners. Madame Clerk, can you bring uh Mr. Smith? Hello, Mr. Smith. We see you. We look forward to your information. >> Hello. Uh, honorable mayor and members of council. Glad to be with you tonight. U, our, uh, client is Northwest Oakville Holdings, Inc. My name is Marshall Smith. I'm a partner and a registered professional planner with KLM Planning Partners. Uh, our client's been working in the area for a long time. uh they've made various submissions for uh all things North Oakville East secondary plan and this is something that they have a particular interest in uh they have advanced uh some work on their own concept and they are working with the landowners group on a broader concept for the area and this is all kind of filtering into I guess a dialogue with the municipality about that concept in the area that's around uh specifically uh community area node 12 of 12 and That's a a primary activity note in the uh draft official plan amendment. We did submit a letter on March 23rd with some of our concerns uh um for the statutory public meeting. Uh very encouraged to see what staff has done here actually. I think uh you know probably we don't get enough of a chance to say how good a job staff is doing and the city is doing or the town is doing and I guess listening when these uh submissions are made. So, uh, looks like a lot of good progress has been made. And you know, I'm very encouraged in in hearing uh the dialogue here today because I think a lot of the concerns that uh council has has raised um also reflect the concerns of our client just in you know generally ensuring that that policy that ends up getting put in place doesn't restrict certain outcomes uh and does facilitate uh an optimal uh commercial arrangement to serve these areas. uh and we would like the opportunity to work with staff a little bit more on these policies. We think it's so so close to a place where our client uh could support them with some modifications um that we would like uh uh the opportunity to have that discussion with staff directly. And so our request today is that council defer adoption of this OPA so that we can uh collaborate with staff and try to have some of that beneficial language put into the policies that uh we believe could could help take this in in the right direction and guarantee some better outcomes. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. Councelor Omira. >> Yeah. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a question to Mr. Smith. What would some of those things that you want to help get over the goal line that you don't believe are there? What would be an example of some of those things? >> Sure. I guess you know just maybe elaborating on some of the concerns here. We're a little bit worried that the way the policy is structured could result in uh a number of developments moving through with, you know, no commercial or token commercial included. And uh there could be a scenario where there's a a last man holding the bag so to speak, right? Not to say that commercial is a bad thing. Not everybody wants to build commercial. There are definitely people that do want to build commercial and respond to the market. B that the you know space gets built in a way where the market doesn't want it at the rate that it's delivered or in the form that it's delivered and you end up with vacant spaces that are being constructed through those applications. And another concern did go back to that um sole commercial use uh as well noting that there are challenges in delivering commercial which uh are technical in nature uh delivery of those loading spaces dealing with the noise when say a grocery store is receiving a delivery with a you know from a transport truck uh the parking matter that was brought up. Uh there are some issues that you know we believe that the the sole uh uh commercial use uh delivery can can respond to and we believe that there are examples of commercial developments that do I guess address some of those other I think they're urban design problems in a lot of cases right with the parking and the function and how people get into those units. Um, so in short, really it seems like through the development of the concept plan for this area, we really don't want policies put in place that restrict some of that creativity coming into play uh and cause us not to pursue something like potentially uh single-use commercial uh uh developments in addition to mixeduse developments in these areas. >> So do you feel you just ran out of time or that there's some opposing viewpoints here? I mean, what's what is it just need more time or you think, you know, you've got more convincing to do? I'm just trying to see what deferring would would if you you feel you just didn't have the time to to get to where you needed to be. >> Yes. Uh, our client directly submitted uh a letter for the ahead of the public meeting and there was a a text response to that, but we did not have the opportunity to directly converse with staff, right, about some of those solutions. and we know your staff are very well verssed and understand this landscape well and there's been a lot of study done here but uh we would like that opportunity to directly converse with staff and hopefully we can make some positive contributions to how that policy comes out. