Transcript: Zoning Overhaul and Housing Policy Adopted - Planning & Development Council meeting of April 20, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. | Summary 354

Zoning Overhaul and Housing Policy Adopted - Planning & Development Council meeting of April 20, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.

Hello and welcome to this meeting of the planning and development council of the town of Oakville. Uh madame clerk, I see we have no regrets this evening. And uh councel, do does anyone have a declaration of conflict of interest? Uh madame clerk, no declarations are visible. Uh council, could we have a mover and seconder for the confirmation of the minutes of the previous planning and development council meetings? Uh items 3.1 and 3.2. Uh councelor Longo and councelor McNiss. Thank you. Any objection? There being none, that's Oh, councelor uh has deal. I just read I wish to register my objections to the minutes. I'm uh I understand that won't change it, but I do want to register my objections to them. Well, then you've voted against it. Correct. Thank you. Um, that's carried. Um, the next item before us is the advisory committee minutes from the Heritage Oakville Advisory Committee meeting of March 24th. How do you wish to dispose of this? We need a mover and seconder. Councelor Lischa and Councelor Longo, thank you for being quick. Uh any objection? There being no objection, the uh the permits and the minutes are adopted. Uh that brings us to consent item 5.1, the recommendation report for the seasonal commercial patios to resume. Is there a mover and seconder for this? Councelor Chisum and Councelor Grant. Thank you. Any objection? There being none, patios pass and we'll all look forward to the resumption of patio season. Now, if only it wasn't four degrees outside right now. So, that brings us to the first uh public hearing item on the agenda tonight, and that is the the zoning review for lowdensity residential lands south of Dundas Street subject to zoning bylaw 2014-14. And if we give our attention to the staff podium, uh we will we will get from Katherine Bunkerfield, our senior planner, a presentation to set this up. And we're also going to hear from our uh from Mr. Joe Nethery. Welcome back. Long time no see. Uh Katherine, do you want to start off by introducing Joe? Thank you, Mayor Burton, members of council, and members of the public tuning into tonight's meeting. This presentation is in relation to item 7.1 of tonight's agenda, which is the public meeting for the zoning bylaw review for lowdensity residential lands south of Dundas, which are subject to zoning bylaw 2014014. My name is Katherine Buckerfield. I'm the project coordinator for this review. I'm joined today by Joe Ney from Nethery Planning who has worked with the town to spearhead the review and provide recommendations for changes to the zoning bylaw. As part of the report, we've included a draft town initiated zoning bylaw amendment which is consistent with the background report prepared by Nether Planning. We have also prepared a comparison chart to assist with understanding the proposed changes. Tonight, Joe Ney of Nether Planning will be taking us through the study area and scope, project timeline, policy context, and some key issue analysis. I'll be welcoming Joe now to continue the presentation. Thank you, M. Thank you, Miss Buckerville, Mayor Burton, members of council. Yes, delight to be back. Love what you've done with the place. I'd like to thank uh Miss Buckerfield, Mr. Charles, Mr. Lee, uh, and Mr. Rubik for giving me the opportunity to live a life's dream and finally speak from the center podium uh as a part of bringing the South Oakville residential zoning review through to completion. Uh so it is our statutory public meeting tonight. Uh you all know the drill as do I. So let's get at her at the next slide please. Uh you can actually skip me to ahead if that's all right. Thanks. So our uh study area and scope for this project uh are generally speaking those low density residential lands south of uh south of Dundas Street or as my father would say Highway 5 uh income uh covering the all of those lands covered by the livable Oakville plan itself. Uh this is uh a study that builds on a significant amount of previous work. Uh not just uh continuing the hard work that was done through the comprehensive zoning by the review, but uh the residential character say design guidelines for stable residential communities, the balcony staff report and our own two-year process uh going through this project as well. Uh in terms of building on all of these past efforts, uh uh this project team has been brought together with an overall goal to overall goal to simplify and clarify the zoning, ensure that conformity with the little local plan continues to be maintained uh responsive to a considerable amount of feedback research uh and insight and planning act changes over the past decade. um in order and uh with some additional work uh with respect to supporting sustainability at the lot level uh from a storm water management perspective as best we can. For a process recap on the next slide uh for those who might be joining us for the first time. Uh uh we wanted to make sure uh as a project team that both residents and town staff were getting the opportunity to provide this feedback on the zoning work uh on zoning, how it was working at present, where it may have been falling short, where things have changed since the last times I was at this podium. Uh feedback was collected through a variety of mechanisms including an online public survey, internal staff questionnaires and workshops. We've also done a few open houses as well. Uh this work and this research began before 2024. Uh issues identification and recommendations were developed in in stages internally as a project team through into spring of last year. We were out with uh open houses a little over a year ago to take that feedback back and final go back deliberate some more and finalize those research and those recommendations which happily brings us to this very important project milestone tonight and then hopefully a fairly rapid turnaround to bring this to conclusion with a recommendation uh to pass the bylaw amendment. That is of course not the recommendation tonight. We're here to get everybody's feedback, council and the public. Uh the uh consultation has been fairly extensive from my opinion. 423 responses from homeowners through the various surveys that were produced uh in this project. Homeowners, renters, landlords, industry professionals have been engaged with. Um while of course most of our responses were from homeowners, uh uh we do have renter and landlord uh participation through the study as well. Uh some of our key uh concerns that come through in the public responses uh building heights uh uh high proportions of respondents worrying about homes over newer homes overshadowing existing lots uh looking for better alignment in the regulations with respect to neighborhood character in new builds that are happening. uh set uh lock. Um additional people are also looking for and seeking larger separation distances and setbacks to preserve that privacy, landscaping space, trees uh and green space as well, coupled of course with some background research that has been done to get us to this point as well to help support maintaining open space uh and landscaping on individual lots. On the next slide, uh everybody gets the typical land use planner slot which uh slide which introduces highlights the policy context that applies on work like this. Um we have been looking at the planning act. We have considered the provincial planning statement from 2024. Uh we have upper level policy documents including uh any items out of the Halton region official plan. We of course go back to the liable Oakville plan and it's important that we're delivering an amendment that is does conform with that policy document. uh some of those various stud re uh reiterating rather some of those supporting studies that have supported this work. The design guidelines for stable residential communities in 2013, the balcony staff report in 2017, the residential character study also in 2017, and the storm water master plan in 2019, which I may wish to talk about a little bit further. On the next slide, uh I'm going to start introducing some of the recommendations that are contained in this draft document today. And uh uh first one up is a request to streamline individual zones themselves. Um so at uh the original bylaw had 11 lowdensity residential zones. There are a variety of similarities between those frameworks. Um generally speaking this uh recommendation uh that we would be bringing forward as a project team is to consolidate some of those o zones that do have similarities in terms of uh lot sizes and lot dimensions and those built form standards. It also gives an opportunity to weed out some redundant special provisions and merge those standards into the main zone text to overall reduce the heft of the main document itself. Uh on the next slide we have taken a look at the - zone structure. Um, one of the key elements of feedback that came in through uh both public and industry use uh is about uh ensuring that those regulations are transparent and easy to find and integrate into the main parent bylaw itself. I I think we are looking at uh uh in this recommendation being responsive to that decade of feedback that's been collected from the broadest range of stakeholders themselves. Uh so at this point uh we are recommending a a reformatting of the DHO suffix zone as the residential low overlay zone. A number of those standards we are proposing to introduce into the parent zone regulations themselves um with corresponding footnotes that make whatever cross references back to those few general regulations that are a little tough to move in together into one spot that they're still in a nice tidy home there in the back with the point being these dash standards are now immediate and upfront when people are going into the tables. Um which is a really cool and neat exercise to integrate. On the next slide um we've staff and especially have done a considerable amount of uh work with respect to interior sideyards. Uh on the understanding of course that the type of development you get in North Oakville is very different than what you were getting between Dundas Street and Upper Middle and was what is very different from south of Upper Middle as well. Um so what has been in terms of ensuring that we're protecting for that permeability on those lots, the open sense of spaciousness around each of them. Um there's a series of recommendations that are being brought forward and one of those is tying the minimum required interior sideyard to the width of the lot that you have today. So if one of those if you happen to be in a lot that's in a a little bit wider than what you might typically see from a lot frontage perspective, we would instead be relying on a different version of this table um embedded into the individual zones themselves. All this jibberjabber for me to basically say the point is to ensure that interior sideyards are as large as possible in a context appropriate situation to ensure that there remains room for access around the building from drainage for drainage from the rear out to the front and for appropriate storage uh for any unitary equipment that may be present as well. uh sideyard se uh uh there's some uh administrative adjustments as well as it respects to uh detached garages or where there is no garage provided as well to ensure that there is a sufficient width for vehicles to pass around that side as well. We are looking to introduce a requirement, a new one into the splot for 50% of that width to be provided as soft landscaping to support the development engineering team in their pursuit of implementing your storm water management master plan. Uh there are also some incidental regulation changes with respect to ARUS uh in accessory buildings in order to protect again for those drainage requirements and any openings in the buildings themselves. On the next slide, we uh the pro the bile amendment is also looking to make some changes with respect to driveways. Um we'd be looking to introduce a minimum ensure that a minimum setback of 2 feet6 meters is provided from all lot lines for driveways. That distance to be maintained as landscaped open space again to support the development engineering team and their in their infiltration storm water management work. Um there are some technical amendments that are needed in order to implement that such as in a semi- detached dwelling context and where we have shared driveways. Um we're also providing a fix for uh the zoning zoning team to ensure that the measurement for the driveways themselves is taken in a continuous manner to support on the implementation interpretation side. On the next slide, um we talk a I'm going to talk a little bit more about um how we're making some of these identifications in tables or rows in order to support the bill again the zoning team uh and the planning department in communicating zoning regulations out on a daily basis. Um so the tables are proposed to be deleted and replaced. The majority of those standard uh I just said the majority those standards generally remaining the same but with two different tables. one for the encroachments and those part of uh those elements of the building that can go into a particular yard and another for projections as well. Uh splitting this table apart, we're finding on on preliminary trial that it's working very well in getting that information out to the out to uh consumers of zoning. Uh part two to this is on the next slide. Um where uh uh specific to uh one second, sorry guys. And council h excuse me. Um we've uh been asked to look at some of the uh standards as they apply to window wells specifically as well. Um minimum setbacks are recommended again to preserve that drainage access uh and freedom of movement requirement around the side and uh requiring certain uh and uh removing width limits as well to support any