kindness and respect as a community. Any disclosures of community interest from council? Seeing none, we'll go straight to the adoption of minutes using your hand function. Can I get a mover to um adopt the minutes of June 1st, 2026? I see Mayor Collier. Any questions, comments, concerns on that? Seeing none, we'll start the vote. And um I did see councelor Bower second. I'm sorry I didn't say that out loud. Okay. And that passes. Now we're on to IDA the public meeting which is PDS-20226-9. The Ajax inclusionary zone bylaw final official plan final official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. We have uh director Jeff Romanowski to set the table. Mr. Romanowski, >> thank you, Charlie. Um I appreciate the time today. Uh we were here back in June and uh planning staff went over the um inclusionary zoning uh at that time and presented to council. This is the next step in the process. Uh we did consultation over the summer. Um and as you mentioned, this is our statutory public meeting for this particular um application. Um and our reports covering off the the material that Anooj is going to be presenting today. So without further ado, unless there's anything else that needs to be added, I'll turn it over to Anuj to walk council through his material. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jeff. I'm just going to try and share my screen now. I'm being told there's a bit of lag, so please bear with me. I'm going to just wait for the screen to pop up. Is the screen visible? >> No, we have a black screen on our side. I'm just looking at the clerk right now. Do you want to walk them through any steps? Do you mind just selecting your presentation please again? >> Yes. >> Oh, there we go. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Good afternoon. Hope everyone had a great summer, chair and committee members. My name is Anuj and I'm a planner at the town's develop planning and development services. I'm the project manager for the town's include resoning project. Today I'll be providing a brief update on the include resoning project with a focus on consultation undertaken since the council's direction in June and how that feedback has informed the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Before getting into details, I'd like to provide a brief reminder of what inclusionary zoning is and how the tool works in Ontario. In the interest of time, I might abbreviate inclusionary zoning as I is and protected major transit station areas as PMTS. Under Ontario's ISAT framework, municipalities can establish policies within protected major transit areas that require certain new and residential new residential and mixeduse developments to include affordable housing units. The current framework allows municipalities to provide up to 5% of the units to be set aside as affordable units with affordability maintained for up to 25 years. In exchange, affordable units receive certain financial benefits, including exemptions from applicable development charges, community benefit charges, parkland dedication requirements, etc. The implementation requires establishing appropriate policies in the official plan and corresponding provisions in the zoning bylaw. While IZ can be an effective tool for creating new affordable housing, the set aside needs to be balanced against financial feasibility of development. AZ units can be either ownership units or rental units. Affordability thresholds are established by the province through its affordable residential units bulletin. So for Ajax implementing IZ does more than establish a framework for future affordable housing. It also advances town's broader housing related commitments. Implementation of ISAD in the Ajax COPMTSA was identified as a housing accelerator fund initiative under the town's agreement with the government of Canada. The initiative is required to be completed by the end of this month. The completion of a housing assessment report to facilitate creation of policies was also identified as action item 8 in the town's housing action plan adopted in 2023. With the completion of this project, the town would have advanced both these commitments. Sorry, my slide is stuck. Oh, there we go. So while today we meet for the statutory public meeting for the proposed OPA and ZBA, the project really began in March 2025 and the town retained N Barry line consultants or NBLC to prepare an inclusary zoning assessment report to develop implementing bylaws for injing scenarios with an established and potential impacts of implementing across a range of development types were assessed. A draft ISAT assessment report was received in March this year and independently peer-reviewed by urban metrics in April as required by the legislation. The final assessment report was presented to CAP in June 2026. The assessment report considered a variety of factors including demographics, housing demand and supply, housing market conditions, etc. and contained a detailed financial feasibility analysis across development types. The report found that active implementation of IZ was not financially feasible under the current market conditions and presented three options. Option one to implement IZ with a 0% set aside rate and revisit the rate when the market conditions improve. Option two was to implement with an active set aside but support it with financial offsets. And option three do not implement IZ. On June 1st, CAP endorsed option one as recommended by staff. Following council's endorsement, staff proceeded with consultation to collect feedback and refine the draft official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. These sessions included an agency consultation session with the regional staff, Habitat for Humanity, GTA, Ashley Manor Housing Corporation, Metroinks, and other agencies. Staff also held a stakeholder consultation session with land owners, developers, and planning professionals. Comments and questions were also collected through the town's IMO project page over a period of 48 days. In addition, staff received a written submission from a landowner within the BMTSA. While the results of the assessment report were not what we had hoped for, the consultation exercise provided a valuable opportunity to build partnerships and start talking about implementation challenges and potential solutions. A variety of themes emerged through consultation. I would like to highlight three key themes today. First, the consultation generally reinforced the findings of the assessment report. Land owners and developers confirmed that current market conditions would make implementation of IZ challenging at this time. The proposed approach of establishing a framework now while starting at 0% set aside rate was generally supported. It was recognized that a flexible market responsive approach will be important as Ajax Coptsa transitions into a mixeduse community. The second theme related to different administrative considerations for rental and ownership units. Purpose-built rental developers may be better positioned to integrate and manage rental units within large developments. This would require agreements with the town and also an appropriate monitoring framework. Ownership units, on the other hand, may require additional administrative support to maintain long-term affordability, verify eligibility, and manage resale requirements. Nonprofit organ housing organizations could potentially play an important role in administering some of these requirements, particularly for ownership units. We also learned that successful implementation would require an ongoing coordination between the town, the region as the housing service manager, the nonprofit housing organizations and development industry. The consultation process has already provided an opportunity to begin building these relationships and to better understand the roles different parties could play as the framework evolves over time. These relationships will become increasingly important when market conditions support activating IZ in the future. The feedback received through consultation has helped staff confirm and refine the proposed ISD policy framework. A minor adjustment to the OPA was made to consider inflationary increases when calculating net proceeds received by the town following the sale of an affordable ownership unit after the end of the affordability period. The official plan amendment itself has been drafted to provide flexibility for future updates to the inclusionary zoning set aside rate. If market conditions improve sufficiently to support an active set aside rate, amendments to the zoning bylaw would be required. Any future increases would need to be supported by appropriate financial feasibility analysis and an assessment demonstrating that the proposed set aside rate can be accommodated without unduly affecting development viability. Looking ahead, there are three key next steps. First, today the committee will consider the final OPA and ZBA which staff have recommended to be adopted and approved at the September council meeting. Next staff will continue to work with the region, nonprofits, development industry, and other stakeholders to identify ways to seamlessly implement inclusionary zoning in the future or support affordable housing more generally. And finally, staff will continue to monitor housing market and engage with experts such as MDLC to determine when the time is right to activate IZ. In summary, the proposed framework establishes the foundation of inclusionary zoning in Ajax copmtsa while taking a market responsive approach by starting at 0%. The framework can be revised as market conditions improve and financial feasibility of an increased set aside rate can be then demonstrated. That brings me to the end of my presentation. Thank you chair and committee members. I'm happy to answer any questions. Uh my supervisor Sean is also there online and so is Nick from NBLC to assist with any questions of technical nature. >> Great. Thank you very much for your presentation. Looks very promising. Uh we have speakers and the lists. We'll start with Mayor Collier. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for your presentation. U just before I asked my questions, one of the things you said kind of sparked my interest. She said the consultation w wasn't what you were hoping for. What were you hoping for out of the consultation? >> So through the chair to the mayor, we were trying that we were hoping that when we have the assessment report in hand this whole uh uh project would yield at would probably promise uh would promise uh an active set aside. So we can actually implement IZ right now and get some affordable more affordable housing units in the PMTSA but as we all know the state of the housing market is such that it doesn't it cannot um u it is not feasible at the moment. >> Okay. Uh a question on this because we've dealt with this area quite a bit. We already have a secondary plan in this area and I'm wondering in the secondary plan we already speak to uh a 5% affordable component minimum I believe. Why do we require setting this out in the OP as well when all of these the affordable component is already built into the secondary plan? >> So through the chair to the M I'll try and answer this to the best of my abilities. I am aware and I know about the secondary plan process but I'm not uh involved directly in it. So uh all the the 5% or 10% uh um affordable housing commitments that we have secured through different projects in the PMTSA through the metal direction are uh promised against the promises of an expedited approval and that does not uh really come under this framework. This is a separate framework that the town if so chooses will establish through a separate uh legislation that will allow a blanket requirement for the town and I I'll uh let my supervisor Sean McCulla add to this. >> Thanks N and through the chair to you Mr. Mayor Collier. Um so the current requirements to provide affordable housing are sight specific to the locations where there was a mar direct directive. uh over time this policy would apply to the entire PMTSA. So when the direction came down to explore this um we were unable to do it through the OPA for the secondary plan. We had to use this tool in order to uh try to secure it over the long term in accordance with your direction. >> Okay. I thought the secondary plan had more broader wording across the entire site for affordability. You're saying it doesn't? >> No. No. the the forfall housing was just the sight specific locations and then this would be the more broad across the entire PMTSA because this tool can only be used in the PMTSA. >> Okay. Uh thank you for that. What do you call um what's the the phrase to describe the 50% of any growth that goes back to the town? Do you call that the set aside? Is that what you're referring to? >> Uh through the chair to the mayor. No, that's uh 50% of the net proceeds. I think you're talking about the gains that a particular owner would have when they would sell an ownership unit at the end of the affordability period. >> Okay. Yeah. What what do you call that? >> Uh I believe it's just uh mentioned as the 50% of the net proceeds. >> Okay. I'm I'm having trouble with that because, you know, the primary goal of affordable home ownership is enabling low moderate income families to build equity over time. Why would we put something in here where they would have to share that equity back with the town? What on earth does does the town have to do with this other than the zoning? >> Yeah, through the chair of the mayor, that's that's a great question. We've had discussions with the developers and also our consultants. So the idea is that uh if an affordable unit was bought at a vulnerable price, let's say it was 400,000, it was supposed to be 500,000 if this policy was not in place at the end of the 25-y year period. If the it's no longer required to be sold at an affordable rate, it can go to the market rate. Of course, >> if that market rate if the market rate is then let's say uh it becomes 10,000 1000,000. >> So the net gain >> uh will be the difference between what it was sold as earlier and what is sold as now. 50% of that% >> 50% of that can go to the town and this uh the idea behind this is that increase in the net gain is also because of the policies that allowed uh the affordable unit to be sold at an affordable price and the unit was also given exemptions of development for development charges or uh for CBC's and parkland dedication etc. >> So that's that's what framework allows for us to to get. >> Okay. So, so given that, I mean, the town is not putting any money in the pot here. Okay? Yes, they're going to get it at a reduced price because we're telling the developer to sell it for a reduced price, but the town's not receiving anything. And we're quite honestly, the DCs wouldn't be paid on those units for affordable anyway. So, we're not losing anything. That's what I'm trying to understand. Why would the town be in any position to receive 50% of any gain? We haven't done anything other than set the policy. Um, and I I quite honestly don't agree with it. I mean, the whole point of trying to incentivize and get people into homes, and this is only condo, we're actually not going to see any condos for probably five years anyway. But to take away half of that equity, and I'll get to the whole um inflationary impact in a second, I I just find that really kind of disingenuous on our part. I'd really have a problem supporting that. I I don't think anything should come back to the town as far as this. These people are are going to be paying their interest, paying their proportional share of their common expenses, their taxes. Um they've earned that equity. So through the chair to Mayor Collier. So um the town would be losing D I know we don't have they don't have to pay DC's parkland CBC but they're not paying those because they are affordable units. So historically affordable housing was secured for you know the life cycle of a building over 50 or 100 years and now we're limited 25 years. So, it's just a small portion of the net proceeds that can be recycled back into the system to provide affordable housing for more people. Um, but the inflationary comment, I'll let you um speak to that. Um, it was a good comment that we have considered into the into the amendment as well. >> Okay. So, let's let's go to that then because and and I hope I'll have a little bit of uh discrepancy on my time. I'm running out. But the Okay, so in response to D. So it was updated in section 7.1.16F of the draft OP to account for inflation transactional costs. But this was not the corresponding provision was not made in the implementing zoning bylaw section 4.2.91. That was left unadjusted. Why would we do that? So, we're going to the the reason for that is when we go to update the official plan amendment to uh sorry, the zoning bylaw amendment to turn on because keep in mind the way it is right now is it's a 0% set aside rate. So, we will have to do a future amendment to turn it on. So, the idea was at that time we will confirm with the legislation that there's no legislative changes and the definitions and then create a definition for net proceeds and we would implement it at that time. And we would do that because it would in it would be in accordance with the official plan as we've presented it to you today. >> Is there any technical legal admin harm in aligning the zoning by language with the OP today? So at least it's predictable for everybody from day one. >> I don't see there would be I don't think there would be any issue. We would just need a bit of time to determine what the definition of net proceeds should be. >> Okay. Uh I believe that's Oh, one final question regarding um mortgage financing viability. Have staff or the consultant NBLC um consulted residential mortgage lenders or CHAC regarding whether restrictive application sharing structures will have an impact on the ability to secure CHC insured or conventional mortgage financing. >> Have we done that consultation? So through our initial consultation, we didn't meet with CMHC. However, we do have NDLC who has a lot of experience in working with this. I don't know if Nick, if you're on the line, if you wanted to speak to your experience and dealing with different mortgage lenders and understanding that process. The one the only thing before Nick jumps on that I will say though is we did consult with um Habitat for Humanity and through this process they have a lot of experience in working with um affordable home ownership units and kind of the process assisting with deposit structures or down payments to enable people to to enter the market and and get these units. But Nick, maybe I'll turn it over to you briefly. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. Can can you hear me? >> Yeah, we can hear you. >> Okay, perfect. Um, no. So, as Sean mentioned, we we haven't done any specific consultation with CHC, but my firm does lots of work with the affordable home ownership groups, Habitat options for homes and all these types of groups. And the comment that's come in is is entirely valid. You know, these types of affordable ownership um arrangements, they don't always work for every financer. So there are certainly banks, you know, Beimo, RBC are two that come to mind as well as a number of credit unions that do participate in this space and certainly will lend um finances and mortgages to these types of purchasers, but not every financer will will do that. So it is certainly a shortcoming and um you know I think when we start to think about you know the frameworks that we put in place and you know these types of covenants and um net proceed shares with municipalities, they really do need to be thought through. So when we were having our consultations, which is really just a starting point for this type of discussion with the nonprofit ownership groups, this was something that I flagged as well for Shauna and Nooj to continue poking at as we continue to think through is implementation over the next few years. >> Okay. Um I'm asking because lenders are getting they're really tightening up a lot of ways now. There's another development where we've just found where um CHC did loan on the property but reduced the amount for the cash and parkland that they have to pay and now suddenly the business model has to be revamped to try and find savings and of of half million dollars that people didn't know. So, so these these decisions we make today could definitely impact and if it stalls a project going ahead because they can't get financing because something we put in place, I at least want to vet that first and make sure that's not going to happen. So, those my questions, chair, thank you for your um letting me go a little bit over and I do have two amendments I wish to bring forward after my council colleagues have asked their questions. >> Um we're just on the presentation right now. As soon as it's on the floor, we can talk about discussions or uh amendments at that point. Next speaker we have councelor Tyler Morren. >> Thank you chair. Um so just bear with me here. So the area that we're talking about is the go station area only right like the inclusionary zone at the Ajax ghost train station the all of these rules and parameters that would be put in place. Correct. >> To staff. >> Yes through the chair to the council. Yes that's correct. >> Excellent. Thank you. And then the flexibility, okay, the flexible phased and market responsive approach. Okay, who would what would trigger that? Not who would trigger that, but what would trigger that? So, right now, if somebody puts up a 200 unit building, let's say, and uh let's say that 12 of them are supposed to be affordable, but at this time, you're saying that none of them need to be affordable. The requirement for affordable housing is 0% at this time. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. Okay. But then why would that ever change from a developer's point of view? Like would we say oh now this new submission that we received let's say in the fall September 2027 we would say oh the market has changed like who decides that who triggers that conversation >> for sure through the chair of council moralin that's a that's a great question and we've been uh talking to Nick about this on how to determine whe whether the time is right to now apply Izz and activate it and uh there there will be clear signs as to uh when it comes to absorption rate or when it comes to uh housing starts, we will see a sharp increase and that is what we are hoping for and we really want to be sure when we get into and hire the consultants again to do an addendum to the assessment report that the time is right and not waste uh public money by having another assessment report which says oh it's still not feasible and we still need to only maintain it at 0%. So uh and I'll ask Nick to join in and help because he is the expert in the field and we but we have a relationship with them and we keep on talking to them about this and Nick if we can have two cents of your uh visit here as well. >> Okay. And you know when we start to think about you know when inclusionary zoning might be right to turn back turn the policy back on you know unfortunately there's no single metric that's going to be you know this happened and therefore we could turn back on right even if revenues or sale values start to increase you know what if construction costs down how have these factored into the performer because we know that construction costs have increased by 60 70 80% over the last five years but the good news for us right now is that the province in light of challenging market times times has actually put a pause on inclusionary zoning. So, nobody can actually implement inclusionary zoning right now anyway. And once the province, you know, they're promising to revisit this every every summer. So, the next check-in is supposed to be July 2027. You know, they're doing economic analysis in the background once they've lifted that pause. That's obviously going to be a very good signal for the rest of us to start um looking at the feasibility of inclusionary zoning again. And something that I've mentioned to Anuj and Sean and this is something that we do for a lot of municipalities, you know, when we when we come back to do a little bit of a look, we don't need to do the big study again, right? The year-long really expensive study. We can do a very scope check-in where we do a very high level look at the market and do some performant analyses to just take a look and see is now the right time to activate this and if so, to what degree and how should we phase it in? >> Okay. Um, if I may chair, I think you got another minute 20 seconds here. Um I I just can't really envision it seems incredibly subjective. Um and I could see anyways. Okay, that's that's my my I I can't see how this is going to to flow, but time will tell, I suppose. Um when a unit uh let's say that said 12 units in a 200 uh unit building is um designated, that locks for 25 years. That's including if the building gets sold or if the unit gets sold. those units are affordable for that entire time >> through the chair. Councelor Taluran. Yes. >> Okay. I'll I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you, uh, chair. >> Thank you. Next, we have councelor Bower. >> Thank you, Chair Lee. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the presentation. Most of my questions have been asked, but maybe I can ask for further detail. um when the time comes and the province um releases the pause of IZ and then studies or feasibility is determined um however that's going to be set up to be is it the plan to step up from zero to 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% or are we going to wait until it goes from zero to five is there has that planning been thought of yet >> yeah through the charity council baba that's the idea It has to be a phased uh phased in approach where we slowly step it in and reach up to 5% when when it can be when it is feasible eventually. >> Okay. And then would do you expect that there could be a time let's say we we phase it in 1 2 3 wherever it lands and then something happens in the market um would there ever be a reversal of the set aside or a decrease of that rate? uh to the through the chair to councelor Bower. It's really hard to tell. Uh Nick again is the expert and can tell us, but I'm sure if we can step it up through a zoning ball amendment, we can also step it down if the market so demands. But Nick, please join in. >> Um no, you're absolutely right and and councelor Bower, that's exactly what happened in Kitchener, Missaga, and Toronto. All three municipalities had a policy in place and obviously what we've experienced over the last four years is highly unusual, right? And highly irregular in terms of just how drastic the collapse has been. But what's happened over the previous decade was also highly unusual and highly irregular in terms of just the substantial growth in real estate values and feasibility that we experience. So, you know, my expectation and the expectation of a lot of housing feasibility analysts and economists are that, you know, we're probably not going to go back to where we were. We're probably going to be, you know, more reminiscent of, you know, how things were in the mid200s to the mid2010s where real estate certainly was a lot more stable and uh less characterized by these, you know, really intense peaks and valleys. So from that perspective, I think once we do return to a, you know, reasonable range of feasibility and, you know, more reasonable outcomes, it's likely that a modest inclusionary zoning requirement will come in place and stay in place for a foreseeable future. >> Okay. And once that rate is set and a and a a developer completes that build and it's locked in for 25 years, a change to the rate would not impact completed projects already, would it? Would it? Okay, great. Thank you. Those are those are my questions for now. Thank you very much. Thanks, chair. >> Thank you, Region Council Crawford. >> Um, thank you. Um, I don't know where my camera is. Anyway, um, I just actually Lisa, councelor Bower answered asked all my questions and have all my answers. Thank you so much, >> Councelor Henry. Councelor Henry, if you're speaking, we can't hear you. >> Councelor Henry. Councelor Henry, again, same problem. If you're speaking, we can't hear you right now. Cannot see you. We see your background. Councelor Henry, I think there might be some technical issues. Um, we're going to go to the report after questions to the presentation. So hopefully you can ask your questions then. Maybe turn your browser on and off, that kind of thing. Okay. Sorry, can you guys hear me? >> Sorry, you guys. >> Sorry. Yeah, I'll repeat my question. Sorry, I was speaking and nobody could hear me. So, I just want to confirm that right now there's provincial legislation prohibiting any sort of municipal I right now. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Only three municipalities had active requirements. Toronto, Missaga, and uh I believe it was Kitchener and the province has put a pause on that till July 1st, 2027. Um and then if they somehow dictate that next July increases or um market conditions have improved, what we can do then is start phasing it in. Do we have a phase in percentage rate? You know, I know councelor Bower said 1 2 3 4 5. Can we only go in increments of 1% or could we start at two to 3%. >> That that's an excellent question uh Mr. Chair. So it'll have to be determined from through the assessment report eventually the uh addendum to this one to understand what would the phasing be and how much can uh is feasible in terms of development and Nick is again the expert. So if Nick you can chime in there too. >> No you nailed it and you um councelor Lee you you can do whatever you want. You can go right to 5%, you can go one, two, three, four, five, you can go two, four, five. You know, whatever the results of the feasibility analysis um illustrates and every municipality has done different things. Toronto went right to five. Kitchener we were starting at one and you know, slowly gearing up from there. So, it's it's really a reflection of what the perform and the economics say is possible. Does this um does the Z sorry I keep saying Z because I'm American apparently. Does the IZ override any of the previous mayor's directives that we had current currently have signed that have set you know 10%. >> Uh Mr. Chair, no it doesn't. This is a separate framework. Those have been secured in exchange of expedited approvals. They will continue to remain. >> Great. And then um back to the um market improvement. Um does this require the full consultant like is this going to be how quickly can we so let's say the province we said July June next year says oh yeah market conditions have improved what's the turnaround then like do we have to go through a consultant how much money is that going to cost each time we want to raise it >> yeah for sure Mr. It'll not be as long and as trenous as this process. It'll probably be a shorter uh an amendment or an addendum to this report rather than the whole process again. >> But would we necessarily have to engage the consultant? Like why couldn't a council of the day because it would be a new council either way just say that oh look Toronto increase theirs and kitchen watercs we're just going to increase ours 2% and cut out that extra layer of bureaucracy. So to you, Mr. Chair. So the legislation requires us to show financial viability of development projects with inclusionary zoning being added. So what we've engaged uh NBLC and Nick and his company to do is create a performer and look at all of those construction costs, the sale cost or the rents that would come back and show that it's financially viable. So we would be required to engage a firm such as his or another one to show that it's financially viable and then we would go through consultation and kind of understand the the risk and the challenges with going straight to a 5% and then we could look at an amendment that would slowly incrementally uh increase that rate. We wouldn't be doing multiple amendments. we could look at just like you know between this period this rate and slowly increase it over time and then we can make adjustments over over time if we find uh that there's issues with that approach. >> Okay, thank you. Um councelor Henry, do you have a point of order? >> No, I just wanted to come back in um to ask my question because I was in the queue and for some reason myself and I believe councelor Crawford also our cameras were not working. >> Uh okay, no you're you're you're back. uh we'll just let me finish my questions but that's okay. >> Yeah. >> Um so um we had talked about those financial offsets in the event of after the affordable period there's a net gain. Where would those financial for lack of a better phrase offsets go? I know the municipality in based on this report wants to claim a percentage of it. Does that go to a reserve? Is there a set do we have a community benefit charge we can put this to? like where where where where do we intend that money to go in >> to you Mr. Chair that that's a great question we we would imagine that this money would then be reinvested into affordable housing but uh the the direction isn't super clear about that. Uh Sean if you want to add something. >> Yes you to you Mr. Chair. we would have to look at what the reserve would be and then we would have to come up with different approaches whether it's partnering with the region and reinvesting in through regional projects or uh working with other development companies and purchasing other inclusionary zoning units and kind of reinvesting the money into into those types of uh processes. So um because we hadn't gotten because this project wasn't working out we hadn't really gotten to those conversations yet but it's definitely something that we're going to explore through the framework. >> Okay, appreciate that. Those are all my questions. I will bring back councelor Henry for the first time. >> Thank you so much. Everyone can hear me now, right? We're good. Excellent. So, most of my questions have been asked, but I did want to confirm um with regards to the new framework um that it does not uh change, reduce or reopen the affordable housing obligations already secured or approved uh through other means. Is that correct? >> Through the chair to councelor Henry, that's correct. It doesn't impact those >> and can those be reopened at any time if it's requested that they be reopened? >> Uh so through the chair to councelor Henry. So uh the developers because they are included in a holding provision they would have to request an amendment of council. So it would have to come back to council to make that decision. >> Okay. And uh one more question. um if we don't. So, understanding that the the province is the one that's that's putting this out about the 0% right now, it's not feasible, we can't do it. Um if we don't do this today, like what's what's the negative impact that could be for the future of affordable housing in this area? Have we looked have we looked at that? Uh so through the chair to councelor Henry I don't know if I'm clear on the question. Uh so if we don't implement this tool today what's the impact on affordable housing in the protected major transit station area? >> Correct. >> Yeah. So as as you've indicated that there are a number of um official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments that secure affordable housing in the area. However, this tool would signal to the development community that there is the potential for this to come down the road and to start looking at options in terms of how they can looking at their performers and how they can potentially work this into their perform moving forward. So, it's kind of a signal to the market, but at this point um obviously it wouldn't result in any affordable housing in the future in the immediate future anyway. Um, so I don't know if there would be any immediate impact. Um, but we would continue to try to have those conversations with developers to see if there are ways of achieving affordable housing. >> So if a developer came forward currently right now and uh wanted to put through uh site site plan approval, we go through with this. There's no affordable housing component that's required. They do not wish to put one in. Conceivably they could go through with this plan and in the next five years there could be no affordable housing in that area. Correct. >> Potentially yes. >> But this is a staff recommended report and staff are recommending that this is how we proceed at this time. >> So through the chair to councelor Henry that's correct. We we are guided by legislation in terms of how to implement this tool and at this time both our consultants report as well as our peerreview consultant have confirmed that the market can't support this. So we're not in a position to implement it even if the province wasn't preventing it. And then we have an additional layer that the province will not allow us to implement this at this time. However, this allows us to implement the policy framework and the zoning in place and allows us to continue to work toward solutions so that when we are able to turn it on, we have a framework and a mechanism that we can um as Anu put it seamlessly try to integrate this and hopefully answer a lot of the questions that we've had when we've been trying to um secure and implement affordable housing. And just for the folks at home that haven't been following this through right now, going through with this today, like putting this off, holding off on this is is not advisable by staff is my understanding because if we were to do such, we're not meeting the half uh fund requirements. Is that correct? >> Uh so through the chair to councelor Henry, I don't agree that we're not meeting the half requirement. So our our half obligation was to investigate this as an option and this was something that was also in the town's housing strategy. Um when we entered into that agreement I don't think any of us could have saw where the market was going to go. >> Um so in that light you know we we embarked on this process and by implementing the official plan amendment and the zoning bylaw amendment as you have it for you today we feel that we are meeting uh the half obligation. >> Yes that's what I was saying. Sorry, maybe I maybe I phrased it incorrectly. That's what I was saying. If if we were to put this off, if we were to delay it, if we were not to do this today, we would not meet the requirements. >> Correct. >> I Yes. Correct. >> Yes. We're saying the same thing two different ways. So, yes. So, we must make a decision today. We must move forward with a decision one way or another. If we don't, we will not be meeting the halfun requirements and therefore we put that funding in jeopardy. Correct. >> That's correct. Yeah. Our obligation was to um finish this project by the end of September. >> Okay. So everything you're saying makes sense to me. Thank you. Thank you for your time both of you. And um uh is it a new is that is that am I saying your name correct? >> It's anju. Your presentation was very good. Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Mayor Collier, did you want to just bring this report forward or did you want questions to the presenter? Uh, I'm happy to move it and I just have my marker in line to bring my amendments. >> I understand. Um, okay. So, moved by Mayor Collier. Can I get a seconder to bring this onto the floor, please? Council Bowerer. Thank you very much. We have PDS 202615 town the town of Ajax inclusionary zoning assessment report and drought overall plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. The recommendations for staff are as follows. that report PDS 202619 titled Ajax inclusionary zoning bylaw, final official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment be received for information. Two, the council approve town initiated official plan amendment number 102 which is parenthesis OPA26-9 included as attachment one to this report which establishes an inclusionary zoning policy framework in the Ajax GO station protected major transit station area and three that council approved 10 initiated zoning bylaw amendment application Z16/26 included as attachment two to this report which implements an inclusionary zoning policy framework with the initial set aside rate of 0% of total residential units to be required as inclusionary units. Before Mayor Collier brings forth any amendments, does anyone have any questions regarding the report? >> Seeing none, Mayor Collier, why don't you go ahead? >> Thank you. >> Excuse me. Sorry, Mayor Collier. This is a public meeting and I need to ask the clerk if there's any member of the public who wishes to address council. Sorry, Mayor Collier. >> Yes. to you, Mr. Chair. We do have one member of the public who would like to speak today if you just want to allow them to do that before we close the public meeting portion. >> Yeah, of course. Please. >> And whoever is addressing the public, just please state your name for the record. Uh Chris Pereira, I believe you have. Do you want to hit your request to speak? That's the button with the head with the three lines emanating from the head. Can you hit that button, please, Mr. Pereira? Chris Pereira for a second time. We see you in our speakers or we see you in the meeting list. I need you to hit the button with the head and the three lines emanating from it in order to um be a delegate for this public meeting and Chris Pereira for a third time. Hit any button and we will see that you are present and wish to speak. Hit the hand button, the camera button, any button, and I can queue you in from there. Okay, looking to the clerk. Looks like they are not here. They are nodding in a scent. Um, sorry, M. Oh, okay. Hold on. No, that's Morer. Um, okay. So, I am now closing the open portion of this meeting. Um, do I need to council approve? No. Okay, we're good. Okay, mayor Collier. Sorry about that. >> No problem at all. I I have a number of amendments. I've sent them to the clerk. I think it's probably better if we do them one at a time rather than having to divide motions. So, um the first one would be uh the direct the deletion of policy 7.1.16 app from the official plan amendment to the clerk. Do you have >> that moment? I can put on screen and I believe this is two parts. One, directed deletion of 7.1.16F and directed deletion of provision 4.29.14 from the zoning bylaw. the corresponding zoning bylaw portion. >> Mayor, do you have a seconder for this amendment? >> Quick chance to read it. Yep. I'm just going to give them a chance to read it and then council if you could raise your hand if you wish to second this first amendment. Going once, twice. Um, Mayor Collier, I will second it because I just want to know what the rationale is. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. Um, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. Um, many of my questions were about this and if I assume I have the correct and please to uh Mr. McCulla or um or Mr. Catheria, if I've chosen the wrong sections, this is to do with the 50% of any um equity being sold and going back to the town. Can we just confirm that this is the correct portions? >> M. McCulla is getting a thumbs up. >> Okay, >> I confirm that's correct. >> Thank you. Uh just speak to it quickly and and and I I did allude to this in my in my comments. We we have done so much as a council to try and and keep things moving through dozens of different challenges and currently market positions. We have things like community benefit charge and cash in l of parkland and now 50% of your equity going back to the town to and council Lee you asked the question where does it go? We don't know where it goes and we don't know what it's used for. Just like the CBC, these are roadblocks that that we're putting in in front of people's ability for affordable home ownership. Um, through all the the mayor's directives that we've approved as a council in the last couple of years, we put affordable components in there um to get things moving. In this case, this is talking about condo, not rental. and we're not going to see any condo in quite a while. Council Lee correctly pointed out the province doesn't even allow us to have inclusionary zoning right now. So to kind of tie the hands going forward to me is is not really helping move things forward. I I just have a couple of notes here quickly. um the affordable ownership distinct from affordable rental to allow families to build generational wealth and real equity. The public comment we received from one of the developers in the MTSA is absolutely right. This is not geared to CPI in any way. It's actually possible that somebody could buy a a unit for say 500,000 and then in 25 years we don't know what the market's going to be. But to have to lose 50% of that equity back is not helping someone that is in need of of some assistance to get in the real estate market to move on to somewhere else outside of that condo. say that if their family um grows and they need a bigger unit or bigger space or or something else like that, it's a it's a roadblock. It's a barrier. Uh I I don't agree with it. Who is going to monitor this? Are staff going to be monitoring every new build in that area that's condo and every sale that happens in this area to make sure that the town gets their percentage. It's kind of a ridiculous kind of thing to think about as far as bankability and financial feasibility. A program can't deliver units if a buyer can't obtain a mortgage. Lenders are so tight right now with every little thing. Explicitly directing staff to engage CMAC and institutional lenders during guideline development. This is something that's not been done that needs to be done before we put this in place, not after we put this in place. This is something that's not even allowed till inclusiary is only till July 2027 or 2028 I think it was set. There's lots of time to do that consultation and then if it's needed put it in then. But right now it's kind of a placeholder. It's not really going to do anything at this at this time. Um anyway I I won't I won't prolong this. I didn't get a second or very quick. So, I'm not sure if this will pass, but this is just another another piece of red tape that I really don't think we need when we're moving to try and move things forward that the town get 50% of any gains that that anybody are going to earn by paying their taxes and paying their interest and paying their principal and living in this for 20 25 years. That's their money. They should get to keep it. It shouldn't go into a piggy bank here at the town of Ajax. I'll leave it there. Thank you, chair. Um, I will pass amendments after this whether it passes or fails. >> Understand? Uh, councelor Bower on the amendment. >> Thank you very much, Chair Lee. Thank you, Mayor Collier, for bringing this forward and and explaining why. And I tend to agree with you because I'm just trying to place myself into this example. If I was lucky enough to be able to purchase a condo at an affordable rate for 25 years and I own it and then I go to sell it, but because of that I a roadblock that no other condo owner I would expect have because they wouldn't be whatever money I could have made on that sale, I would have to give half of it back to the town. Am I understanding that right? Mr. McCulla. >> So through the chair to councelor Bower. So the original way that it was written was that yes, 50% of the net proceeds minus any transactional cost would have to be paid back to the town. So you would take your your purchase price, you would deduct that from your sale price, and then subtract any transactional cost. When we did receive the comments back from the developer, we have updated the official plan amendment to also include inflationary an inflation adjustment into that calculation so that um you know that that increase in in value will be cons and from an inflation perspective will continue to go to the homeowner so that they can um build up that equity because we agree