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you councelor. Uh Mr. Smith, the counselor asked you if you had any specific changes that you u uh wanted to mention, and I only heard a list of fears and apprehensions. And u I'm not personally um motivated to give a deferral for a long discussion about fears and apprehensions. uh and I was satisfied by the staff's uh uh information about how they dealt with the specifics of your uh proposals that we all received over the course of this work. Um so uh I mean I I think you you missed an opportunity there. Yes. And through you Mr. Mayor, maybe I can be um clear as well that uh if the policy were not to preclude the delivery of single use uh commercial uh within these areas that would be a positive modification. I know that it is in there uh dealing with uh the inter interim condition uh but it would be a positive inclusion in our client's view if that type of delivery for the commercial space could could come about. Uh something else that we would like to see is language for convertible uses uh expressly included within that policy. So convertible uses would be of the nature that um the the the market is not demanding the commercial today. Say you're the first development within one of these primary activity nodes and it is entirely possible that there are spaces that uh will be demanded at some point in the future for commercial but it's not today. And so a live or work type of permission in zoning and a live or work type of uh uh design through site plan that could facilitate residential now but when the demand comes about could accommodate a smallcale commercial user or a medium-scale commercial user uh that these express policies would be beneficial to see in the uh in the official plan amendment. >> Okay. Well, thank you for that. Any other questions for Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith, thank you for your time and your information. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, council. Um, I'll confine it to table. Councelor Hazen, I just have one last question for staff. Um, the the delegate used the phrase not holding the bag. So uh that if they end up with uh they're one of the last developments in the commercial node, how do you assure that uh they don't have all like that this overall requirement in a commercial node is either fairly I'm not sure what the right word is distributed or considered um uh in in the process. through the mayor to the counselor. One of the things um that we've we've done in terms of to not hold the bag is sorry if I could just collect my thoughts for a moment. So, the question really is, is there a way to prevent rear end loading the commercial onto the land that's left >> through the merit to the council if I may um try again, I do apologize for that. The way we structure the policy is as a should statement. So we do want to ask that is the baseline that is the requirement but it provides the opportunity for the developers to come in and justify a different number if that is justified through their planning work. So it's not a hard stop requirement and that the last person in the door will have to bear all the commercial. That is not how the policies are written and that is surely not the intent. So we have made that modification to should statements that allows applicants to justify a different number. And if we are in a worst case scenario of the sort that the last person in the door must do all we would definitely work with the applicants and we would rely on the comprehensive information they submit through their development application and that planning justification as to why say a a lesser or a different number is justified. We are hopeful that that will not be the scenario. We will be able to work with all land owners and all development applications as they come in to allow development applications to contribute proportionately over time. And we've intentionally not put in any sunset clause or a hard deadline or requirement. So there shouldn't be any uh misinterpretation that you know such number must be achieved by X date. Again, that is not how the policies are written and that's not intended. And that's part of where the flexibility remains to continue working with land owners and achieve what is realistic and um remain flexible in how we achieve those requirements at the commercial nodes as well as the primary and secondary activity nodes. And I do thank you for your patience as I gathered my thoughts. Thank you. >> Well, I'd rather you you have done that. So, you did great. Um so what I'm hearing is that the balance will always keep the need of the community uh at the forefront while you're trying to do this proportional or or justification of what what commercial is in each of the different areas >> through the counselor through the mayor to the counselor. Yes, we would work through Yes. >> Thanks very much. >> Thanks. Thank you, counselor. Um all right. Uh, can we get a mover and seconder for the recommendation? Councelor Null and uh, Councelor Nanda. Actually, councelor Nanda, you might like to be the mover. And councelor Null, you could trade places be the seconder. Is there any objection? Madame clerk, there's no objection. That carries unanimously. Thank you everybody. Now, uh, uh, councelor, you um, under our rules, the the next motion, which is the new business, the notice of motion. This notice of motion actually uh got in in time to give full notice and so it's not a wave the rules to consider it u now or wait for a month. It's actually in order now. So councelor, you're the