Welcome back everyone. We're going to get started with the 6:30 p.m. part of our meeting on uh this is May 11th uh 2026 and this is a formal public meeting to consider item 11A. But before we get started on that, are there any disclosures disclosures of pecuni pecuniary interest or the nature of the I should have done my mouth exercises before I came up here. Okay, no one has anything to declare. Thank you very much. We will just move right on to uh the public meeting then. So um formal public meeting to consider item 11A. Um, this is the housing accelerator fund community planning permit system initiative. Uh, zoning bylaw amendment Z2606, final Herb Street corridor community planning permit bylaw. Any persons who want further notice of this application, including the passage of any bylaw, should sign the appropriate register in the binder located on the desk at the rear of the council chambers. If there is more than one binder, please make sure you are signing the appropriate one. Will the clerk please advise council of the method used to give notice of the meeting and the dates notice was given? >> Notice was advertised in the Waterl regional record on April 16th, 2026 and mailed or emailed on April 14th, 2026 to all property owners within 120 meters of the subject property to public agencies and to all persons who requested notice. >> Thank you for that. Uh so the consultants David Riley and Justine Giancola will now give a brief overview. So get yourselves comfortable there. Make sure you can uh lift up the podium if you need to or lower it. Thank you very much. So oh the presentation is up. Uh so uh good evening everyone. Uh my name is David Riley with SGL Planning and Design. I'm joined here by Justine Jenola from Dylan Consulting and we're uh the consulting team. You know, many more of us that couldn't be here right now, but uh working on the city's uh community planning permit system for the Hurb Street corridor. Uh so today we wanted to provide a very brief overview of uh the bylaw that is before you this evening. um explain how it works, summarize the engagement process and outline really the next steps which is the implementation. So, uh what is this project about? So, this is really about implementing a community planning permit system along the Herb Street corridor and it's intended um really uh to apply to the strategic growth area or one of the strategic growth areas within the city of Wateroo. Um the whole initiative um is part of the city's housing accelerator fund uh commitments and it's intended to support housing delivery as well as implementing a more streamlined development approvals process. The way that the CPPs, which is a short form for community planning permit system that you'll probably hear me say a lot, um streamlines approvals is by combining several different uh planning applications into one more coordinated process. Um this improves efficiency and it allows the city to address other matters such as urban design, landscaping, and community benefits in a more integrated way. Really an important thing is that the proposed CPP bylaw builds on the city's already established official plan policy and zoning framework rather than replacing this broad uh planning vision that you already have in place. Um here we have a a bit of an overview of uh the community planning permit system. It's um a little bit different than the traditional planning framework that exists today. So under the current system, an applicant that comes for a development application uh may apply for separate applications for zoning bylaw amendments, minor variances, and site plan approval. A CP combines these into one process and this is how it creates a more streamlined uh process, transparent for applicants, staff, council, and the community. It also provides municipalities with the uh greater flexibility to address other things like urban design, landscaping, vegetation removal, site alteration, things that traditional zoning bylaws can't address or comprehensively regulate. Overall, it's about balancing growth, design quality, and community needs while reducing approval timelines and improving certainty. So the proposed CPP bylaw has three classes of development applications um and they're based on the various scales of of different proposals as they come forward. So class one applications are more straightforward um proposals. they fully comply with all of the regulations of the of the bylaw and um they include uses that are already permitted um or ancillary uses that are already permitted and these applications will be approved by staff. Class 2 applications involve minor variations we call them or discretionary uses. Staff would also approve class 2 applications provided that the variation is considered minor in nature and class three applications involve larger variations which would come to council for approval. So the notification requirements for these various classes they do differ um and they increase in complexity based on class. Um class one requires no notification. It's similar to the existing site plan approval process. Class two, akin to um a minor variance application where you'd have u notice posted online and physical signage on the property. And class three where you've got online notice, physical signage on the property and a letter mailed out to uh applicants or residents within 120 meters. And the structure of the bylaw, um, it's very similar to your existing zoning bylaw, um, including all of these sections that you have here today and of course, uh, or that you have in front of you here and schedules and appendices. One of the key objectives in preparing the structure of the bylaw was to make it easy to navigate, userfriendly, and being consistent with the city zoning bylaw because you're going to have a zoning bylaw and a CPP bylaw. I'll pass it on to Justine now. Thanks Dave. And so um when we think about the process under a community planning permit system um there would be an application an applicant would have to come in and do a pre-conultation with the city and any agencies at the onset to try to understand the requirements um of a complete application. Um there also is um uh a single application single review. So this helps uh to David's point address matters of zoning or minor variance along with site plan matters through a single review um and approval process. And then um as it relates to decisions, there are some nuances in in what this tool provides. There's a broader range of conditions available to the municipality um that can be um required in advance of a permit being issued or attached to a permit before building permit. And on the right hand side we have a little bit of an example here where um you know a development under the current system would have a separate minor