Good evening everyone and I welcome you to this meeting of the planning and development council of the town of Oakville. Um, as we begin, uh, behalf of the council and the town, I want to offer our condolences to Council Mark Pinazado's family, his friends, his colleagues, and his teammates, and to the many people across our community he touched as a coach and a trainer with the Oakville Blades and the Rangers. Four days ago, Constable Penotto, 43 years old, did not come home to his family. He was killed in the line of duty serving the city of Toronto doing work that most of us will never have to do. His chief said it plainly and I quote, "No words can capture what that means to a family who expected him to come home." And in his honor, I'd like to ask for a moment of silence. Thank you everybody. Madam clerk, do we have any regrets this evening? >> No regrets, Mayor Burton. >> Thank you very much. Uh councelor, are there any declarations of of conflict of interest? Madame Clerk, there are none. Council, uh, could we get a mover and seconder to accept the minutes of the regular session of the planning and development council from June 1st? Councelor Dunuk and councelor Giddings. Thank you. Any objection? There being none, Madame Clerk, the minutes are adopted. We have uh one consent item, the Canada Ontario Development Charges Reduction Program. And uh we have staff available if there are questions. I would like to uh just set this up first. If uh if we do not wish to participate, the proper motion is to receive the report. If a member of council wants council to consider participating, then the proper motion would be to uh move a motion that we apply or that we make an application. Councelor Elgger, I see your hand. >> Uh Mayor Burton. Yes. Thank you. And I'd like to thank staff for the report and how it was written. Um I don't think people realize just what kind of gifts we're getting lately from the province and the federal government, but it started in 1997 with the development charges act where we automatically had to sub subsidize 10% for the cost to growth. Then it went on with bill 108 in in 2019 and I think we got it from our commissioner at the end of the year that that has cost us 22.3 million. Then you move on to bill 23 and so far that's cost us 14 million. And then we have a parkland freeze dedication cut back of 21 million. So we're at over 57.7 million. And you look at what they they're proposing right now with this marvelous little additional bill. Even the AMO and CHC state that they estimate only 1 to 5% of the project will become viable with a 50 to 60% reduction in DC's. And I could go on and on, but I think the classical term is we receive and put it in a circular file. But I think this one we should receive and fill file horizontally. And I commend staff for not coming up with anything different than that. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Uh councelor Dick. >> Thank you. So the motion is to receive. Uh is there any objection? Madame clerk. There's no objection. The motion is received. Um we are welcome councelor null. Um, we're we're going to I'm announcing that our the public presentation item 13.1 which we had scheduled for tonight is being rescheduled for a later meeting. And uh and that brings us to the confidential consent item. Uh I would suggest that the based on advice from legal I would I would suggest that the thing to do here is just to move in public to receive the report. Could I have that motion? Councelor Adams and seconded by councelor Hllettal. Thank you. Is there any objection? Madame clerk, there being no objection, that is received. Um that brings us to item u 7.1. This is our public hearing item. Uh there's a public meeting report for 3043 sixth line and uh this is an application for an official plan amendment and uh uh also a zoning change if I read this correctly. uh we have so first I'll explain to the public who may be watching that the purpose of this uh session is not to make a decision on the application but to have the applicant explain it in public and for the council in public to share their concerns about it so that planning staff can make note of those concerns and uh and deal with them in their subsequent recommendation report which will follow in due course. So we will start with a presentation by Mr. Paul Damch who's acting for the applicant and uh and then we'll hear from our two registered delegations and I will poll the audience for additional after that. Mr. Damch, welcome. It's good to see you again. >> Uh good evening Mayor Burton and members of council. Uh thank you. I have prepared a brief presentation for this evening. Uh so my name is Paul Demchek with Ptori Planning and Management. I am the planning consultant here on behalf of the applicant. I'll note that the owner of the property is Mutual Developments and Sweeney and co-architects are the principal architects on the project and and so the mayor correctly pointed out that this application uh this evening is uh recommended uh that is being recommended. There is no decision being recommended for the meeting and it's intended to provide for an opportunity for feedback from the public and more importantly for uh us as the project team to intake that feedback uh from staff uh the public and commenting agencies. So the subject site at 30 436 line is located on the east side of six line north of Dundas Street East in North Oakville. The roughly rectangular uh site measures 0.33 hectares in area and it's located adjacent to Parsonage Pond to the east of the site and Muns United Church to the south. I'll explain a bit more of the existing and planned context in a a future slide. And so the proposed development um it replaces an existing single detached dwelling on the property with a new mid-rise residential development uh containing a six-story podium uh being 22.5 m in height and a 12story overall height uh being at 43.7 m with just over 12,000 square meters of gross floor area and a total of 165 dwelling units. I will note that the client has been working with the region of Halton to secure up to 90 uh of the 165 units as both affordable and deeply affordable housing units. In terms of the programming of the site, a small surface parking area for visitors is located at the rear of the site and two uh under levels of underground parking are proposed with a total of 128 parking spaces as well as 208 bicycle parking spaces. Vehicular access to the site is proposed via six line um and has been cited to align with the opposite intersection at Keating Trail and servicing areas are relegated to the rear of the site and screened by the building to minimize impact on the public realm. Indoor and outdoor amenity spaces are proposed within the development including at grade uh space um as well as to provide a transitional buffer element to the natural heritage uh system to the east. I'll note that a larger many area is also being proposed on the sevenstory uh to take advantage of the six-story rooftop terrace. Again, notably, the proposal includes over 60% of units as larger unit types um being at least two bedrooms in size. So just briefly in terms of the planning context uh so within the uh regional official plan the site is within a primary regional node and regional intensification corridor associated with Dundas Street which is intended for future bus rapid transit within the town of Oakville official plan. It is within the nodes and corridors and residential areas designation and specifically when the within the north Oakville East secondary plan. It's within the Dundas Street urban core and neighborhood center area designations that is split essentially 50/50 on the property. Uh I'll note that the urban core designations uh reflect the most urban part of the North Oakville East secondary plan area and these areas are intended to permit the densest development and highest order activities including a full range of residential, retail and service commercial um entertainment, cultural, business and institutional uses and mixed use development is generally encouraged in this designation. I'll just note that within the specific policies uh for the Dundas urban core designation, building heights are generally a maximum of eight stories. Um however, uh section 7622 notes that increases up to four stories beyond the maximum permitted height exclusive of bonusing may be considered where they are adjacent to a storm water management pond. Just in terms of the zoning um so the town of Oakville zoning bylaw 2009-189 which applies to the site um sets out the standards for how land is to be used and developed. It includes regulations including permitted uses, scale of buildings, minimum maximum lot sizes and parking requirements among others. And uh the zoning bylaw uh does help implement the policies of the town's official plan. And as you can see here, the site is zoned uh FD or future development and a zoning amendment is required to bring the site into conformity with those upper tier policy documents that I just mentioned. Just briefly in terms of sustainability. So there's a number of components and features um sustainable features that the project is obviously considering through some of the detailed uh design considerations uh and future site plan applications intended for the proposal. Um the proposal obviously uh also takes into consideration some sustainability components in terms of looking at uh shadow impacts in terms of its public realm interface uh minimal parking EV charges uh potential geothermal uh and green roof components within the building and it's looking at to obviously develop this into a higher energy model building. I will also note it's uh this building is supportive of the intended transportation network um along Dundas Street that I'd mentioned. Uh just briefly in terms of public consultation, uh this is actually the second owner of the property um with multiple design considerations that I have been a part of in meeting with uh numerous public information meetings in the past um on this property and obviously we are here with um uh with this current application this evening. Uh this includes also multiple pre-conultation meetings with town of Oakville staff and the most recent public information meeting on uh May 7th of of 2025. I'll note that at that meeting there was um 18 participants in attendance um and a number of uh topics that we did cover that I've just covered in this slide. Um I did I will note that uh there's been a number of obviously letters of concern and