that you know the intent of this wasn't to hold back a homeowner. um and you there's a you don't have you're losing a lot of benefit from if we didn't consider inflation. However, at the same time, some of those net proceeds, the idea is that some of them would go back into affordable housing to um provide other affordable housing options for other individuals. >> And explain to me, Mr. McCulla, if you can, how what does that actually mean? you would take that portion of the net proceed back to the town and how would it be used to make it more affordable for other residents? >> Yeah. So through the charity council which is something I was mentioning earlier we and again this is by the time something's constructed plus 25 years we're we're looking 30 years into the future. Sure. So we don't have all the answers for this, but the idea would be that money would be held in a reserve and then we would work with either the region to provide affordable housing or we would look to purchase other units from new developments that are coming online in the future that can be provided at an affordable rate. So it's kind of recycling some of some of those proceeds through the process moving into the future. >> Okay. So that is the purpose of that. >> Sorry go that's the purpose of that collection. It is not for the town to make up loss revenue of any kind. >> That's correct. Um because as I mentioned earlier, affordable housing used to be secured for much longer periods of time. >> Yeah. >> And now we're used to that 25 year period. So rather than just helping one household, you know, the hope is that there would be um would be helping other households moving forward. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen. I appreciate the response. Thanks, Chair. Councelor Tyler Mour, just using your hand function. This is on the amendment. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Tyler Morn. >> Thanks for checking. um just so I understand. So if somebody buys a unit for say $500,000 in 2027 and that unit is under the umbrella of affordable housing and for the next 25 years that person is padded as far as their um their costs are less than other people that are buying units for 680 or 750. And after 25 years, if they say, "Oh, I'm going to sell now for a million dollars." Then at that time, the town would say, "Well, your $500,000 profit, u you know, we that's great that you made a profit on it, but you've also been the this entire time uh had a break on on the cost." Uh so at that time, we would take 50%. Is that in very raw form the way it would work? >> Mr. >> So through the chair. Yeah. So through the chair to councelor Tyler Mour. So there would first be an adjustment uh for inflation. So it would be understanding how much of that increase in value is attributed to inflation and making that adjustment and then also deducting any transactional costs. So, your legal fees, your realtor fees, and then whatever's left over from whatever the difference is, then the town will get 50% of that. >> Okay? And what happens if somebody wants to sell after nine years and they've made a $300,000? We bought it at five and they're selling for 800. >> So, it would have to be sold at the affordable rate. >> Okay. So, it's umbrella and tight all the way to 25 years. That's right. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Henry using the hand function. Just want to confirm it's on the amendment. Thank you, Councelor Henry. >> Thank you. So, uh, Mr. Makulla um can you explain is there any dis like we've heard a lot about this and and uh already but disadvantages I I'm trying to see the advantages and disadvantages of removing this clause. I understand why Mayor Collier's brought it forward. I I understand the benefit to uh the homeowner. Um, you've explained that if we don't have this in place, this could affect other affordable housing units in the future because that's what the money is supposed to be used for. Correct. >> So, through the chair, that's correct. >> Is there any other disadvantages to removing this clause? Henry, that's an unfair question to staff because you're asking them to like give an opinion on an amendment and that's not their job. Can you rephrase your question? >> Well, I but it it's a it's their report so they they know in depth why the clause was there. Let me Okay, let me ask this. Why was the clause put in place? >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So through the chair, so as I mentioned earlier, it's so that there would be some proceeds in the future that would be going back into affordable housing to provide affordable housing units for a longer period of time. I don't think that this would generate a lot of money over time because it's again, it's being adjusted for inflation. It's being adjusted for your transactional cost and then it's 50% of whatever's left over. So, I don't anticipate that it would be a lot, but again, it's just to continue to recycle that money back into affordable housing units to help more individuals in need in the future. >> And we're looking like the these homes are what are we talking about the buildout of this? When are we looking at seeing anything in the town of Ajax in this area? What time period? 10 years, 5 years, what what's what's the process right now? >> Yeah. So through the chair to councelor Henry it's it's market dependent. It again we we have to wait for the market to improve. We then have to turn this process on. We then have to wait for construction of these units and then again even the cost is going to be and then they're secured for 25 years. So we're we're probably talking you know the next 30 40 years away. >> Okay. So, not making a decision on this today is is not um is not life shattering one way or another. It's not like this is something that's coming tomorrow. Uh we could bring this back the next term and look at this if we had to. There there's nothing earthshattering about this today. >> So, through the chair, yeah, we would have to do an amendment to the zoning bylaw in the future anyway. Um so, we can look at it at any time in the future. >> Okay. I I just I just wanted to clarify that. And then I just uh give me one minute here. I've got some notes on another page here. I'm just looking to to make sure that I've covered it all. And what's um the region's part in all this? Like if if we're if they're the housing uh provider in those units, if they're connected to the the unit, does any money go to them or is it to the town only? >> Uh so through the chair to council hearing. So at this time, uh that decision hasn't been made. If if there was money going to the region, it would be looking at um how we can work together to provide more affordable units. Um to date, our conversation has focused more on the management of the units and you know even working with the region on eligibility requirements and using some of the regions list to identify those who might be eligible and kind of working together between us, the region and the developer to implement this process once uh once we're able to use it. So, could the housing provider be um someone other than the region? So, we might like like I'm just going to throw some names out there directly be working with Habitat for Humane on this project. Like it could be somebody totally different that the region's not even in this process. Correct. >> So, through the chair to council that's correct. So, that was a lot of our discussion that we had through the consultation that Anuj mentioned in his presentation. A lot of those conversations were habit with Habitat for Humanity who have a lot of experience um working in these in this space especially on the af the ownership units. Um but then as we've seen I think in maybe December of 23 staff had brought forward an affordable housing agreement to secure um the units and where they're getting uh benefits of not providing certain fees. Um, but a lot of that is obligations stipulated into an agreement that is placed onto the developer to ensure that they're managing the units in accordance with that agreement. So, for instance, if let's say we were in a partnership with Habitat for Humane, um the unit was bought 3400,000 at a a flush reduced cost uh 25 years. any fees that were paid into that over the 25 years would if it was condo based would include the maintenance of the unit and would be more at a reduced rate because of the restrictions on um how the the formula was created for what each unit would be paying. So it would be probably at a more reduced rate for the condo fees than it would be for the for the other market rate condos within the building. So through um through the chair to council I know so the the condo rates are typically um at least to my in my to my knowledge they're typically the same. We're we're only speaking to the the sale price which is directed by provincial legislation which is um calculated using the provincial definition for affordable housing which would >> So the condo fees would be at the at the average rate that everybody else's were. Correct. >> Councelor Henry, I don't know why we're talking about condo fees right now when this >> because I'm trying to see if it's incorporated in the price with the mortgage. I'm trying to see if all this is incorporated into one bundle of fees or if it's separate. Trying to understand with >> But would that affect how you feel about the sale of it? >> Yes, that's why I'm asking the question. Yes, 100%. >> Okay, why don't you keep going? Go ahead. So, and through the chair to councelor Henry, um the the provincial definition for the rate at which um the resale value or the sale value of an ownership