variance and site plan process. Um under the new system it would be combined into one application, one approval and um interested um uh local residents um would be notified through uh those notification processes that David previously mentioned. Um we've got uh we've done a comprehensive uh uh round of community engagement. Heard from lot lots of local residents and stakeholders that are actively involved in planning this community and um we've got we've gone ahead and made a number of edits to the bylaw to help reflect some of that feedback and input that we're um looking for further feedback and input tonight. Couple of the key things I'll highlight. Um the boundary initially this included uh Uptown. We've now scoped it to the Hurb Street corridor. um we have um uh brought in the exemptions for up to four units and up to four stories um to try to uh make sure that we're right sizing the process for those larger types of applications. Um we've also proposed to um defer the affordable housing in exchange for additional heightened density recognizing that there wasn't a lot of additional density explored through this tool and the challenging market circumstances. Um and we've also uh looked at um some modifications to staff limitations under the tool u more aligned with the current um committee of adjustment limitations under a minor variance. And so um we are at the process we're at the statutory public meeting tonight. Um we have received a lot of feedback and input throughout the process and we continue to work with stakeholders and look um as we uh close out the project and bring forward a recommendation as part of the final step and um the broad engagement did include a number of different rounds and individuals. Um there was a uh city staff have been working very tirelessly to meet with um uh industry and development. Um there's been uh open houses um that we've got quite a bit of um uh interest in and had lots of conversations, a lot of folks involved through the website and online engagement materials. Um and we've also got some uh some survey results that have fed into this analysis. And all of that has compilated in the um the bylaw that we're bringing forward today to get some additional thoughts and feedback. And on the final slide, um we just welcome any questions um and appreciate uh your consideration this evening. >> Thank you. You still have a well you you had a minute and a half. That was excellent. Um thank you very much for that. Um so does any counselor have any questions for the uh consultants at this point? Okay, seeing none, um, thank you very much and we are going to open it up to questions of staff. Go ahead, councelor Bro. >> Thank you, uh, through you, Chair. I do have four questions, so if you want me to break them up, I can do that like two and Okay. >> Um, so thank you first off for your hard work on this. I know it's been about two years, I think. Um, and it's considerable amount considerable amount of public engagement and uh hard work. So, thank you. My first question, I just wanted to make uh ask some clarifying questions because I've been listening to residents who have concerns and I thought it would be helpful to maybe review a few points um so that it's very clear where um things are in the CPPS. Um the first is um if you can confirm that the CPPS does not change height permissions that currently exist because I know there's seems to be a misunderstanding that that this changes what um our minimum heights are right now along Herb Street >> through the chair uh to councelor row. Um you are absolutely correct that through um the proposed CPP bylaw that you have in front of you, we have carried over existing heights and densities um that uh were permitted uh today under the existing zoning bylaw. Um I will note um that um there is one caveat in that um right now the official plan regulates height in stories. So, if somebody wants to um modify height, they would need to go out of this process and uh get an official plan amendment. However, the bylaw does allow for some minor uh amendments uh to height in meters. Um the most common situation where that'll happen is where you have an existing site that typically has grading issues and that's just to kind of reflect it, but it has to uh still comply with the height and stories. Um so I can definitely confirm for you and any residents out there that the heights and densities that are reflected in the existing zoning bylaw have been carried over into the CPP bylaw. >> Great. Thank you. Um my next question um also is I'm I'm wondering if you can just give a brief historical review of intensification along Herb Street and sort of what the changes have been in terms of height and density >> through the chair to councelor Row. Uh so back in the early 2000s in recognition of that uh in the future the city would be coming to its boundaries the city adopted a nodes and corridors framework. Uh in 2003 uh the official plan amendment to adopt nodes and corridors was implemented and two years later in 2005 uh the implementing zoning bylaw was implemented. Um, as part of that framework, um, this, uh, portion of the Herb Street corridor, which is primarily a minor corridor, was designated as a minor corridor. And, um, so these kind of permissions have been in effect for essentially 20 years. And the identification of this portion of the Herb Street corridor as a corridor has been in place for 20 years. It is not new through this process. Um we just focused on this area in terms of a pilot uh in terms of the half grant initiative. >> That's helpful. Thank you. Um my third question is about um residents participating in the process if they wish to leave comments um and how that would look in each class. >> Uh through the chair to councelor row. Um thank you for the question. Um so yeah according uh as uh David mentioned in the presentation the different classes do have different uh notification requirements. So um in a class one situation which again is akin to the current site plan process there is no notification um since the development is seen to uh comply with all regulations. Um in the case of class two uh where we have a um a website notification as well as signage on the property. Um so basically a resident wanting to get involved in that would look at those notices and there would be a staff contact as well as link to the engage page where they could submit uh comments. Um where this does differ from the current process is since there is no um committee of adjustment meeting, there's no public meeting to show up to to provide those comments. But those comments will still be welcome um to be submitted uh you know in writing or if you want to call the the planner on file and and express uh concerns or comments um staff can then take those