opposition um that were submitted as part of this application. I have had a chance to review those and and we will consider continue to consider those comments um within our uh design and detailed discussions with town staff. So just in terms of the um evolving context um there's a number of properties within obviously proximity to the site um in some cases obviously you can see within extremely close proximity. So just to the west of the site is 30006 line and 21 Dundas Street West. I'll note that this was approved for a series of eight and a nstory building um which is located on the west side of six line uh just southwest of the the subject site this evening. Uh other sites just generally speaking on Dundas Street in many cases are also mid-rise in context and you can see there's a series of higherrise towers uh located on the Trafoger Road corridor which are both um approved and in some cases uh under construction. Um this concludes my presentation. Uh we appreciate the opportunity to present the subject application and we look forward to comments and questions um from council and the public this evening. Thank you very much. >> Mr. Dechuk, thank you very much for your usual professional presentation. Do you have questions? Councelor Shia. >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. Um thank you for the presentation. So I remember uh the public information meeting uh happened last year. We got a residence and councelor Nanda and I we were there. So we asked a lot of question and residents raised many concern about the height. So I remember that time is eight stories. So now would you tell me what's the reason and what's the what's going on you now is apply for 12. >> Thank you to you mayor Burton. Um one of the reasons for the additional height is obviously there's a there's obviously a market component to this. Um, but I I made the comment earlier, the original building at the time at eight stories was intended to be a condominium project. This project is now looking at doing um rental units and in this case a potentially significant number of affordable rental units. The client has actually worked um and is structuring a partnership with the region of Halton right now. They provide for both a letter of support with the application and allocation for up to 50 um deeply affordable housing units with an additional 40 units that are um I'll call it generally affordable u with the balance being market rental units. Um there's also the policies of the North Oakville East Secondary Plan which were considered and I I made a comment about that policy earlier in my presentation where on sites where in North Oakville within that um Dundas urban core uh land use designation where the heights as I mentioned are permitted up to eight stories additional height can be considered uh where you're looking at it up to up to four stories without bonusing provisions. And this location when we looked at the shadow study impacts and I I've got a series of those which I'm happy to walk through if needed. Um this building at 12 stories actually performs exceptionally well in terms of shadow impacts. The nearest single detached dwelling for example uh to the northeast of the site is just over 77 meters away from the property where in this case you have a building height of only just under 44 meters that I noted. Um and so the building performs very well from a height perspective which went into some of the design considerations uh for the project. Okay. Um I still have a question later. So yes, so far now. Thank you. >> Thank you counselor. Counselor now. >> Thank you through you, Mayor Burton. Uh thank you for the presentation. Uh just continuing on to what he was saying. Actually, can you go to your second last slide because that was one of the questions, one of the things I wanted to bring to your attention actually. So, just just looking at the um the recent development that was approved um where you're showing that there's going to be an eightstory building, there's actually going to be a Shoppers Drug Mart there first. And historically, what we see is a lot of these kind of retail places stay there for a very, very long time. So, putting that aside, um I was going to also bring to your attention that every other site that you've put here shows that it's on a regional road. So, all of these are either on Dundas or Trafalar on regional roads where they can take up higher density. whereas your proposal is on one of our arterial roads inside of Dundas. So, one of the concerns is traffic. How do you h how do you look at traffic? Because one of the concerns that came up in the meeting was how do you expect people to make turns in and out of your building? >> Thank you. Through you, Mayor Burton. Uh traffic has been obviously assessed um from our transportation consultant um and in that study it obviously supported the proposed density and supported traffic movements. I do understand there's some comments that we are still awaiting for uh from the town from a transportation review perspective. um depending on obviously those comments and if there are concerns from the town uh obviously it's the onus is on us to address those uh comments and concerns and we did obviously look at from a number of perspectives not only traffic but also parking um I I think this came up in the the public information meeting as well where we talked about um the deficiency of parking um or the concerns about deficiency of parking. I'll note that this property albeit not as you've noted not with on specifically on Dundas it's one property in the north within a identical land use designation which again intends for these higher density uses to be located within um and as part of that there's actually um no minimum parking requirements there's only maximum requirements specifically for visitor parking uh within that designation it's intended obviously for those more dense buildings and dense uses to be located obviously within close proximity to to Dundas to support the future intended transportation. Um but notwithstanding those comments um I hear the concerns about transportation and parking and we'll continue to review that with the town. >> Okay. So having the parking issues, why do we now have less parking spaces than units? >> You have 128 versus 165 units. So why do we have less parking now? That's that's correct. And there is less parking spaces than units. Again, the 2009 Oakville North Oakville bylaw doesn't actually have any minimum standards for parking. Um, in theory, there could be much less parking and it's a my, as I understand it, obviously when that bylaw was drafted, it's intended to obviously function uh based on what the demand for potential parking is and again to support like future transit infrastructure. Um I can't speak to obviously all the other developments that are shown on the screen here. I don't know if all of those have um more parking or less parking. Um I can only just comment on obviously the policy and planning context. >> Okay. Um and in terms of uh affordable housing, you said you've had some discussions with regional. So what's what's the difference between moderate and deeply affordable? How do we know what is what? Uh that is a great question and objectively I will note that there's varying definitions across the greater Toronto area for how affordable housing is uh being used but for the purposes of this meeting I will specifically refer to the um Halton region of Halton uh definitions that have been provided. And so um let me just pull this up. So they refer to affordable housing uh is housing with a market price um that is affordable to low and moderate income individuals and households spending approximately 30% of their total household income on housing without government assistance. And then assisted housing or um deeply affordable housing is how I'll refer to it. Um is what is referred to as uh affordable to low and moderate income individuals and households where a portion of the housing cost is subsidized uh through a government program. And in this case, the region's direct role in the housing continuum, as they refer to it, is focused on assisted housing by providing funding to create these assistive and supportive housing uh for low-income residents. uh they are generally operated in in many cases by nonprofit or community housing sectors and affordability is uh secured for long-term in this case it would be up to 25 years of grants provided by the region. >> So what was your ratio between having moderate and deeply affordable housing? How many units? >> So uh 40 units being affordable and up to 50 units being deeply affordable. >> Okay. And then can you just go back to how you referenced the storm water management? And I'm not sure if this is a question for staff as well. How you were saying that being next to a storm water um management uh storm water pond is the reason the developers decided to add more stories. >> Yes. So um just briefly and I'll just uh cite the specific section. So, it's section 7622A5 within the North Oak Police secondary plan and it says increases of up to four stories in height beyond the maximum permitted building height exclusive of bonusing may be considered where adjacent to a storm water management pond. And so, that is the policy reference that was used um when looking at additional height on this site. >> Okay. So, if our planning staff could just look into that a little bit more if we could get more information on that. Um I am going to say we do still have concerns. Um one last question. You were also referencing having um how many meters away having a detached home? >> Uh approximately 77 m um to the closest detached house to the northeast of the site. >> Okay. >> But the houses across the street are town houses and those are still homes and people still live in those. So whether it's detached or not of who lives across the street and who doesn't, you know, we consider that all of our residents should be able to live in a community that they're happy with. Um and so we there's still concerns of shadows coming onto them and and concerns of traffic and um you know higher density over density within a neighborhood um that has low rise right across the street. Um so if our planning staff could take note of that as well. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Councelor Mcnes. Thank you uh through your worship. Um just about the uh moderately affordable and deeply affordable units. So that's 50 plus 40 so 90 out of the 65 units. Is that correct? >> Yes, that that is correct. >> Okay. Uh so just a question to staff and I don't expect we have the answer now but um if there could be a report back how do we ensure um that that is actually what what happens and gets registered on title as opposed to us p uh approving it at the next meeting conceptually and something changes and then become market rate. So not sure if we have an answer now, but just on the report back if we we could understand what those asurances are that we would have on a or you know before the appeal date I'm assuming is when it comes back. Um that would be my question. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor McN. Um Mr. Demjek I think we've exhausted the questions for you. Thank you very much for your presentation. Madam clerk, would you call the registered delegations, please? >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. Uh, the first registered delegation is Wagi Gerggas. >> Well, perhaps, Madam Clerk, you'd like to call the next. The next registered delegation is Pierre Sveso. >> Mr. Sovou. >> All right. Uh are there any members from the public who are attending on online or in person who have information uh that they'd like to share with uh council and staff? All right. I'll uh in that case I'll confine it to table and uh I'll look for the motion that comments from the public with respect to the proposed official plan amendment and council um and zoning bylaw amendment submitted by 3043 sixline GP Inc. be received and that staff consider such comments as have been provided and that's moved by councelor McNiss and councelor Shia any objection clerk that's carried that brings us 7.2 two. This is a public meeting and recommendation report for the town initiated official plan amendment 76 339 and Halton region official plan amendment one employment area review and uh uh I we're going to hear uh registered delegations um the uh we have a presentation by Ceda Ganisan our planner to set the context uh we'll we'll hear from her first uh but to relieve anybody of surprise at the end. Um, I believe the council intends to defer this back to staff to consider the voluminous uh comments that we've received uh and uh to report back with a recommendation report at a later date. And uh with with all uh with all due respect to the chances and and changes of life, I would expect that would be before the end of the summer and literally before the middle of August. Um Miss Ganistan, please uh you have the floor. We look forward to the presentation. >> Thank you, Mayor Burton and members of council. Uh the purpose of this report is to present the recommendations for town initiated official plan amendments to the town's employment areas. These official plan amendments are a direct response to provincial legislative changes through bill 97 the helping home buyers protecting tenants act 2023 which changed the definition of area of employment in the planning act. The provincial changes to the planning act and the provincial planning statement 2024 came into effect on October 20th, 2024 and represent a major shift in land use planning policy. As part of this, the province made changes to allow for employment area removal requests, which were previously called conversions, to be made at any time. Oakville has a very diverse employment base that includes a broad range of employment uses throughout its current employment areas. Under the previous more inclusive uh provincial definition of area of employment, the town's employment areas all aligned with the definition and therefore were protected for employment uses. The town's employment areas are not currently aligned with the new more exclusive provincial definition and therefore the lands may no longer be protected for employment. The transition provision in the planning act also cannot currently apply as it requires an official plan amendment for it to be implementable. This has the potential to have a big impact on economic development in the town. The 2025 employment areas review study report showed that the number of jobs in the town is forecast to increase by approximately 74,000 by 20. At the same time, the town is projected to have an employment land deficit of 209 hectares before 201. Employment lands are often referred to as a finite land resource because it's not typical to see them expand. So knowing that there will be a deficit makes it imperative to preserve employment lands for employment uses and the planned function of the urban structure to be able to continue to provide space for jobs and economic growth while maintaining livability and land use compatibility. One reason to retain as much of our areas of employment as possible is that businesses in the town's key sectors require the type of space available in employment areas for their operation such as advanced manufacturing and health and life sciences. Maintaining and growing these employment opportunities across these key sectors uh provides additional opportunities for residents to work locally versus commuting to surrounding areas in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. Contiguous employment areas, including areas that may be occupied by lawfully established uses, encourage clusters of businesses that can promote innovation while avoiding donut holes and compliance issues between traditional employment uses and potential sensitive land uses. When the town implements the provincial changes, the town can meet its obligation under the PPS 2024 to protect employment areas now and for the future. and council can make the final decision on the removal of lands from the employment area in line with Oakville's long-term land supply needs. Greater stability increases the certainty around the supply of employment lands. A more stable land supply means that Oakville remains competitive and attractive for investment and economic development, which means more jobs are retained and created locally. More jobs in town means more complete communities and fewer commuters, which in turn lowers our overall greenhouse gas emissions. Staff last came before council on December 8th, 2025 to prevent the or to present the draft official plan amendments based on the employment areas review. These recommendations we are bringing forward now stem from revisions made following extensive consultation with council, town staff, and the public. There are three official plan amendments, one for each of the town's official plans. The scope of these three OPAs was limited to employment area policies and designations in the town's official plans. Those being the Livable Oakville plan, the North Oakville East secondary plan, and the official plan of the regional municipality of Halton. The purpose of these official plan amendments is to implement those provincial changes to protect and maintain the land supply for employment uses and growth in the council approved urban structure to 2015 and beyond and to direct residential and employment growth to appropriate locations. The urban structure is the basis for the location of employment areas in the town and reflects a long-term land supply for housing that is planned in better locations with respect to transit and amenities. Currently, there are five different employment designations across the official plans that fall within the employment areas element of the urban structure. All these designations aligned with the previous definition of area of employment. These official plan amendments recommend two designations that are the same for both the Liverpool Oakville plan and the North Oakville East Secondary Plan. The core employment designation will align with the new provincial definition of area of employment which includes lawfully established uses while the new diversified employment designation is for a wider range of employment uses. The specific locations of permitted uses will be provided by the zoning bylaw. So not all of the permitted uses within a designation will be allowed throughout each of the new designations. And just note that these designations were called employment area and employment generating and supporting area in the draft ops which were presented at the stat public meeting on December 8th, 2025. And these names were changed to core employment and diversified employment. In addition to the name changes since the December statutory public meeting, revisions to the draft OPAs included a new directive policy for redesating lands from the Parkway belt in the event of the revocation of the Parkway Belt West Plan, strengthened land use compatibility policies through alignment with the existing D6 guidelines and the PPS 2024, and rem revised removal and redesignation criteria for the new employment designations to better align with the language and intent of the PPS 2024. These removal criteria for core employment and redesation criteria for diversified employment are a direct response to the policies of the PPS 2024. As I mentioned at the beginning, one of the big changes from the province is that a request to remove lands from the employment area can now be initiated outside of a m municipal comprehensive review. This means that an applicant can initiate a sightspecific application to redesate employment area lands at any time. At the same time, the PPS requires planning authorities to plan for, protect, and preserve employment lands for the long term. Therefore, the policies include robust sets of criteria for assessing these removal requests. This process is now the appropriate process for sight specific requests. In terms of schedule revisions, certain lands in North Oakville were revised to reflect public and internal comments. Lands in the northwest abuing uh Polarmo were revised from core employment to diversified employment to address land use compatibility and existing approvals for a transit terminal which you can see circled in black. In the northeast, two areas were revised following comments to adjust the redesation of lands to core employment and diversified employment. Areas of diversified employment were added abudding Dundas Street to provide more opportunities for employment generating and supporting uses in keeping with the boundaries of the existing transitional area and to better address compatibility with residential designations to the south of Dundes. The original intent of the transitional area was to act as a buffer between the employment designation and the residential designations. The diversified employment designation works with the transitional area to fulfill that intent and provide the buffer between core