uh egress out of those buildings from an emergency design perspective. Um, and again, uh, on lots that have these narrower yards, we're ensuring that those projections are not permitted to go beyond a certain distance in order to ensure that the distance, the setback around the building is protected at all times. On the next slide, uh, we have a we want to talk about heights in this regard. So, uh, as I'm sure everybody knows, uh, especially me, there's obviously a a significant difference depending on what part of Oakville you're in, what your height measurement is, how it is particularly measured. Um, just a history of basically the collected history of people having to interpret these sorts of standards for 50, 60 some odd years. Uh, the recommendation that's being proposed here is to standardize this approach throughout that geographic area based on a roof type. uh for flat roofs uh a reduction 8 meters across all zones, all locations, regardless of your suffix or non-suffix or overlay applicability. That is a reduction based on what is in the bylaw today for the concept of a a semiflat roof. You can see an example of that second from the left in the graphic. a 9 meter maximum. That height is tied that definition that standard setup is tied to various dimensions and angles on the roof itself. Uh an approach very uh common in a few other um inner ring GTA municipalities that have similarly grappled with these issues over the past decade. And depending on context of tradition a more traditional sloped roof 10 to 12 meters once again tied to the location and the overall history of zoning u in that part. Uh there's also been and I recall these conversations from 2014 uh before 2014 as well about how height should be measured and having looked at multiple places uh the project team continues to recommend measuring that from established grade which is ti which involves tying it to lot lines themselves it ensures that the municipality has a has as much control as is as possible over where the measurement gets taken from. On the next slide, uh we are also looking to talk about the residential floor area ratio requirement as well. Uh there are um how the standard has been measured and applied uh has obviously had some adjustments and some tweaks over the fullness of time. Uh and a few more of those uh gaps or areas where some reconsideration would be appropriate have been factored into this draft as well. uh of the key updates that are being proposed. This would include incl this would include attached garages and open to below or cathedral spaces within main dwellings to all be included as a part of the residential floor area ratio calculation. Uh at present both of those areas are out. They do result in some built forms that may not necessarily been what we're what we're being contemplated. There has accordingly been some really really great work uh done by the building department to calculate some updated residential floor area ratio percentages to reflect those additional inclus to include those uh spaces within the regulatory framework itself and updated proportions have uh accordingly been prepared um to ensure that uh we're doing our best design work um with respect to garages not uh dominating the streetscape itself. A new regulation is proposed that would set uh maximum garage width and it would be set for the first three meters of building depth from the main front wall. So if you want to have a very large garage in behind that's fine so long as it doesn't look like that from the street. On the next slide uh with respect to main wall proportionality the uh the recommendation is to uh remove that requirement. it uh has um effectively not really been uh applied much as of late. Uh it uh minimum maximum front yards do remain within the regulation itself. It does provide some more of that design flexibility uh back as well. Um an opportunity to this is an opportunity to eliminate a regulation that may not necessarily be applied so much anymore and uh uh which is in the recommendation in front of you tonight. On the next slide, um a specific inclusion to semi- detached dwellings which uh up to this point have not been included within a dash suffix and RO zoning framework. Um very simple inclusion. We are looking we are recommending to apply those adjusted yard standards uh to uh semi- detached dwellings at this time to long story short ensure that consistent street wall treatment in the event that semi- detached dwellings are also being redeveloped at this time. Um I recall hearing about this at the uh public open house uh a year ago. Uh in the last issues oriented slide um thank you all for sticking with me to this point on lot coverage itself. Um there has been an interpretive uh recommend adjustment being recommended within the draft bylaw itself. This will clarify that lot coverage standards apply to all of the particular buildings on the lot itself. There is one exception recommended to this and that would be the uh providing an exception for a maximum 10 square meter accessory building or structure to a maximum 2.5 meters in height at your typical hardware store shed. Uh anything that does not meet that would count towards law coverage uh on an individual lot itself. Uh and as always let a good project uh not provide an opportunity for some housekeeping changes as well. So on the next slide, um we uh we do run through a number of these items that I would frame as technical and administrative in nature around uh semi- detached dwelling standards, circular driveway provisions uh as well as if you've read the amendment, a fairly robust uh cleanup of some special provisions as well uh to reflect and incorporate some of these changes in um which is always to me always has been and continues to be a best practice that I continue to tell everybody about when they ask me about zoning. Um our last standards uh discussion uh on the next slide is respect to permeability and landscaping. So uh as a part of this project and knowing that the the town has done a lot of work with respect to storm water management um I recall it from my uh job most recent to this one as well um that the town is looking to ensure that uh it is providing for that on-site infiltration as best as possible. There are some things zoning is really really good at doing at. There are some things it is not. Uh and those items that we are confident recommending at this time are included in this re in this recommendation uh or in the draft bylaw rather in front of you tonight. Uh including a definition of soft landscaping uh in order to provide for that requirement for surf uh ground treatments that do allow for that infiltration in introducing coverage requirements associated with that. again to do what we can at the zoning level to provide for that space protection and treatment. Uh as well as reserving landscaping strips with that treatment along front, rear and exterior sideyards, a little bit narrower along interior sideyards. All to provide the opportunity and the spacing for that swell function. Uh that is also of course uh we also provide for some specific recommendations for minimum soft landscaping in those front and exterior sideyards as well. Um both for aesthetic and storm water purposes. Uh, so we did it. Uh, I got did my best to keep it to 10 minutes, Miss M. And I hope I hope I did all right. Um, that's effectively the presentation on my last slide. Um, very quickly, I guess I I come to you with the the typical planning recommendation, unless you want unless you want the honors. town. Oh, sorry. I apologize. My microphone was not working. You'd think by after 2020 I'd remember. Um, thank you, Joe. Um, we've really enjoyed working with Nether Planning on bringing forward u this information for a statutory public meeting. As a way to conclude, I'd like to remind council of our recommendation that comments from the public be received, and we look forward to considering both council and the public's comments as we move forward towards a recommendation after this meeting. Thank you, Miss Buckerfield. And we have a volunteer from the public. We have a registered delegation from Joshua Gardner. Mr. Gardner, are you here? You are up, sir. Thank you for your patience and council and staff look forward to your comments. I note that you provided a a written copy um and and they'll have that as well. So, uh the floor is yours. You have 10 minutes. Thank you, Mayor Counselors. Good evening. Um I applaud the effort, research, and thought that has gone into this process. Any effort to improve the lives of our residents is a welcome and worthwhile endeavor. It is clear from the plethora of pages produced and the rather lengthy times committed to the project that it was not taken lightly with the key goals being to clarify and simplify regulations to make them easier to understand and apply. Explore reducing the number of residential low zones and apply more equitable practices. Secondly, we wanted to update regulations for continued alignment with the livable Oakville plan. It must be clear this is not a simple task. simplification, equitable practices, and their clear communication are amongst the most difficult tasks for any organization, let alone one with as many and varied stakeholders as the town of Oakville. While I believe that this task was well-intentioned, I do believe it missed the mark significant on both simplification and in applying equitable practices. I make this statement as a longtime Oakville resident with an interest in zoning. I have watched quite a few COA meetings who also happens to be going through the permitting and construction process for a new home. My focus in these comments is on a pretty slim but I think impactful portion of the recommended changes. I'd love to spend more time inputting, but as the owner of an Oakville based business, the father of two kids under nine, my time was limited. I anticipate that some might argue the reduction in the number of zones would equate equate to simplification and that lot lots base setbacks and coverage allowances equate to more equitable practices. I would argue that they actually work against one another. While the consolidation of zones appears to be headed in the right direction, mashing it up with lotsizebased setbacks actually causes two negative outcomes. The first, an increased need for cross referencing. Numerous places in the staff report site the need to reduce cross referencing and demonstrate its negative impacts. Areas of zoning get overlooked. So do different rules and regulations. By reducing the number of zones, you're increasing the need to cross reference and increasing the likelihood for confusion. Same zoning, different requirements. Imagine you and your neighbor have similar but not exactly equal lots, both in the same zoning. It would make sense that you'd have the same setbacks. However, in this case, the neighbor with the larger lot may be required to have larger setbacks than their neighbor. Even more egregious would be the de facto reszoning of severed lots, which surprisingly enough, I found out, is just a minor variance. neighbors would who could tolerate a severed lot next door might unknowingly be signing up for increased lot coverage and reduced interior sideyards of their new neighbors. Sure, there is a higher zone count in the current zoning edition, but all the information is contained in a single table except for what's not. And what's not contained there is actually the biggest opportunity to actually make zoning simpler and more equitable. that is the complete removal of the zero suffix. Staff comments single out the zero suffix that the zero suffix is often overlooked and confusing to those who either casually or routinely engage in the Oakville zoning bylaw. I believe that this is for three distinct reasons. First, it is completely separate from the clearly distilled, communicated, and well thoughtout main zoning table 6.3.1 of the main bylaw. Any casual or relatively engaged viewer of the zoning documents can see that they're progressive. Lower numbered zones have bigger lots, more generous setbacks, and lower allowable lot coverage. As you progress towards higher zones, the densification increases, lots get smaller, homes get closer together, and there are more homes in a given area. It's logical, sensical, and people understand it. Secondly, zones RL1, RL2, RL3, and much of RL4 are all an illusion. they really don't exist. Largely they um are in very specific areas and are almost all -0 suffixes. Um the area and corresponding number of homes are dwarfed by these zero suffix overlay. Lastly, the zero suffix complicates what should be simple. Rather than using the prescribed lot coverage, building heights, and setbacks clearly set out in the main zoning table, additional concepts are introduced and some in a quite complicated manner. I know because I actually had to correct a well-known architect for their incorrect application to our build, which is an entirely as of right build. These changes and restrictions, residential floor error ratio, modified and reduced heightbased lot coverage, yard changes outside the main regulations, main wall proportionality, balcony and deck prohibitions, height and story restrictions, apply a single broad brush to almost all of Oakville that is sewn below RL5. These restrictions increase the need for variances, slow down building, give control of building to a small but vocal committee of adjustment, incentivize unpermitted changes to a home, and generally add no value to residents, builders, or approval agencies. Removing the zero suffix would have no negative impacts to the town or residents. I know I must sound overly confident and optimistic about this statement, and I am. That's because one of Oakville's nicest neighborhoods has been living has been a living experiment in the removal of the zero overleaf for more than a decade. The 47 acre area bounded by Rebecca Street, Fourth Line, Pine Grove in Maplehurst has been void of the zero overlay restrictions and yet is absolutely thriving. I don't know if anyone in the area is familiar with the area, but