unit is calculated is based on the provincial definition of what is deemed to be affordable for a low and moderate income household. And the province has calculated what that rate is. And that should be that should be factoring in that they're not spending and and n correct me if I'm if I'm wrong in terms of the the um the exact definition but it's that they're not spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing and shelter needs. And I believe Anush correct me if I'm wrong but that should be including kind of those other fees taxes all of that in terms of that calculation or or Nick if you're on the line if you're able to confirm that for me. Yeah, that's that's correct, Sean. It's uh it's supposed to be included. The total spending on accommodation should not be more than 30% of their annual gross income. >> So that that could mean that >> that that could mean that the fees themselves is part of that. >> I would I would I would expect that to be included utility. >> Okay. >> Under fees and their mortgage. So no more than 30% of their annual income. >> That's correct. That's what the direction is from the province, >> which means that person has been subsidized for the 25 years on not only the mortgage amount, but also on the condo fees amount for that time period. >> No. So through the chair, so they would continue to pay the condo fees that are applicable to the unit. I don't think there's any um and Nick, again, correct me if I'm wrong if you've experienced this in the past, but I I would expect that they would be paying the full condo fees for the unit and contributing to that that development. So, it would be their mortgage that would decrease even more so to make up for if you're saying the whole package, condo fees and the mortgage are 30% of their annual income. And we're saying they're going to pay the same condo fees as everybody else in that building. That means their mortgage would have to decrease even more to meet the umbrella to even it out at the 30%. Is that what we're saying? >> No. So, through the chair to councelor Henry, it's the sale price of the unit. So the bulletin stipulates what the affordable rate is for an ownership unit. So that's calculated as the what someone would pay to purchase that unit. Um so I and again correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's in the neighborhood of $500,000 for the town of Ajax. So that's that all of these factors have been factored into calculating what that sale price is and then they purchase the unit and then their mortgage and and what they pay in condo fees just moves forward. It doesn't adjust over time based on what is affordable to that individual. >> Interesting. Very different than an apartment. Interesting. Okay. Thank you for indulging me and and giving that add additional information. Thank you. Thank you. Councelor Regional Council Crawford, uh, hand if you want to speak out to the amendment. No. Okay, great. Uh, Council Tyler Mren, uh, use the hand function if you want to speak on the amendment for a second time. Council M, >> thank you for, uh, let me in a second time. Um, is there a precedent for this? Is is any other municipalities collecting 50% on the sale of a unit uh at the 25 year plus mark? >> Uh so through the chair to councelor Tyler Mour. So yes, every municipality that has been implementing has had this provision to my knowledge. Um we're actually the only one though proposing the inflation adjustment. Others haven't taken that step. >> But every like vaugh or St. Catherine's or Whippy have the same the thing that's in this report saying that 50% um would go that 50% number I understand you keep saying it's adjusted to inflation so it's anish number but there would be a portion coming back to the municipality after the sale that you all the these other municipalities you're saying >> so through the chair um that 50% comes from the legislation that's the maximum that a municip ality can collect and it has shown up in other official plan notes. I know Markhamm has an example and uh Anuj if you've got any other examples that um that you would have seen this in. >> Yeah, I think Ottawa Ottawa has this too and there are a number of municipalities that are working through the details right now. >> Okay, thank you. And sorry. Um, region council Crawford, just confirm you do not want to speak on this amendment. Uh, use your hand if Okay. Um, region council Crawford, there it is. >> Okay. So, I just want I'm not sure to be honest with you if this is to do with the amendment. So, I'm going to ask my question and then if it's not, then you can correct me, of course. Right. >> Yeah. Yes. Yes. Please go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. My question is only the money that we collect we're using. We're recycling it back into the system. Can it be used for uh something like supportive housing units? >> It's in order. Uh Mr. Mcllum. >> Yes. So through through the uh the chair to regional counselor Crawford. So yeah, that is we would have to determine that. But that is we could either look at that option in investing in units with the region or looking at other projects coming forward by private developers and potentially purchasing units for um in alignment with the policy. >> Okay. I'm I'm I'm at a loss for how this is not a good thing. I I don't I don't understand. But thank you. I appreciate that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Mayor Collier, you're for the next one, I believe, or the next amendment. Um I just will just summarize because what no one is considering uh in this is the investor class um for these condos. So for example um if I'm in a wealthy person which I am not but let's just say this fictitious Sterling is and they had a child who uh was not working uh that that child would fit the um affordable housing requirements. Is that correct? Oh sorry in this hypothetical it don't answer that. So I think the concern with this and the reason why other municipalities are doing this is that if the investor class buys a condo because they somehow managed to qualify and don't say it didn't happen. I think part of the reason we're in a housing crisis is because of this very investor class then you are purchasing a condo at an incredibly low incredibly subsidized rate and now you are selling it for an immense profit after 25 years. um we should not be rewarding that. Like the the whole purpose of this is to ensure that people have homes, not that they can make money off their homes. Now, after 25 years, I think these people can absolutely keep their homes and stay in them for as long as possible, but I think in the event of a sale, I think it is fair that um they contribute to making the next phase of affordable homes affordable. So I will just stop it there. We've all had a very vigorous conversation about this one amendment which mayor Collier says there's many more work to come. So if no other speakers, we will start the vote on the amendment. And that has not passed. Okay. Mayor Collier, you have another amendment. >> I do, chair. Thank you. Um this is more to and to the clerk, can you put up um the second one which is really contingent on the first one not passing, please? This is the balance. I'll bring these all together because these are these are pretty simple. They're just >> putting it all together now. Okay. So basically this is just recapping the indexing to CPI. So um for the future price of a unit as Mr. McCulla spoke to minus uh costs and index to inflation the 50% would be applied to that figure. Um, so that's >> Do you have a uh sorry if you can just let council without speaking to it uh give council just another 30 seconds to go through this and then if you have a hand please use your hand function if you wish to second this amendment by Mayor Collier. Sorry, we're all just seeing this for the first time, that's why. >> Yeah. No, I did not uh I sent this this morning and I didn't circulate. >> Okay. So, any member of council um wish to second this amendment to put on the floor? Uh we see councelor Bowerer. Thank you. Mayor Collier uh after you. >> Thank you. Um this is just further to some of my some of my questions. One that um speaking to the uh the CPI portion and I think I might have it in here twice. Mr. McCulla had answered the question and please help me here if I'm wrong. What the intent of this is is to have uh section 4.2 4.29.1 paragraph 4 adjusted to reflect the amendments they've already made to 7.1.16F to account for inflation and transactional costs. That's what I'm trying to do here is that uh wording I might have it duplicated in three and five. I think we can get rid of the first bullet that says section 4.29 be deleted. Yeah, actually no, that that does work. And we can get rid of number five if number three works. Yeah, I think that makes sense. >> Okay. And Mr. McCulla, when I asked you, you had said that it, you know, to to update that now to reflect wasn't an issue. >> Yes. So through the chair, I don't see this as being an issue. >> Okay. Uh the second is just that the consultant did speak to the fact that they have not consulted with residential mortgage lenders and CHC as to what the implications of some of these things today might do to the ability to get a mortgage or to the ability for a developer to um qualify for CHC which is kind of important. So just directing staff to go back and have those consultations uh and report back to council once those consultations are complete. Another amendment is going to have to come to this OP um official plan amendment anyway um with the the the IZ deferral. So um it's important to have those conversations as to the affordability and the financial ability of these and uh it's directing staff to do so. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Um, anyone have any questions regarding the amendment? Council Barrow, your hand is up, but I think it was from the previous thing, unless you have a point of order. Councelor Bar. >> Thank you. Um, uh, no, I don't have a point of order. I I actually want to make a comment from the previous amendment. >> Sorry. Um uh sorry Lisa sorry councelor >> bar councelor Henry do you have a point of order? >> Not a point of order chair but I've asked the clerk to email this to me. I cannot see this on the screen. The print is too small. So I'm asking for time to see actually see this. I've not received it via email yet and this was not circulated to me beforehand. I need to see this to make a decision. Can someone please get this to me? Thank you >> folks. We are going to call a fivem minute recess. Um I Yeah, we'll just call a fiveminute recess. 2:20. Everyone be back at 2:25. When we are back at 2:25, councelor Barrow will be first in the speaking order. Um as and sorry for cutting you off. Thank you everyone. And we are live. Call this meeting back to order. Um, Council Bower, if you could use your request to speak button. Thank you very much. Apologies for the interruption as you were. >> No, thank you very much, Chair Lee. And you know what? I'm I'm fine. I do not have any comments or questions about this amendment. Thank you at this time. Thank you, Council Henry. >> Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the clerk for sending this to me in writing. So, my questions are as followed. Um, can staff confirm the index um that indexing the original purchase price reduces the town's future equity share compared to the original 7.1 1.6. Mr. McCulla, it's a very specific question. Can you figure that one out? >> Uh, so through the chair, I think I can. So, I just want to be clear what the amendment's proposing is to add the inflation component into the zoning bylaw amendment. Um, so the piece in 71.1.6 or whatever the the section is, that would remain as proposed in the official plan amendment. What this amendment is doing is it's just proposing to add the CPI inflation index into the zoning bylaw amendment. So, it's just aligning the two documents. >> Does it reduce the town's equity uh equity share supporting long-term um affordable goals in the PMTSA? I hate acronyms. Sorry about that. >> Um Council Henry, it's the town's percentage remains the same. I think what you're asking is in like um would it reduce the sale price because that would reduce our equity. Is that what you're asking? >> Along those lines, yes. >> The problem is um I and I'll just answer for the um planners. We there's no way you can foresee what sale prices are going to be in 30 years with or without this amendment. There could be a catastrophic thing that causes things to dip or we could enter a boom where things are rising completely. I think our percentage share does not change in spite of this. >> So if I can, Mr. Chair, through to through the chair to council Henry, this would reduce our net proceeds that we would get in the end so that more equity would stay with um the the homeowner. >> Okay. >> But this is but we've also proposed this already. Staff have recommended this approach in the official plan amendment. So, is staff in favor of this amendment? Is that a fair question? Like, if you're making that statement, Hold on. Hold on. Hold on, chair. Hold on. If you're making that statement, I didn't ask for that statement, but you made that statement. Is it is it now fair to say you're you're in favor of this amendment? >> No, same thing. Um, I think you can ask if staff are aligned based on the pre uh does this align with the previous amendment that staff made? That's a fair question, but whether they support or not is not a fair question. >> Sure, we'll go with that. We'll reward it your way. >> So, M. McGlo, does this align with the previous amendments you had made on the other side? >> So, to you, Mr. Chair, it does. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, if it aligns with the previous amendments, then my next question is why do we need an amendment to change it? Why wasn't it already done? There must be a reason. There's always a reason why staff does what they do. >> Yes. So through the chair to councelor Henry. So we were looking at other options to adjust the definition in net proceeds and not understanding where the legislation would be in a year or two when we went to amend to turn on the policy. Uh we just thought that it would be um procedurally it would be a better approach just to align it at that time. However, putting this forward this aligns with the official plan amendment. So it aligns with the initial plan amendment. However, as we know, the province makes changes all the time and we don't know where we'll be in a year. So in a year, if something more substantial changes, could we go back and look at it then and make this adjustment then? So through the chair to councelor Henry. Uh yes, we can make future amendments when we do when we have to revisit this in the future. Okay. Because there's been a lot of changes from the province about everything monthly. So, I'm just asking like like we don't know where this is going in a year because we all assumed this would be turned on now and it's not going to be turned on right away and and is is it a safeguard? Is is that why it's still here? Is it a safeguard? >> So, through the charity council. >> Sorry. Um Mich Yeah, go ahead. You can answer that one, I guess. >> Yeah, I I I think it's either approach I think works in this case. I think it's um I wouldn't say it's a safeguard because we can always amendment amend it in the future. So I I don't think there's any any issue. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, Mayor Collier, use your hand function if you want to come back on your own amendment for closing. Okay. So, before you close then, I'm just going to go ahead. Um, can we change the word financability? Um, both Microsoft Word and myself have an issue with that. So, Mayor Collier, can we change that to affordability? Um, I'll let you kind of correct me there. I guess my issue is with number four, uh, consulting with residential mortgage lenders. I'm not I understand like they understand the market, but then I don't want this to be a whole thing where we're trying to figure out which residential mortgage lenders do we speak to like do we have to get a committee of residential mortgage lenders to get consensus? I understand the CMHC part, but u perhaps you can shed light on that when it's your turn. Those are my only two issues. Um Marier, >> thank you chair. First, just in in response to some of the questions councelor Henry is asking, and I don't want to get into a debate, but I hope everybody realize we can't do any of this stuff right now. It's not allowed by the province. In order to do any of it, we're going to have to come back and Well, I'm not, but you guys are going to have to come back and amend it later. So, there's lots of times to make changes to this, sure. But doing section 4, whatever it was, and then not doing section 4.29.1 29.1 doesn't make sense because they go hand in hand. I I'm going to suggest that maybe it was just an oversight and that's all we're doing is fixing it. Just making the two pieces, the OPA and the zoning bylaw match each other because they don't match right now. That's all number three is doing. And and Mr. McCulla has said several times in several different ways, yeah, it's okay. um to the other. It's just basically directing staff to have the conversation that was not had yet. I would have expected the conversation to already have been had is kind of an important piece to um you know, if we're going to put uh official plan amendments in place that are going to restrict the ability for a a lender or a purchaser to get a mortgage, that's a problem. So, I think they do have to do a CHC, but no homeowner is going to do a CHC. So that's why the residential is in there and it's not giving any direction other than have the conversation. So I guess when they develop the zoning implementation guidelines which is going to come back later they'll you guys will go through this again. So it's just asking to have the conversation and yes I will take it as a friendly I I was in a rush and yeah financial ability is not a word so I'm happy to go with your suggestion absolutely. >> Thank you. It's all about the small wins. Okay. All joking aside, um I see no more speakers in the speaker list. I'm going to call the vote on the amendment. Um is affordability spelled wrong now? Just one moment. No, our clerk. It's I don't know. It's under Never. Never mind. We're going to call the vote on the amendment. Um, and that passes. Okay, great. Back to the agenda. There's no presentations, no more. Oh, the con confirming bylaw. No. >> Oh, main motion. Excuse me. We have such vibrant discussion. Any other question, comments, concerns on the main motion as amended? Seeing none, we will call the vote on the main motion as amended. Region Crawford just waiting for your vote. Thank you. And that passes. Okay, great. That is the There's no public presentations. No. And yeah, I guess this is just adjournment um for the last cab meeting for Mayor Collier, regional councelor Dy and council Bower. Can I get a mover in secondary for a German, please? Councelor Bower for the last time at CAB. Mayor Collier for the last time at CAB. I'm going to say this every meeting and we'll start the vote. And that passes everyone. Have a great rest of the day.