acting mayor. I as the mover will be vacating the chair. if you're uh at all concerned about being able to see everybody and and would like uh it um as I go down the order of acting mayors uh we have an alternative who is actually in the room. Uh what's your pleasure sir? >> I'm I'm I'm okay to just call on you if you'd like and and you can take it from there. Um I either either way I'm I'm uh yeah it might be a little hard to share from here to be quite honest with you. So yeah, why don't why don't I acquies and pass it to pass the gavl to whoever's there who can see if people have their hand up. >> I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your answer. >> Sorry. So if it's easier for somebody who's in the room who can see if a hand is raised, then I'm happy to pass the gavvel to whoever uh can can chair the meeting at this point. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh that's very supporting of you. And the uh the next in order uh acting mayor is councelor Shia who's not here. And uh that brings us back to uh the letter A and councelor Adams. Councelor Adams uh I pass the chair to you. >> Thank you very much. Um I will recognize you as the mover of the motion. Uh and councelor Longo as the secondary if you would like to speak to it. Uh and um I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to read it. >> I would like to read it. Um it's it substitutes for a speech pretty well and at the same time informs people. And I want to start by u thanking uh Katherine Hurley for her contribution to this and uh and salute her longstanding commitment to heritage in our community and her many contributions to it. Um, so the the motion reads, "Whereas the town of Oakville places a high value on the conservation of cultural heritage resources as a fundamental component of community identity, sustainability, and complete community building. And whereas Oakville has a longstanding tradition of conserving cultural heritage through designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, heritage conservation districts, municipal grant programs, and active community stewardship. And whereas the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, the acco is proposing a provincewide heritage helping housing grant program consisting of new applicationbased matching grant program of $10 million annually to support the adaptive reuse of existing heritage buildings to create new housing. And whereas the acco proposal represents an important opportunity to generate new housing within existing buildings while minimizing demolition, reducing carbon emissions, supporting local jobs, and advancing the principle of the greenest building is the one that already exists. And whereas a range of properties in Oakville could be eligible or well suited for such an initiative, including main street commercial properties, places of worship, and older municipal buildings that may be vacant, underutilized, or capable of adaptive reuse for residential purposes. And whereas conserving and reusing heritage buildings to accommodate housing supports Oakville's strategic objectives related to sustainability, climate action, cultural heritage conservation, and housing choice. Now therefore, be it resolved that the town of Oakville endorse the proposal by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario for the creation of a provincewide heritage helping housing grant program and that the mayor send letters to Premier Doug Ford, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Gaming Stan Cho, Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Graham McGregor, the Minister of Finance Peter Bethfali, uh MPP Oakville and Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement government, Steven Crawford, and MPPP for Oakville, North Burlington, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of T of Tourism, Culture, and Gaming, FE Triana Falopolis, urging that the funding for the HHGP be included in the next provincial budget and on an annual basis thereafter, and further that a copy of the resolution be circulated to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Ontario big city mayors for their consideration and report and um Mr. Chair, I would appreciate a recorded vote on this. >> Very well. We can have a recorded vote at the appropriate time. Councelor Longo, is the secondary. Do you have any other f further comments or are you happy with what's been said? >> Very good. Um and I will search the floor for any delegates from the floor who might like to provide us information. Are there any speakers in the room here today? come on forward and introduce yourself to council and we look forward to your information. You have up to 10 minutes. >> Good evening all. Uh I'm Katherine Hurley. Uh thank you Mayor Burton and the planning and development committee members of council. It's an honor to appear before you this evening as a fellow Oakfillian as well as a member of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario to respectfully request that Oakville joins with other municipalities across the province in endorsing in principle the acco's proposed heritage helping housing grant program. I've just abbreviated my earlier presentation for those committee members and members of the general public watching this evening and who who may be unfamiliar with the good work of the architectural conservancy of Ontario. Now in its 93rd year, the acco is the province's leading