please go take a look. It's beautiful homes, beautiful areas, some of the most coveted um uh land in southeast Oakville. It consists of almost 120 homes spread across zones RL2 and RL3. Many of the quat lots are indeed quite large, but others are absolutely typical of what you'd find in the RL2 and RL3 zones just across the street, which have been designated as -0. Like most of the area, there's a mix of small to medium-sized bungalow and new infill development. A look through COA meetings based on addresses yields no discernable increase in complaints registered against variances. And without access to underlying data, I would guess that fewer variances are requested in that area as compared to the -0 neighbors. Indeed, my interest in the spectacular zoning free of this zero overlay started out as pure self-interest. I wanted to sit out on a balcony in the morning and enjoy a coffee. I wanted a basement that could be reasonably above ground so I can look out and see my kids playing in the yard. I didn't think that was too much to ask. Now that I've dug into the Oakville bylaw and seen the potential of the area I've highlighted, it seems like something every Oakillian would be happy to have, both for themselves and for their neighbors. This zoning amendment contains some real progress. Hooray! I can have a bigger garage so long as I am within my lot coverage allowance and the front isn't too wide. It even alludes to some I would argue should be made. The balcony's staff report from 2017 and its recommendation to make balconies a permitted feature of the zero zone. I still think the amendment results in overly restrictive zoning for much of Oakville. Oakville is full of residents that make great neighbors. I've alluded to sitting through committee of adjustment meetings when variances are asked for. I've repeatedly seen that push back comes from the board, not from neighbors. Based on the area I've highlighted today, I think removing the zero overlay will help Oakville continue to be one of the best places to live, grow, and raise a family. Are there any questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Gardner. uh purpose of the meeting is to register your your concerns with us and uh we thank you for doing that. I'm confident that staff uh not only benefited from your remarks but also from providing it in advance as you did. So, thank you very much. Um councelor uh Adams, councelor Omira, and then I saw earlier a hand from councelor uh mcnes. Councelor Omira, you're left. Sorry. Yeah, I just wanted to ask Josh a question if that's okay. Sorry. Thank you. Um, so and and I completely agree. It's complicated. I think we've communicated before. It's much like like legal language. It can be it can be a little difficult to uh to present. So, thank you for bringing that forward and I'm sure the residents um uh or the the staff are going to take that forward. I I guess my question is um and just to to pick one is balconies and and uh and you might you might um you might not be aware but they have been the the instigation of neighborhood wars before about you know peeking over over sort of if you've got a corner lot and that faces a side lot. So, I guess my question would how would you um without the C having to go to the CFA, how would you adjudicate whether a balcony would be would would would be invading on someone's privacy or not? Or would you just say that too bad, so sad the lot line ends where you paid? Like I'm I'm trying to figure out how you No, no, not at all. I mean, for me, uh there's two real ways when I look at it. Um the first is you have lot setbacks that are existing. I failed to see the difference of looking through a window into my neighbor's backyard and standing on a balcony and looking into my neighbor's backyard. Um, I understand people are going to argue with that and take umbrage with it, but I don't really understand it. Uh, the second thing I would explore looking as height based setbacks, i.e. above seven meters have additional setbacks so that the balconies are set further back providing more privacy. Um those are two I think relatively simple solutions that would allow and also by including um balcony provisions you're actually able to regulate it rather than I if you go around and look through the neighborhoods there are a lot of balconies out there that are prohibited and yet there but there's no guidance or oversight because permits are closed before the railings are put up. Thank you. Um, before I turn to council, I want to just ask if anyone else in the public wants to speak to item 7.1. You may not have come thinking to speak, but if you've heard things that make you want to add your opinion, you're welcome now, too. All right, seeing none, I'll recognize uh Oh, we have hands from counselors. Good. Councelor Adams, I'm sorry. I I meant to ask the delegate if um his speaking notes were um the same as other material that you had provided. Uh your material your your comments tonight were well considered and um quite complete and so I wanted to make sure that whatever you had said was included in the commentary materials that went to our staff so that they can be considered. Counselor, as I said, they were the same. Very small amount and I had provided some previous guidance um that we're very much in line with this in earlier. Thank you again for your consideration. All right, councelor has deal. Thank you through you, Mayor Burton. Um this is to staff and to Mr. Nether. Um either or um just in terms of um the sideyard setback. Um, so this is an amazing amount of work and it's an amazing amount of detail to try and absorb. Is the minimum yard set back 1.2 too. Wonder Thank you for your patience through through councelor Hazel. Um the the baseline minimum interior sideyard that is recommended in this project in the narrowest circumstance is 1.2 mters. As lots get wider, that minimum baseline interior sideyard increases depending on the width itself. Um, and if my memory of 2014 is correct, that should represent an increase uh over uh some of the previous minimums in previous contexts. Okay. So, my follow-up question then is 50% of the sideyard needs now to be soft and is that on both sideyards? So when you look at a normal neighborhood, um you know, they go down one side of the the to get to their backyard. They don't go down both typically. Um are you allowed to have one uh which is not 50% soft landscaping in order to facilitate the wheelbarrow, the whatever you're dragging to the backyard, or are we going to be firm that we have this 50% uh ratio? I'm gonna jump in on this one. um through Mayor Burton. Uh thank you for that commentary. So I wanted to just highlight that that soft landscaping has more than one function. It's not just access. There's also drainage involved and it helps facilitate things like swailes um along the sideyard. So at this point the recommendation is that it would be provided on both sides of of the house. So So So I 100% appreciate that you found a way to put some of this in the the recommendation. At the same time, the practicality of somebody being able to get uh down their sideyard with a wheelbarrow that is almost two feet in in width or just under um and these measurements doesn't seem to work. So, tonight's about comments and those would be my comments to consider that you know it is um it is important that we have greater permeability. I I support it, but we also have to think about the practicality of how that um land would be used. And when I read some of the instruction in in um it doesn't perhaps we could give better guidance around what are permeable surfaces that would be allowed um that would still qualify on the 50%. because some people are are would envision that that means you know it's grass it's flowers it's a versus there are other uh permeable surfaces that may apply um so those are my comments on it um can you clarify for me on minimum front yard um so Joe you may recall this from years ago but there was a debate about what is your front yard and how does it line up with your neighbor etc. So, is the the new standard taking away ensuring a um an equitable dis like that your neighbor can't for example be so far out in front of you uh versus um uh because they have a greater they have a a minimum yard setback that is smaller than yours. Does that make sense? Uh it does through uh through your worship. uh uh and what we are proposing in this draft bylaw is is to I'm going to frame it as tightening tightening up that framework. Um so the draft regulation 6.6 is speaking to tying the minimum yard to that which legally exists. If there is a discrepancy there's some tolerance for averaging uh depending on the con depending on the context at play. Um if there's a circumstance where a a vacant lot is being created uh we're again looking to to factor in some to factor in averaging uh and around the immediate area itself versus a set and fixed number. Um, so I I think in my opinion this I think my opinion rather would be that this draft regulation does tighten up that framework a little bit tighter and focuses very hard on on the street line itself. But on this point and the one previous, this is obviously all very good feedback and stuff for us to uh stress test and validate as a part of finalizing. Thank you. Um, on heat pumps and air conditioners, etc. So, when I read that, what I'm interpreting is that I may have to make my house smaller if I'm building a new one uh in order to ensure my heat pump and my air conditioner do not uh step into the minimum 1.2 sideyard setback. Did I understand that correctly? uh through your worship. That's one of a few scenarios uh that a new build that a builder or developer can consider in terms of finding a good a good place for that equipment. Um the primary key points uh not along a front wall as best as possible. So like a neighbor in my uh where I now happen to live blast their air conditioner out into the street all summer long. uh there are some places where we think we can mitigate and minimize those noise features and uh only so many places of course where it can go given the the desire to have it along and near a wall itself. Um so yes, someone could choose to notch down their house a little bit to find the right spot. Um someone could choose to mount it in a certain location. Um there remains considerable flexibility and freedom in this regard. Uh of course individual land owners have to make those choices. Okay. And my last question is around semi- detached. Um, so you're uh uh clarifying a provision for semi- detached homes. Help me understand how that affects uh additional dwelling units. So if I take if a property is now turned into a semi- detached, are they a what is the three as of right on that property? U through your worship perhaps more accurately. I may wish to speak through uh Miss Buckerfield on this one because I'm not sure that was something we were touching. Thank you so much. Uh through you, Mayor Burton. This is a area that's already been integrated into our zoning bylaw where you can have three units. So we've provided definitions for attached additional residential unit and detached additional residential unit. So you can have up to two um additional residential units on a property up. So that equals three in total. And that is in combination of one detached and one attached or two attached in your primary unit. Um and so that's the same for detached units or detached dwellings or semi- detached dwellings. So that has not changed through our review and that's something that's been brought forward through the planning act. Thank you. So I'm just going to ask for one more clarification. A home is now becomes a semi- detached home. Are they allowed then one additional dwelling unit in their backyard or are they allowed more? Um, so at this point you can have one additional residential dwelling unit and then you can have one that's attached but that detached there's a maximum of one. Does that clarify your question? Um, but we can we can um add this to our list and make sure that we've answered your question accordingly and provided the appropriate clarity. I just I think it's an example of what would happen with some of these larger lots. If somebody might turn and take a lot and choose not to sever it, but turn it into a semi- detached and understanding now they have a semi- detached property. Okay. And so normally you would think they have then two separate backyards. Is that one additional dwelling unit behind or is it one for each half of the semi- detached unit? Uh three Mayor Burton just to clarify we're not proposing to change permissions in terms of where semi- detached dwellings can exist. So right now um we have locations in the town where you can have a semi- detached or detached. Um and that's not proposed to change at this point. So that wouldn't um be a change, but I'll add it to the list and maybe we can speak u as well to make sure that we're able to address that appropriately before recommendation. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Mcnes, thank you through your worship. Uh actually had a couple questions along the same lines there. Um, so with the permeable side yards 1.2 m, uh, so I'm assuming permeable pavers would be permitted. Is that correct? Uh, through excuse me, through your worship, yes, that's that's the current intent. And okay, I can just say from from experience when when there's per or grass is the permeable service on the sideyard, you often don't get sunlight, you don't get air flow, it just ends up becoming mud. So, um I don't know if if we can encourage, you know, uh or may help someone out if we we don't encourage just grass because that'll end up being mud before before you know it. Uh especially on the sideyards portion that's between dwellings. Uh you just won't get any daylight there. Um so I'll just register that for feedback. And then on the ADUs or ARUS, um I'm just thinking of G's zoning that provides sort of specific examples to the point of councelor Hlett Theel that they sort of sketch it out with some of the pencil drawings that I saw through your your work there just so you can understand that you can beside a semi- detached each one can have a unit in the back and what the setbacks are from each building. um so that you can understand what the the maximum space of your ARU or ADU could be. Um and seeing that and and sorry if I if I'm understanding correctly. So that won't be integrated into here. It'll be cross referenced to an ARU section so that residents can understand if they want a separate dwelling in the back how you know if they have enough space and if they'd have appropriate setbacks through you your worship and inviting Miss Buckerfield to jump in if I don't get if I don't get this uh stick the landing here. Um at present we this project in the study is not looking at uh any adjusted regulations or setbacks with respect that's not true setbacks regulation respect to areas except for those uh the ones adjacent to the yards as well. Um funny you mentioned funny you mentioned GE uh a where I'm originally from and b where I'm doing a development a small development project right now. Um they do actually have a a high number of graphics embedded into the bylaw. I think Oakville should take some credit for inspiring them there to be honest. Um, and so I think that might actually be some really that might be a core part of the feedback that I'm hearing here. And if there's if there's something that we can look at a lot of nods, I guess it's something we can look at to help improve some communication around this, I'll uh chuckerfield about my lack of artistic skills. We'll figure it out for you. Thanks. It just I know it ran a number of scenarios and specifically to what councelor has a deal mentioned, you know, a townhouse scenario, a semi- detached scenario, single family scenario, and just said it could be something like this. Obviously, there's variances. Um, but I think that just helps tell the story. Um, so that's that's my two pieces of feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Mcnes. Councelor Rome, uh, thank you very much. Just um, a couple points of consideration here. So when we talked about heights from lot lines um what we don't take into consideration is the initial site grading that happens and if we take uh the former St. An's public the St. An's Catholic school um what happened to that site was that it was graded 9 ft from the road to the back of the site plan and then the heights went up on top of that at the back. So um the residents who would look out their backyard into St. ance uh when see a level place now we're starting from 9 ft and then the heights went above so so they they and I think justifiably so did not agree with the fact that there should be a 9- ft head start before we start calculating what the heights are on low-rise residential. So perhaps we can take a look at that. I'm I'm from what I've been told as well from a couple other people. Um the same thing's happening with the regional properties on Sanwell and Rebecca as well where some of the properties on Sandwell look into a gigantic mound of dirt before the the the houses get built as well and and uh so so perhaps we can put that on the list of of looking at at at that. Um the other question that I would like to ask are uh boundary trees with development. Um so when right now uh if there is a 1.2 2 meter separation of the lot line. Uh if a developer needs to go and dig a foundation and there's a tree on another property, but that developer has every right to cut every single route that's crossing the property um so that they can put their foundation down um and even killing a tree, 60, 70, 80 foot trees uh are taken down because they have a right to do that. So, can we please look at what um what we might consider in terms of protecting our tree canopy with this and if that might factor into sideyard setbacks when people are coming in for an application because right now it does not. Um and and I think that's a lost opportunity there to save our our canopy. Um, and the last thing that I would I was hoping that we can look at, and this just came up recently uh in in uh in my ward, is as you'd mentioned, some semi- detachs are are at their end of life and getting flipped over right now. Um, we have had uh a couple situations where someone wants to build a twotory on a bungalow semi- detach. Um, and the attached semi- detach does not want to have that done. And there have been arguments over over shared uh partition walls and who has a right to do that. and lawyers get involved and it doesn't seem like we have any rules or any uh conversations over that and we're we're starting to we might see some Frankenstein uh semi- detached homes going up here. So, if we could maybe consider what that might look like and and if there uh are policies we should bring in place to if one person in a semi- detach wants to build two stories on a singlestory uh semi- detach, what are what are the rules with that? So, I'll uh I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Uh, councelor Chisum. Uh, thank you, worship. Uh, thanks Sean for that one about the grading. We've had some concerns with the they come in with the the dump trucks and fill up the grading before you know it. Uh, it's no longer 12. It's 15 16 meters of uh, height based on the uh, grading. So, that's really important. Thank you for bringing that up, Sean. That's a good point. Um, on page 55, uh, residential floor area versus ratio versus lot coverage. Could you enlighten me what that means? It seems that there it's not in scope of this report, but is there a movement of uh a foot to to look at this uh in its entirety in a separate report coming down the line? Uh I find this again is about the zero suffix and uh and it's making comments about maybe the zero zoning can be eliminated if the if the work is done uh with respect to this this area. Um can I comment on that? Somebody comment? I think that was your Yes. Uh through your worship. Uh I'm the the author of this background report itself. Um both lot uh the lot coverage framework and the the floor area ratio frameworks were items that that we were tasked with reviewing as a part of the project team. So the baseline that that this right the this feedback is very much appreciated and those items are something that are very much part of what we are looking at. Um in terms of their inter I'm going to call it the intersectionality the interwoven nature of the two things. Um let me take that back as as feedback to ensure it's appropriately addressed and clarified in the final project report. um whether that's a supplemental whether that's an update to this one or a supplemental piece I'll uh discuss with staff um what format that will fundamentally take. Thank you. That's important. Thanks very much. Thank you counselor. Councelor has a deal. Thank you. Um a couple just uh others that I want to just reference. So I I concur with Sean and uh and now Rey that the the grading and understanding the current grading is one been one of the conflicts around um how you determine uh the height of the the the home and it it it is a source of contention and I don't believe it's been resolved in how you've uh uh analyzed it. Um, I 100% agree with Sean on the tree canopy and thank him for bringing it up because they are very close to boundary trees and 1.2 and even if it could be 2.4 on depending on your lot size, those trees are at risk and and they are quite mature trees. Um, and so if there um is any exceptions that can be looked at um that protect us from their destruction, that would be uh appreciated. And my last is covered porches or uh versus uncovered. So at the CFA they uh a pattern I started to see is that a covered porch was the reason for the minor variance and then and why they had uh they were they were offside and were generally being almost granted by oh but it's only a covered porch so and they they would wave it on. So, if you just could consider like you did with the garage, is it to be factored in still or are you saying that it's an exterior situation and and and not because it it is a pattern that's out there. They they if you don't agree, they build it as a deck and then they cover it later. and everybody we we all want everybody to have their forever home that they love but clarity on the rules would be helpful. If if I mayor worship just to get a clarification on that considering the porches as part of the floor area the general floor area envelope panel. Yes. Thanks. Y we'll take that back. Thank you counselor councelor Chisum. My apologies your worship. I should ask this question my first time around. Fences. How's this impact fencing? uh with respect to the setbacks type the side setbacks now is there is there a possibility to still put fences up because it has to be because you're having grading you're having uh swailes uh it's got to be semi-purable can't say that word sorry um so where's that go does that h can that happen still put fences up uh so through your worship um that would be regulated through the town's fence bylaw um so inviting any comment from anyone over to my right here I would suggest the answer is yes, subject to the standards of that bylaw itself. Uh I'm not a zoning thing. So it's the the the setback is 1.2. Correct? Was it? Um depending on context, but yes, we'll we'll use 1.2 for this analogy. Seems if you put a fence in at 1.2, there's not a lot of room in there, is there? Um through your careership, I as the proud owner of a I I did it everyone. I have a house and it has a 1.2 meter sideyard um with a fence uh all up and and down the side of it. Um I have my dock box. I deck box rather. I don't have a dock. Um I have an air conditioning unit in there. I have a whole bunch of abandoned lawn chairs that I can't convince my partner to get rid of. I have some tomato cages. Um I also have a lot of mud um for who whoever was making those comments. So I I would submit to you that uh counselor that it can hold a lot of space. Uh it can do some things but no one can't do everything. Okay. Thank you. All right. And we'll turn to councelor Nanda. Thank you through you. Worship. I just had one question on what uh councelor McNiss was talking about um the side um the side of the homes where it'll turn muddy. If people start hardcaping, are you going to be able to enforce that? What is enforcement going to look like in terms of if people start hardcaping because they get tired of the mud and they're like, I'm just going to do it. Are you going to actually be able to enforce that or is it going to be on a complaint basis? Uh through you, Mayor Burton. I appreciate that comment and I think it's um worthwhile to make. We can definitely add it to our list and and have some type of response prior to a recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that, Councelor Nanda. Well, councel, is it uh possible that we're at the point where you'd like to someone would like to move and second receipt of the comments from council and the public? Councelor Mcnes, thank you very much. Councelor Chisum for the second. Any objection. There being none, that is carried. Uh thank you everybody. That brings us to our discussion items. And uh the first one is the recommendation report for the zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision for Argo Lions Valley at 1303 Dundas Street West. And uh I'd like to call on Katherine Buckerfield for her presentation if as my notes say you have one through you mayor Burton. I do have a presentation and my uh microphone is on this time so I think we'll be okay. Oh. Um, that's the wrong presentation. We're on item 8.1. Okay, here we are. Thank you, Mayor Burton, members of council, and members of the public tuning in tonight's meeting. This presentation is in relation to item 8.1 of tonight's agenda. To facilitate the proposed development, zoning bylaw, amendment, and draft plan of subdivision applications have been submitted by Argo Lions Valley for 1303 Dundas Street West. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide staff's analysis of the applications and provide a recommendation to council in order for a decision to be made. The applicant held a virtual public information meeting on December 10th, 2024, and a statutory public meeting was held on March 17th, 2025. Staff have considered all public comments received. Tonight, I'll be going over staff's recommendation, the location of the property, what is proposed, relevant policy, matters of interest, and then finish with a reminder of tonight's recommendation. I am pleased to bring forward staff's recommendation to approve the zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan subdivision applications to bring new housing to North Oakville. This development will bring a mix of housing to this neighborhood, an extension of the road network, and new recreational trails to the area. The subject lands are municipally known as 1303 Dundas Street West. They're located on the north side of Dundas Street West with Lions Valley Park to the east, Harrison Trail to the west, and William Halton Parkway to the north. In February, the radio towers previously occupying the property were removed. The lands can now be integrated into the surrounding subdivision to the north and east. The application proposes redevelopment of approximately 10.47 hectares of land. Harrison Trail will be extended south and connect to Dundas Street West with access to two points onto street A. The proposed subdivision includes 132 residential dwelling units in the form of 35 detached dwelling units and 97 townhouse units with seven additional townhouse units coming on board once block 51 is complete for a total of 139 units. You can see the detach units in yellow, standard street townous in orange, backtoback town houses in dark purple, and dual frontage town houses in light purple. About nine acres of natural heritage system associated with the 16-mi creek, including an extension of the rail system, trail system, will be transferred to the town. Two walkway blocks, which provide access to trails and facilitate tor storm water management, will also be transferred. The subdivision also includes a storm water management pond