Hello and welcome to this meeting of the planning and development council of the town of Oakville. Uh we have no regrets. Everybody is here either in person or online. Uh council, do we have any uh declarations of uh conflict of interest? Uh madame clerk, uh I see no declarations. Uh council, uh are you prepared to confirm the minutes of the previous planning and development council meeting? Council Chenna and councel Shia. Thank you. Is there any objection or change wanted? Uh madame clerk, there's no objection or change and the minutes are adopted. Um we have advisory committee minutes uh to approve and receive. Uh is there a mover and secondary? Councelor Longo and Councelor Chisum. Thank you. Any objection? Madam Clerk, there being none, the minutes are approved and received. We have a consent item and this is a uh uh and it's on consent because it's a return item. Uh but we have a um uh we have a presentation from Andrew Hannerford and uh we have delegations. the clerk will call. And uh this is the 306th line and 21 Dundas Street West uh application that features a new shoppers uh uh councelor Shia, do you want to uh wait for the presentation on the rest of the procedure or did >> uh Yes, I want to wait the presentation and the delegation should be >> Sorry, what? >> I want to wait the presentation. Yes, >> delegation first. >> The delegation first and He'll wait for the presentations in the >> Thank you. Okay. So, >> thank you. >> I I'll call on you when we get there. Thank you. Um so, uh Mr. Hannerford, if you're here, uh we're interested and ready for your presentation and we look forward to you sharing your information. >> Thank you. And and good evening, mayor and counselors. My name is Andrew Hannerford. I'm an associate with MHBC Planning. I'm here on behalf of our clients Daniels Citybuilder Corporation and Shoppers Realy Incorporated. Joining me is Melinda McCroy, a partner at MHBC. And we do want to start by saying that we support the recommendation for approval before council this evening, which is the result of three years of detailed review and consultation with town and regional staff. Next slide, please. At the April 20th meeting, this matter was deferred back to staff for further consultation with the applicant. um focused on the proposed interim commercial building and its relationship to the housing to the north. Following that meeting, we met with the local counselors and town planning staff to discuss the interim commercial building and to clarify that the Shoppers Drug Mart is permitted as of right by the existing zoning. The application before you tonight is strictly to implement the zoning bylaw to permit the residential development envisioned by the town approved secondary plan for this area. The proposed Shoppers Drug Mart has been considered for this site since 2018. Site plan approval was granted in 2018 and has since lapsed and therefore a new site plan application is required. Our client has now filed that site plan application and it's currently under review by town staff. It reflects a version of the plan that has undergone extensive consultation with town staff that commenced back in 2023. Procedurally, the concerns that were raised by the two local counselors, including the relationship of the building to the street, site access, and loading are all site plan approval matters uh subject to that site plan approval application rather than zoning matters which are before you tonight. The Shoppers DrugMart team has worked with town staff for months, attending several meetings and making revisions to ensure that this retail use is appropriate for the context, and we'll continue to work with staff through that site plan approval process. Uh, next slide, please. Planning for this site uh began nearly 20 years ago. In 2007, the town's original plan of subdivision identified this site for retail use that could occupy the entire property. In 2010, council approved the North Oakville East Secondary Plan, which continued to identify retail here while encouraging dense residential along Dundas with heights up to 12 stories. As mentioned in 2018, shoppers received site plan approval for a store on this site. While that approval lapsed, those retail permissions remain in place today in the zoning bylaw. Next slide, please. The proposed zoning bylaw is actually more restrictive than what the secondary plan allows for our site. The policy framework permits 12 stories in height across the entire site and the proposal seeks to implement a more thoughtful transition including buildings with maximum heights of eight stories across the site, nine stories at the intersection of Dundas and Six Line, townouses at the rear, and standalone retail along Kading Trail as an interim use. The proposed design implements the plan density from the secondary plan while also providing a thoughtful transition to those residential uses to the north. The residential component includes three buildings totaling 542 units, approximately 1,400 square meters of retail and 633 parking spaces. The proposed development implements the policy framework that has been planned by the town for two decades on this site. All technical studies have been thoroughly reviewed by staff who are recommending approval on the basis that it implements the town secondary plan. There are no undue impacts and council and public comments have been appropriately addressed over the course of the last three years. Next slide, please. In the context of the current housing crisis, this bylaw is essential. It delivers 542 residential units where they've been planned by the town since 2010. It commits to delivering retail first, implementing muchneeded walkable retail to serve area residents and their daily needs. The proposal implements the town's vision to provide for interim uses while long-term higher density uses are built out across the site. This application is the direct result of council approved policies. It is not asking for more of the town. It simply implements town policy in a thoughtful and conservative proposal. We urge you to approve it this evening so we can proceed to site plan approval. And thank you. And with that, I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Shia. >> Thank you, Mr. here. Um, thank you for your presentation. So, I have a question about uh this shoppers one. So, how this uh intimate building uh realistic remain in the place before the phrase 4 redevelopment occurred. So, my following if the market condition do not support the redevelopment could this in commercial building standing alone remain there? >> Uh through the merit? Yes, it could. So the intent is that we did provide a phasing plan that we worked with town staff to prepare. The long-term vision as identified in the secondary plan for this area is dense residential along Dundas. Um as I said in the presentation, the interim retail use is permitted as of right. It's permitted right now in the zoning bot for the site. That first phase of the retail use, if the market doesn't pick up and it the the market doesn't demand that density in the future, it can remain there. It's being planned to be thoughtfully put there. it's been well planned to fit within the context and to operate properly um for the foreseeable future. At the same time, we are planning for the inevitable case where the market does pick up and there is that demand again that that could 10 years down the road whenever the market picks up um be turned into highdensity housing in accordance with the secondary plan as well with retail at grade to still provide that function on the site. >> Okay. So would you also tell me why what's the reason why you cannot put the shoppers into the mixeduse building along the dendas? >> Uh thank you and the mayor. I think you answered that already with the answer with market conditions. At this time the intent is to move forward immediately through the site plan approval process for that shoppers Drug Mart. Um, town policy as well as market conditions do dictate that you really want to put the density along Dundas, the primary corridor in this area first to support transit and other investments that the town is doing along Dundas. The retail is there to serve the existing community to provide that walkable function. Um, which is there is retail on Dundas, but it's less localized to this area. So, it does provide an important role for this community. um the only location for standalone retail that works within the context of a higher density development is that location at the corner of six line and Kading Trail and so that's why it's been put there at this time. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you councelor Shia councelor. >> Uh thank you through you Burton. I'm just trying to understand. So I thought when I read the report it said that we are being asked to approve a zoning bylaw amendment now. Is that not correct? Are you saying we already have the zoning done? Maybe I've misread the report. Correct me if I'm wrong. >> Uh through the mayor, maybe maybe I can clarify that for you. So the the retail on this site is permitted in the current uh Dundas Urban Corps zone that applies to the site. The site is actually split zone. So the eastern portion is zoned Dundas Urban Corps. The western zone is zoned future development, which requires a zoning bylaw amendment for any development on that portion of the site. What we are doing is applying the Dundas urban core zone to the entirety of the site um with permissions for the eight and n story residential. It's the retail which is part of our application which is already permitted in the zoning. So we're not applying for retail permissions on the site. We're applying for the residential permissions across the entirety of the site. >> But you we are asking to approve a zoning bylaw amendment. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. because you you said we weren't I thought I heard I apolog I maybe I misheard. So we're doing that before deferring to we're do deferring everything to a site plan process is what you're trying to do correct. Uh, no. Sorry. To be very clear and through the mayor, the Shoppers Drug Mart, which is the singlestory retail building at the corner of Shoppers and Kading, is subject to a site plan approval process. That is a separate process from the larger residential redevelopment, long-term mixeduse development of the the broader site, which is what the zoning bylaw amendment before you tonight seeks to permit. >> So, somehow it all go maybe it's just too big, but because we're definitely being asked for a zoning bylaw amendment now. >> Correct. Now when we go back though the interim commercial building relationship to the northern housing they're asking I'm trying the applicant is preparing more detailed plans. This is a promise of future work not a resolution that's what's what's happening there like we're we there's nothing definite here. >> It's a future plan. I that's not good. >> Maybe I can try to shed more light on this. There there is an active site plan approval application for the retail being that Shoppers Drug Mart at the corner of Kading and 6th that is being reviewed by town staff. So there is a site plan and associated studies with town staff for review which has been prepared in coordination with this broader plan for the residential. The reason why there is two is because the retail component does not require a zoning bylaw amendment to proceed. It can proceed straight through site plan. We've been working with staff uh again for many years to bring this to fruition and town staff will be assessing that individual retail application on its merits through that um active application. The zoning bylaw amendment tonight is coordinated with that retail site plan uh but separate and seeks to apply those residential permissions across the entirety of the site. So there there's two active planning processes being played out at the same time. the residential um over the course of the last few years zoning bylaw amendment. We've been working with town staff. We've submitted studies and that's what town staff are recommending that council approved tonight. >> So, this is a promise of future work. There's there's not a resolution right now at all. Okay. >> Sorry. >> Lighting and head and headlight lighting a headlight impacts. The report mentions a grading the cadating trail access to limit vehicle headlights shining on the residential properties. Um apparently that's not done yet. It's a real it's an identified problem yet it remains unresolved at this stage. Correct. >> No I I wouldn't say that the way you're characterizing it is correct counselor and through the mayor. So, um, through the zoning B amendment application, which is the subject of tonight's approval recommendation, um, we did submit traffic studies, um, lighting studies, all of the required technical studies to support the application before you. It's not a promise of future plans. It's a plan that has been before you and has been assessed by town staff. Um, with regards to specific headlight concerns for residents alongating, the way that traffic is intended to flow on this site, um, is that there are two right in right out accesses. um from one from Dundas and one from six line. Because of the distances uh to the intersection of six line and Dundas, the region of Halton does not allow a full moves intersection at those those locations. So the only full moves intersection into this site is from Kading. So vehicles wishing to enter the shoppers would turn left or right onto Kading Trail from Six Line, then turn left into the subject lands. When they are leaving the site, they have the option of exiting onto Kading Trail if they're going to that neighborhood. In all likelihood, they'll be exiting right onto Six Line into the remainder of the town or onto Dundas Street. So, there is limited traffic leaving the site through the Kading Trail access, which is where you would have headlight concerns. The grading plan was submitted and reviewed by town staff for the shoppers and for the residential components and deemed to have no impacts with that concern. Um it will continue to be studied through the site plan approval application which just like any application always follows the zoning bylaw amendment stage. So it will be further assessed through that. Um but town staff did not raise any concerns with headlights into those units and the majority of the traffic including truck traffic would not be exiting from that access. >> But based on the report it is still unresolved at this point. Right. I would defer to town staff, but I don't believe it to be unresolved, but it will be further assessed through the site plan. >> Yeah, exactly. That's when it get it'll get resolved. Okay. Now, the construction management plan described as mandatory, but only through the site plan process after zoning is approved. Uh residents to the north have no guarantee of its contents before the zoning is locked in. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> The zoning has to get locked in, right? through the mayor. That's correct. But that's also standard town practice. So through a zoning ball amendment application, you might prepare a high level, but it is always locked in through consultation with town staff through the site plan process. That's standard across most municipalities in Ontario. >> Yeah. I look for I thank you very much for your answers and I look forward to hearing from the the residents uh concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Giddings. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. for you. Would it be possible to put your slide deck back up? >> Uh, I believe so. Yeah, if I could ask the clerks to put the put it back up. >> There was a slide. Uh, I believe that's the one right there Counselor Elgar was referring to. Uh, so I see the Kadine Trail and on the far right side that's the right out onto Sixth. That's correct. So truck deliveries and so on. You mentioned that they wouldn't use Kading. >> So truck traffic for the Shoppers Drug Mart um will enter the site through Kading Trail. They will I don't know if you have the one slide before this with the interim site plan with the shoppers that you could put up. It might be more helpful. Um sorry I think it's back a few slides. There you go. Um, thank you. So, trucks will turn onto the site via the access on Kading Trail, drive south back into the loading bay for the Shoppers Drug Mart, pull straight out and exit the site via six line. Uh, that was done very intentionally um to ensure that truck traffic is not proceeding through the residential neighborhood to the north. It's only accessing a couple of it's not a very significant length um 40 meters maybe elongating trail where the trucks are traveling in. They turn into the site and then they exit via sixth. That also ensures that they're not driving through the internal condominium roads for the future um apartment buildings because that's obviously not a very compatible use if you can avoid it. >> That's the lower left side exiting to Dundas. >> Correct. There's also um it's hard to tell on any of these slides, but there's a significant grade change across the site. It's quite a large site. Um, so the driveway off of Dundas has a fair slope to it that you wouldn't it's not conducive to tractor trailers. With that said, there's only about five tractor trailers serving a typical Shoppers Drug Mart per week. The majority of the vehicles are smaller courier vans for Canada Post and bread delivery vans and so forth, >> but when they go in daily or close to it, um, it's going to tie it up. All right. Well, believe counselor Elder had a question for staff as well. I'd like to hear back from at the appropriate time in terms of uh in terms of the traffic and through how it's going to be dealt with through site plan. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councelor Giddings, staff, do you have uh did you note a question and do you have an answer? >> Thank you uh through you mayor. I believe the question was related to grading and headlight. um impacts if I could. Yeah. Um okay. So as we work through the site plan application, we will get into greater detail with with grading plans. Um there is an opportunity through the site plan to adjust grades primarily to make sure that um the site works and storm water management works first and foremost, but there is an opportunity to manage manage the grades so that the impact on residents and those homes on the north side of Kading Trail are as mitigated as possible. And that's what we will explore through site plan should the application be approved and we can advance the site plan application further. >> All right. Thank you councelor Giddings. Is that the the question and answer you were looking for? >> Uh that's part of it. The other one uh my primary concern there was uh the traffic entering into a plaza and then exiting through uh the residential area or the residential people coming in that way and going through. just seems to be a lot of possibility for conflict when you've got shoppers and you've got a fair number of residences in there. >> Okay. Through you, mayor. Thank you for the question. Um so through the zoning bylaw amendment, we actually looked at the on-site circulations and turning movements. Um with the site, as as Mr. Hannerford explained, Kading Trail is the access point for any large delivery vehicles coming in and six line would be their egress. they would not be taking taking Dundas Street. Um there is, you know, going to be residents in the future that might come in through Kading Trail, but if you're coming, you know, southbound down Sixth Line, you will and you live in, let's say, building A or building B, which is in the southwest corner of the site, you will primarily access that through six line as it's just easier to navigate to that corner um through that passageway. uh when we did the analysis and we will continue to do these analyses as the site plans progress because it's a phase development. There will be more than one site plan application. All of these turning movements will be reassessed through updated TIS studies. >> Thank you for the information. >> Thank you, Councelor Giddings. Counselor has deal. >> Thank you through you, Mayor Burton. Um thank you very much for your presentation. Sounds like you've been on a journey. Um and I hope I don't make it more painful, but I do have a few questions. Um, is there another location that you can point to that Shoppers Drug Mart has dropped uh their retail space um literally less than a baseball throw from somebody's front yard? Like I'm looking for an example that would reflect that this works. >> Sure. And thank you and through the mayor. Um I think it's it's quite common. Uh maybe not necessarily. I'm not as familiar with Oakville examples, but for example in Hamilton, it is quite a common condition. Um most major collector intersections have a shoppers Drug Mart on them as as a resident. Um a good example would be at the intersection of Concession Street and Upper Sherman, if I get that right. Um the Shoppers Drug Mart actually has laneway access from a rear lane from some of those residences. Um and they're they are directly abudding single detached residential as well as across the street from single detached residential. Um it works quite well especially in a developing more urban setting as is Dundas and intended for Dundas where residents uh primarily in that location do walk to the Shoppers Drug Mart and it becomes really a smallcale neighborhood uh retail use. It's also a drugstore. It's also a Canada Post. Um and it really does serve that daily need of residents. I think that's also why you see and I I I don't I don't work for Loblas. I'm just a planning consultant. But I think it also that's part of the primary function that that they're going for is to provide that very smallcale local serving their existing immediate community so that you don't have to get into a car to drive um down Dundas and um while also allowing for that use. So we've been trying to be very intentional with how it was placed on the site. The original 2018 approval had it located further south at towards the intersection of Dundas and sixth. The challenge with that is there's a significant grade. So what you have is a large retaining wall without direct access from the sidewalk where if you are coming from the south or the east, you would have to essentially drive or walk a very circuitous route around the site to get to it. Um especially if you're um not able to walk and you can't access steep stairs up a retaining wall. So um that that location also didn't work very well from a truck traffic perspective. So we believe that this this does that better. This is also the exact um the result of a lot of work with town staff um where what we heard from town staff back in 2018 with that approval was that while they supported it and we did receive site plan approval, what they ultimately wanted was for the North Oakville secondary plan to be implemented which is mixeduse high density development that supports transit that supports walkable communities. um which is really the vision for for North Oakville. And we do believe and I think town staff believe that this gets us a lot more of the way there by placing the retail closer to the residents and placing the density and the residential units along Dundas. So I hope I answered that question sufficiently. Um uh but given the timing of all of this, would the residents that bought on Kading Trail and across the street, would they have had full knowledge that this is what was going to be there? >> They should have. I can't speak to what they did or did not know, but as I said, the original draft plan of subdivision envisioned entirely lowscale retail across this site uh as early as 2009. And I believe the majority of the homes developed after that period or would have been developed in around the same time that that it's the same draft plan of subdivision. The homes that the homes immediately to the north are the same draft plan of subdivision that approved the retail back in 2009. So I would hope that they were informed when when they made those purchases that this was the intended use. Um it is uh has been available publicly through the town zoning bylaw as an approved use. it is in the town North Oakville East secondary plan again going back to 2009. Um so I think it it's been well documented that retail was planned for this site for um going on 15 16 years now. >> Okay. Thank you for some of that detail. Um, and um, further to councelor Shei's question, I'm I'm not fully satisfied with your response about uh, that the shoppers really couldn't go in the base of a building uh, on Dundas. Um, and that the reason is market conditions. I mean it it logically makes a lot more sense for the broader development and for these folks who probably don't read secondary plans before that they they they purchase this like is is there any other rationale be I mean I've heard the grade but it it it seems to make a lot more sense to be in a different location. >> I understood through the mayor. So there there's a few reasons why the shoppers is located where it is. Um as as we mentioned, truck traffic is obviously a very large concern on this site. It is for us as well um in both having future residents on the site and for the operators of the Shoppers Drug Mart longterm. Um if we were to place uh retail elsewhere on the site, the tractor trailers and loading operations would have to come further into the site. The site, as I mentioned, has quite significant grading challenges on it. Um you can see that immediately to the west of us um with those more recent um apartment buildings um where they have actually access from Dendesco's directly into the underground garage in some cases because of the significant grade challenges. So you could not um safely have a full-size tractor trailer turn into the site up a significant grade and make a sharp right turn into the site. It just uh logically and safely doesn't function very well. Um and the town transportation staff may be able to speak more to that. Um by placing it at the northeast corner, we minimize uh disruption of again only 5 to seven tractor trailers per week um coming into the site and going past existing residential homes. They're passing six to eight uh existing homes turning into the site and they cannot exit back towards those homes. They have to exit onto a regional um arterial roadway which and they're only accessing that top corner. So it does really reduce the impact and the safety and the noise impacts of those loading operations which are essential for retail to operate. Um the site also is the largest at the northeast corner. It's obviously constrained by Kading Pond um from which it wraps around. Uh so we've been trying to navigate all of that while being able to implement the secondary plan which does plan for that higher density. With regards to starting immediately with a retail at the base of a mixeduse apartment building, I think the reason why you see it as an interim use right now is that the market currently does not support that to proceed as phase one. Phase one is a standalone uh retail component. Um partially because it's permitted as of right and not regardless of whether the zoning ball is approved tonight or not, the shoppers is permitted on the site. Um but as we move forward, we did want to protect for and plan for what the secondary plan ultimately calls for, which is that mixeduse function. And so this plan um and we work very closely with town staff to ensure that this protects for that possibility in that phase 4 when market conditions and time allows for that density to build out to support that. So that that's where we are today. >> Okay. Thanks very much. Um I do have a question for town staff. >> You can ask him. >> Okay. Was there any consideration of it being a one-way coming in? Uh, so Kading, you turn in, it becomes a one-way. >> So, so we're not encouraging somebody, I get the trucks, I've I've heard it, the trucks are going to go the other way, but but if residents drove there to encourage them to go out the other way so that the lights and that friction uh between residential and retail is limited. >> Yes. uh through you, mayor. So, the TIS studies that were reviewed by town staff, I do not think that they ever uh analyzed that driveway access as being one way. It was always a a two-way egress. U if we're talking the ingress egress along Kading Trail. >> Okay. Well, I um I would suggest that somebody might consider that. um when when people put you know their life savings into a new into a home um trying you know I think we have to go above and beyond to try and find some way uh to to really truly minimize the impact and when I look at some of the things that aren't still resolved albeit I hear you that it's in progress and I do respect that you've been working hard on it. I mean, I have, for example, in my in in in my ward, somebody got to put up a a sign on their building that stares right into the neighborhood. It shouldn't have been approved. It shouldn't have been agreed to. And so, I I get worried, not not because I don't think staff try to be diligent, but these are things that are front and center now um that people are calling out saying, "Well, please don't make sure that there's lights. you know, the shoppers sign is is staring at us or that the lights are coming at us when uh people turn out. Um uh can we have some additional landscaping to to buffer? Um I think it would give people a lot more confidence that um we're considering their needs um in uh in this decision. But those are my comments. >> Thank you, councelor, for your questions and comments. Uh, Councelor Nanda for first time. Councelor Elgger, it's your second, so you'll you'll wait till she's had her go. Councelor Nanda, >> thank you, Mayor Burton. Uh, thank you for the presentation. Actually, just uh additional clarification on what my colleague just said earlier. Um, for the residents that moved there on Kading Trail in 2010, um, and we were saying that they would or should have known what was going across the street. Can you clarify though that originally the shoppers was supposed to actually be on the corner of sixth line in Dundas and not directly in front of them? Uh through the mayor um the approval in 2018 was for a shoppers Jurg Mart at the corner of Dundas and 6th. However, in 2009 the draft plan of subdivision approved by the town permitted retail across the entirety of the subject lands. So the the entire eastern parcel. So you could have had