non-governmental organization dedicated to the conservation and reuse of Ontario's built and cultural heritage. Through education and advocacy, the acco encourages the prevention and adaptive reuse of buildings and landscapes of architectural, historic, and cultural significance. Heritage helping housing isn't the first collaboration between the acco and the town of Oakville. We only have to look back to 2023 when the province amended the Ontario Heritage Act requiring municipalities to either designate or delist its heritage properties. Thanks to acco successful advocacy and town council's immediate response and dedication of heritage planning resources, we as a a community, an Oakville community, are now close to achieving an aspirational goal of protecting close to 100 of Oakville's priority heritage properties and achieving an achievement that we should all be proud But this evening is now about heritage helping housing, our next collaboration. This proposed grant represents a rare coherent policy opportunity to address two of Canada's most pressing challenges, the acute shortage of affordable housing and the accelerated loss of cultural significant heritage properties. In closing and before welcoming questions um from your worship and um acting chair Adams and committee, I would like to thank your worship uh for your uh leadership and long-standing support for heritage preservation in Oakville. to councelor Longo for seconding uh the motion and councelor Mcnes through her the heritage review committee and to the committee's members for support in principle also to the town's heritage policy and and planning staff um Kirk Kirsten and Gabe for fashioning this made in Oakville motion as we join other municipalities in requesting ing provincial funding support to advance the heritage helping housing grant program. On behalf of the acco, thank you for considering um the mayor's motion and request for support and just to con to conclude a vonce. I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. Councelor McNise, uh, do you have a question of our delegate or do you have other comments? >> I I just wanted to, uh, thank our delegate, uh, Katherine, for bringing this, uh, to our attention. We always appreciate your wisdom on it, um, and certainly adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is both good for the environment, good for our cultural heritage, and it's something that's hard to do. So I think getting support and potentially uh you know recognizing the impact of dollars behind it is something that's common in many other jurisdictions and and throughout the US. It it's not something that I think is out of reach and uh when Katherine and I were speaking about it. It's um you know we have real examples in Oakville the OT uh old school uh the uh Metramarine building in Bronty. There's many examples right here at home uh where a program like this uh could benefit. Um, so again, thank you for bringing it to our attention and um, I think this is a great step forward. >> Of course, we'll be in favor of it. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other questions? I see none. Thank you very much for your delegation this evening. It's much appreciated. >> Thank you all. >> Are there any other comments or questions of this item? Seeing none, then I will call for a recorded vote. If our clerk could undertake that at your convenience, please. >> Thank you. Councelor Romera. >> Yes. Councelor Mcnes, >> yes. >> Councelor Dadic, >> definitely yes. >> Councelor Chisum, >> yes. >> Councelor Hazel. >> Councelor Giddings, >> yes. >> Councelor Longo, >> yes. >> Mayor Burton, >> yes. >> Councelor Null, >> yes. >> Councelor Grant, >> yes. >> Councelor Adams, >> yes. Councelor Lcha. >> Yes. >> Councelor Nanda. >> Yes. Carries. >> Thank you very much. I return the gavl to you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Councelor Adams. Um, are there any other uh items of new business to discuss? Councelor Adams. >> Thank you very much. I uh just have a little bit of a welcome to everybody, which is to welcome you to the Northeast Oakville Fair. That's going to occur this coming Sunday at 11 o'clock in the morning all the way until 4. And we look forward to welcoming everybody including everybody in this room to the Northeast Oakville Fair that will take place at Glennon Park right outside of Ridge Rec Center. Uh come one, come all. Uh there'll be lots of fun for the whole family. And uh special thanks to councelor Null who's bringing both popcorn and a sound system for the the fair this year. Uh so we appreciate film.ca's CA's help in that as well as all of our staff here at the town who have helped to make it happen as well. >> Well, thank you counselor and >> and I would be remiss if I didn't thank u you and your office for helping us organize the permit. >> Oh, well, it's the it's our pleasure. Uh I think of it as sixfest ward six. Uh anyone else? All right. Uh then are there any requests for reports? Alrighty then. In that case, it would be in order to have a mover and a second for consideration and reading of the bylaws. Councelor Longo, I see your hand. And councelor Grant, I see you. Thank you. Is there any objection? Madam Clerk, there being none, the bylaws are considered, read, and passed. And uh with no further business to discuss, uh that ends our meeting. It's been terrific working with you, and I look forward to the next opportunity. Good night.