and the the public road network and two future development blocks. The two future development blocks will be evaluated further through a future resoning application. They are designated Dundas Urban Corps under the North Oakville East Secondary Plan, which permits a range of office, commercial, including retail and service commercial, health and medical institutional, and medium and highdensity residential uses. A minimum of three stories and a maximum of eight are permitted with a maximum of 12 stories permitted adjacent to store water management ponds. Recommended draft plan subdivision conditions are ex included in appendix H which include relevant warning clauses and requirements for the buildout of the proposed subdivision. When evaluating the zoning bylaw and subdivision applications, relevant policy were reviewed, such as the provincial planning statement 2024, also known as the PPS, Halton Region official plan, which is now a plan of the town of Oakville, the North Oakville East secondary plan, and the zoning bylaw 200989. The full policy analysis is found in the report and relevant policy experts excerpts can be found in appendex G of the report. Subject property is located within the neighborhood area and natural heritage system with Dundas urban core along Dundas Street West. Subject lands are currently zoned future development. Staff are recommending that bylaw 2026 046, an amendment to the zoning bylaw, be passed, which is attached as appendix C to the staff report. The proposed zones coincide with the official plan with the majority proposed to be zone general urban, which is intended to accom accommodate a range of low and medium density residential. A portion is proposed to be zone natural heritage system and a storm water management pond is proposed. And finally, a portion is proposed to remain future development which as mentioned will be evaluated through the future process and a hold 70 is proposed on these lands to ensure servicing is appropriately evaluated at that time. Sight specific standards are proposed through special provision 144 such as porch dimensions and width of bay windows. Updates to minimum yards for detached dwellings along the natural heritage system. reduced minimum lot depth for standard street access town houses. Reduced landscaper dimensions and rear yard for dual frontage town houses. And increased balcony projections, decrease in garage width um parking space and reduce landscape dimensions and minimum landscape area for backto-back town houses. And all these will help facilitate the proposed built form that's been proposed through this development. And finally, hold 69 and relevant draft plan conditions are proposed to facilitate the construction of the subdivision through an interimm condition to ensure two access points into the subdivision until the ultimate connection of the north leg of street A to Harrison Trill is made through an adjacent property. Staff report details the matters to be addressed which staff have completed a review and analysis for as shown with the check marks on the screen. Through the analysis outlined in the staff report, staff are of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the region of Halton official plan and aligns with the North Oakville East secondary plan and related guidelines. A stat at the statutory meeting held on March 17th, 2025, additional matters of interest were identified by council. Council asked staff to review the provision of parking, snow storage, and identify what could be developed on the future development blocks. As noted, a mix of highdensity uses between three and 12 stories could be proposed on the future development blocks through a future resoning application. To inform the availability of future parking, the applicant prepared a parking plan demonstrating the location of on and off streetet parking. You can see on street parking identified in red, private garage parking in blue, and driveway parking in green. The proposed subdivision will result in 51 on street parking spaces and 348 off-street residential parking spaces. With this design, snow storage will not be a problem. The town's operations group has confirmed that there's adequate space provided to facilitate snow storage within the subdivision as snow from driveways is typically stored on the boulevard or landscaped areas next to a driveway. In conclusion, staff put forth the following recommendation as shown for council's consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Buckerfield. Uh, w seven. Uh, councelor Nanda, councelor Shia, uh, what's your pleasure on this file? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, uh, thank you for the presentation. I mean, this details report. So, we, uh, we have several meeting with our staff regarding this project. So, uh, we got a fully support for this report. Yeah. So, uh, is that a are you moving it? Yeah, I will moving and councelor Nandanda, are you seconding? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are there other questions from anyone? May I put the vote? Is there any objection? Madame clerk, no objection is showing. And 8.1 is adopted. That brings us to 8.2. Um, we have a presentation by uh Mr. Colin Westeroff, our senior planner. the uh counselors for this ward uh which is in ward six tell me that they would wave the uh presentation. However, I want to ask if any members of council or the public would like to see the presentation before we uh before we shift to a faster approach to this. Uh Mr. Westerhoff, it appears that uh the uh the prospective support of the council was enough. Uh, Councelor Adams, uh, uh, you and Councelor Lchenna, I'm told, are moving it. Yes, I'd be happy to move the recommendation, and if I could speak ever so briefly to it. Um, I just wanted to thank our staff for the work that they've done on this file behind the scenes along with the applicant uh, who have responded to our request to include the uh, the commercial elements to it, which is something that some members of our public have asked for as well. uh and so I think in a case where an applicant brings forward changes that meet the things that we've asked for, we ought to thank them and um move forward with the recommendation uh so that they can move on with their project. So, thank you very much for those who have been involved. All right. Before I before I put this to a vote, I want to check with Miss Mirich if um if she had anything to add to the the matter. You're you're happy with the uh counselor's response? All right. Well, then I will call the vote. Any objection? Uh, madame clerk, there being no objection, that is adopted. And uh that brings us to 8.3. And uh uh we have u uh delegations on this from the representing the applicant and u and we have a uh we have a motion uh or a motion and an amendment from uh the counselors for ward 7, councelor Nanda and councelor Shia. Um, councelor Nanda, the chair recognizes you. Thank you through your um your worship. Uh, we would like to uh thank the applicant and our planning staff for ongoing conversations that we have had related to this application and at the appropriate time I would like to uh move for referral of this item. Okay. So, um, could I could I ask you to move and second the item and to refer it and a to get it on the floor and b referral then takes precedence. So, I'm getting yes from councelor Nanda and councelor Shia madam clerk. Um, and then councelor Nanda, did you want to add another word or two about the referral and then I'll speak to the matter of the delegations. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Um so we would like to refer that item 8.3 relating to file number Z.1316.12 submitted by Shoppers Realy Inc. at 306 Line and 21 Dundas Street West be referred back to staff for further consultation with the applicant focused on the proposed interimm building and its relationship to the housing to the north and report back to council for consideration in June 2026 and no further notice is required. All right, thank you for that. So, uh, to the delegations, I am imagining that you'd rather speak to the substance of the matter when it comes back rather than, uh, uh, speak now and possibly be forgotten. Sorry. We would prefer to speak this evening. Yes. Then please come forward. if you could address the issue of referral and why you might not find it congenial. Of course, and thank you and through through you, mayor. Um, I want to be very clear. My name is Andrew Henford. I'm a associate with MHPC planning. We have been working with staff and the owners for a number of years now to bring this application forward tonight. We have also met with the counselors ahead of time. The application before you um is largely permitted as of right. deferral I we do not believe is appropriate because the issues raised by the counselors mainly being the singlestory retail building um and its relation to the residential to the north that portion of our application is permitted as of right in the zoning the application before you tonight is largely to consider the residential component of our application the base zoning already on the site does permit that retail and shoppers could proceed with a site plan application tomorrow if they saw it um if they wanted to. So, we do believe that we would like our application to be heard on its merits and we don't believe that the deferral is appropriate. All right. Well, thank you very much for your information. Uh, council will weigh that as it makes a decision. All right. Uh, councelor has a deal. Um, Mayor Burton through you. Um, could you just give us some clarification? There were some questions in regards to the application. Are we going to have an opportunity to ask those uh prior to voting on for referral or are we moving referral referral takes precedence. You you should defeat referral if you wish to examine the merits of the application at this meeting rather than in June. So, um I I would uh put to my council colleagues that uh in the referral if they could specifically speak to the FSI uh increase uh in the referral uh and in the consultation um uh that would be appreciated but of course it is at your discretion. Councelor Nanda, we would be okay with that. Anything else councelor has with you? Very well. Councelor Mcnes, uh, just through your worship, just clarification on the referral if staff okay with bringing it back by June or through you, mayor. Um, June is entirely possible. June 15th is the most likely date. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. West. Uh, shall I put the vote? Is there an objection to the referral? raise your hand. Uh there is no objection. Madame clerk, the referral is carried. That brings us to 8.4, the recommendation report for the town initiated official plan amendment on housing policies. And uh we have a delegation and we also have a uh presentation. We're going to hear from Brad Sunderland, our housing secretary, to provide the presentation. Then we'll hear from the delegation and then we'll have questions from council and then we'll see if we're ready to adopt OPA78. So good evening your worship and members of council. Uh I'm happy to bring forward item 8.4 on tonight's agenda being the recommended town initiated official plan amendment for new and updated housing policies which is also known as OPA78. You'll find the recommended town initiated OPA attached as appendex A to the staff report. The report before you this evening uh concludes the housing policy review as part of the town's broader official plan review and it does represent the advancement of 18 action items under the town's housing strategy and action plan as well as the advancement of recommendations from the town's housing needs assessment. The purpose of this report is to present the recommended OPA78 pertaining to new and revised housing policies in the livable Oaka plan for council approval. So just an outline of tonight's presentation. I'll uh briefly touch on the chronology of how we got to where we are today. I'll touch on some of the key inputs which informed the draft official plan amendment. Uh I'll provide an overview of the draft OPA itself and discuss a few of the key highlights and responses to comments received as part of the uh policy development process of which are um outlined in the staff report. and it will close with uh staff's recommendation to council as found uh on the staff report as well. So this chronology presented here will look familiar to council uh as it was presented at the January 19th, 2026 statutory public meeting of planning and development council. So for brevity purposes, I'll pick up where we left off back in January uh when planning and development council hosted the stat public meeting on the draft OPA in accordance with the planning act. Comments received on that at that meeting, including matters of interest to council are addressed in the staff report before you this evening and have informed updates to the final OPA being recommended. Um, as part of addressing comments received at the stat public meeting, uh, town staff presented the direction being taken to update the OPA at a recent Oakville developers and infill builders liaison meeting in March of 2026 to seek input on our emerging changes and comments were received and fielded via email. So tonight brings us uh the report before council uh which concludes the housing policy review and uh provides the recommendation for your consideration for approval. So in developing the OPA, town staff have considered and responded to several planning documents as noted on the slide, including ensuring the policies have regard to matters of provincial interest as provided in the planning act, including the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing and the appropriate location of growth and development. ensuring consistency with the PPS 2024, which directs planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents, including targets for the provision of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households. bringing forward relevant policies from the Halton region official plan now under the