employment and neighborhoods south of Vernon Thorp to address the projected employment land deficit and because of the separation from sensitive land uses by the NHS land south of William Hton Parkway were added to core employment. The mapping was also updated to reflect an existing institutional designation. Underpinning this work are key provincial policies and directions. The first of these is the transition provision provided by the planning act which prevents lawfully established uses to continue as permitted uses in an area of employment if the use was lawfully established prior to October 20th, 2024. Planning staff's interpretation of lawfully established as the applicable zoning bylaw allows municipalities to continue to permit the full range of uses and property rights for land owners that existed prior to the change to area of employment where a zoning bylaw was in place. Thus offering an appropriate level of continued flexibility for development and redevelopment without downzoning lands retained within core employment. It also provides an opportunity to continue to provide area of employment lands that are predominantly or partially industrial in nature, but also provide for employment uses that are supportive of industry and an appropriate transition to adjacent non-employment areas to ensure land use compatibility and economic viability. Through this, this approach provides certainty to existing businesses and allows the town to meet requirements under the PPS to plan for, protect, and preserve employment areas in proximity to major goods movement facilities and supports the town's economic development goals. The second key provincial direction was the incorporation of the province's D6 compatibility between industrial facilities or the D6 guidelines. These guidelines provide minimum separation distances for three classes of industrial facilities. The guidelines are already currently in use at the town to assess the separation and impact of industrial facilities and sensitive land uses. As per section 4.4 of the guidelines, there are different ways of measuring this separation distance in the town. This is measured uh by the guidelines uh providing for uh measured from property to property line for a class one, two or three facility from a sensitive land use where there is no existing industrial facility within the area designated or zoned for an industrial land use. The determination of the potential influence area is based on a hypothetical worst case scenario. The new land use compatibility policies and requirements are based on how the D6 guidelines are used and applied today and apply to industrial uses within employment lands and to sensitive land uses within mixed use areas where they are in proximity to each other. So the policies work both ways. On the core employment side, major facilities or class 3 facilities are restricted within 300 meters of residential land use designations. So this is for new major facilities. On the mixed use side to protect uh economic viability as per the PPS, new sensitive land uses may not be permitted within 300 meters of core employment. [snorts] The May language here is key. Sensitive land uses can be still permitted within this ban. They are not restricted outright, but it will depend on the intensity of the uh existing or future core employment uses and land use compatibility assessments that may require mitigation measures. This also helps to protect future residents of mixeduse areas from land use compatibility conflicts. When staff bring forward a comprehensive zoning bylaw amendment as the next step of this work, part of the project will be determinate or will be to determine if it's appropriate to zone lands within 300 meters of mixeduse areas for lighter industrial uses so that these mixeduse areas would only need to plan for a class one or two facility. Where there is no specific official plan policy in place when proposing an industrial facility in proximity to existing or planned sensitive land uses, the D6 guidelines would continue to apply as they do today. Furthermore, the land use compatibility assessment referred to in these policies is only a continuation of the existing policies and planning process. Section 30 uh.19.3 of livable Oakville lists studies that may be required as part of a complete application. These studies are already plan part of the planning process for industrial facilities and can be required for uh applications for mixeduse development such as in the Bronte go MTSA. These OPAs formalize this and make the requirement consistent between the livable Oakville plan and the North Oakville East secondary plan. >> [clears throat] >> These [snorts] new policies create additional safeguards for residents where a residential land use abuts core employment. Although the core employment designation has broad permissions for industrial uses, a new major facility that meets criteria under the new land use compatibility policies would not be permitted within 300 meters of a residential land use designation. An official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment application would both be required to develop this kind of use within this band. This would follow the planning process that is currently in place in that these applications would need to come before council for a decision. For any lighter industrial uses within this band, the D6 guidelines would still apply and depending on the inact zoning, a zoning bylaw amendment application may be required. Altogether, the approach of the official plan amendments achieves the following. It upholds the urban structure and ensures the long-term provision of space for residents and jobs to 2015 and beyond. It implements the new provincial planning regime while maintaining Oakville's diverse employment base. It meets the provincial intent of the changes by removing lands from the protected area of employment. It retains all the flexibility and rights currently afforded to property owners where zoning permissions were in place prior to October 20th, 2024. It mitigates land use compatibility conflicts by defining and restricting heavier land uses. And it supports the creation of complete communities by preserving space for jobs in the town that is accessible to transportation and transit. For the past seven years, Oakville has been listed as one of Canada's top 20 regions to invest. The approach of these OPAs will help ensure that Oakville remains a top choice fueled by stability, strong investments, new businesses, and job creation. This work is a first step toward maintaining the integrity of Oakville's employment lands. In terms of next steps, a comprehensive zoning bylaw amendment will need to follow the adoption of these OPAs. Staff will also be developing a growth monitoring frame framework for the supply and utilization of the town's employment lands. The goal would be to update these data every 5 years. And finally, bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act 2026 reached Royal Ascent on June 2nd, 2026. So this work will be updated to align with the new streamlined official plans framework under the planning act and incorporated into the official plan review that is currently underway. This concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much for your your presentation. Um councelor, are there any questions? >> All right. Um madame clerk, would you please call the delegations? >> Thank you, Mayor Burton. The first delegation is Denise Baker. >> [clears throat] >> Welcome, Miss Baker. >> Council looks forward to your information. >> Thank you very much and uh good evening to all of you. Um long time no see for many of you. Um so I'm going to truncate what I was going to say by saying that uh we support uh the potential deferral that uh that you mentioned at the outset of this. Uh Mr. Mr. Mayor, uh we think that is appropriate in order to deal with a number of our outstanding issues. Um but before I do that, I just want to touch on just a couple of things very very briefly because we we believe that the deferral would give us an opportunity to to discuss some key issues. Um the first being the purpose of the core employment designation. The second being uh planning staff's interpretation of lawfully established and then the third being what we see as a fundamental uh policy gap. Um that is in both uh both official plans in terms of the location of some core employment designated lands directly abuing or adjacent to existing uh residential areas. Um, as I always like to say, the best stories are always told at the at the beginning. So, I'm just going to ask for a little bit of indulgence to talk about why these changes to employment area protections occurred. And and to do that, um, I'm going to, uh, use the overhead projector. Um, I'm going old school with the overhead to talk about, um, when bill 97 when the decision was issued on Bill 97. And I'm wondering if we could um operate the overhead >> directly. Just be patient. >> Thank you. I will. And so you'll see this is the environmental um the erra ero posting from the environmental registry when the province made its decision on bill 97 back in June 16th, 2023. And I'm not sure why it's shaking, but just bear with me. And I think of note, what is the most important thing to note here is the provision that talks about the changes to the employment area protections. And the the purpose of the changes to employment area protections was to modify the definition of area of employment to only include heavy industry and other employment uses that cannot be located near sensitive land uses i.e. not suitable for mixed use. to scope the applicability of existing provisions which limit appeals of municipal refusals and non-decisions. So that's the purpose behind this to only include heavy indust industry and other employment uses that can't be located near sensitive land uses. And the staff report has translated the employment area definition to the core employment in the official plan amendments that are before you. Which means that you read this as saying those in core employment designations are to only include heavy industry and other employment uses that cannot be located near sensitive land uses. That is not what these official plan amendments do. And so we would like an opportunity to speak to staff about that premise as to why those official plan amendments do not do what the province intended. Also briefly, we'd like an opportunity to speak to staff on their interpretation of lawfully established, which I submit