under consideration. Um and then with a class three very similar um the final decision will come to council. also any comments that are provided through that that process um uh either from people, you know, seeing the ad or getting a notice mailed to them if they're a resident close by. Um again, that would go to staff for consideration uh when we're making our recommendations to council. And then any of those comments, should the person submitting them wish them to be forwarded to council as well as part of that package for council's decision, u we would certainly do that as well. >> Great. Thank you. That's helpful. And my last question um is just about clarifying that the process um still requires the same amount of diligent work from the staff, right? That this isn't some fast track that it requires a lot of work from staff and also a lot of upfront work from the applicant. >> Uh through the chair to uh councelor. Absolutely. I can confirm for you that um the streamline process does not mean no process. The same quantity, quality and depth of review will continue albeit in a a different process uh and an accelerated process in that regard. Um but I can assure you that the same quality of review that staff have always done will continue under this uh process. >> Great. Thank you very much. Does anyone else uh from our counselors have a clarifying question about the presentation before we move on to other delegations >> after? Okay. Um so I I'm going to invite um we have another delegation, Ryan Muny. Um and Ryan, you have 10 minutes if you'd like to come to the podium. And if you could just uh introduce yourself and your city of residents. >> Thank you, acting mayor Wright, counselors, staff, and audience. Um, my name is Ryan Moundsy. I'm CEO of Urban Insights Incorporated, small boutique planning firm in Uptown Wateroo. I have over 25 active applications in Kitchener Water Cambridge with four clients along Herb Street corridor. Uh I am here today uh next slide please. Uh to present my own thoughts and opinions and clients thoughts on this process. This is a development tool. This is about citybuilding. This is about intensification. And so what I'm going to talk to you today about is my honest opinion about what I think about the process. And I'm here today to talk about the support for streamlined approvals and housing supply in Waterlue. The whole process of the half is to streamline housing and it's to make it quicker, not longer. However, the proposed CPP risks introducing a new layer of financial and regulatory burden at the exact same time our community is experiencing a development freeze due to water capacity constraints and rising demand for more affordable and attainable housing. This is all about costs and the process must be designed to facilitate housing at lower costs, not increased costs. Next slide please. So while I want to be fully in support of the process, I have to raise a couple of items that is worth conversation to share with you in public council as I raise some of these comments through the process as a development industry rep. This is all about half funding. What is the purpose of halfunding the housing accelerator funding program? It's to get more housing to market faster is about a streamline process and I took these notes directly from the website in the report by the way. So this is exact verbatim the points of the program is to provide streamline approvals process streamlined. It's to replacement of zones with precincts. It is to broaden definition of development. That's a double-edged sword. It's to provide more flexibility. It's to provide enhanced process controls. Is that what we want for a faster streamlined process? And it's an ability to secure community benefits while on face value seems like it's going to help. But will it actually add cost to housing? Next slide please. So in terms of the context as I talked about the housing accelerator fund is the driver for many of these initiatives. There is a housing shortage. There's provincial housing targets that everyone is falling behind on. So this isn't a wateroo issue. This is an Ontario issue for the most part. There is a housing crisis going on. And this relates to affordability, a condominium collapse, an escalating construction costs and development fees. And there's a provincial mandate in legislation to promote housing supply at the exact same time. And the most important factor of them all right now is the water crisis. Not a single brand new net new building permit has been issued for any net new water supply since December 6th. So, how is additional costs and process going to help with housing cost? Next slide, please. The main issues in my summary, and I only have a couple more slides, and then I'll lighten the tone up in a little bit, is that the application fees are outrageous. A minor variance application is five times 5x the cost under the new process. Ask a small person to do a minor variance right here and they have to pay over $10,000 for a fee. That's a new bylaw. An official plan amendment is almost $40,000. I hope the process is quicker to earn that fee. That's almost half a salary. So this new process that you're talking about about expediting and streamlining a process is a very expensive process in my opinion. Exemptions. I'm going to ask for a series of exemptions to be added on to this process because there's loopholes in this and people are going to get stuck any and ensure all existing site plan approvals are exempt and with amendments. I have clients in here that have site plan agreements that might be coming back for amendments. Do they fall under the new process or not as an amendment? A minor variance application that's a year and a half year old and they come in, are they caught in the process or not? So I want to make sure that the detailed criteria in the reports clarify all the types of development that are fully exempt. And so there are pieces of the process where people will get caught and I hope they don't have to pay the new fees. The new costs, this contradicts the program goals. All new costs should be deferred until at least 2032. That's the date. It's not 2027. It's 2032. That's when we have full water capacity in water region that will allow development to move without hindrance. But we have until 2027 for the new CCC to come in place. What does that mean? Next year there's tremendous cost. Do we have development allocation capacity right now? No. But what does it mean for new developers? This is a development permit process. They're going to be stuck with fees adding on next year with a dead development community. Affordability. How do we defer costs and include CHC MLI select program? We have this archaic definition of affordability. Make it easy. Include CMHC MLI select funding to be part of the program. 