jurisdiction of the town which will assist with the future amalgamation of the Halton Regional Plan and the town's official plan as part of the ongoing official plan review. Ensuring the housing policies identified in the Halton Region's comprehensive housing strategy are considered and coordinated in the town's planning framework. addressing action items in both the town's approved housing strategy and action plan. Uh and as a foundation using the town's existing policy framework of the livable Oakville plan to assist in policy formation, ensuring the town's urban structure is maintained. Responding to policy recommendations in the housing needs assessment and also considering comments received to date as part of the town's housing survey as well as the STR uh statutory public meeting held back in January of 2026. So again, these slides may be familiar to you as we did present them uh very similar slides back in January of 2026 at the staff public meeting, but it does provide a high level overview of the recommended OPA. So the subject lands the official plan amendment applies to lands subject to the livable Oakville plan, which in currently includes all lands south of Dundas Street and north of Highway 407. The purpose of the official plan amendment is to provide an updated policy foundation for housing in Oakville necessary to facilitate identified housing needs in Oakville over the long term. The updated policy framework will assist how the town can consider housing as part of future development applications and when making planning decisions. The official plan amendment itself does not propose new development, nor does it change land use designations or permissions across the town. It does however provide a basis to ensure future development can better address housing as a key consideration in future decision-making. The policies provided provide updated housing objectives and associated policies. To this end, the draft OPA will modify the text of the livable Oakville plan primarily to accommodate a new section 7 housing within part C making Oakville livable and consider and respond to the documents listed here as well as those discussed on the previous slide. The effect of the official plan amendment will make changes to various sections of the liable bloke plan including the new section uh 7 housing revisions to the residential land use policies in section 11 revisions to the mixeduse land use policies in section 12 updates to the implementation and monitoring policies in section 30 and revisions for definitions in section 31. The next slide provides an overview of changes in each of these sections. The new section 7 housing provides housing objectives and provides associated policies to support each objective under the headings shown here. The objectives and policies are intended to support growth management and enable housing opportunities to bolster housing supply within the framework of the town's urban structure. Support the achievement of a livable complete community. enhance housing choice and enable the availability and accessibility of a wide range of housing to meet the diverse needs of the community through all stages of life. Protect and encourage purpose-built rental housing. Improve housing affordability and create opportunities for affordability. And raise public awareness about housing needs in Oakville and collaborate with our agency partners and other levels of government to assist in achieving the objectives and policies of the plan. Other changes considered with the town's land use designation policies uh pertaining to part D section 11 residential land use policies and part uh and section 12 mixeduse land use policies. The effect of the changes in part uh in section 11 residential include introductory policies being updated to maintain the objective to protect and enhance the character of existing residential area areas with remaining housing objectives moved to section 7 housing. We moved the policies unrelated to permitted uses um into the new general housing policy section. We recognize permitted uses already established in the zoning pertaining to lodging houses. And we provided minor wording updates to reflect current language and provincial regulation. Staff note that through these changes, what's not changing in the residential land use policies are the land use designations themselves, including permitted uses and permitted densities. These remain the same. Further, the policies that are currently what is known as section 1119 to maintain, protect and enhance the character of existing residential areas are also maintained. The effective changes to policies in section 12 mixed use include updates to permit additional residential units and lodging houses to be consistent with permissions in the residential land use designations and reflect our existing zoning permissions. The effective changes to the policies of section 30 implementation is the addition of a new monitoring policy that has been streamlined and moved from the currently proposed um draft OPA which was uh provided in section 7 and we've moved it into the main monitoring um section in the liable Oakville plan and the effective change for uh section 31 is that we've included revised and new definitions to be consistent with the PPS 2024 for so a response to comments received and to matters of interest uh and matters of interest raised by council at the statuto public meeting of uh planning and development council back in January are discussed and responded to by topic area in the staff report which are listed here. I'll touch on a few key points which have been of greater interest uh both to the development community and some of the questions we've been fielding as we've been moving through this process. So the housing targets contained in OPA78 are informed by the town's growth analysis study from Watson and Associates Economics Limited and the town's housing needs assessment and reflect housing need to 2036. The targets also reflect the existing targets in the region of Halton official plan where applicable for consistency. The housing targets do not necessarily reflect current market demands or conditions which evolve over time due to external influencing factors. The policies of OPA78 are intended to encourage, influence, and support the provision of the types of housing required to meet projected housing needs of current and future residents of Oakville. Notwithstanding, to meet the challenge of continuously evolving housing market conditions and to enable greater flexibility within the town's land use framework, OPA78 commits the town to undertake studies to explore opportunities for growing the housing supply within the town's established residential areas while upholding the overall urban structure and growth management framework that directs the majority of growth to strategic growth areas. Studying housing opportunities in the town's residential areas may include a gentle density or missing middle strategy with a key consideration to ensure that any new proposed housing opportunities identified within those areas are contextually appropriate to their surroundings. These studies are intended to realize more housing opportunities in more places and may expand permissions for ground related housing on underutilized or vacant commercial and institutional sites, town-owned land, and overall opportunities for infill development. The intent of OPA78 was not to make changes to the land use designations or permit more residential building typologies within the residential and mixeduse land use designations at this time. Although increased land use permissions within the town's land use designation framework may permit greater flexibility for ground related housing, these opportunities are intended to be realized through future study as described in the policies. So once again, the housing targets contained in OPA78 are intended to encourage, influence, and support the provision of the types of housing required to meet projected housing need of current and future residents of Oakville. This includes targets encouraging a greater housing mix of multiple attached and highdensity housing as well as addressing unit size mix within highdensity developments. In this regard, the policies provide additional support support when assessing development applications in the livable Oakville plan area and engaging with the development community about Oakville's housing needs. So with that, um, it is our conclusion and recommendation slide. So, just to reiterate that the town is committed to playing its part in meeting the needs for housing. The town is also committed to ensuring that new housing growth is contextually appropriate and environmentally and financially sustainable. We recognize the need for new housing includes a broad range of housing options including various housing types, sizes, and tenurs as well as market-based rental, affordable, social, and assisted housing. its staff's opinion that the recommended OPA78 before council this evening is consistent with the provincial policy statement conforms or does not conflict with applicable provincial plans, the Halton regional official plan and the level local plan has regards for matters of provincial interest and represents good planning. OPA 78, which introduces new and revised housing policies, is a means to address identified housing needs in Oakville, and it's staff's recommendation that council um approve the OPA. And these are the recommendations in the staff report for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sunderland. Um council, uh next, while you consider your questions, we're going to hear from our registered delegation, uh Mr. Martin Ratikov. Mr. Ratikov, welcome. Or maybe I can say welcome back. First time didn't make enough impression. So I'm here for the second time. Hope to be to make it better. So we we're looking forward to your remarks. You have 10 minutes. Go ahead. Okay. So good evening mayor and council. I listened with great interest the presentation of of the brat and uh sir I'll give you a few extra sec I'll give you a little bit more time you'll be more effective if you speak uh to me which will allow the microphone to capture you and then everyone else will be able to hear you and yeah uh I teach for a living so kind of uh anyway uh I don't want to stand in front of a screen. But anyway, uh so looks like incredible amount of work was done to uh make our town better and that's very much appreciated. At the same time, I looked at the draft uh OPA78 and uh to me there there are some very basic questions that are not answered and I hope to um to influence you to consider my suggestions. Uh but before I get to the hard data um let me start with a story really. Uh uh I first came to work in Oakville in 98. In 99 uh we purchased our first uh house in Oakville uh the white buildings over there. And then in a few years when we realized that uh condo living is not for us um we started looking in many different directions. ended up uh moving just 500 meters up the street in a 1977 bungalow which as a family of architects has uh like 10 15 designs over the years trying to make it uh better because it's a simple uh bungalow and that never happened for a number of reasons but when uh bill 23 came along we felt that that's an opportunity to uh to make something because I heard housing options. I heard multigenerational living. However, um none of this is uh is really apparent in in the in the housing policy OPA that is. And u and uh with the addition of two units, I thought that that's a perfect uh opportunity to create a multigenerational u living arrangement for me and my family. I come from a uh from a a country where uh multigenerational living is the norm really. Uh my grandfather lived with us and then my sister lives still in the house that was built in the 18 hunds, late 1800s anyway. And uh I find it normal. Uh there are studies that reflect that older people um uh behave not behave they're not they're never behaving but uh u uh quality of life of older people staying at their homes is way better than moving into a retirement home or a long-term care facility. uh I have designed uh uh retirement homes for a living. So I know that for a fact and uh and started exploring options and I've been talking to the town for number of years now since 2023 and uh and uh turns out that I can build the units however that's it. I can create a monstrous house and uh that's pretty end uh that's that's the end of it. So let's look at the data. Could you just uh So the stated goal of the OPA is to enhance housing choice in that section. However, uh uh small uh time projects like mine do not get uh uh reflected there. Uh I can build those but that's a rental only status. And uh therefore people were going to move in, buy these old bungles, create uh rental units and and just rent them out. Next slide please. So uh um discourage the conversion of existing rental properties to condominiums other forms of uh ownership. So uh that lacks a defill in the current form of the OPA78 lacks a definition of new construction ownership because for all intents and purposes mine is uh new construction and I'm repeatedly told that uh I can build it but it will be one uh one huge house. So, and I don't really want to start construction if it's going to end up in a rental uh in the rental uh uh stock. Next slide, please. And then there is the rest of the GTA. uh we have Kiter, we have Toronto, we have Markham, Missaga and Vaughn that have all adopted flexible housing pos uh policy that we need because uh uh because that is pretty much a normal way of uh of uh dealing with these uh uh with these type of developments. small people like me. Uh uh I obviously uh that's the only thing we can do. And again there these are all presidents with with the uh with the bylaws and official plan changes already in effect for all of these cities. I don't really see a reason why Oakville will uh is going to break the norm of the rest of the GTA and still maintain livable Oakville designation uh when when we're making it harder for people like me uh