to all of you doesn't accord to the basic rules of statutory interpretation. And of course, as as everybody knows, the basic rules of staff staff interpretation is that you have to read the act not only as it is intended, but with the plain uh words that are on the page. And one of my challenges with staff's interpretation of um of the lawfully established is the fact that it ignores this concept of continuation of a use and staff has taken the position you can see this is uh directly from the planning act as you can see the last page uh section one uh sub 1.1 in order for it to be an area of employment it includes uh parcels of land that are subject to official plan policies authorizing the continuation of a use. It doesn't authorize the continuation of a permission for a use as set out in the zoning bylaw. It authorizes the continuation of the use. And the purpose of this was to protect those uses that exist. But what staff has done is are purporting to protect uses or include uses in the core employment that don't exist but that might exist or could exist perhaps one day but that don't currently exist. And I submit to you that is going to create a big policy gap for you because I don't actually think you have any protected core employment areas under the definition of in the PPS and under the planning act. And I think that that has resulted in a large policy gap um that creates very uh unintended consequences for um the unintended consequences in the official plan amendments that are before you. And so it's for those reasons, and I'll keep it brief there, that I think that there needs to be a wholesome discussion with staff on those key points and on the points of where these heavy industrial uses are supposed to go and why in many locations in the town, they're proposed to go directly abuing or adjacent to existing residential uses. Well, Miss Baker, could you uh for the benefit of the public and those of us who are maybe not lawyers or planners, tease out a little bit of meaning for this phrase policy gap and and help us understand what that means? >> Uh thank you, sir. And and through you uh to the rest of council. I think the policy gap exists that in the event that the um the core employment area in fact is not considered an area of employment under the planning act, you've actually left a hole in your policies in terms of the conversion of those lands because the conversion policies under the PPS only apply if you're an employment area. And I submit to you by allowing uses that are outside of the definition of an employment area, those conversion policies don't apply and you're making yourself actually susceptible to conversions and and that is in fact has happened before the tribunal in a case out in Hamilton um where they didn't meet the definition and the lands in fact were converted. So in fact, you're suggesting that we will have failed in our purpose of protecting employment lands by not being as careful as we should have been about what we consider an employment use to be permitted. Certainly if that is the objective then I I always hesitate to say failed but so because there's always an opportunity to improve it before you failed but if you pass it it is as it is I don't believe you'll have achieved your objective. >> Uh thank you for the euphemism. I'll use that from [laughter] now on. Uh councelor Delick has a question for you. >> Thank you u your worship. Not a question but thank you. Thank you for coming out tonight and expressing your concerns. Am I correct in assuming that your comments were that you would be very pleased to meet with staff to address some of the issues you brought to light this evening? Um, thank you councelor Dick and through you your worship. Absolutely. We'd be very pleased to meet with staff. Um, one of the things I note, I've read all the comments that were submitted, all 200 pages of them, and what I do note is that you have some of the best land use planners in the province involved in this file and including many of whom are your own staff. And I think I will tell you there's a better way and there's a better way that will achieve your objectives that represent good planning. And I think that's the key starting point. It has to represent good planning as opposed to either trying to avoid uh statutory rights of appeal or anything like that. Our starting point should be good planning and you have the right people at the table to do that. >> Always nice to have you here versus somewhere else later on. Thank you. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> Thank you, councelor Del Councelor Hazatil. >> Uh thank you through you, Mayor Burton. Uh nice to see you tonight and thank you for your time early this morning. um and for clarifying some of the opportunities uh before we fail um uh in uh what's been written. Uh so the refer back tonight is um does reflect uh some of that conversation um and the opportunities that you've identified and uh I'm not sure about the timing. the mayor has indicated some timing, but um please if you can make yourself available, I think you'll be very helpful in us getting to the next step. >> Thank you. And and through you uh your worship, we'll absolutely make ourselves available uh to make we're we're aware of the timelines and and we'll make ourselves available certainly. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Baker, very much. Madam Clerk, would you call the next delegation? Uh >> next delegation is Ruth Victor. Welcome, Miss Victor. We look forward to your information. >> Thank you. My name is Ruth Victor. I'm the land use planner for NOCBY. There is a submission before you tonight from Loopster Nixon on behalf of NOCBY. All of the members of NOCBY are set out within schedule A to that letter and equally a number of the members of NOCBY have provided separate submissions to you outlining their concerns as they relate to their specific parcels of land. Miss Baker did an outstanding job doing a highlight overview of what the issues are. I'm just going to focus in on one very specific issue that is outlined within the NA submissions that have been provided by NOCBY. There is one specific policy proposed section 76824 which states the following policies apply to lands 300 meters outside of land's designated core employment. To protect the operational and economic viability of existing and future major facilities notwithstanding the permitted uses, new sensitive land uses may not be permitted within mixed use designations. What we are talking about as being the primary issues that we're looking at is the municipality. We support the fundamental objective of employment within the town and meeting your job targets. We support the creation of housing and residential um opportunities here. The municipality through this OPA through staff and what's come forward today is proposing core employment designation immediately adjacent to the Niagawa urban corps immediately adjacent to the trfala urban core immediately adjacent to the transition area designation. As you can see from that policy, where that designation immediately abuts those designations which would otherwise permit residential uses, those residential uses will not be allowed within 300 meters of that designation boundary. In essence, it's a removal of the current permissions such as in the TRFER urban core where applications recently have been approved for residential land uses. other applications in process proposing mixed land uses also residential land uses within that proximate area. We're creating a fundamental conflict between the overall objectives for those m mixeduse designations and the proposed core employment land use. Because of that, we have throughout the whole planning process coming to these OPAs before you have been actively engaged with staff, continue to offer to be engaged with staff if this matters referred back to them. This is a very significant important issue for the members of NOCBI and we do believe that there is a resolution. We believe that there is a very good path forward as one might say that does represent good planning that meets all of our needs and will come up with the best way for all of us to work together as we move forward. Thank you, >> Miss Victor. Thank you. Um uh I just want to add that on behalf of council that it's important to us too the urban growth centers and the and the growth corridors are where the prime directive of the livable Oakville plan directs growth and intensification in order to achieve our primary goal which is to conserve the character of our stable established neighborhood streets to the extent that we reduce the capacity of our urban of our growth quarters and our growth nodes, we hasten the day when we can no longer hold that line. And so I believe you're going to find that all of us share and I believe staff do as well uh the urgency of the need to come to a solution to the problem. >> Thank you, >> council. Any other questions or comments? >> Thank you, Miss Victor. Madam Clerk, would you call the next delegation? >> Next delegation is Jason Sheldon. >> Welcome, Mr. Sheldon. Council looks forward to your information. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and uh and members of council. Good evening. Uh my name is Jason Sheldon. I'm with the Remington Group. Uh we are members of Knockby. Um we have lands uh within the residential designation. We have lands within the transition area designation and we also have lands within the employment designation. I'm here tonight um to uh support Miss Baker and Miss Victor's submissions. Um my comments are will be brief because I also support the potential for a deferral and working with you and and uh town staff to find the resolutions, but I did want to just mention that um I do recognize that the diversified employment area designation was introduced on certain lands. I do believe there's an opportunity to expand that designation to address the comments that were made by Miss Baker and Miss Miss Victor. And I do believe that by introducing that diversified employment land area, um we can provide the appropriate transition from the sensitive residential uses through to the core employment uses. We can maintain existing permissions to build the residential and mixeduse residential within the transitionary lands which are the lands I'm talking about tonight for us. We can provide the opportunity to deliver a full range of employment uses and jobs including health sciences, professional offices, digital media as examples, all of which would not be permitted in the core employment designation. We can minimize the need for land use compatibility studies to determine where land use should occur. These studies are complicated, costly, and very time consuming. And we would overall this would overall support complete communities. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you for your information, council. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Clerk. >> The next delegation is Tony DeFranco. Mr. DeFranco, welcome. Council looks forward to your information. >> Thank you, Mayor, and uh good evening, uh members of council and uh members of the community. My name is Tony DeFranco, and I'm a planner with Sjaki Planning. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of uh the property owner of the the site at 2515 uh Yraftoft Road. And uh I've just got one one image to to to share as a backdrop to my remarks. I should say that this uh my remarks tonight build on the written letter which I previously provided and uh understanding the desire to defer this which which we do support. I'll I'll keep my remarks fairly truncated. Um so this is the site here uh that uh my client owns. It's at the northeast corner of Bronte Road and Wraftoft. And when we look at the site today, it is very clearly not an employ an employment site. uh the existing uses on the site are two hotel buildings as well as the Oakville conference center and banquet hall facility. And so when we go back to first principles around Bill 97 and the changes to the planning act in terms of the definition of employment areas, we very very clearly see that these kinds of uses related to hotels and hospitality do not meet the definition of uh employment uses under the planning act. And so that is our starting point and that is where some of our our concerns uh emerge from. And uh I I mean I think there's two real concerns here. Um one is that the core employment designation uh will prevent the my client's ability to infill the site with additional kinds of commercial retail service uses uh and a full range of of commercial uh uses that that support the the viability of the hotel and the conference center. Um you can see there's already a cluster of commercial uses forming on the site today. And so the the primary interest is to protect for the ability to introduce a broader mix of commercial uses on the site. And we worry that the designation to core employment will will not enable that. So that's the the first concern. And then the second one is related to uh what I would call an inconsistent treatment of hotel properties across the town. Um, we've done a little bit of analysis and can see that all of the other hotel properties within employment areas in the town are in fact proposed to be redesated to diversified employment. And so this site here as well as the hotel directly to the west of Bronte Road are the only outliers. And and we do find that really intriguing and and something we'd like to to unpack with staff a bit further. And then finally, the the third concern we we want to raise is is what's been highlighted tonight is with regards to the interpretation of lawfully existing. Uh I I too agree that lawfully existing typically means that the building or the use exists on the site at a certain date. And so we worry that um you know staff's interpretation may may may be challenged and and in the fullness of time we may not be able to develop the kinds of uses that are permitted under the bylaw today uh through the lawfully established provisions. So I I think those are the it's the essence of of my client's concerns. We certainly have been working with staff over the past several months uh through this study and and we're very eager to continue those discussions. So we would welcome the the deferral and and and hope to be able to uh unpack some of the concerns we have uh through further discussions with staff. >> Thank you very much Mr. Franco Council. Any questions? Thank you sir. >> Madam clerk. >> Thank you Mayor Burton. The next delegation is Raj Kahar. >> Welcome sir. We look forward to your information. >> Uh thank you Mayor Burton and uh good evening members of council. My name is Raj K. you know, as you've noted, I'm a lawyer at Wear Folds and um I'm here specifically with respect to one of our clients, Postcriptum Holdings, Inc. They're the owners of land at 874 Sinclair Avenue. And it's going to come as no surprise to any of you that I support Miss Baker's uh submissions and the general proposition and the deferral. But what I'm also asking for is for us to be able to work with staff specifically about the postcriptum property. It's been identified as core employment in the proposed OPA. It should be diversified employment and there's a really good reason for that. Now that site um it is sandwiched between an automotive dealership to the east and retail building to the west. It is an area that is largely at 874 Sinclair and all of its surrounding an area of automotive uses. Um those use permissions are built into the zoning bylaw. But for our client site, it's the site that used to be the old TDL Wendy's headquarters. Um that site didn't have that in its zoning and it didn't have it because it got a sight specific zoning permission for the site. So, our clients had a lot of challenge trying to get a viable use in that space since TDL left and we approached the town some time ago and asked to get the automotive use in because there's been a lot of interest to have an automotive dealership on in that building. We went through a minor variance application. We filed for it to get the use. There was some resistance initially with town staff. Ultimately, we settled with the town. We went to the Ontario Land Tribunal. We executed minutes of settlement with the town to have that use there. Just this past Friday, the Ontario Land Tribunal authorized the use. So now I have the automotive use on that site. But what's my problem? The moment this core employment designation gets put forth on this parcel, it gets taken away. And if it gets taken away, what am I left with? I no longer h my client no longer has the automotive use and then they're left bringing in a true core employment use in an area that is sandwiched with an automotive dealership retail on the west side and frankly some restaurants that are south of it. That to me doesn't make any sense and I think what the appropriate approach here is the deferral that uh my client is supporting. >> Thank you very much for your remarks. Thank you, Madam Clerk. >> Thank you. The uh the next delegation is Elden Theodore, who's with us virtually. >> I see him online. Welcome, Mr. Theodore. It's good to see your smiling face. We look forward to your information. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Uh and thank you for loading my presentation. Uh first and foremost, um I want to thank staff for responding to our concerns with respect to my client, uh TLMPT Ontario Limited for their lands in North Oakville. Um we appreciate the application of the diversified employment designation as a buffer between the future for employment lands to the north and the residential and sensitive land uses to the south and west respectively. Um there are two concerns I wanted to bring to staff's attention. Um I do support the deferral that's been mentioned tonight. Um the first concern um as you can see on this first page here as the diversified deployment has been applied the northern limit of that designation does not align with the rear yard of the property located central to my client's lands. And that's uh what that does is um without that alignment the boundary will result in a staggering of that boundary across two different properties that really serves as an obstacle to seamless development between what we understand as core employment and what will be diversified um employment uses. So if you go to the next page, what we're simply asking is that the boundary be adjusted slightly north as shown on this page here to simply create that continuity between rear yard and um on my client's land. The the second point um I wanted to raise was just a concern with respect to within the diversified employment designation the proposed 2500 square meter restriction on retail and service commercial uses. um concerned because it would be the first numerical restriction of its kind for these type of uses in North Oakville and it's not clear where the number is based on and whether the size of the diversified employment designation was considered when recommending it and the restriction is expressed in the policy as both a maximum requirement and an approximate creating confusion. The policy reads as retail and service commercial uses on sites designated diversified employment shall not exceed a maximum of approximately 2500 square meters. So this creates confusion um in terms of how this is going to be applied and implemented. So our opinion this restriction for these type of uses should occur at the implementing zoning stage. We would ask that staff modify the language to meet that objective. We're obviously happy to meet to discuss our concerns. Uh we provided recommended language as part of our uh submission uh to council this evening. Um I again I want to thank staff for the efforts and the the modifications we've seen to date and happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Theodore. Uh council, any questions? Madame Clerk, the next delegation, please. The next delegation is Paul Sandeu and he's also with us virtually. >> Mr. Sandeu, >> good evening, Mayor. >> I hear you. >> And uh I see your logo. Welcome. We look forward to your submission. >> Sorry. Can you hear me, sir? >> Hello. Actually uh many people nodded yes but uh I would tell you that you're a little bit faint and if you could speak more forcefully or closer to your microphone it'll assist everybody including the public to hear you. >> Good evening Mayor Burton members of council and town staff. My name is Paul Sandeu. I am the son of Tony Standu, the owner of 3445 Dundas Street West, formerly known as Burch Stables. My father is attending the meeting virtually this evening, but is not feeling well. The town has kindly permitted me to present his comments on his behalf. My father has authorized me to speak for him this evening. The following remarks represent my father's comments and concerns regarding his property. Thank you. My name is Kumlji Tony Sandu and I am the owner of 3445 Dundas Street West, formerly known as Burton Stable. I am not a planner, developer, or lawyer. I