80% of apartment building construction is funded through CHC. If they can't qualify, who can? And then if you have to add on a new layer of affordability, that's going to increase cost housing costs for all. Exempt 10 units or less from the CPPS. I have been repeating this comment since day one of this program. The planning act was amended to exempt 10 units or less from site plan control, but this is a workaround to put 10 units or less, which is only four units exempt from the CPPS. 10 units or less will have to go through a CP program that has to go through a process, pay the outrageous fees, and add more time and costs. The whole process of the planning act through bill 23 was to exempt this. And I'm not sensitive or sympathetic to the regulations that allow the process. It's adding cost, time, and a layer of a process. This is wrong. But this is the process that you're going through with with small infill development. And I wrote a very lengthy letter that outlines all these points and comments. So next slide, please. So when you look on the left hand side of this table, these are the current cost. What does it cost to build? Run the proformas. Run the costs. The city of water is running their own development project on the west side of water. You know what the costs are. Construction costs, application costs, parking costs, development charges, parkland fees, servicing, engineering, urban design. Those are all basic costs. What this new process does is add on a series of new costs on top. A 4% CCC 2027. New fees, higher fees, affordable housing costs, additional processed layers for 10 units or less. The result, reduced viability, increased housing costs, delayed housing, and lower investment confidence. That's what I'm reporting to you directly from my clients in the development industry. This is not the direction that is going to streamline approvals and make it less expensive. So they ask next slide please. Reduce or defer application fees. The fees are just simply too high for a streamlined process for someone coming into this and hopefully others won't get caught is going to be expensive. Expand exemptions to ensure all existing site plan approvals, future site plan amendments and existing committees of adjustment approvals are exempt from the CPP process. There are elements of this that is covered already in the program, but I think there's other elements in there that are missed. >> Ryan, you have one minute. >> Yes, thank you. >> New costs. All cost related to CCC 4% land value be deferred to 2032 when the land moratorum opens up for water affordability. Defer costs to 2032, not 2027 and include CHC MLI select programs to be eligible. This is the most cost-effective way to stimulate attainable housing. This is a 10 This is a six-story building, not a 30story height development corridor. So, you got to be proportional to those asks and exempt 10 units or less. Those are my comments. I got 20 seconds to spare. And on a softer note, you have professional, excellent staff and consultants that are guiding you through this turbulent times. I have the confidence that we will get through this, but those are my honest comments. Thank you for the time. >> You are right on. It was amazing. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, so I'm going to open it up to council. Do you have questions of the delegation this morning? Thank you. >> No one. Okay. Um, so I'm just going to open this up to the uh the full gallery here. Is there anyone else present tonight who wishes to speak to this application? Okay. No one. Um, so, uh, if there are no more delegations, this formal public meeting is concluded and the application is now open to council for motion and debate. Okay. So, Council Hammer, you have questions? >> I do. Okay. >> Thank you. Three, uh, chair right to to stop, can you just remind us or or talk a little bit more about the implementation plan uh, with this particular bylaw? Um and the previous delegate uh raised a couple of issues about those that are already in the pipeline and how will those be handled. So two questions in one >> through the chair to uh councelor Hanmer. Um so uh provided that uh council approves the community planning permit uh bylaw this evening, we would uh proceed into uh working on the implementation pieces which uh includes uh releasing a how-to booklet for residents and others uh to help educate them and help guide them through the uh CPP uh bylaw, the differences and the similarities. Uh we also have some uh training sessions for uh for staff to get them familiar with this and we are also working on the implementation pieces in terms of um you know we will be making updates uh to the city's website uh planning applications uh engage page uh working on application forms and whatnot uh so that we can be ready so when the bylaw is uh in fully in effect um that uh the system would be ready to accept applications. So we do have a plan uh we are working on it. We have been working on it um uh and uh we will continue to to work on on on that. Um in terms of uh the second question uh which asked about exemptions um so in the uh CPP bylaw that you have before you um this evening to approve uh in section 1B2 uh is a se a section on exemptions and right now uh 1B21D identifies that development consistent with an approved site plan uh would be uh exempt as would uh development consistent with a minor varian experience approval uh would be exempt um as well. And there's some other um exemptions as well, including you know four up to four units for stories um subject to um complying with the provisions of the bylaw and there's a couple of others. So our exemptions have taken uh we feel those matters into consideration and have accounted for them. >> Thanks Tony. I think that is important for public to know that that those that are in the pipeline right now, wherever they might be, would be exempt from uh this new bylaw coming into into effect based on uh what's in the bylaw and that they meet those exemptions. Uh sorry just to clarify um it's if somebody has an approved uh site plan um or an approved minor variance um if somebody should have an existing application um uh either a a formal uh complete site plan application um a formal uh complete zoning bylaw application or a complete uh minor variance application. those can continue through the process and we have transition provisions um which are identified in 1A uh 9 of the bylaw. So we have both transition provisions um to uh speak to applications that have a complete application either zoning b amendment, minor variance or site plan. And then we also have a sec second section on exemptions which say if um a development uh has approved site plan or minor variance approval uh they would be