um and it was planned to only permit uh retail across the entire block. >> So So realistically when the residents moved in, the only thing that was supposed to go across the street was retail and not not um um condos or not dwelling units. So it it would differ in terms of traffic and what would be what would have gone into and where if it was commercial that um where where the entrance would have actually been. Uh so so through the mayor um you would have likely seen the same results of a loading study on the site because of the restrictions um on regional roads being done and sixth and the proximity of the subject lanes to that intersection and to accommodate turning lanes and so forth. Truck traffic is largely um required to be accessed via cadating trail. Um which is why you see it there today. Um in 2009 uh the subject lanes were approved for a draft plan of subdivision to permit retail. That's correct. In shortly following that in 2010 I believe the town of Oakville including Oakville council approved the north Oakville secondary plan which planned for mixeduse residential and retail on the subject lands. So im immediately thereafter um that has been carried forward for about 16 years now. It's a long-standing permissions. Uh the application before you today as I said there there's two parcels. So the eastern parcel where the shoppers is located permits retail currently on the site. Um, it also permits residential. The western parcel, which is the one that only has frontage onto Dundas, uh, does not permit anything. It's future development. It's basically a a holding zone until an application comes forward. You go through a zoning by amendment and those applica those, uh, provisions are brought forward. So, that's what this application tonight before you is doing. It is applying the Dundas Urban Corps zone provisions to both parcels. Um retail as I mentioned is already permitted on the eastern parcel as is the provisions that shoppers are going through the site plan approval for. So uh the with respect to what residents would or wouldn't have known obviously I can't speak to what their realtors or other resources they would have used when they purchased their homes and I'm not discounting the fact that they may not know or they may be surprised that this is coming forward but it has been in place for 16 years now on the site. Uh but just going back to when originally in 2018 it was approved on the corner of Dundas in six line what was what was adjacent to that like what was fronting the town houses when the shoppers was originally approved for the corner? >> It would be identified as future development which would permit residential as was uh permitted within the secondary plan at the time. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mered. >> Thank you, councelor Nanda. Would it have also still permitted retail if I was following your Thank you. Yes, >> councelor Elgar. >> Uh thank you uh through you member to uh two member staff. Uh regarding the photometric uh plan, I I I didn't hear the answer I was hoping to get and I just wondered if maybe I miss it. Can can the staff agree that it would be a 0.0 zero lux at this before anything could happen or is that the wording didn't say that. It said we're still looking at it or something. I want to make sure there's a grading solution to address the vehicle headlight impacts that hasn't been designed as I understand yet for the cading trail has it's not been graded. So I just want to get confirmation. Can we guarantee it'll be 0.0 or is that still a question? So through you mayor through the site plan application photoometric plans are are reviewed and analyzed by staff. The objective is to have 0.0 at the lot line to maintain limited light spill into the right ofways. Um cars and headlights are not part of a phototric plan. A phototric plan looks at lights that are on buildings um or or stansions in a parking lot and there are solutions. So, if you have a light on a building that is close to a property line, like this case, you would put a blocker plate on part of the light and that would direct the light downwards and not across the street, uh, if you will. I'm not sure if that quite answers the council's comment, but >> I think it does a pretty good job of addressing my concern. It does not have anything to do with headlights of cars is what I've just heard. Is that correct? >> Through Mayor, that is correct. Wow. Well, that's something I didn't know before because I thought the grading was going to prevent that. But I I appreciate the answer. I hope the the people that live there know that. Now, can you also advise me with the residents of Kadinguh Trail directly notified of this June 1 meeting tonight? >> Through you, mayor. notice was sent out in accordance with the town's policy >> and that which is >> that if you have previously participated or provided written comments through the application you would have received notice >> but if you just live there and have an address there no one knows right >> through you mayor I can't confirm I I do not know the specific details of you know legislative coordination >> well well wait a minute just so everybody understands what you're saying is if you have contri if you had been involved in this application is that what you're saying and you have made comments then you would have known about the meeting tonight but other how would I if I just lived there and hadn't made a comment on anything would I know would I have been given a a piece of paper in my mail >> through you mayor I I do not know the correct answer to that question um that that gets dealt with through our legislative coordination who would know that tonight >> through your mayor Burton if I if I can assist with the when we send out notice as part of a complete application as well as through the public meeting the notice is given based on council's policy of 240 m. The other requirement is that there has to be a sign posted on every street frontage. So in this case, there would be three signs on the property identifying that there is an application with the municipality. There's a code on that sign which takes you to to the website and we keep that website updated in terms of uh when reports are going to be before council. Uh as Mr. Mr. Westerhoff is saying those who have registered with the municipality who have provided comment either verbally or uh through through written submissions then we provide a courtesy notice as uh which is again our policy to ensure that they are aware that there is a recommendation report going to to council. Uh in that sense we also follow the regulations that are in the act which does not require that uh notice being given out unless it's a statutory meeting. So, we provide the courtesy and we ensure that the signs are on the property notifying of when there's a stat public meeting. >> I thank you so much for that. I just I just need clarity because I keep hearing about it afterwards. Well, we didn't know about it. So, thanks very much, Kate. I I'm through Mayor Burton. >> Thank you, Councelor. Um, uh, Mr. Henford, thank you for your patience and, uh, because I made you stand there for quite a long time unnecessarily. I I apologize. Uh, I'll uh I'll now turn to the clerk and ask the clerk to call the delegations. We have registered delegations on this file. >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. The first delegation is Julia Leo. >> Miss Leo, welcome. Council looks forward to your information. >> Hello. Good evening. Uh, by the way, I was not notified about this meeting. I did my own research and I was I'm grateful that I can present here. Thank you very much. So my name is Julia Leo and I am a resident of 50 King trail uh directly beside the proposed development site. Uh and my presentation focus focuses mainly on how this project if not modified will affect the quality of life of the existing residents living immediately adjacent to the site. Next slide please. So this is a 50 gating trail building is a sixstoric and the minimum containing 114 units. The building is home for diverse community of seniors, families with children, young professionals and many residents chose this location for its natural sunlight, open view and welcoming residential character. Approximately 30% of the units have southeast facing windows and balconies that would be directly affected by the prop proposed construction. For this residents proposed building would become dominant present immediately outside their homes fundamentally changing the environment they enjoy today. Behind every units, every unit are residents who have invested in this community and who will live with the long-term consequences of how this development is ultimately designed and approved. Next slide, please. One of the greatest concerns is extremely close proximity of the proposed building to the existing residential units of 50 King trail. So the wild white building behind the construction is 50 gating trail is a six-story building and so the image illustrates how closed the proposed building A which is uh on this picture would be to existing residential units and balconies. Next slide please. The site plan further illustrate that proposed building A would be located only 8.71 mters from the existing and the minimum building 50 trail. This level of proximity raises serious concerns and will significantly affect the daily living experience of existing residents. Next please. As this separation dis uh at at this separation distance, res residents are concerned about multiple impacts occurring simultaneously. This include reduced sunlight, loss of privacy, increased noise and overall effect on residential comfort and enjoyment of their homes. Uh next please. Next, next one please. So the concerns are not one single issue but the cumulative effect of all these impacts together combined these issues will be significantly they will alter the living experience of existing residents. Next livability is one of the primary concerns raised by the residents. Many balconies and windows will directly face neighboring residential units only short distance away. The closed spacing between bu buildings will reduce openness and create more confined living environment affecting both comfort and enjoyment of homes. Due to building uh due to our building facing uh southeast, the units currently receive most of their natural sunlight during the morning and early part of the day. The proposed building will significantly reduce this important source of natural light and we particularly concern about winter condition when the daylight is already limited. Next please. Uh and next concern is parking and loading activity. This image highlights the location of loading area, parking entrance, drop off loops and internal traffic circulations. These activities would occur immediately adjacent to the existing residential unit at 50k trail as you see in this picture. Next, please. Residents are concerned about increased noise from deliveries, garbage collection, vehicle movements, loading activities and daily traffic. Because the buildings are located so close together, no noise will be more noticeable near windows and balconies and may reduce quiet enjoyment of homes. Next please. This area already experiencing uh significant in intensification. Uh residents are concerned about increasing traffic congestion, road safety, infrastructure capacity and cumulative effect of multiple developments occurring in this area. These broader community impacts should be con considered alongside the sight specific concerns. Next. >> As as density increases, access to green space becomes increasingly important. Residents would welcome additional walking areas, landscaping, seating, and public space around King Trail. Uh, Oakville's vision is to be a vibrant and livable community for all. While growth and intensification are important, livability should remain at the heart of planning decisions. This includes protecting green space, access to natural light, walkability, residential com comfort, and the overall well-being of both current and future residents. Planning decisions should consider not only growth objectives, but also how development will affect the people who already live and contribute to the community. So I respectfully ask council to reconsider the scale and layout of the proposal particularly the design and placement of buildings A and B adjacent to existing residential building at 50 King trail. I also ask council to consider improved buffering and landscaping, preservation and enhancement of green space and stronger protection of residential livability for existing residents. I believe thoughtful and balanced planning can support growth while also protecting the quality of life of current and future residents. Next, please. So uh the cons uh concerns presented today are shared by many residents. These signatures demonstrate that the issues raised are not isolated concern but reflect the views of numerous residents who are affected by this proposal. Next please. So I would like to acknowledge the residents who took the time time to review the proposal and express their concerns. their participation reflect the importance of this issue to the surrounding community. Next one. So the comments received uh consistently identify similar themes. Proximity, sunlight, privacy, noise, traffic, lack of green space, and overall quality of life. I would like council to consider this con concerns as a part of its evaluation of the application. The last one in closing, residents are not asking council to stop growth. Residents are asking for growth that is compatible with existing community and respectful of people who already live there. I respectfully request that council reconsider the current design, specifically placements of buildings A and B, and seek a solution that better balances intensification with residential livability. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to Opel community. >> Thank you very much for your information and your and the preparation that you put into it. Questions? Council? >> Any questions? >> Councelor Navnandanda. >> Thank you. Thank you so much for that presentation. Um, just a quick question. How would you currently describe the traffic conditions on Kading Trail around your development? Um it's the traffic on and during the busy hours is very difficult to get into our building because okay when we coming going from from the west we have to turn on six line and it's busy so we have to wait for few >> lights to change. Um basically you know morning going to work is busy coming from work is busy. >> Okay. >> During the day is more or less okay. >> Okay. So you still consider a pretty busy road. >> It is a busy Dundas is a busy road. Yes. >> Dundas but Kating Trail. >> Oh Kating Trail. Uh it is busy because there's so many car parks along the Kating Trail. Yeah. It is very busy. >> Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Ma'am, >> thank you. >> I I'm sorry. I I had a couple of quick questions for you. Um, you had a couple couple questions for you. So, you said you didn't receive notice, but you How did you find out about the uh the meeting time? >> I was monitoring the the meetings and I just found that you >> So, you knew about the development because of the signs. >> I knew the about the development because of the sign. The signs were there for a couple for a year maybe. >> Okay. So, you were aware that there was a development application. Okay. Um and then the you you had two or three slides of of a petition. Um were they were those all people within your building? >> Um uh building at 50 Ging Trail and 95 uh down the street west >> adjacent. Okay. Um and so that was that distributed within the building then somehow. >> Yes. Okay. I wanted to reach out to the catering trail other uh the houses and town houses but I didn't have time because I had only one week to prepare. >> That's fine. Thank you very much for that. And the last question I had for you is you had um your final slide was that a an AI generated garden picture. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. I was a dream. Very good. Thank you very much for your time tonight. >> Welcome. >> Thank you councelor Adams. Thank you ma'am. Madam clerk of the next delegation. Thank you, Mayor Burton. Esther Huang, the next delegation. >> Welcome, Miss Huang. Uh, council looks forward to your information. >> Thank you. Um, good evening, mayors and, uh, members of the council. Um, my name is Esther Huang. I am a homeowner on Janice Drive. If you're not don't know where that is, it's a road connecting trail and directly across from the proposed zoning bylaw amendment site. So several years ago, my family decided to move to Oakville and we specifically chose this community because it's a family uh friendly ne atmosphere and it's close proximity to Isaac Park and nearby schools. And as a parents of the three children, one of the things we value most was the ability for our children to walk to the park to the nearby parks and playgrounds and schools in a safe and a welcoming environment. And today my children regularly go to the park with their friends and their mother that gives me a peace of mind. And then when by the way when they go to the park they usually go and uh turn to Kaden Trail and then go to the park on Isaac Park and that's why I am here tonight. uh why I understand that Oakville needs to grow and evolve and I support res responsible growth, but I'm also concerned about the impact this proposed development may have on the neighborhood that so many families chose to call home and we already had a lot of discussion about um impacting on the neighborhoods. So my first concern is traffic and safety which I already discussed about the busyiness of Kating Trail. So, I as I go to work, I turn to Kaden Trail every day and uh a lot of times I had to wait on that stop sign to make sure there's no uh cars coming uh to make sure it's safe to turn. And I'm also um concerned about the increased vehicle traffic associated with the proposed development. uh more vehicles, especially talking about trucks entering and uh will increase congestion and create additional safety risk for children and families who walk or bike to near our parks, schools and community spaces every day. And my second concern is parking. Uh even today uh on my street alone there are a lot of parking. uh there are street parkings are limited and there are so many families have more than two cars because some of the families have turned into the basement as a rental and then they are increased parking needs. So with this proposed development, uh parking can be more challenging and uh when my brother visits me, he has to park far away so that he can you know park not on our street because there not enough parking and to walk to our house. And with this development, my concern would be that it would put further pressure on already constrained parking situation in the neighborhood. And my and my third concern is about neighborhood density. uh residents chose this community because of the uh balance between homes, green space, roads, parks, and the community amenities. And I hope council will carefully consider whether this proposed density is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhoods and whether um existing infrastructure can adequately support the additional demand. And just um to add on comment is that I am a realtor myself and I know those homes on Kaden shows are averaging more than $1 million. So I know how much people are putting their savings to buy a home which now going to be impacted by its development. And then finally I would also like to make a comment about uh to better understand the need for this shopper jogard. I did a Google search today and from this site to the next nearby shopper jogard on Dundas and Yagawa is less than three kilometers away 2.8 to be exact. So I would like to really appreciate clarification on how this propose addresses unmet community needs because it's another shopar is quite close and how it in complements rather than uh duplicates services already available to local residents. So in summary, I respectfully ask council and mayor counselor to ensure that growth is balanced with safety, livability and quality of life for existing residents and families. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you very much for your presentation. Um, let me just check my screen. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh, councelor Shia. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Miss. Thank you for the delegates. So, uh, my question is about you are the last comments about the the needs of the community. So, for the shoppers one, so you said there's very close by. >> That's right. So there's no need for the shoppers for the neighborhood >> because as I said the next shopper jockar is on Dundas and Yagawa. Okay. So in that plaza there there's food bases, there's dollars rama, there is the shopper jog. So as a resident myself, I'm not going for grocery shopping. I usually make stops on all those commercial places, right? So I don't really see a need for shop versus joar that's within walkable distance because I often won't just go to shoppers for one thing but where doing multiple uh multiple uh errands and then just also add on to isundas and yagawa on the other side of it there is a there's a forino there in a commercial that we will often go there to shop as well. >> Okay I see. So you rather for the neighborhood so you'd rather have a grocery store than the shoppers. >> I would say that I I felt like the close proximity to you know even to add on to Walmart um upper town location Walmart and uh superstore and we have Fortuni on the other side there is a plenty of commercial space for residents in our neighborhood to shop and meet our needs. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you counselor. Thank you Miss W. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, is there anybody else here with information for councel who would like to share their information on this matter? All right. I'll confine the matter to table. Uh, councelor uh we've got competing hands going on here. Councelor Hlett deal I think has won the foot race. >> Thank you. Um, I just have uh two followups. One is um can you tell us what the community benefits are for this this property um or for these this this project? >> Uh through your mayor to the counselor the community benefits would be the community benefits charge um that's applied at the time of building permit. >> Okay. And do you know what the ratio of of uh green space um being provided is >> through you mayor? I do not know what that ratio is off the top of my head. >> Is the um just as a followup is that amenity that's shown on the drawing um uh we don't know the scale of it at all >> through you mayor. I would have to look at the site plan drawing in greater detail and give you that number and I can do that just not right now. >> Okay. Thanks very much. Um, you know, one of my struggles with this is it sounds like staff have been actually struggling with it because it wouldn't have taken that long to get here if it was in the perfect spot. Um um and I'm wondering is there an option for you to come back and confirm that all of these concerns that have been raised that have been classified as site plan have been addressed >> through you mayor. I would disagree that staff have been struggling with this application. Um there has been a lot of um sort of different chatter around what this application is. As Mr. Hannerford described in his in his presentation, a one-story commercial building is permitted on the subject property. These lands are are split zoned H5D with a special provision one which dates back to the inception of NOESP and future development. And what this application is doing is trying to reszone that future development land while basically bringing in line the existing permissions on that already zoned property and consolidating them under one clean zoning zoning bylaw but also zoning provision with these sight specific provisions to enable the development as it's been proposed. Uh the the time challenges is ultimately just comes down to the preparation of studies and and to be perfectly frank, we spent a lot of time uh transportation engineering staff and the the consultants, the applicants consulting engineer in working on understanding what those impacts on that local road network are and ensuring that there are no unacceptable impacts on the local road network. And we did that through, you know, doing a TIS TIS addendum and then the sensitivity analysis. And then through each subsequent site plan as they progress through the phase development, like I previously mentioned, new site plan, new TIS addendums will be prepared that respond to the the current basically um loading and the current development in the surrounding area. Right? So as it progresses throughout its lifetime, the TIS's will be updated to reflect real-time uh information and data. Well, thank you for that additional information. Um, on table three, uh, of the report, it does delineate what phase 2, three, and four are. Was there consideration when you were looking at the size of those units to uh encourage something uh perhaps a little bigger? Thank you. And and through you, mayor. um as the development progresses and as market conditions because market conditions for apartments are are generally soft right now. As market conditions rebound and and there is a drive for these units, these these actual units and the distribution of them may change and respond to the market conditions in order to move those units. what's presented here on this table is is what's the applicants provided in their detailed breakdown of their application and and I've done so for you as well to to better understand what is the allocation each way and as the site plan progresses and I'm sure the applicant is here understanding what you're saying today that we can explore opportunities to increase let's say the two beds or the one bed plus den in comparative to the studios but this is what has been brought forward with the application today that's not to say it won't change in the future So my last question is the FSI is supposed to be 2.5. You're proposing we accept 2.9. Why? >> Through you, mayor. The zoning bylaw introduces a maximum FSI of of 3.0. Um ultimately what that does is is it provides a level of certainty to council and members of the public that this is the maximum floor space index that can go on this site. The increase that's required, this 3.0 0 is only triggered once phase 4 comes to fruition and that onestory commercial building is redeveloped and ultimately by increasing that FSI to 3.0 rather than the 2.5 as it is today it builds in this flexibility to respond to these market conditions and potentially provide larger units which would increase the FSI. >> Thank you for your explanation. >> Thank you councelor Hazel. Councelor Shia. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I would like to thank staff and the applicant and the residents who have participate throughout this process. So, while I uh uh recognize that staff have been conclude the proposal, confirm applicable planning policies. Uh I still remain concerned about whether this is the right development for this particular narrow site. We got many many emails, phone calls from our residents. They are not satisfied with the development. The proposal would automatically bring almost 700 unit to a reality disconstrained path of land. The residents and I continue to have concerns regarding density, traffic impacts, site circulation, parking demand, and overall compatibility of the development with existing home alongside the Caden Trail or other neighborhoods. So growth is important, but it must be balanced with the liability and the compatibility for existing residents. At this time, I'm not satisfied with those concerns have been raised by the residents. For these reasons, I will not be supporting this application. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Shia. Councelor Chisum. >> Thank you. Worship through your worship. Um to the developer or consultant with respect to what is this the square footage of size of the uh the um the drug market? What's it called? Um lost my train of thought there. Shoppers Drug Mart. What's the What's the square footage of that? Um, sorry, one moment as I just grab my notes here. Uh, the singlestory Shoppers Drug Mart, um, one moment is 1393 square meters. I apologize. I don't have a square footage. Okay. So, let's let's look at this. Is as is a is that a so I would assume that's a full-fledged um grocery store too because I see a lot of these uh Shopper Drug Mart having a full-fledged uh grocery side of it. Is that included in this uh building? >> So, so through the mayor um this would be a relatively small shoppers Drug Mart compared to the typical Shoppers Drug Mart location as a result again of the site constraints. Um, I don't I apologize. I don't know the exact figure of a typical shoppers, but through discussions with shoppers, this would have it would have a grocery component, but it would be somewhat smaller just due to the limited size of the building. >> Okay. And the one the one uh resident was uh put out the distance between the the the development and the residential. I think it was I I think I converted it to feet or 28 ft different separation. Is that a correct uh measurement? >> Uh through the mayor. Um so there's a bit more nuance to that measurement. So towards the existing Madame buildings to the north um to the third story there's a threetory component of the building. I don't know if the site plan can be put up, but there's a three-story component of the building that is directly adjacent uh to the property line. It is set back 8.71 m. The actual residential building that goes the full eight stories is set back 16.08. So, it's double. Um, so there's a a threetory portion that's 8 m and then the eighth story is 16 mters, which is in line with Oakville's mid-rise separation criteria and and quite standard. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Chisum. Councelor Nando, >> thank you through you, Mayor Burton. Um, thank you again um for bringing the application forward and thank you to our staff. Um, I am however in agreement with my council council colleagues saying that I will not be supporting this recommendation at this point. Um while we recognize the need for housing and the importance for planning of growth, um there are significant concerns regarding the scale and intensity of the proposal and the impact it will have on the surrounding community. A key concern raised by residents relates to compatibility of the development with the surrounding neighborhood and the additional pressure it will place on local infrastructure, traffic movements, and community amenities. In particular, residents have voiced concerns about the impacts on Kading Trail, including increased traffic, safety considerations, and overall character of the area. The proposed development includes future access and development phases that directly interface with Kading Trail. And so with that, we believe um the council must carefully consider the feedback received from residents who will be directly affected by this development. Growth must be balanced with livability, infrastructure, capacity, and community acceptance. So based on the concerns uh that were raised from several residents in the area and impacts on Kading Trail, um I'm unable to support the recommendation before us. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Nanda. Councelor Omira. >> Um, thank you. Just a question to staff. I mean, so we've recommended this. It's it's a housekeeping from what I understand Colin saying, it's it's a housekeeping sort of consolidation of bylaws here. Um, and this might be uh a question for legal. Um, so you know, we obviously have residents who don't want this to be built, which is nothing new in the town. um what happens when uh when we say no to this? What's the next steps legally that are are now going to um avail themselves to the applicant or or what what what's the next path after this if council says no? >> Miss Chandra, I think that might be for you and uh it's I think entirely in order to share with the public what the what the given legal process is. That's surely no secret. through you, Mayor Burton. Uh to councelor Omera, uh the applicant is already in a position to file an appeal. Uh the time frame for council to make a decision has already passed. Um and I understand they're waiting for the decision this evening, so they would be in a position to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. And it was the applicants working with staff to try and come to a staff supportive recommendation that would have been their hope to avoid going through a legal process. Um that's why they they have waited for this. Is was that a correct statement? >> Well counselor uh we can ask the applicants consultant to answer that rather than staff to speculate. Mr. Hannerford. >> Um, thank you, councelor, and to the mayor. Um, it is it is correct that the um window from which we could file an appeal, it has passed. We can still file an appeal. Um, I guess sorry could could you just repeat that question to ensure I I answer it as completely as >> I I guess I guess my question was that you were waiting you didn't file your appeal as soon as the timeline was over because you thought it best to work with the town and work with town staff to come to something that they could recommend and council would take our staff's opinion and and you could avoid legal uh costs which both sides the town and the applicant have to spend. and in order to thrash this out in the courts. >> Uh uh thank thank you councelor and to the mayor. I would say that um it's important to clarify um we do have staff support and we did have staff support at the initial council meeting. Uh town staff do recommend approval of our application. Um again we are simply implementing council approved policy on this site. We are not seeking more. We are not seeking to get things that we are not permitted within the town's official plan. We're seeking to implement the town's existing official plan. Um the reason for the delay um was the hope that we could work with the two local counselors to come to an agreement where our council are satisfied that um they can trust a town staff who are recommending approval and that we can move forward um without needing to go through a tribunal process. Uh, with that said, we are quite confident that we are implementing town policy, um, that our application is good planning, um, and in line with all of the recommendations of your staff and so we would proceed accordingly um, if council chose to not approve the application tonight. >> Great. Thank you very much for that. >> Um, so, so with that, your worship, I mean, we have to be consistent as a council. Either we support our town policies or we don't. We can't have one side of the town where we're asking people to adhere to town policy and then another one where we say you met town policy and we still don't like it. I I mean we you know I I will support the staff's recommendation uh just for consistency alone. Like we we we have to try and and be consistent in what we're doing here. Um uh I appreciate the residents um concerns and and I think Colin did an incredible job uh at emphasizing we we still have work to do with site plan and dealing with this stuff. We have done a lot of work on this. Um I I I have to I think we should all be consistent in what we're asking of our town policies and we all get the opportunity to revisit our town policies. So I'll be supporting uh staff's recommendation on this. Thank you worship. Thank you, councelor Romera. Councelor Chisum. >> Thank you, worship. Uh, and just to go on uh councelor Mayor's comments, I would agree with that. I think where the um the due diligence will be is the site plan and making sure we have a a good transition uh with that uh with that uh area with respect to um uh meeting all the the policies and so forth. in general. I've been on council long enough when we go to Ontario Lands Tribunal, our our success rate is very very low. Uh knowing full well that we have the support of staff and we we're in support of all the policies and bylaws that we have that are within this. Uh yes, I totally agree that sometimes the residents don't like uh the issues with closeness and so forth and light and so forth. I know we've had that challenge in other communities and other resident areas. So, uh, I am supportive of the, uh, of the, uh, application and so I just leave it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Chisum. Councelor Ramire and Councelor Chisum, can I convert those statements into one of you moving and the other seconding it? >> Yes, your worship. That's fine. >> Thank you both of you. Councelor Elgar, your turn. >> Uh, thank you. with you. My concern is what can we do as council regarding the lux factor of headlights into people's houses. That to me is a huge issue could be and will be if we don't ensure grading and what I'm hearing is we have no control. I just want to confirm. Do we have any control at all or is there anything that the that can be done to ensure we have a zero lux factor shining into people's windows which can be very concerning for residents. >> Councelor, I think that's a question for Miss Chandra or or Mr. Charles. U and Mr. Charles is rising to the challenge. Thank you, Mayor Burton, and through you uh councelor. Through our uh site plan requirements, we do have, as Mr. Westerhoff was saying, a zero cut off requirement at the property line. So that is any light which is generated on the site is required to be cut off at the property line and that is incorporating grading issues, that's incorporating the building design, that's looking at the phototrics of the site. We do have professionals who are required to submit a phototric plan that uh we are then able to to review and rely on uh through through a certification process. Where it comes to to cars, it's no different than street lights. There is uh other light, ambient light, which does affect all of us as as anyone is using the public realm and lights that are affecting to to homeowners uh regardless of of where they are. And again, that's whether it's from from car traffic, it's whether from street lights, etc. So, you can see the light, but it's whether or not it's actually coming into into the house. And it it's not something that we are able to control uh in in terms of of car lights going into it. So, we will do everything that we can through the site plan process to ensure that there is zero cut off at the property in terms of the light that gets generated on the site. >> I I thank for the answer. I understand the street lights. It's what the cuz I don't think the street lights shine directly into the windows. So that's my only concern. So I appreciate the answer what what our restrictions are. Thank you very much. >> Thank you councelor. Uh, as you may recall, councelor Elgar, we worked together uh in the day uh uh to create the um very strict uh cut off of light at the property from lights on buildings and light standards on the property. And we were we learned at the time that we were unable to do the same thing about cars. And so, uh, we've relied on staff through the years to do the best they can at site plan to encourage, uh, or discourage, if you like, to discourage lights and windows and encourage, uh, other directions for that. Um, councelor Shia, >> thank you, Mayor B. I just want uh ask the record vote. >> Yes, no problem. >> Thank you. Um, so I'd like to uh I'd like to check a few things that I heard with uh with staff. I heard that the shoppers is as of right and rejecting this tonight will not stop the the shoppers. I heard that the I believe I heard that the amount of units of housing is less than they're entitled to that they had chosen for market reasons to to have fewer and uh I and I won't repeat the things I heard about the traffic in and out and the truck because I thought that was very clear. But for these two points about uh uh the shoppers being you're not stopping the shoppers by defeating this and and the housing the the amount of housing the the other issue the live issue is how much housing is this the maximum possible housing is this less than possible. Could you clarify that? >> Yes, thank you mayor. Um that is correct. The onestory interim commercial building that is permitted as of right today um by turning this application down and refusing it. It's not going to prevent um any forward progress on the site plan application that has already been submitted. Um with respect to the level of intensification, this site can accommodate more uh basically residential dwelling units than are being proposed today through this application. >> Thank you very much. I didn't want to make a mistake and it's be but it's for those two reasons that I will be supporting uh the motion. Uh uh council is there any other speakers or shall I ask the clerk to call the recorded vote? Councelor How's that feel? >> Um I just would like to get some clarification on what you just were told. So the FSI is uh is to be 2.5. It's only three with phase 4. Correct. So I'm not understanding how you're telling me that the amount of housing is less. >> Yes. Through you, mayor. the FSI increases beyond 2.5 as what's in the in the bylaw today through this application. FSI is not directly tied to the number of units but rather the building size on the subject property. So more units could be provided, more residential dwelling units um without the need to increase the FSI, but it the increase in FSI makes those units that are being provided more livable, which I think is something that we heard from the resident concerns today. >> Uh thank you for that. >> All right. Uh Madame Clerk, would you call the vote? >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. Councelor Ramira, >> yes. >> Councelor Mcnes, >> no. >> Councelor Dick, >> yes. >> Councelor Chisum, >> yes. >> Councelor Hazel Theal, >> no. >> Councelor Giddings, >> yes. >> Councelor Elgar, >> no. >> Councelor Longo, >> yes. Mayor Burton, >> yes. >> Councelor Null, >> yes. >> Councelor Grant, >> yes. >> Councelor Adams, >> yes. >> Councelor Lischa, >> yes. >> Councelor Nanda, >> no. >> Councelor Shei, >> no. >> Carries. >> The measure carries. Thank you everybody for the uh close scrutiny that we gave this this item. Uh we now turn to the supplementary report for the 2026 2030 municipal election compliance audit committee uh item 5.2. Um are there questions from council? >> Councelor Nanda. >> Thank you through you, Mayor Burton. Um I did have some questions on this. Um coming back it it seems like there's still more work that seems that needs to be done. Um I had a few questions. One was on under governance tool for staff. Um where does it talk about where all minutes will be published? Are all minutes when there's a compliance audit committee meeting? Is all the meetings supposed to be public and minutes put on put on our site through you, Mayor Burton. Uh to the counselor. Uh the town solicitor is available to answer any questions that you have on this item. Solicitor Carr, thank you. >> Yes. Um, good evening. Um, through you, Mayor Burton. Thank you for the question. Um, I would uh look to uh the deputy clerk to supplement my answer, but my initial response is the matter of minutes would be something that would be addressed through the development of the administrative uh practices and procedures that are um part of the process of of the next step. >> You're up, I guess. >> Yep. No, absolutely. Uh I agree with what uh solicitor car said. Um and also to note the the administrative practices and procedures will be posted on the website prior to recruitment starting. Okay. So again just for clarification all meetings um that happen with the compliance audit committee are supposed to be public meetings and minutes are supposed to be be had for each of those meetings if they ever do meet. through you uh Mayor Burton. If the committee is meeting on an application that has been uh filed pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, then yes, those meetings of the committee are in public dealing with applications under the Municipal Elections Act. And uh when those meetings are conducted, the um the minutes are available on the um they're available to the public. >> Okay. Um and is there an allocation of legal funds um that is made for for the lawyers for the compliance audit committee? Um there's not an al through you, Mayor Burton. There's not an allocation through the town's budget process. The town is obligated under the provisions of the municipal elections act to uh cover the costs of the committee. All costs including it its legal costs. There's no discretion on the part of any municipality. Uh they're all required to cover the costs of the committee under the provisions of the act. And it is that done by taxpayers? >> Um the um yes yes the the costs of the committee are the responsibility of the municipality. >> Okay. Um, and just in terms of how we're going to define or how it's being defined right now in the reference, um, in other municipalities such as Missaga, they're considered a local board, but we're suggesting that this would be quasi judicial. Like, what is the difference? If this is all under the province, how come there's different definitions of what this board is supposed to be? >> Um well through you uh Mayor Burton, I I would dispute that characterization. Um we also have uh external counsel Mr. Stefan Imar Shabo who could assist as well. But under the legislation um and through many uh rulings of of the courts um it's been confirmed that compliance audit committees are not local boards. They're not