to to develop our own properties. Next slide. So I propose two uh simple amendments to uh OPA uh exemption for new construction for uh smalltime developments like mine like three units we can already build them and uh clarify the definitions uh and add a definition for a small scale ownership tenure to u make it uh uh to make it current with the rest of the GTA and uh I think that's it maybe summary for the is Fair enough. Yeah. And that's the summary for the uh for the council. There makes no s like please do make it make sense to me. Makes no sense to be able to build this to end up with four or 5,000 square ft uh uh building and then have it as a as a as a rental only. when and and uh with all things considered uh my in-laws are um in the late 70s, my kids are between 25 and 30. Um I I can move them in there, but uh I'm firmly believe that my mother-in-law is going to outlive me, but the statistics are not on on that side. You know, they have good 10 15 years. my kids will grow uh grow these units out and they want to move in their own housing. So I have a limited 10 to 15 uh window of opportunity to create something for my family to live heavily happily ever after if that's even possible with the mother-in-law. But that's another story. Uh so um I think that's a normal way of life and uh and uh I I don't I don't really understand a policy that we encourage renters versus owners and I'll leave it at that and the the question yeah I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much Mr. Rick for your presentation. All right I don't think there are any councelor Adams do you have questions? I was going to ask our staff if they could provide some information and context with respect to uh the condo versus rental issue. So, it's not really a question of the delegate. Mr. Rhetoric, thank you very much, Councelor Adams. Um, thank you very much. I I'll reiterate. I wonder if our staff, who I understand have uh considered this issue a couple of times now uh behind the scenes, could provide further information and background for counsel. through uh through you, Mr. Mayor, to the counselor. Um I can start and if you want to help me with some of the conversations that have happened to date, I know there's been a few. Um so the premise with the three units per lot were that they were intended to be additional residential units, meaning they are tied to a kind of a primary dwelling. Um if they are condominiumized, they're standalone units and so they would no longer be considered an additional residential unit. It would be an apartment unit. um and apartments in most of our lowdensity residential um designations and zones are are not a permitted building typology. So they would require a planning application to make it a plan of condo. Uh it would also require zoning to permit the use. Uh and it might also trigger official plan requirements um to identify a proposed project such as that. um if someone wanted to come forward and um submit a development application to the town for our consideration, we would accept that and have to look at it on its merits. Um but uh the way that it's currently set up for additional residential units was that they were for um additional to the primary dwellings. So they would be rental. Um and it also achieved some of our other objectives for uh encouraging rental. We are in short supply of rental. So this is an opportunity to provide for affordable rental opportunities as well. So there are benefits to it uh in a bigger picture sense. Um and I had another thought in my head and it has escaped me. Um that's I think that's would you be able to expand on the issue of the parking? So when you go to a condo unit um that attracts additional parking requirements and so forth. Correct. Are you able to say anything further on that? Uh through you Mr. Mayor to the counselor. Um, so there are additional uh different regulations for parking standards and parking rates for additional residential units. Uh, if they were to be condominiumized, there would be a different parking rate for each unit. Uh, that would have to be provided on site. Um, and whether that could be accommodated, it would be dependent on an application basis to see if it could work. Um, I'm not sure in many instances it would be able to, but uh, there would be a different rate of parking required for each unit. Thank you very much. I I think you've covered off um some of the issues and uh thoughts that have had to go into this particular process. And you have an additional thought. Yeah. No, the thought that escaped me. Um so with in regard to the the presentation and the uh conversion of uh rental to non-renal uh that the policies in the plan are reflective of our um rental housing protection bylaw and that's only triggered at um six units. So it wouldn't if if the three units were rental and it went back to an ownership household, that is fine and it wouldn't trigger those policies. Thank you again for the clarification and the background information. I think that's very helpful for all of us. Thanks. Uh councelor null, you're next. Then councelor Chisum. Thank you worship. Uh a couple questions. First of all, in uh 7.2.5 2.5 sub3 of the bylaw itself. It talks about the creation of a concierge program. Could you maybe describe what that concierge program looks like and what the ultimate benefit of that is to potentially move the needle in terms of our need to uh increase affordability through you Mr. Mayor to the counselor. Uh this was an actually a a recommendation from um our consultants housing needs assessment which kind of we rolled it in as an as an idea that we could pursue should we choose to do so as a town. Um, and it's not it's not a uh a requirement that we do this, but it's there as an idea that if we were to have a concierge program. Um there may be a a dedicated person that deals with affordability matters if there's uh program requirements or any sort of direction that we can give to um an applicant of um I guess the additional uh programs or requirements around the provision of affordable housing. if there's grant programs, for example, or if there's other programs being offered by Halton Region, uh they could be the point person at the town to assist with uh helping someone coming forward with an application. Um that was the general idea there. Uh it was just a an additional support um uh person at the town that could assist in those matters since they are very particular questions that are quite different from the general development application. I I think it's a great idea. I'm just curious how it's going to work. Can you So, does this require the creation of an additional position in terms of our staff compliment? Would we be repurposing somebody within the uh existing team and planning? How would you see this rolling out? Uh through you, Mr. Mayor, to the counselor. I have not got that far in terms of how that would play out, how it would look. I think the program parameters and what a concier program would look like uh is something that future for future discussion. uh if it was to move forward. Okay. On that same section of the bylaw 7.2.5, it talks about the the uh MDC and including including affordable and assisted housing opportunities within developments. Um is there any metric on that at all in terms of percentages or what the goal might look like? Has there been any thought given to that? I know it's not in the bylaw, but has been any additional thought given to that what that what those goals might might look like for future MDC projects through you, Mr. Mayor, to the counselor. Uh I think that would be on a project by project basis. There wasn't any um other than please provide it as part of an ultimate application. Uh that would be uh the work that would have to be done as part of processing those developments. Okay. My last question is with respect to ongoing reporting of success and progress on this. Is there an uh is there anticipation of creating a publicly accessible dashboard perhaps so that we can um be able to account for the work that's being done in this initiative and how how that's uh progressing through you Mr. Mayor to the counselor. Uh there is staff work ongoing for an internal dashboard of sorts. Uh and we're hopeful to make that public. We're trying trying to work with our teams to uh get something online to report on some of these matters. uh we do have some dashboards already on the web page. Uh in terms of I think building permits and uh issuances and that sort of thing. Um but more robust data that would be public and kind of have a a a lovely interface would be great. Uh we have looked to our friends at the city of Burlington which have a lovely dashboard which we have trying to emulate here. Uh so we're working behind the scenes currently to try to make something like that happen. Thanks. I was actually going to reference the one from Burlington. And I just think it'd be great to have something that dovetales with this wonderful work that's been done so we can actually monitor the progress going forward. Well, congratulations on navigating that road map and not getting lost. That was quite the path, little curvy path there. So well done. Thank you for the work and I totally support the initiative. Thank you councelor councelor Chisum. Thank you worship. Um just in the report on page uh 522 with respect to Watson's um um ongoing work shows that OPA has sufficient land supply um in the report or coming forward are those areas going to identified on the map uh the metrics on the map with respect to those those lands available for our um housing uh through you Mr. mayor to the councelor. Um the that that portion of the Watson work is emerging still. I think it's uh it's being developed. What we do know is that um within our growth nodes and corridors. Uh there is sufficient development potential through our policies and lands that could support the level of growth projected for the town. um currently it's my understanding uh whether that growth is in the format and housing typologies that are going to get built currently or whether that's those are the kind of questions that are are being tossed around right now. So I guess that's my next question identifying the land that is available with our housing needs. Uh it would be nice to see an identification of those areas within Oakville where we would have those types of housing needs in those areas. Uh if we could I don't know if we can drill down that that into the weeds, but to me that I find that uh uh an interesting uh point to to look at where where housing needs are and where we can develop uh through you Mr. Mayor to the counselor. So we do have targets for multiple attached and uh highdensity housing. I think that's 65% to the year 2031 and 75% after. Uh those targets are actually adopted from the regional official plan which are currently existing policy today. So we've just moved them right on over into our plan. Um and they do align quite well with what the housing needs assessment was telling us as well. So it it does include um the range of kind of the higher higher end higher density end of multiple attached and the high density um so apartment build form. Thanks Brad. Thanks very much. Thank you councelor councelor. Uh thank you very much for that and thank you for the report. Um I guess so when we started this back in 2022 or sorry 2023 um the ground has really changed under our feet um while we started to do this. So I guess how how is the recommendation before us right now reflected what has been happening over the past year through you Mr. Mayor to the counselor. Uh that is a great question. Um I think one of the biggest things is um with Halton Region uh as the upper tier municipality uh formerly had planning authority and now it's it's been handed down to us to uh implement some of these housing policies within our own plan. I think that was a big shift for us uh and how we managed to uh roll those policies into our over overall plan and have them more um Oakville specific rather than a regional regional uh consideration. Um that's been challenging for sure. uh and there's been conversations amongst the local municipalities about how we address that, what those targets look like, what how we're working together to achieve those those um the land supply required which is on a regional market area. So there is that push and pull uh because there is no regional plan anymore to to guide us in that capacity. So that's been a challenge. Uh and I think what we've what's in front of you today is terms of a recommendation is kind of our best foot forward for how we can set ourselves up to continue to coordinate and um continue to look at those growth projections and how we're achieving them. So yeah, and I I I think to just focus in on those growth pro growth projections. A lot of the provincial changes were made at a time when we were trying to furiously accommodate for housing that was just unavailable. And and and it seems that as that has petered down, we've still we're still pushing ahead with the plan of how do we accommodate for the pressures we were seeing 3 years ago. And and I guess my question is um we might have a uh an incredible time right now where the development community is aligning with what the people of Oakville want, which is to avoid overbuilding. And I guess my question is, do you believe this plan is flexible enough that we can adjust and and and tack to to ensure that we're not overbuilding um at a time when when maybe three or four years ago, five or six years ago when when we were getting these plans coming at us almost on a on a on a bianually basis telling us to overbuild. Is it flexible enough that we can adjust and we can move as the ground moves beneath our feet? Uh through you, Mr. Mayor, to the counselor. Uh I would suggest that I mean these policies themselves do not um change land use designations to prevent more of anything. Uh it really gives us a framework within to within which to work. Uh it does give us some direction to look at additional housing opportunities through that missing middle uh strategy if that's something we