uh exempt. >> Exempt. >> Thank you for clarifying the two the two different scenarios that we have. That's all for me. Thank you. Other counselors, uh, councelor Roach. >> Uh, thank you through you, Chair. Um, this question is for staff. Um, based on Mr. Mounz's excellent presentation, the staff report acknowledges that development market along the corridor is currently challenged to the point where we're first forced to defer uh, affordable housing requirements until 2027. Is it not counterproductive to implement a new 4% community or complete community contribution fee today? I am wondering if we're not risking the shovels in the ground progress that we need to secure our remaining um half installments >> through the chair to councelor Roach. Um, what I can confirm for council is today development applications have to pay community benefits charges. That applies citywide. Um, and it's the exact same, which is the 4% of of the land value. Under a CP framework, um, a community benefits charge does not apply. rather it has something called facility services and matters which is a handful but it's essentially the same thing. It's benefits to the community and so as noted um the the fee is the same. Today development applications are paying a community benefits charge that's 4% of the land value. Under this uh bylaw, we are proposing for equity with the rest of the city that developments would play a 4% complete community contribution instead of the complete benefits charged. So they are it would be applied the same. The fee would be the same. It would be calculated the same. It's just under a community planning permit system. It's called facility services and matters and it's called a complete community contribution which once you see that you know that you're dealing with a community planning permit system whereas under a zoning framework you would be paying a a mere fee but it's just called a community benefits charge. So I hope that is helpful. >> Well just a followup. So you're saying that there is it's not an increase. there's no increase and um that yeah we there is not an increase in fees >> through the chair to council roach that is correct >> thank you >> other counselors any other questions oh yeah there you are go ahead councelor Bley >> excuse me through you chair right can you maybe speak to the to the commentary from the applicant around the co the the fees themselves not the not the 4% but the fees themselves and how those compare uh and contrast to the current fee structure and framework. Uh is it substantially more similar? Um would love to hear your feedback on that >> through the chair to councelor Bodley. Um, as indicated in the report, the fees for the class one, class 2, and class 3 applications under the proposed CPP bylaw have been informed by existing minor variance uh, site plan and zoning bylaw fees. So for example um under the class one which is it meets all the standards. It's essentially equivalent uh Canada site planning there's a minor application fee which is $1,550 which is similar to the minor variance fee today. There's a standard fee uh which is akin to the existing site plan fee uh $10,680. That's the existing standard site plan fee. It's exactly it mirrors it. And I can go through the list for the class one, class two, and class 3es is it's uh it's it's taken into account um the existing fees uh for minor variant site plan and uh zoning bylaw amendments. Um as I had indicated uh based off of the question at councelor row, a streamlined process doesn't mean uh no process. there is still review and process that will happen and as a result there is a cost to that and somebody has to pay for that. Um at the end of the day as staff we believe that the applicant who is coming in who is requesting to do a development redevelopment and expansion and improvement to their property should be the one that should be covering those fees as opposed to city of water taxpayers. So I hope that answers your question. Absolutely it does. Thank you. And just as a follow-up if I may through you chair rate uh or not a follow-up but a second question um can you speak to the commentary around exempting less than 10 units and uh how we are um exempting for unit four stories uh whether consideration was given to exempting uh other developments, why we settled on where we settled and uh what uh the process would look like in the future if we were to um if if council or staff were to feel as though uh exempting 10 units in the future was something that we wanted to do, you guys highlighted that this is sort of a pilot project for us. So I imagine that we're not necessarily going to get everything right exactly the very first time. So uh if you could speak to that process and sort of uh speak a little bit to how we got to where we are today >> through the chair to councelor Bodley. Um, as was noted by our consultants, this has been a two-year process and we have uh given significant thought and consideration to the parameters and provisions uh in in the bylaw. And uh we have had two drafts before we have reached this final. And as we have indicated uh in our staff report, you can clearly see um how and where changes have been made directly in response um you know to the feedback received. Um in terms of um that decision, uh we gave it uh a lot of consideration and the decision was made to exempt four units and four stories given council's recent decision to allow up to four units and four stories in line with another half initiative. Uh we also gave further consideration about the five to 10 units and at the end of the day um we felt that they shouldn't be exempt because they are more substantial developments in the form of apartments stacked town houses and we see value in the site planning process to address important matters um that impact your constituents and residents that will occupy these developments such as where snow clearance is going to go where is utilities and hydro loading, parking, accessibility, lighting. Those are all the things that impact quality of life for residents. Noting though that the bylaw does have a provision that gives the director of planning the authority to exempt uh developments with 5 to 10 units provided it meets all the provisions of the bylaw. Um so uh we have provided the flexibility but I wanted to uh note that we gave significant consideration to this and as noted we felt that these more substantial developments 5 to 10 units uh especially if they were not meeting uh the provisions of the bylaw should be going through a site planning process. Thank you. >> Other questions from council? Uh I just have a question about timelines. Uh so currently um we're at 60 days plus 45. So that would maybe make a total of 105 days that we're we're trying to get through uh