Testing 1 2 3. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> We'll get underway in 1 minute. >> We should get underway. Good morning, everyone. Um This is a Oh, sorry. Can I ask for the orders a little bit different? May I ask for roll call, please? >> Uh Chair Liber. >> Here. >> [laughter] >> Vice Chair Gower. >> Here. >> Uh Counselor Blackington. Uh Counselor Curry. >> Here. >> Counselor Dudas. >> Here. >> Counselor Johnson. >> Here. >> Clerk Havenar. >> Present. >> Counselor Kelly. >> Present. >> Councillor Kitts >> Here. >> Councillor Low >> Present. >> Councillor Tierney >> Present. >> Councillor Troster, Councillor Brown >> Here. >> You have quorum, Chair. >> Thank you so much. I know Councillor Brockington is at the Association of Municipalities of of Ontario today and we'll all congratulate him on having been named the president of AMO. So that's big news and great for Ottawa as well. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning by-law amendments listed as items 4.1 to 4.4 on today's agenda. For the items just mentioned, only those specifically identified in the Planning Act who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal if Council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning by-law amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment. To submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by City Council on August 26th, 2026, please email or call the Committee or Council Coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? Nope. Are the minutes of our meeting July 8th, 2026 carried? Thank you. Uh first item up is the official plan amendments and zoning by-law amendment for 1867 Alta Vista Drive. Uh we hadn't been anticipating a presentation. Did members wish to have the presentation? Nope. Um for delegations, there is only the applicant team, Jillian Henderson and Tyler Yakchuck from Boton. Uh if Committee's prepared to carry this item, did you still wish to speak? Nope. Thank you. So colleagues, is that item carried? Boom. The next item is 4.2, the zoning bylaw amendment for 530 Brousseau Crescent and part of 265 Centrum Boulevard. Before we get underway on that one, there is a motion to refer that back to staff at the applicant's request. Vice Chair Gower? >> Thanks, Chair. Whereas the applicant has requested the opportunity to continue discussions with staff regarding the parking concerns raised in the report, therefore be it resolved that the report be referred to staff for consideration at a future meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee at the earliest opportunity where feasible, and be it further resolved that staff be permitted to include if necessary a revised staff report and/or supporting documentation for inclusion in the distribution of the meeting agenda with appropriate notice provided. >> Thank you very much, Vice Chair. We do have a motion for deferral on the table or sorry, referral on the table, so we need to address that before anything else. Did any members wish to speak to referral? Uh Councillor Luloff. >> Thank you very much, Chair. I want to speak in support of the referral motion before us today. I think that referral is the right option for this application, and I appreciate that the applicant has indicated a willingness to go back to the table with city staff and take another look at this proposal. Over the past several months, I've heard significant concerns from residents, nearby businesses, the Heart of Orléans BIA, and other members of the community about this application, and I've raised those concerns with the applicant and with city staff at every opportunity. >> [snorts] >> I've also been working with my colleagues on this committee to make sure that those concerns are understood and taken seriously. These concerns have been particularly focused on parking, traffic, and whether the infrastructure and transportation planning are adequate to support the development a development of this scale. I was prepared to bring forward a motion today to reject the application as submitted because I do not believe that the proposal is ready to move forward in its current form. However, the applicant is now asking for an opportunity to go back to the table and work with city staff to re-evaluate the proposal. I think that we should give them that opportunity. This is not a small development. It has the potential to fundamentally change the landscape of the Orleans Town Centre and former Cumberland Town Centre and the surrounding community. With a development of this scale, we have a responsibility to make sure that the infrastructure and transportation plan are capable of supporting it. Taking additional time now to make sure that we get the proposal right, I believe is worthwhile. I'd much rather see the applicant and the city work through these concerns now and come back with a stronger proposal than to move forward with an application that is not adequately addressed the issues being raised by the community. I'm encouraged that the applicant is willing to take another look at it and I'm hopeful that this will result in meaningful changes. I want to be clear, however, that supporting this referral does not mean that we should be supporting this application as it currently stands. I cannot support this proposal as submitted. My primary concern is whether a development of this scale in the current context of Orleans can function without any identified resident parking. I've also not been able to identify another approved development of comparable scale and density in a suburban community like Orleans with zero resident parking. The application also relies in part on a potential future Orleans Town Centre LRT station that has not yet been built, designed, or funded. We need to make sure that the proposal works with the infrastructure that we have today while appropriately planning for what may come in the future. We cannot simply assume that because provincial planning policies allow for no minimum residential parking requirements near transit that zero parking is automatically the right planning outcome for every site. Orleans is not the downtown core. Many residents may use transit to get to work and still rely on a vehicle for children, shopping, appointments, recreation, and other everyday needs. My hope is that when this application comes back to committee, that we'll be looking at a substantially improved proposal that better reflects the realities of Orleans and addresses the concerns that have been raised, particularly around parking, traffic, and infrastructure. If the applicant comes back with meaningful changes, I will review the revised proposal on its merits, and I hope that you will, too. If they come back with essentially the same proposal, my position will remain unchanged. For today, however, I believe referral gives us the best opportunity to get this right. I encourage my colleagues to support the referral motion to give the applicant and the city staff the time that they need to get back to the table and work through the issues that have been raised by my community. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you very much, Councillor Leelaaf. I think referral is a good move in this case, and I have hopes that it will result in a proposal that the local councillor can better live with. Did any other members wish to speak on referral? Nope. Uh is the referral motion carried? >> Carried. >> Thank you very much. Then we will move on. You would have to take the stick together. Item 4.3 is the zoning by-law amendment and official plan amendment for 250 Town Square Place in Riverside South Findlay Creek. Um we hadn't anticipated a presentation on this one. Did any members wish to receive the presentation? No. Um we don't have any speakers signed up to speak. Uh did any members wish to address the item? No. Is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Thank you Thank you much. There is the zoning bylaw amendment for temporary permissions for supplemental parking. We hadn't anticipated a presentation. There are no speakers signed up to speak. Did anyone wish to receive the presentation? No. Is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Moving on to the remainder of the agenda. We don't have any in camera items. Two items were listed as information previously distributed. There is the Kanata Lakes Golf Course redevelopment. My understanding is that Kathy, sorry, Councillor Curry would like to ask a question and address that briefly. Is that okay with the will of the committee? >> Yes. >> Amazing. Councillor Curry. >> Thank Thank you very much everybody and chair. I first want to thank staff for many things, for all the information they're sending out to the community and for the website that, you know, people can go to now and get a lot more information. So, huge thanks to staff. The other thing I want to say was you are all aware, maybe Councillors Kavanagh and Johnson more than anyone else, what is going on in Kanata right now with the flooding. You know, almost 600 homes and you can imagine my reality when most of them are along the golf course lands. And so, people asking [clears throat] me and and to this report here, is this what's going on on the golf course is not is it did it not affect why our homes have flooded? So, I just wanted to say we I sent that question to staff instantly and General Manager Walls responded instantly and sent inspectors out to the area to look at what was going on. So, like I couldn't be more pleased with that. Obviously, it's a terrible situation what's happening in Kanata with individual homeowners, but the response by staff has been excellent. And so, the question I just want to ask staff, Mr. Chair, is and and let me explain one thing to this committee. We always talk about the 40% agreement. When when we talk about this golf, we talk about the 40% agreement. But there's another document, it's called the covenants, and they run with the land. And the covenants on this land indicate that drainage should not be changed. And and that's that was done for a reason, right? And those covenants are a serious that's a serious document. Uh and the language in there says, you know, the drainage should not be changed because because of all the rock and the water and, you know, the storm water and everything else. Um however, that the reason for that is so that it won't harm any of the houses nearby. And so, when I've asked staff in the past, don't these covenants matter? Like, they seem to be moving a lot of dirt. They need to they seem to be building big piles of gravel. There seems to be drainage changes, is there not? Uh and staff say that yeah well, yes, but not so that it would seriously change the uh impact on the surrounding houses. Well, now we have, you know, almost 600 homes flooded. So, my question to staff is, do we think we should revisit uh what is in those covenants and have a conversation with the developers based on the language in that covenant that simply indicates there can't be impact on neighboring homes, and there seems to have been? >> Chair, I may look to legal to speak to the ability to renegotiate covenants that are existing. >> Mr. Chair, in order to be able to take any action relying on the covenants, we would need an engineer, perhaps more than one engineer, and to first reach a conclusion that there has been a negative impact. As as as the council noted, it's not that you just can't change the drainage on the site. You can't change the drainage as to negatively impact uh uh the situation there. And so [clears throat] uh I I I acknowledge the flooding has occurred, but we would need evidence of causation, and that can only be provided by an engineer, Mr. Chair. >> And maybe uh with the chair's permission, I'll just uh follow up on that. So, um we at the city have hired third-party experts uh in both drainage and environmental um science to support our analysis and peer review the work that we get from um the the proponents here uh to make sure that the city's interests are protected. In the case of of the water side and the the drainage issues, we are proactively we hired the consulting team to proactively explore drainage in the area uh overall before we get a first report because we think that'll be several months um away. So, we wanted to proactively have a city position on the the way drainage functions in this area, how it's intended to function. We will certainly uh take the question back as it relates to the covenants in particular, but uh our next newsletter to the community is intended to report updates on the work that both of those uh consulting teams have done in the last few months and and continue to share what we what we know. So, I would say it's a live question around and we are doing the engineering and technical work that uh legal counsel just referenced. >> Great. And that brings me to this huge thanks to all of you who voted for the uh ability for staff to do that. And you know, we none of us knew this was going to happen, but the fact that the city is actually has hired a third-party peer reviewing uh group of engineers to look at this has been hugely helpful. So, I just really want to thank everybody. You know, we we couldn't have known this, but that was a very smart move on all of our parts. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, Councillor Curry. Did anyone else wish to address this item? Nope. Uh do we need to say that it's received? Perfect. In that case, item 7.1 is the motion by Councillor uh Steve Derose to renaming of Mosquito Drive to McEvoy Drive. Uh did anyone wish to address this item? Nope. Is [snorts] that item carried? Thank you. Are there any notices of motion for our next meeting? Are there any inquiries? Nope. We don't have any other business. We are adjourned until September 2nd, 2026. Thank you very much, colleagues. >> Thank you. >> Mhm.