want to continue to look at and do um and and provide some of those perhaps ground oriented ground related housing opportunities that uh might not currently be permitted in some of our higher density nodes and corridors. But those those nodes and corridors, we haven't changed any of the land use designation policies to allow for more. Uh we we it's just what we already have as our framework uh for growth management and and our urban structure. Okay. And I I appreciate that. And maybe I'll just sidebar on when when will that opportunity come back to the next council to look at those growth nodes and see whether all of that is aligning with the best planning estimates and the growth nodes and and and what we're what we're kind of compelling um um our community to do. When's that opportunity come up next? Through your m mayor Burton. Uh we're currently working through as Brad was saying the uh our growth forecast. We expect to daylight that to council oh in the next month maybe two. And as part of that that's really looking at how we are allocating the population that we've been been given through the joint best plan estimates and also our forecast. How do those line up? How do we distribute that amongst the our strategic growth areas that then gets echoed through the updated land use policy? You've seen that already through OPA7 that is a reflection of that initial work that that was done. You may recall that there was a report that Watson had provided for this council. We're now building on that. It's now the the next uh iteration of that to look at all of our SGAAs and what those next steps are going to be. the the next uh big growth area review for us to land is going to be Uptown and that's going to be coming in 2027 and we'll be fine-tuning the OP policies uh through the next few months and the intent is to get us to a public meeting for you to review in 2027. Perfect. Thank you very much for for answering those questions. Thank you everyone. Thank you councelor. Councelor has a deal. Thank you. Through you, Mayor Burton. Um uh so I want to just begin by trying to understand where is the definition of contextually appropriate through you Mr. Mayor to the counselor. Um I had pre-thought of questions like this yeah because contextually appropriate there there is no definition uh as proposed through this amendment. Um but what I think we would lean on is that it would be anything within our established residential communities. Uh and we do have our existing policies in section 1119 currently section 1119 which speak to uh um basically the character criteria assessment that happens in any application in our in our established residential areas. So those that would be what we would use to understand what would be contextually appropriate and that's what we've been using for quite some time since 2009 to assess those applications. Okay. Um thank you for that. Um uh can you just confirm for me when you reference high density you the the minimum is uh 20 stories. Is that correct? Uh through you Mr. Mayor to the counselor. Um not necessarily. Uh so high density in the livable Oakville plan uh the density uh range is 51 to 185 units per site hectare. So that's what we would consider um high density. Within that high density designation or that high density framework, there is a a number of different permitted building typologies including apartments or or um multiple attached type um u housing typologies. Um but there's no height necessarily associated with high density. It's just uh those would be more context specific. So oftentimes we'll have height associated with our specific mixeduse nodes. So obviously Kerr village and Bronny village have a set height limit that's much lower than say Uptown or Polmo or Midtown. So those are all kind of the their contextual location within those nodes that set those height limits. Um and of course a 20s story building is high density of course but um I mean so is a 12story building right so okay it's just in the livable Oakville I believe um there there is a reference to some level of height but I'm glad to hear that you say you share that range of of what would get it into high density and and we're consistent with it. Um it talks in the report but and elsewhere about that the housing needs assessment has informed us. My question to you is does this policy bind us to those targets. So you've talked about uh a targets of uh uh the number of two and three bedrooms uh the the affordable. I've heard you say it doesn't, but there's language in here that talks about being informed, and there have been times where um a previously approved policy document is upheld as saying this is directionally what council agreed to. So, I just want clarity. Does this bind us to achieving that? Uh through Mr. Mayor, to the counselor, no, it does not. uh the targets themselves are aspirational. So they're what we use to kind of gauge our success towards uh providing whatever the target we're trying to achieve is. Okay. Thank thank you for that clarity. Um uh I'm I am curious about this uh dashboard. Do we know what the percentage of affordable units are? Did I just miss that in a report? Currently, we have a 35% target and I I hear you that it's very aspirational. Um, do we have any sense of how where we are right now? Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the counselor. I don't have those numbers. Uh, that would definitely be something that we would love to have on a dashboard to demonstrate where we're at. Um, of course, affordability is would have to be reassessed uh and monitored every year because as certain units, say in a new application comes forward, they might only have an affordability period for 25 years and then after that falls off, it's no longer affordable unit. So, it will change over time. Um, and it's I guess also to if it's the first point of sale that we're tracking or if it's, you know, resale housing as well. Those are very different numbers to for affordability. Okay. Or rental. Okay. Well, actually, I'll segue a little bit to rental. So, we use in the policy, uh, it talks about and where the town's rental vacancy is at or above 3%. Has there been any research of whether or not that's the right number? It's the number we've used for a while. Um, and we seem to struggle with rental, though. You know, there's signs on the horizon that more rental will be coming as the market shifts. Are we sure that's the right number? Uh, so through you, Mr. Mayor, to the counselor, that is the number that's set by CHC is the the benchmark for most municipalities, and they use the 3% benchmark to trigger um rental protection bylaw. um uh considerations. Uh so if it's less than 3% vacancy uh then the bylaw is triggered and you wouldn't be able to convert a residential rental building to condominium. Um if it was greater than 3% then that um allows some opportunity for if it was a rental property owner to convert those buildings into um into condominium but it would have to be assessed through the bylaw and how that would work. But 3% is this the standard number that's used by CHC and so we're carrying that forward. Okay. Thank you for that additional detail. Um I I'm also uh very interested in the two and threebedroom uh unit target. Um grateful to see it there. Um it was interesting on tonight's refer back. Um it didn't even come close to a 65%. It was a 23% two-bedroom uh uh development application that we've referred back tonight. So, I get again each development application does not have to hit those targets, but can you help uh me understand this 65% seems to be based on what we're all experiencing, which is people need space as their families grow, as they work remotely. You've you've you've clearly understand the mark market need. How are we going to incorporate that in the assessment of each application? Are we going to be calling it out? Are we is that early conversations that are occurring? Uh so through you, Mr. mayor to the counselor. Having a policy like this at least allows us to enter into that conversation to uh perhaps push the needle as uh one of their counselors mentioned this evening to toward what we need. Uh it's not necessarily what's going to be delivered, but uh anything we can do to encourage um and influence the provision of larger units within our our apartment stock is um something that we can use as a tool, as leverage to to move the needle. Um so it's it's an aspirational goal again or an aspirational target of 65% and that includes both rental and ownership housing in high density. So um it was identified as that was the need identified in the housing needs assessment um for the types of unit sizes to accommodate our future uh growth projections and family and dwelling households. Thank you. My last two comments are um it states that the town shall encourage and promote the creation of additional residential units. Um and I just want to talk about those additional residential units and the three as of right. The policy doesn't reference three as of right at all. Was that intentional? Uh through you, Mr. Mayor, to the councelor. Uh the the regulations exist in the zoning bylaw. Um and so this policy was flexible to if we were to consider changes in future if um it'd be a zoning consideration in that regard. Um but right now we're we're sticking to the uh the mandated legislative framework that um the province has provided for us. So Okay. Um well I want to thank you for all your hard work on it. I'm I'm particularly appreciative of some of the adjustments in language to go from shall to May. Um I hope at some point there is a conversation about um those additional needs uh uh units or homes how they are um uh appropriately supported at the same time uh situated uh in not a commercial sense. Um, and my last comment is, um, thank you for the town shell support and work with Halton Region and the housing service manager to achieve its housing targets because it is only together that we'll actually get this done. So, thanks very much. Thank you, counselor. Uh, and I'm sure staff appreciate those ringing words of praise and thanks. Would you can I translate that? Can I ask you to translate that into a motion to adopt? And can I look for a second here? Councelor Null. Thank you. Any objection? Madam Clerk, there being no objection, uh that carries. Uh now, councel, we have a little bit of new business uh under uh confidential. And uh I I believe that there's a desire to go into camera into a session closed to the public. And uh there's a number of motions we have to step through in order to do that. Yeah. All right. So, if I'm correct. Yeah, I have that right here. Okay. Thanks for your help. So, in in if we're going to go into camera to consider a walk-on item, a series of motions of procedural nature need to be passed. So u the first thing is we need to wave section 14.1 sub3 uh that notice requirements be waved in accordance with sections 2 sub 2 and 1413 of the procedure bylaw in order to consider a uh confidential memo provided to council from legal on on April 20th. And if that uh carries then it would be in and only then it would be in order to put a motion on the floor that we enter into a closed session. So you have to be patient as we step through the the uh the ladder of procedures that we have written in our procedure bylaw. So uh so I'll look to councelor Hlet. Are you offering to provide this motion? Yes, Mayor Burton. I'd like to to move in camera. Okay. So, you're moving that notice requirements be waved in accordance with sections 2 two and 1413 of the procedure bylaw in order to consider the confidential memo provided to council from legal on April 20th. And then we'll get to the motion to move into camera if this passes. Yes, sir. And a seconder is is councelor Dudk. Thank you. So, is there any objection to this motion? Madame Clerk, I'm going to take Councelor Hazard Theel's hand for support rather than objection. And there's no uh there's no objection and that carries. The next motion is that council enter into closed session under section 239 sub 2F of the municipal act in order to receive solicitor client privilege related to uh in order to receive information subject to solicitor client privilege related to the confidential memo provided to council from legal on April 20th. Um a mover for this motion's in order. Councelor Dudk a secondary is in order. Councelor Lisch Jenna. Thank you. Any objection? There's no objection. And so that carries. So now we will uh we'll have a short technical break while we rig the chamber for this closed session and then we will resume. And uh until then, maybe now is when you want that little uh break. So, we're in recess until we're uh in camera. Recording stopped. Yeah, I forgot. Try to lift it up. Cool. Yeah. I'm uh currently in my first of third of three years at uh at Sheridan. So, um it's uh kind of fun to be at that point because uh you have all great ideas. Terms of the uh municipal act to receive information subject to solicitor client privilege from legal staff in regard to a memo they distributed earlier today. Um, and now it would be in order for a mover and seconder that the information regarding the confidential memo dated April 20th provided from legal be received for information. And uh, councelor Grant, thank you. And councelor Shia, thank you. Any objection? There being none, that's carried. Um, are there any uh, new business matters to raise? Is there any uh, requests for report? I'm not aware of any. Uh I would then look for a mover and seconder for the u consideration and reading of the bylaws uh five of the six on listed on the agenda. We will not be uh considering and reading bylaw 2026-50 because we deferred that earlier this evening. And the mover is councelor Lchenna. The seconder is councelor Nanda. Thank you. Any objection? Madame Clerk, there being none, the bylaws are considered read and passed. And that ends the work of the meeting. Thank you everybody. It's been terrific working with you and uh we'll be able to work again real soon, just just a week from now. I look forward to seeing you all then. Good night.

Full Transcript