these applications. Um how generally speaking um are we are we meeting those timelines at this point? And the reason I'm asking is the likelihood of actually meeting a 45day window as we've proposed in the CPPs >> through the chair to the chair. Um that's an excellent question. Um so as was noted uh this is a brand new process for the city of Waterlue. Um there are legislated timelines which essentially state that uh staff have or council uh depending on the class of application have 45 days to make a decision after which if a decision is not made an applicant then has the ability to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. um you know as staff uh with this being a new process it will take us some time uh to to get used to it. So you know I would ask people for some grace as both uh applicants and us you know work through through applications. Um but at the end of the day what I can say is you know we will do our utmost best but there very well may be cases where unfortunately maybe we're waiting for an approval from another agency or something of that nature um where we may not be able to meet the 45 days in which case the legislation says that the applicant can appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a non-decision. Um I have uh noted and it is noted uh in the report that Tristan and I have uh advanced um that uh we plan to monitor this process and uh we plan to um uh update council a year after the first application is um you know processed and uh you know to kind of monitor the system um and uh see you know if there's room uh for improvement which there definitely will be and then try to you know realign and make improvements as as necessary. >> Thank you for that. And I I'm assuming just as a follow-up to my own question, I'm assuming that you've u uh spoken to planning staff and in other regions that have uh piloted their own uh community planning permit systems uh about their uh lessons learned >> through you uh madam chair to the chair. Um uh yes um so uh Dylan Consulting and SGL have been involved in many of these CPP uh bylaws across um many municipalities including other midsize cities like Waterlue. Um and these discussions particularly with waterlue I will say um we because of like you say lessons learned. We started right at the beginning talking with not just um this team that we have here but also all of your development planners who are also talking to the other departments um and thinking about how this gets implemented in terms of process efficiencies. how can we better circulate applications and request comments in an efficient manner? Um, and we've had some really productive uh discussions over the past two years about this. Um so as it rolls out and as we continue this implementation u over the next couple months um should this bylaw be passed and as it rolls out um we're going to keep um implementing those ideas and evaluating them as as Tanya said and across those these other municipalities um much like Tanya said it is um you know a learning curve uh changing the process completely but um we've found that in many municipalities uh they've had lots of success where they've implemented in terms of dealing with the majority of the applications within the 45day timeline. Um sometimes that's with the the additional benefit of this tool is that you can do conditional approvals. So maybe there's a minor thing that you need addressed like an update to a landscape plan for example that you can meet your 45day timeline by issuing a conditional approval that uh relies on one of the conditions may be an update to the landscape plan and that can happen after the 45 days and they will not get their permit until the the city is satisfied that it is correct and it's what they've asked for. So this is just another way that the tool can work to I think everyone's advantage to get development there quicker. It gives the municipality water in this case the assurance that you know it's checking all the boxes but also it gives the developer the applicant assurance and comfort that their application has been approved. They just have to address these technical issues. So we think it's a win-win. Um and um that was a lot but I hope that helps you know just to set the stage that um other municipalities are are there. They also find that um I will say those those applications that do go beyond 45 days because the communication is so vital between a municipality and the applicant and that's what we've been talking a lot about. If there is progress in an application and it goes beyond the 45 days, it is we haven't found one example where an applicant has appealed yet in any of the municipalities because they're moving towards an end goal which is an approval or a conditional approval uh which happens at at some point. So appealing something for lack of decision would extend the process much longer uh than maybe you know a few weeks past the 45day deadline. So just something for us to remember in the context of planning in Ontario. >> Thank you. And councelor Ro, you had another question. >> Thank you through you, Chair. I just wanted to circle back um to what you were asking about the timelines and Tanya um in the conversation that we had last week. I think it would be beneficial for anyone listening who's wondering how we're going to push this into 45 days, right? These three different um processes into one. And can you just explain the shift from coming like how the applicant is applying and what the requirements would be to start the process from the applicant at this point through the chair to councelor row. Um yes so uh as uh there was a slide that uh indicated what the application process would be uh with one being a mandatory uh pre-conultation meeting um where information would be uh provided in terms of you know what class of application uh the application would be um as well as um any and all information that the applicant would need to uh provide in order for an application to be deemed complete and then they would need to make a formal submission um and which we would review against that pre-conultation checklist uh and if all that information was provided um along with the fee then the application would be deemed complete and then we would undertake the review. Um one of the one of the benefits of this tool is is that it does combine the three processes together. Uh currently site plan minor variance and uh zoning bylaw amendments are three separate processes and um sometimes what I have seen with some development applications is somebody will come in you know with a with a zoning bylaw amendment they get approvals they end up at site plan and then you know there's issues or changes that have to be made with this it's one application where somebody is now advancing minor varian