committees of council. They are arms length independent quasi judicial uh bodies. >> Okay. So Okay. So I saw it under PO region under Missaga. So are they incorrect for having that under their terms of reference? >> Uh I I can't uh answer any differently counselor that they are not um in law, a local board or a tribunal or a committee of counsel anywhere in the province. >> Okay. Um and then where is the mechanism for removal if there is a conflict of interest um with a member of the board or the committee >> again uh through you mayor Burton um and I would uh invite the deputy clerk or or external counsel to supplement my answer. Um the details of that are not before you this evening but they will be developed through the development of the administrative practices and procedures uh through the through the clerk's office. >> Okay. So, did we maybe bring this back prematurely? Um because it just feels like all the terms still don't seem to be there um to reflect what we may want to see in a committee. Um >> I I'm suggesting whether we should have another deferral like to come back because it just feels like based on the report that was put before us and just that there was um like just a a member's oath that was added to this but really there was no real change in the terms of reference. Well, uh, councelor, who's your question directed to? >> Well, I'm not sure, staff or I'm not sure if if we should we should be asking for a deferral again? >> May Mayor Burton, I don't know if it's appropriate. My name is Stefan Mabo and I've been external counsel supporting uh the internal legal team at Oakville on this matter. Uh if I may make a a quick comment, the the key thing for members of council to remember is that when the Ontario legislature changed the act in 2009, uh it made a very clear decision that uh these committees would operate at arms length from politicians. uh it made um that decision by removing the role of council in oversight and as the court of appeal has confirmed that that's what uh solicitor car was referring to the functioning of a compliance audit committee like every other independent quasi judicial body in the province is governed by principles of administrative law and the oversight uh is on the courts. Um if a an elector or a candidate or a third party believes that a member of a committee of a compliance audit committee uh has a bias or or anything conflict of interest. Uh the recourse is to file an application for judicial review. Uh it is not uh with respect it is not for uh councils in Ontario to police the compliance audit committees. Uh there is no power in the elections act to provide for a process for removal. Uh once these members are appointed through an armslength process, uh they sit essentially like members of dozens of other tribunals and judges independently and their decisions are subject to fairly strict rules, but the oversight is with the courts, not not with politicians. >> Thank you very much for that information. Um councelor Nanda, >> sorry. So then just my question would then be just in in choosing because we're we're giving these terms of references for our clerk's office or for all the municipality in the region to pick these um committee members but how do we how do we know that they wouldn't have a conflict and and according to what uh Mr. Shabbo said if there was to be found what what could the clerks really do if they were to find that there is a conflict then what what could they do after the fact >> counselor the essential point I heard from Mr. Amar Shabau is that it's not for council to decide that. >> Okay. Okay. I'll hold for now. Thank you. Uh there is a lineup. Councelor Hlettal, your turn. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for uh some of the uh edits in this supplementary. I do appreciate it. Um and I particularly appreciate that you've come up with a member's oath of office. I did want to call out because it confused me a bit in 6D in the oath. It says by assisting the campaign of any candid uh of any candidate. But I don't see that those words in the other components that talk about eligible or ineligible. So I know that you're incredibly meticulous and I'm not I I'm I just I think that those words probably gave comfort to some individuals, maybe not others, but 6D doesn't line up with what is in uh in the terms of reference. I think and so if I could just draw your attention to it if if that could be considered as being um if we could get that clarification. My second question is um I appreciate now hearing that the administrative details will be posted. So that's comforting and and and I think very important. But following that, once you have chosen your committee, will that committee's names be posted on the election uh website for Oakville? >> Uh through you, Mayor Burton, to the counselor. Uh yes, they will be posted uh online on the website. >> Okay. So, so should somebody have a concern, it will be it will be evident who's on the committee, um, by the time we got to anything where somebody might question the financial whatever people are doing. Um, okay. Um, I just want to make sure I've asked you all the ones that I had concerns with publication. >> Thanks very much. >> Thank you, Councelor. I mean, councelor Hlett, councelor is next. Um uh and and before Alan before you start councelor Hazatil I appreciate the questions that you asked and they uh they gave me comfort on the matter as well. So thank you for those councelor Elgar. >> Thank you member. I'm just trying to understand are there quorum requirements uh specified for the decision making? Is there a quorum or no requum? I'm just trying to understand the wording >> through you to the may uh through Mayor Burton to the councelor. There is a quorum a minimum of three members. I I appreciate that and it's it's no different than what I said earlier based on the Ontario legislature 2009 legislation. We're really basically a rubber stamp. We have we and I think the external uh staff there was it Mr. Mr. Shaboli external legal and he pointed it out like it really we we should just approve it. We have no control over this. So I thank you very much and I'll be pleased to move it based on what he told me. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Elgar. Let me uh before we go to councelor Adams, can I get a seconder for that motion? Councelor Longo. Thank you. Councelor Adams, you're up. >> Thanks very much. Uh first, thank you to staff who made the changes to uh create the oath of office uh and incorporate some of the discussion that we had at the last meeting. I just had one question of clarification and I thank you for the answers to some of my colleagues which covered off some of the concerns or questions I had already. Uh I just want to ask about the HR process with respect to applicants to uh to be a member on a on this committee. Is it similar to the way in which we name members to other committees for the town uh or to say the library board uh or or on the provincial side the way they might uh make uh appointments of citizens to a police board wherein an application comes from somebody but nobody outside of the receiving side of that knows who applied nor what their qualifications might be. Um and it's only after they make the appointment uh that the names are released publicly and when that happens there's no listing of all the qualifications of that individual. Uh there's no checklist that says this person met this criteria and that criteria. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So um so we're being consistent uh in terms of the process the HR process uh of what's happening here. Thank you very much. >> Thank you counselor. Um the motion is moved and seconded and I see no more um hands. Uh uh is there any objection to the motion? Councelor Nanda, it's close but uh the the motion carries. Uh thank you everybody. Um it's 8:00. Would council uh council has two more media items. Would council like a short break before we resume? I'm going to say yes, you do. And uh we'll be back at 8:15. All right. Okay, council, we're back in order. And the next item up is 7.1, the public meeting and recommendation report for the zoning bylaw amendment application for uh East and West, which is uh pinpointed at 42436 line. Um, this is a public hearing item and uh I'm going to call on Dia McFale, MCI PRP planner for a presentation. Miss McFale, we are all ears. You have our attention. >> Thank you very much, Lord Mayor. A zoning bylaw amendment application has been submitted by GHD Limited on behalf of their client East and West Incorporated. The proposal is to amend the zoning bylaw to allow for the development of employment uses on the lands located at 42436 line. For reasons more clearly identified in the staff report, staff are recommending the approval of this application. The report may be found as item 7.1 on tonight's agenda and it begins on page 48 of the council package. This meeting serves as both the statutory public meeting and recommendation meeting for the zoning bylaw amendment to present the proposal to the public and council and for staff to present a recommendation for council to make a decision on the application. The property is known municipally as 4243 6 line and it is located on the east side of six line south of the 407. The property traverses the municipal boundary. So a portion of the property identified by the arrow is within the town of Milton and is not subject to this application. Surrounding the lands include the future highway 407 transit way to the north, a storm water management facility and vacant employment lands with an approved site plan to the east, vacant employment land to the south with a site plan currently under review and vacant employment lands to the west. The subject lands are approximately 3.89 hectares in size and have 20 m of frontage along six line road. Sorry, six line. The remaining portion of the property along six line of lands owned by the Ministry of Transportation that are intended to be incorporated into a future transit way associated with the 407. The subject lands contain an existing heritage building and telecommunications tower with the remainder actively being used for agricultural crops. The purpose of the application is to establish the land use which implements the North Oakville Secondary Plan. The applicant proposes the construction of industrial buildings on the property and the concept plan that you see is provided for information purposes. Building location, the reuse of the existing heritage building, site access and landscaping will be determined through the site plan process. The subject lands are designated urban area within the region of Halton official plan. The urban area is planned to accommodate the distribution of population and employment growth for the region. The range of permitted uses in the urban area will be in accordance with the town's official plan and zoning bylaw. The subject lands are located within the employment area, which is intended to provide for a range of employment uses to meet the town's long-term employment needs. The subject lands are designated employment district on figure NOE2 land use plan. And the vision of the North Oakville East secondary plan includes the establishment of a business park along Highway 407 to provide a range of employment opportunities for Oakville residents. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment will implement the North Oakville East Secondary Plan, contribute to the town's employment targets, and help support the creation of a community where people can live and work. The property is currently zoned future development, which only permits existing buildings and structures, as well as conservation measures and uses not subject to zoning bylaws under provincial or federal legislation. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning to the general employment zone to prevent a range of employment uses that align with the provincial definition of area of employment which includes warehousing, storage, manufacturing and assembly as well as limited office and retail uses. This zone will ensure the principal use of the lands remains for employment uses. An holding provision has been added to the implementing zoning to require the approval of a functional servicing report prior to the development of the lands as indicated on appendix A, page 70 of the council package. In conclusion, Mayor Burton staff put forth the following recommendation for council's consideration as shown on this slide. It is staff's opinion that the application be should be approved at is as it is consistent with the provincial policy statement uh sorry provincial planning statement and implements the existing and emerging employment policies for the town. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much Miss Fail. Councelor Nanda uh may have a question for you. Councelor Nanda. >> Thank you through you mayor Burton. Thank you so much for the presentation. And uh just some clarifying questions. Um given that the site's pro uh proximity is only um 20 mters from the frontage of six line um do you expect that there'll be issues with truck access or emergency vehicle access through the mayor to the counselor? Yes. Because there's only 20 meters of direct frontage on the right ofway. That is the only location where access can be provided. the applicant may decide to um engage in conversations with the Ministry of Transportation which owns the other part but um at present it's restricted only to those 20 m. >> So So you identified that as a concern. So how are we how are you looking at proposing that it not become a concern for later? >> Yeah. Through the mayor to the counselor. The proposed concept plan that was submitted with the application indicates two separate accesses and so that's why staff had identified that those two access points um were a concern. >> Okay. And then that's going to be done through site plan to fix fix the issues >> or resolve the issues >> through the mayor to the counselor. Yes. Um if the Ministry of Transportation is willing to give up some land for a second access that is um incumbent upon the Ministry from what I understand based on the um elevation of the roadway as it goes as an overpass to the 407. Um that may be unlikely. >> So then what are we going to do uh if that if that doesn't happen? How is that going to become an issue then? uh through the mayor to the counselor, they would be restricted to the one access uh on the southerntherly portion of the site. >> And will there be enough room for the trucks to come in and out >> uh through the mayor to the counselor? There would be a transportation impact study that's um to be resolved uh resolving any issues with truck movements through the site plan process. >> Okay. Um, and you can't at this time anticipate the volume of truck or what the uh developer expects as truck traffic. Uh, through the mayor to the counselor, the proposal um has considered um certain uses the industrial um buildings uh and that concept had a transportation impact study. Uh it's possible that um the concept plan will change. That is our anticipation or we do anticipate that. So the uses will be um evaluated under a new TIS or a revised TIS. Okay. And to this um site, where are the closest residents to this site? >> Uh through the mayor to the counselor. Uh they would be south of Loyalist Trail. >> Okay. So this is this is >> further south and William Holton Parkway. >> Okay. So all the future developments around here are all employment >> through the mayor to the counselor. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Thank you councelor Nanda. That I thought was very helpful in eliminating councelor. >> Thank you through you mayor Burton. Um can you just confirm for me that that the uh there's clarity around not being able to quay the trucks on sixth line? So um warehousing has loading and unloading times depending on what their their products etc. I know way too much more about of warehouses now after a term on council. Um, can you confirm that there's no quaying allowed on six line for um uh for the property and that their turnaround addresses that uh ability to to have their trucks on site, not on sixth line through the mayor to the counselor. The truck movements would have to provide in and forward in and out of the site. So any maneuvering needs to be wholly contained within the lands. Uh in terms of a queueing uh entering into the site, uh that would be reviewed again through a transportation impact study. >> Okay. Um, so it um I I understand why why they want to do it there and I I appreciate councelor uh Nanda's questions around uh some of the other areas but I I would hope that we are going to explore ensuring that uh they have they're building out the property such that uh we don't see quang on six line >> through the mayor to the counselor. Yes, that will the um appropriate movements at the roundabout and including six line will be of interest to staff and region as well as it is the roundabout is a regional um road. Thank you. >> Thank you counselor councelor null. >> Thank you worship. um with respect to the uh sliver of land that actually is in the uh uh in Milton, how does that impact the applic I mean you say it's not subject to the application, but how how is that addressed from a legal perspective? It's it's one continuous parcel, I assume. >> Uh through the mayor to the counselor, yes, it's one continuous parcel. We cannot zone lands that are not within our jurisdiction. So through the site plan process, we would ensure that any um any lands within the town of Milton would be landscaping only. There wouldn't be any facilities like parking or building. It would simply be um green space. >> Do we coordinate that with Milton to ensure that that becomes the actual plan or is it subject to the applicant's desire to pursue something alternatively? >> Uh through the mayor to the counselor. Um yes, the town of Milton has been engaged through this process. They do have an interest in being um consulted with uh for the site plan. If for some reason the applicant decides they would like to do something within the town of Milton, then they would need to go to the town of Milton like they have to the town of Oakville and apply for a reasonzoning application to permit that. >> Okay. I've never heard of that before where it's one property is split across two municipalities. That's interesting. It be interesting to watch. Thank you. >> There you go. 26 years and you could still be surprised uh councelor Shia. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. So I have uh noted there. So what's the protection about the the ensure the heritage building to is restored or is preserved as part of the future development? >> Uh through the mayor to the counselor. The building is a designated heritage property. Um and so staff would be encouraging the applicant to consider incorporating the reuse of the building as part of the concept. Um but because it is a listed heritage building, it's designated I should say um that that building should remain whether in situ where it is currently or relocated to another portion of the site. >> Okay. uh is that will be the heritage eastment agreement and the site plan process provided by council with a significant assurance that building will be protected and not uh deterate during the future construction >> please Mr. mayor to to the counselor. Um the the heritage easement piece, if there's any changes that have to go through that, it would go to the heritage committee first and then through council's adoption of those minutes, then that would be approved and we would be working then with the applicant to amend the permit as as needed to address any changes to the building structural or or what have you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, councelor Shia. Uh I see no other questions. Can I get a mover and second her? Councelor Shia and councelor Nanda. Thank you. Any objection? Madam clerk, there being none, the item is adopted. That brings us to 8.1, the official plan amendment for 4040, 4180, and 4233 uh Trafoga Road. Um we uh we have a couple of presentations. I'd like to start with calling on Brandon Hassan, our senior planner. Welcome Brandon and we look forward to the presentation. Great. Thank you very much. Uh, thank you, Mayor Burton, members of council, and members of the public tuning in to tonight's meeting. This presentation is in relation to item 8.1 on tonight's agenda. This official plan amendment application pertains to the proposed development of the infrastructure Ontario lands located at 4040, 4180, and 4233 Trafaloger Road. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide the staff analysis of the application and provide recommendations to council in order for a decision to be made. As seen on the air photo map, the subject lands are located north and south of William Halton Parkway, south of Highway 407, east and west of Trafalgar Road. As seen on the screen, the subject lands are outlined in red on the North Oakville East community structure map. I'd like to draw your attention to the yellow numbers 2, three, and four along Trafalar Road. Noting the subject lands are located within the Trfalar urban core area 1 or TUC1 land use designation. Again, the subject lands are outlined in red on the North Oakville master plan where you can see the aqua color represents the TU and the yellow represents employment areas. It should be noted that only policies pertaining to the TU are being modified through this application and there are no changes proposed to the existing employment area policies. This is a map of the North Oakville zoning bylaw which is not being amended through this application. A zoning bylaw amendment will be required in the future to develop the subject lands with buildings and other sight specific elements which will be open to further input uh and council feedback at that time. On the screen now is the subject of the application being an official plan amendment to the North Oakville East Secondary Plan, which will introduce residential land uses in the TUC1 land use designation with greater building heights ranging from 12 to 30 stories within 100 meters of Trafalga Road aligned with the former planning act and official plan bonusing tools. staff have worked closely with the applicant to structure the OPA in general alignment with the recent OOLT order for the Argo lands to the southeast where you can see on the screen that the community park lands were acquired through that settlement. So, it's the small green uh square in the bottom corner of the circle labeled CP. Through this application, two elementary school symbols are being added to the NOE2 land use plan east and west of Trafalogar Road, which are subject to change without further amendment to the plan to be determined through consultation with the school boards during future zoning bylaw and plan of subdivision applications. Overall, this application aims to create a complete community by permitting residential land uses in the TUC1 land use designation consistent with the TU 2, 3, and four areas, including policies taken from the town's commercial and employment area review studies, introducing two new school sites, enhanced policies for open space coordination with the town, and land use compatibility. On the screen is a list of the matters to be addressed through the application review process which are detailed in the staff report. And in conclusion, staff put forth the following recommendations as shown for council's consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Hansen. Uh you have a question from councelor Elgar. Councelor Elgar. >> Uh thank you to me Burton. Uh thank you very much for the presentation. Uh I I raise a red flag on this because it's happened to me in Ward 4 and it has to do with a location called Saw Wet where there was supposedly could be a school. What has happened? We have hundreds and hundreds of families in that location. There will never be a school built in that location. The poor children will be bust forever. Now I see here the school site but what I notice you've got written there is no guarantee a school site will actually be built. Um is there anything we can do going forward that there will be a school site because it's it's a huge concern when families moved in and it's a it's a it's a big missing link that happened in Sawette which of course I fought to the nth degree but I got it I I lost in a recorded vote. Uh, is there anything we can do going forward to prevent this from happening again to residents who try to raise their families in Oakville >> through Mayor Burton? Unfortunately, I didn't work on the sawed development, but I am familiar with that location. I believe in the zoning bylaw that was passed for that property, there was a time limit for the school to come forward and acquire that property, or else it would default to the developer. So, I don't believe the school board acted on that and that's why that property was developed. In this application, both school boards have um advised that they do require school sites to facilitate the um proposed residential land uses. So that's why we're adding the symbols. But what I had mentioned about there not being school sites in those exact locations are that they'll be subject to change based on the block plans um and zoning bylaws that come forward in the future so that we can determine exactly where those schools will go. So, right now they're just floating symbols on the map, but they will be located appropriately when we have more detailed um design plans. >> So, I I like what I just heard. So, we we don't have a timeline so the developer can line his pockets with all kinds of more housing. There is we don't have a timeline on that. Correct. At this point, >> uh through member, unfortunately, I'm not sure what the applicant's timelines are for phasing. Um, but at at the end of the day, through the passing of this OOPA, the two school symbols will require the the developer to provide school sites because they will be in the official plan. >> I like what I'm hearing. As long as there's no timeline that the school board has to act by a certain time. So, I I thank you very much for that cuz that that is a really come back to bite. It should come back to bite all members of council and everyone, but it didn't. So, I live with it. I thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Hazatil. >> Thank you uh through you mayor Burton for the presentation. Um a a couple just in questions on in the bylaw itself. So um I I appreciate hearing what uh councelor Algar has said about the schools um and the adjoining uh parks that would go with uh with potentially the schools. Um, I had a a resident actually raise with me earlier today about the need for additional uh playing fields. Um, and uh, as you well know, limited space uh, in the south to do that. Is that cons do you feel like that's covered comprehensively in this amendment to ensure we we we not only have community parks, but we have potential playing fields that we'll need? uh through Mayor Burton if we can pull up the presentation again and go to this line with OPA 340 the schedule. So as you can see on the schedule here as I had mentioned the Argo settlement resulted in the community parklands located at the northeast corner of Burnham Thorp and Trafalgar. So that will be a full-fledged town facility to my knowledge. As far as coordinating um playing fields with the school boards, um I I discussed the the official plan policies with our park staff and they included their language in the OPA. Um I'm not sure sure to what extent um playing fields may be considered. Um those will take up a lot of real estate. So depending on how the school board structures their buildings, whether they're a standard um two to three story building or they're included in um a podium of a building, um that's to be discussed. But uh playing fields um would have to be discussed with the school boards and parks jointly >> and and is that a conversation that can happen in the future? It's not procluded from happening as a result of an approval tonight. >> Yeah. No, through uh Mayor Burden, the policies are in there to coordinate those conversations through the plan of subdivision and zoning B amendment applications. >> Okay. Thanks very much, Brandon. My other question is um on uh the section I land use compatibility there's an A, B and C and when I read B, it talks about development within 300 meters of the employment area shall avoid or mitigate potential impacts. Um but then when I go to C, it then follows up by saying notwithstanding any land use designation permitting otherwise to protect the operational and economic viability of existing or planned major facilities, a new sensitive land use shall not be permitted within the minimum separation distance. So are we sticking with D6 guidelines in that regard? >> Through Mayor Burn. Yes. So that'd be correct. So this language was taken directly out of the PPS 2024. So previously the provincial policy statement um put the onus on employment lands to buffer and mitigate from residential land uses. That's been kind of flipped now as as you are reading in the policies. The province is really trying to promote the economic viability of employment lands. So the residential land uses need to prove that they aren't um encumbering the employment land. So that's what we've tried to protect for in these OPA policies. further to the PPS and our employment areas review, >> but we're also making sure that they're compatible with the residential neighborhoods that would be there. >> Yes, correct. So, that would be policy E as far as minimum setbacks um and complying with the provincial D6 guidelines. It's a little bit further down on page 12. >> Thanks very much. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, councelor uh councelor Nando. >> Thank you to you, Mayor Burton. Thank you so much Brandon for the presentation and I appreciate my council colleagues comments especially about schools and parks because they know how we feel about those. Um and so just going to what my colleague was just talking about the separation. So we've seen that in the past we've had separations but on local roads are we ensuring that that's not going to happen up there between residential and employment that the separation is not just going to be a local road. >> Yes through you may burden. So we're very well lessons learned up in Oakville and I'm familiar with the loyalist trail example that we may be all thinking about. Um so the the draft plan of subdivision that comes in and the implementing zoning by will look at ways to mitigate and create more spatial separation between the land uses. So that will come at a future state in time. The the applicants concept plans were just general um depictions of what could happen on the the subject lands but we will get into the finer grain details um through the next set of applications in the future. So we could look at more like separation of between like arterial road like like like a Burnhamthorp type road where employment's on one side and and then we'd be looking at buffering how you buffer those between between the two separations of the residentials and employment. >> Yeah. So you remember we can look at where the roads are located, how the loing uh fabric is set up um and any burming or landscaping that could enhance um mitigating uh those impacts between the sensitive land uses and employment lands. >> Okay. And just with uh you were discussing the schools earlier. So generally we're seeing in our areas there is usually a park that is um you know on the same land as schools. Are you saying here that that may not necessarily be the case that they won't be connected? >> Uh through me and I'm trying to find the policy specifically about coordination, but it will depend on what the school boards say they need in terms of land mass. Um they may need a standard couple acre site for the schools that they're proposing. Um, I know they're going through exercises on their end to try and determine if through intensification they can accommodate their their facilities within podiums of mixeduse buildings. Um, it's a challenge for them right now. So, they may be looking at the standard way that they operate and provide for for schools, but um there are policies that provide for the coordination of uh their sites and either um town parkland or that's just their own parkland to serve the community. >> Okay. And do we have in our policies enough um terms for parks within the communities? >> Uh yeah, through you, Mayor Burn, I reviewed these policies specifically with park staff and they're satisfied with them and I believe some of them were also taken out of um the Naagawa urban core um order. So it's reflected in what the town is most recently been adopting. >> Okay. Um and just a question on servicing allocation. Um so we have not yet secured that have we from the region >> uh through member no I don't believe the applicant has participated in the most recent and current allocation program but I did review the last set of policies with the region being infrastructure and they've signed off on on all of these so I wouldn't have brought this forward without their blessing. >> Okay. >> So there would okay so there's no issue with this OPA without servicing allocation. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you so much Brandon. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Nanda. Um council, I sense that you're ready to make a decision. The uh the consultant for the applicant is is here, but um let me see if I can get a mover and seconder for the for the recommendation. Councelor Shei and Councelor Nandanda, thank you. Let me ask uh uh Miss Fujia and uh and Miss Null, are you content at this point? >> I can't hear you. >> Um I mean I could take the opportunity to present. I know there's some questions about collocation and servicing. >> Be my guest. I had here in my notes about good evening, but I might have to say good night. Um, so good evening mayor and members of council. My name is Elizabeth Fuia, senior planner of GSP Group. And with me here today is Sarah Null, our vice president and the landowner representative from Infrastructure Ontario, Michael Kley. Um, we're here to speak on the OPA that is before you tonight for decision. and you've heard a lot of the background and the information from Brandon already. Um, I'd like to kind of state it on the record in terms of we've also reviewed the staff report and we support staff's recommendation to approve the application. Um, maybe one thing I'll just note is that or maybe I'll reiterate is this application is only for that policy level providing that framework for things like we've already discussed about schools, collocation, servicing, infrastructure, land use compatibility. um and that is um to provide a guiding policy framework for future development and future ownership. Uh no development or detailed designs are being approved for construction today. Um if we could go to the next slide please. Um so here you've already heard in terms of our subject lands. It's within the TU1 and that is part of that greater system of 2, three and four. Um, something that I'll just kind of really hone in on from Brandon's presentation is in terms of the Navy area, that's about 29 hectares, and that's just what our policy framework is focused on in terms of introducing residential permissions and creating those appropriate buffers to the employment uses. Could turn to the next slide, please. Um, I think this might be kind of a key slide for some of the questions I've heard tonight. Um just reiterating again this is the at the official plan level. Um I heard some questions about the schools collocation. So when this did go through its resubmission we did get um specific comments from both the public and the Catholic school board. Um and they did specifically request to elementary schools and they also made notes in their comments about collocation which we've added a specific policy for. It's under the public realm policies. Um, also with collocation, they did make a note that if that is achievable that they would reduce their own school land requirements and negotiate with that with the parks staff and work with them to be able to um implement that within the specific zoning bylaw amendments, the draft plan of subdivision and the specific block plans. Um, the other thing I kind of heard tonight is in terms of the employment areas. Um, understanding that there's been those recent studies with the employment areas review and the commercial areas study, we did coordinate with staff. Uh, we did update the policy framework so that it's updated to the modern employment and commercial and retail standards and needs and vision. And then just an extract there is um a sense of the land use compatibility policies not only talking about specific warning clauses but also looking at buffering. So things like Brandon's mentioned already earlier, um landscaping, sighting buildings a certain way and that policy framework we're proposing today is really meant to ensure that kind of buffering is happening. Uh next slide, please. Um so this is another snapshot of that North Oakville East secondary plan, but it's the specific conceptual road network. So, we put it here because we kind of understand and kind of saw tonight a bit of that um focus on the road network and separations and just reiterating again that this proposed policy we're bringing forth to you tonight is updating those standards. You know, making sure that when residential permissions coming in that future detailed block plans, zoning bile amendment and draft plan of subdivision is looking at those buffers at a detailed level. um and could look at other traffic mitigations such as traffic calming, truck routes restrictions and all of the like. I think that's the last slide, next slide. So with that on my presentation, I know I took a chance by coming and delegating up here, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. You uh earned a question from at least one from councelor null and we'll see how warmed up we get after that. Councelor Null. >> Okay, perfect. Thanks. >> Thank you, worship. Um thank you for the presentation. appreciate you uh insisting on doing that. Um I'm would like to know a little bit more about your intentions around compatibility between the the commercial and the uh the employment I should say and the residential areas. I know you talked about some landscaping and things like that, but is there any are there any other um significant and I know this is mostly worked out in a site plan uh process later on, but do you have any thoughts in advance on how you would create an environment so that there's appropriate um compatibility built in early so that uh the you know assuming that the residential applications will come in first, which usually seems to be the way um so that we're not fighting later on about backup beepers and compatibility and traffic issues. Is there anything you can do to to lay in some compat compatibility opportunities early? >> Right. Through through the mayor, directed to the counselor. So, we did kind of get that started early in terms of already this proposed OPA. We've updated a lot of the land use compatibility policies and aligned it with that Argo settlement. So we're talking about things um like sighting for example early on and not only saying you could establish these principle of uses but done at least in this framework today. >> Um so you know and that really provides that guidance and direction then at the zoning and site plan to say depending on what you're proposing is it materially aligned with this proposed official plan framework. Is there any intention into uh um um manage your own phasing of this property long term, your client's phasing of this property long term in terms of what comes first, the the chicken or the egg or the commercial or the residential or um is there any thoughts given to that? >> Uh through the mayor and towards the council, uh very broadly at this official plan level, we looked at phasing kind of counterclockwise just from the bottom all the way then to the northnortheast. And part of that was considering that employment piece. Um so like at this stage that was the broader phasing that we looked at. Um but if we're talking about sight specific level phasing that would be have to be flushed out at the ZBA site plan. Right. >> I mean we're all concerned about wanting to maintain as much commercial commercially viable land and without with limited impediments as possible for future growth of of our employment base. So that's that's my concern there. Right. So any any any considerations to that uh would be very useful in my mind. >> Thank you councelor councelor Nanda. >> Thank you Mayor Burton. Thank you so much for the presentation. So maybe you could clarify a couple of the questions that I had asked Brandon. Are you looking at servicing allocation like uh soon or >> or in the next a lotment that comes up? I well I think um we have our infrastructure Ontario representative here that could speak to the broader development plans but at this point we haven't looked at the allocation program um we thought it was best that that be reserved for the future ZBA um draft plan of subdivision once they have their detailed units and then you could apply for for the program. >> Okay. And just um going into my colleagueu's question again, would you be able to ensure that um separation between residential and employment would not ever be on local roads? It would either be regional or it would be arterial roads. Like is there anything that can be put into the terms or the policy to ensure that a separation is not just a local road? Right. So through the mayor and to the counselor at this time at least the land use compatibility policies that we have there and a bit of that network policy that we've established can guide those like they provide those parameters for those separations. Separation could be a lot more detailed and clarified once you have the detailed site plan the draft plan of subdivision the zoning amendment and the concept plans. And that's when you would know, I'm assuming, through, you know, detailed work with transportation staff and their TIS's to name what the local separation is or the regional separation, the arterial separation, um, and other things related to to like root mitigations. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, uh, thank you very much uh for your uh, presentation. >> Thank you. and I'll uh I'll confide at the table. Is there a mover and secondary for this? >> Oh, yeah, I did. Thank you. Is there any objection then? Councelor has uh Mcnes, I see your hand. Uh oh, okay, madame clerk. There's no objection. The the recommendation is adopted. Uh thank you everybody. That completes the work of our meeting today. Uh, as long as we uh linger for a moment for the consideration and reading of the bylaws. Councelor Elgar, are you giving me a motion for consideration and reading of the bylaws? >> Mayor Burton, I was wondering about new business, >> I guess. >> I'll back up and uh and gladly hear your new business. >> Okay. Thank you. Three, Burton. Um, it's my understanding the chief of staff mentioned that Nick Nanis, we did a a a survey this spring and I'm just wondering when that report would be coming forward to members of council. >> Soon. Very soon. >> Very soon. Okay. I appreciate that. And one one other thing and the timeline is short. This afternoon I learned that the Ontario and Canada open application for new development charge reduction program for 8 8 billion or whatever but the deadline is June 19 but and it's 2026 not 2029 is there like I don't know what we can do but since the staff report recently said like we're a little bit shy like 74 million on development charges that if if if the developer if the developers and the new homeowners don't pay, it's the taxpayers. We all know that. So, what can what do you need from council to give staff to make sure they've got the money to get the job done to apply for what we can? I I know it's a report we need or whatever, but we don't have time for report when it's July 19th. Is a cut off date for this. >> It's scary. If your question's done, my answer is ready. >> Perfect. I want to hear it. >> We do not need anything from council for this. And when you discover that in order to participate in this program, we have to cut our DCs by 30 to 50%. and we only get back 90% of the cut. We have a 10% contribution into it. We are ahead to we're way ahead if we do not participate on a financial basis. So uh uh and then I guess the other bit that I'll tell you is it's a voluntary program and you can only participate if your application is accepted and your application is judged on how much you're cutting your DCs and the applications are not application forms are not yet available. counselor, if I've just made you happy, I am delighted because I I love to make you happy. >> Thank you very much. I'm just concerned about the $74 million in the staff report we recently received that we're a little shy on that we haven't got. >> There is there is counselor, no sign of any desire to give us any of that money back. >> Wow. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Burton. I'm sorry to hear that, but thank you. at your service, sir. Um, can I have a mover and second her for consideration of re and as a matter of fact, councelor, are you happy enough to give me the motion for the bylaws? >> Sure. >> Thank you. And a seconder, please. Uh, councelor Grant, thank you. Any objection? Madame Clerk, there being none, and the bylaws as listed in the agenda are considered read and passed. Our work is done. It's been terrific working with you, and I gather that we get to do that again real soon now. So, I'm looking forward to seeing you. Good night.