zoning ball amendments and site planning all at once. And so you have that combined package of information. Typically sometimes, you know, with a zoning bile amendment, we don't have a full site plan concept, which would have been helpful. Um, and so that's one of the benefits I think as a staff person um with this with this process is is when an application is coming for you, you are getting all of those combined. So then that you have a a wholesome picture of what that application is. You have the information that you need whether it's staff or council to make an informed decision. >> Thank you. >> Councelor Hanmer, did you have a question >> through you chair? You asked my question. Oh, >> I would. >> Sorry to preempt. Do we have other questions? Anyone else? Okay, I'm just collecting my thoughts to see whether there's anything else that uh I had on my list, but I think we did. I think uh other counselors have asked the questions that I had written down. Um okay, so we are if there are no further questions from council. Oh, I'm remembering the question I was going to ask. Here we go. Um, okay. So, uh, the delegate did mention, um, a 2032 date regarding, uh, the region's water supply, and I'm just wondering if staff could just, uh, speak to that briefly, how that factors into, um, what we're dealing with tonight. uh through your chair right um to the chair. Uh the water capacity um constraint that's currently existing within the Manheim service area is certainly a challenge for development within the community. Um as Mr. Moundsy indicated, very little uh development is moving forward as a result of uh the freeze that's in place. But I will say the region is making progress on working towards allocations to start to free up and allow some development to move forward. So, we're hopeful that will uh progress as quickly as possible and we will be able to again start to approve applications. In my view, this process is very different. We're setting up um a an application or or a system here to advance development applications through a process. So, similar to to today where we have minor variances and we have site plans that are advancing through the planning process. Yes, they can't pull a building permit because of the Manheim uh constraint that's in place. Again, we're setting up a system that allows zoning and site planning to move forward. And when um capacity is available, uh we will be able to issue permits 2032, 2031, 2032. Hopefully, there is a robust supply of capacity within the water system to allow development to freely move through the market. Um until then there will likely be allocation buckets that are being ma made and I think that's the reference that Mr. Mali is making is is to get back to that um fully robust uh time frame when development can freely flow. Uh that time frame exists and until then there will be constraints and there will be certainly challenges um that many developers are are facing in terms of carrying costs and other costs that they have to to bear. And uh we we recognize that our goal here is to simplify um the approvals by combining processes and trying to expedite those approvals uh through a condensed system, if you will, um to get those that are able to build and wanting to build in a position to build as quickly as they can. There were there will be outside circumstances like water um that may influence that and we'll tackle those one by one as we get to uh get those in front of us. >> Thank you for that. Uh okay. So that was my last question. Anyone further? Okay, I think we're ready to move on here. So, um we have um a recommendation uh available to us right now and I'm looking for there's actually seven seven >> seven >> there are seven recommendations as part of this um this uh um item. And so I am looking for a mover and that's councelor >> Hammer with comments. Uh yes, moving with with comments, but I'll make the motion first. Uh whereas council has considered all written and oral submissions and whereas council has considered the professional opinions of planning staff. Therefore, be it resolved that council approve report IPW2026-21. that council approve zoning bylaw amendment z-26-06 to implement the community planning permit bylaw as follows. A that zoning bylaw 2018-50 is hereby deemed to be repealed with respect to the Herb Street corridor as shown in map 1 in accordance with section 9 of Ontario regulation 17316 as amended from time to time. And B, that the community planning permit bylaw for the Hurb Street corridor be approved as set out in appendix 1, the bylaw to IPW 2026-21. Three, that council permit city initiated amendments to the official plan amendment 58 bylaw 2024-097 policies before the fifth anniversary of the first day of the passing of the bylaw. Four, that council permit any person or public body authority to request an amendment to the community planning permit bylaw before the fifth anniversary of the first passing of the bylaw. Five, that council deemed that any city bylaw that refers to zoning bylaw 2018-050 and/or site plan control bylaw 2013-124 be taken to also mean the community planning permit bylaw for the Hurb Street corridor. Six, that council approve and amend to bylaw number 2025-080 being a bylaw to delegate authority to execute documents as set out in appendix 2 to IPW2026-021. And seven, that council directs staff to create a new complete community contribution reserve fund and to establish an accompanying policy as part of the reserve and reserve fund annual update report in December 2026. I'm happy to make this this motion. We are all hoping to have new housing developments um start and hoped that we would be further along. And one thing that we need to be doing as a city is looking at the processes that we have in place. And if there is a way to improve the processes, streamline the processes, I think that's uh a good direction for us to be heading. And I I think the work that staff have done with the help of the consultants has got us on a path that will see that uh to fruition. Uh the water issue aside, hopefully we will get that resolved. But I think this is the process that we need to need to be looking at. So, I'm pleased to be supporting this amend this motion. >> Thank you, councelor Hammer. And is there a seconder? That's councelor Row. Any comments? >> Yes, thank you. I would like to echo what councelor Hammer said, just that this is um a process that we do uh need to facilitate development. I've heard concerns uh from residents about concerns about height, about um reduced public input, but I'm reassured by staff's um comments and clarification that these items um remain the same within um some a little bit of change for uh public input, but it is still there. So, that's reassuring. So, um I also thank you again for your hard work >> and any other further comments before we call about Oh, councelor Roach. >> Yes, I I am I'm just concerned about a little bit of a contradiction. I think you know the staff's using market hardship as a reason to delay affordable affordable housing, but not as a reason to lower or or delay the 4% fee and if a replacement for a fee that's already difficult and you know I think we called it challenged in the report challenged projects to pay I don't know if we should be locking it in uh right now and uh and maybe we should provide temporary assistance uh temporary incentive uh to get those half required building permits moving >> I think we're beyond the point when um staff answer questions. So, okay. >> Okay. Just a comment. Okay. Um any other comments? Okay. Then, uh we're going to call the vote. All in favor? That is uh not quite unanimous. And so, the yays and nays. Do we want to record that? Okay. Okay. So, we had uh in the yays we had councelor Vaset, coun councelor row, councelor hammer, uh councelor Wright and councelor bodily. In the nays we had council roach and that is passed. Okay, we are moving on to our next items in the agenda. Um we have consideration of notice of motion given at a previous meeting. None. Um, we have notice of motion. Are there any counselors that had issues that they wanted to raise at this time? I don't think so. Okay. Um, communications and correspondence. None. Unfinished business. None. Questions. Council. Seeing none. New business. Councelor Vasic. Yes. I have two things. Last Saturday, the Button Factory had their Bloom and Grow open house and fundraiser. Um, it's been a long road to get the facility to where it needs to be with its lease, with accessibility upgrades, and also um um just figuring out some of the details of the lease. Uh it's been really complicated, but staff and the Button Factory have worked really hard together to get it to where it is. um with a beautiful revamped space uh and programming that's taken off. Uh new accessible washrooms upstairs. Uh and uh it's just you walk in there and it's like it it has a community art center feel. So it's like really homey and um has a grassroots feel and it also feels like a fancy gallery. you know, it has somehow has incorporated this um uh uh everything uh that you'd get in any art gallery and also keeps that community feel. So, really beautiful space. I would encourage you to go and the fund it's a it was also partially a fundraiser for um some upgrades for a theater space on the main floor and um so there's a a silent auction still open on the site right now. There's some really good things there so you can check it out or share it with people. Um, and I would definitely go check out the space. The members uh exhibit is up right now and you can get to it by going up the elevator and then it's right it's like the upstairs foyer. It's it's gorgeous. Uh, so that's one. And second, uh, the this is also personal, but uh the KW water polo team, the Kraken, did really great uh in the last few weeks. Uh the girls under 16 team played in nationals not this past weekend but the weekend before and came in sixth nationally and uh they were the second top Ontario team. So really impressive. And then last weekend was the under 10 and under 12. Under 10's get a super honorable honorable mention and they played really well and uh fought really hard but didn't win any uh medals but it was a really lively pool uh with the under 10's very enthusiastic parents. Um, and then the under 12, uh, there's two teams, a girls team, they won se silver and then the co-ed team won bronze. So, good showing from our Kraken. Yeah. >> And councelor Ro. >> Uh, thank you through you, chair. Yes. I just wanted to mention that I attended on Wednesday evening reception house waterlue regions recognition banquet which was really fantastic recognizing um community organizations, faith groups who support reception house and the incredible work they do and also the volunteers um whether they volunteer at reception house um or out in the community. I think it is really important at this time to recognize um the incredible contribution that newcomers make to Canada and to our region. Um the um dialogue out there is not positive right now. It tends in times of economic strife that there has to be an other and that often most often uh tends to be focused on newcomers. So, it was a really um enlightening and wonderful um banquet and just a real celebration of the contributions of newcomers. Thank you. >> That's exciting to hear. Thank you for that. Um other counselors, Yep. Council Hammer, >> thank you. Uh, councelor Roach has reminded me that council Roach and I had the privilege of being at Adventure for Change celebration, the gala, which also was a celebration of newcomers, but also entrepreneurs. They were launching and talking about what started out as a the sewing circle, women sewing circle, which now is an a thriving business operating out of St. Jacobs, as well as their their site ated adventure for change. So it it's just fantastic seeing the community support and the input that not just the older people have but the younger group and we saw a lot of that uh at the celebration. So kudos to Adventure for Change as well. >> Thank you for that. I was uh on the weekend um I went out to the Grand Filermonic Orchestra's fundraising uh walk and run in Wateroo Park and they exceeded their fundraising goal by the time they were ready to uh start on their run walk um which was really encouraging. I think they used to be a beneficiary of the Missasaga Marathon and uh with with programming changes in the marathon world uh they had to convene their own event and uh so it's just really really great to see communities wrap around their uh their local organizations and and help them meet their fundraising goal. Um so that was really encouraging to see. Um, I also want to shout out to um a number of local basketball teams who were in Ottawa the weekend before last for provincials and um in my son's division. I'm just going to like shout out to Waterl Wild Hawks. Um it was the top two teams were Kitchener and Waterlue. Yeah. So, um they the unfortunately they faced off um before the championship round and so they uh one team took the other team out, but they still came gold and bronze and there were a number of other KW teams that did extremely well in the U14 category. So, watch out for those those boys. High school basketball is going to get interesting. Um and I think with that we are on to uh we run enactment of bylaws. Oh, that's councelor Bodily and councelor Row. Um, all in favor? Okay, that's carried and then we are on to adjournment. Councelor Row, councelor Vasik, all in favor. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.