am simply a longtime Oakville property owner who is trying to understand the future vision for my property. For many years since 2009, I have understood that the planning vision for the North Opal, including the North Opal West Secondary Plan, was to encourage employment generating development and economic growth. I supported that vision and believed my property would eventually participate in that growth. The lands immediately east of my property compromising approximately 60 acres are owned by Quadriel Development. Quadreal initiated its draft plan of subdivision application in 2011. Since then, I have attended all the landowner meetings and supported Quadriel's draft plan of subdivision. I personally submitted a written submission and spoke before council in support of that application as a delegate at June 12th, 2023rd council meeting. Badreal's application was ultimately approved. I supported the broader planning vision for its north Oakville West secondary plan area including the road network and infrastructure improvements and provided support for the construction [clears throat] of Avenue 2 which will run along the easterly boundary of my property. I supported podreal's applicant because I believed my property would participate in the broader planning vision being established for the surrounding land. 564 acres, fronts onto Dundas Street West, has an existing grandfathered Dundas Street entrance, and occupies what I believe is an important gateway location to Oakville's future employment areas. Over the past several months, I have spent considerable time reviewing OP34, the Livable Opal official plan, the employment areas review materials, and the recent provincial policy changes affecting employment lands. I have also met directly with town planning staff to better understand the planning framework affecting my property. Despite these efforts, I remain uncertain as to what forms of development are realistically envisioned and encourage for 3445 Dundas Street West. Most recently, I explored the possibility of bringing the Humane Society of Oakville, Milton, and Halt to the property. Through discussions with town staff, I learned that such a use would no longer be supported under the emerging policy framework and would require a reszoning application. This experience made me realize that I still do not know what types of development are actually for my property. I understand that planning policies change and that the town must implement provincial requirements. My purpose tonight is not to challenge staff or advocate for any specific project for youth. My concern is that after years of supporting the planning vision for this area, reviewing the policies, and meeting with staff, I still do not clearly understand what the town ultimately wants this property to become. I am not [clears throat] a professional planner with knowledge of all the technical and planning details. My submission simply sets out how I have been affected by changes to land use planning policies and I respectfully seek clarification. I respectfully request that staff and council provide clear guidance regarding the types of uses and development opportunities that are intended to be encouraged on my property under the current and proposed planning framework taking into consideration the property's unique location frontage on Dundas Street West existing access proximity to Avenue two and it positioned immediately beside the approved quadrial development. My view, the property represents an important gateway to Oakville's future employment land and I would simply like to understand the long-term vision for this property so that I can responsible plan for its future. Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and service to our community. >> Thank you, sir. And um uh councelor Delic has a question for you. >> Thank you, your worship. Um Mr. Sandu, um out of interest, um when I served on the Oakville Heritage Committee, is it your father who owned that property that used to have the Burton Stables and the House located on it? Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And so what is the current designation on that property? >> I apologize. My father was actually not feeling well. Like I don't have authorization to answer that question. I don't I don't have the information in front of me here. >> Okay. Thank you. I can understand your um problems. I'll check up with staff then. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Denick. Councelor Elder and then councelor Nandanda. >> Thank you. Three member burden. I I think Mr. Tim Lee was kind enough today to actually uh get in touch with uh Mr. Sandeu and I I wonder if staff could just explain uh the meeting tonight as an official plan amendment and we actually Mr. Sandu is just looking for zoning. And what the zoning is just, you know, people don't understand. He he's not a he is not a planner. He's not a lawyer, but he's just a person that's had got the property where the house burned down a number of years ago on the Burton stables. But can staff just give him a quick answer tonight? And I'd also like to I'd like to thank Tim Tim Lee who did contact him today. >> Thank you, counselor. Uh we'll turn to staff now. >> Uh through Maria Burton. Uh so the lands in question are currently zoned FD future development and the designation is currently business employment. >> So I think what he was wondering if he put a if a church was to go there he could apply for that if he wanted to. Correct? >> Uh through the mayor. Uh so any application would have to have a zoning bylaw amendment application uh because there is currently no permitted uses with the future development zone. So to get a pered use on the property, you would need to submit a zoning bylaw amendment application. >> Correct. I think that's where the confusion has come for the last few years. So I I think it's getting clarification today. And uh I know uh Mr. Tony Sandu who's not well, but the sun, do you have any other questions that you need tonight or can you work with staff? >> That'll be all for now, sir. Thank you very much. Okay. >> Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor. Thank you, everybody. Councelor Mcnes. Uh thank you through your worship. I just wondered to the delegate if it's worth mentioning uh the ability to have a pre-conultation if they wanted uh some more information uh through the town may be of benefit to them. >> Thank you counselor. >> Councelor Elgar. Anything else? >> Thank you councelor Elgar. Um Madame Clerk. Thank you, Mayor Burton. The next delegation is Peter Smith, and he is with us virtual. Virtually. >> All right. >> Apologies. Just turning on my audio and video. >> Um, >> thank you for turning those on. Um, we hear you and I'm looking for I found you now. So, uh, please begin. We look forward to your information. Uh, terrific. Um, good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of council. My name is Peter Smith. I'm a planner and a partner at Bowfields. And, uh, we're the planners for, um, the owners of, uh, 2175, uh, Cornwall Road. On their behalf, u, we addressed or I addressed planning and development council at the last meeting and we've written two previous submissions plus a current submission um, that is in front of you um, this evening. So because of all of that, I'll be brief. Um in essence, our our opinion is just um simply this that the subject lands should be designated diversified employment rather than core employment. And there's four reasons which I'll go through very quickly. First of all, its location fronting on Cornwall, which is identified as a major intensification corridor. Um secondly, the uses to the east and west along Cornwall which are predominantly retail and service commercial and not industrial and manufacturing. Um thirdly, um the existing permitted uses in the business employment official plan designation and zoning that applies to the site which are essentially aligned with um the uses that are proposed in the diversified employment designation. And then fourthly and finally um the transitional location of the property between um acting as a buffer between the Ford plant uh to the north and to the residential community to the south. And in my opinion the diversified employment um designation would be more compatible uh than a core employment area designation. And in fact that transitional function that idea of acting as a buffer um is precisely the function that staff have identified for uh the d uh the diversified employment designation. And so um fundamentally um this exercise at least in terms of applying a core employment designation or a diversified employment designation is fundamentally about land use planning. Applying and finding the right land use designation for the right lands. And in this case, these are lands that today are designated business employment and zoned business employment that provides for that type of transitional function um relative to the residential community on the south side of Cornwall. And so um while there's been discussion in terms of our previous submissions that the right forum to decide on the designation for these lands is through a future sight specific application. I respectfully disagree. Um this is the time where the appropriate designation should be determined and even the decision by staff to recommend a core employment designation rather than a diversified employment designation given the current business employment um designation is a very specific sightsp specific change which in my opinion is a change in the wrong direction away from um the transitional function that the current designation allows and the future designation should allow. So, in conclusion, um I as well support um the um the idea of deferring this and sending it back to staff and I'd look forward to an opportunity to have some serious dialogue with staff about um the appropriate designation for this property through that process. And with that, I'd like to thank thank you very much for um your attention. And um if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thanks very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Smith. We appreciate your thoughts and uh I'm looking for comments or questions, but I believe I can just thank you and uh we'll we'll move on from here. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Um uh council, I'd now like the clerk to pull the audience >> [snorts] >> uh to see if there's anybody else. Yeah, we have an one more delegation, uh, Stephanie Quas, who's with us virtually. Ah, >> Miss Gu, there you are. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Burton and members of council. Uh, I am Stephanie Quas, a planner and a partner with Bowfields. Uh, we have submitted letters and make these comments tonight on behalf of the registered owner, Andreine Joshua Creek Limited, of a property located at 1359 Bernham Road East. This property is located in the northeast quadrant of North Oakville, west of 9inth line and north of Burnham Thorp Road with William Halton Parkway bisecting the southerntherly portion of our property. Uh like many uh you've heard tonight, we have been actively participating in this E process. Upon review of the OPAs tonight, we firstly want to thank staff for redesating a small portion of our site to the diversified employment designation. The concern, however, is that the portion of our site where staff have shown the diversified employment designation, which is south of William Halton Parkway, is actually the area intended to be the location of our storm water management pond, the details of which have been refined over the last two years and submitted to staff in May 2025 through a formal environmental and servicing report. So our request is that the diversified employment designation be relocated just to the north side of William Halton Parkway in recognition of this important swim infrastructure that is planned for the south side of William Halm Parkway. Through our discussions with staff, we have provided concept plans showing how the balance of the site can and will redevelop with core employment uses, ultimately generating a significant amount of core employment gross floor area for the town. We intend to file a sightsp specific development application to accommodate this plan and to accompany our submitted environmental and servicing report. However, since this E study deals with land uses, we believe these OPAs before you tonight are the appropriate vehicle to establish the land use context for the site, thereby allowing our future sight specific development application to iron out the details. In this regard and in closing, we are respectfully requesting that the portion of our site located on the north side of William Halton be designated diversified employment instead of the south side. To be clear, we are not asking for more diversified employment land. We are simply seeking a switch from the south side of the road to the north. Thank you for your consideration of your time. We support the deferral of this item to allow continued discussions with staff in hopes of finding resolution to this matter. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Quest U Council. Very well, Miss Quest. We appreciate your your information. Madame Clerk, next delegation is Elizabeth Chomers. Miss Chomemers, welcome. Council looks forward to your information. president of the Joshua Creek Residents Association, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight on the uh proposed OPA changes and the new um employment land designation definitions. I want to focus or speak, I guess, to the JC focus on protecting our residents um from incompatible land uses. When we look at the designations that are that have been proposed, it certainly seems initially that core employment provides a greater level of control to the town with respect to determining what goes on those lands. Um, not being appealable to OOLT makes a difference and means that the council and the town are not subject to the decisions of OOLT. uh on every instance. We do have some concerns from reading through the report that core designation may result in what we would call upzoning from the existing um E2 uses on lands that are in the Joshua Creek Resident Association neighborhood. As you know, we are bounded by Cornwall Road um with E2 designations and Winston Churchill Boulevard with E2 designations. So, we do have some concern about it. Um, when we look at the diversified designation though, it certainly seems there's no constraints on what could come on the land if it received a diversified designation. And so, we welcome the deferral as a way to look at clarity um on what the uses are on those lands now and in the future. um whether it's diversified or whether it's um whether it's core, we're very appreciative of all the time that have that has gone into this by planning staff and also the time they gave to JC answering a series of questions that we put forward uh on the designations and we certainly appreciate the additional protections that are in place for um residents or for sensitive land uses with respect to class three or class three facilities in the 300 meter distance. Um we appreciate that there's a definition for logistics uh centers now and that would make a difference. We would strongly suggest that warehouses not be considered lighter industrial facilities when you are looking at a warehouse of 650,000 square ft with 125 truck bays that can operate 24/7 365 days a year. It's not lighter from a resident's perspective. Uh so I don't know if there's a way to be dealing with that um throughout this review. And um I think earlier the planner mentioned you know intensity on the land. How are we defining intensity of use? That's a question that I think we discussed in previous uh delegations. So I do just want to raise that and um we look forward to participating in any way that we can um throughout the process uh while we get to a new I guess definitions. And thank you again. >> Thank you Miss Chmer for taking the time to share those thoughts with us tonight. Thank you. >> All right, council. Um, uh, you've had the draft referral motion referred to you earlier this evening. I'm I'm I'm going to recognize councelor Hletal then as I think you'd like to move it. >> Yes, I'd like to move it and just make a couple comments if I could >> comment away. Let's get a seconder first. Councelor Giddings. Thank you. So, I want to uh also thank staff uh for uh some extensive work and and answering numerous numerous numerous questions and uh and and trying to help us through this. Um I'm pleased that you've drafted the referral motion uh tonight. Um and would you like me to read it into the record, Mayor Burton, or should I >> It goes into the record just by being adopted. >> Okay. So, um and is it up on the screen? Can it be put up on the screen for the public to see it? So, while they're doing that, um I think that tonight what we've heard is uh an opportunity for uh clarification uh underlying policies and practices that may benefit uh us as a town as we try to protect our employment lands, but also work in partnership uh with uh all the stakeholders uh In uh item two of the referral, it talks about the different approaches that staff will be taking over the next while. Um, and I'm uh I'm comfortable that while it may not explicitly say uh engage and uh bring in uh all the experts that have uh brought forward their concerns, I'm assured that that will occur. Um, and I I think it's also important that it references varying context across employment areas. Uh, specifically in Ward 3, uh, the concerns around, uh, the area along Cornwall into Barrel, along, uh, along Ford. So, I appreciate that language. And I also appreciate that uh we've heard tonight that core designations in some areas may or may not be appropriate and we need clarity on some of that uh I'll say disagreement of the interpretations that have been made. So I'm pleased to move referring this back. I'm appreciative at the last minute efforts to to draft this uh uh for us. Um, and I hope my council colleagues after hearing uh folks tonight will concur that the right approach is to move this back uh and come back with a little bit more a lot more clarity for all of us. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Giddings. Councelor Giddings is good. Anyone else? I know that uh these concerns are alive in in several other wards as well. Any other speakers? Then I'll ask if there's any objection to the motion. Madam clerk, there's no objection. The motion carries. Uh, council, would you like a brief break before we consider item 8.1, the recommendation report? How about we come back in 10 minutes? I'll call that 8:15. We're in recess. >> Recording stopped. All right, uh council, we're back in order. Um and our first uh and last uh item before us, main item before us is section is item 8.1, the recommendation report from the zoning review for lowdensity residential lands south of Dunda Street subject to zoning bylaw 2014. And uh I'd like to call on Katherine Buckerfield, our senior planner, to provide a presentation. We have no delegations. Miss Buckerfield, we are all yours. Thank you, Mayor Burton, and 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, which is the recommendation for town initiated zoning bylaw amendments to zoning bylaw 2014014. This evening, I'll take us through the recommendation, context for the density, lowdensity residential study, key matters of interest, and then remind us of our recommendation at the end. Tonight, I am pleased to recommend town initiated amendments to zoning bylaw 2014 through bylaw 202688. For context, zoning bylaw 2014014 applies generally to lands south of Dundas Street and north of Highway 407. Going forward, I'll be referring to zoning bylaw 2014014 as just the zoning bylaw. The focus of this review is further refined to the residential low zones where detached and semi- detached houses are permitted. You can see these areas depicted in yellow on the map shown on the screen. The main goal of this review has been to clarify and simplify zoning regulations to make them easier to understand and apply, reduce the number of residential low zones, and apply more equitable practices and improve livability. Through the review that we underwent a public survey in 2023 to get initial feedback from the public, we worked with Nethery Planning, who helped host public open houses in spring of 2025. Nether planning prepared a background report and provided draft recommendations which were presented at this statutory public meeting on April 20th, 2026. And we are now pleased to be at the point of recommending amendments to the zoning bylaw. Through this review, various updates are being recommended to improve the zoning bylaw, make it easier to use and improve the communities of Oakville. Key updates which are discussed in more detail at the statutory public meeting include general amendments for clarity such as the introduction of table identifiers and reorganization of information, clarification of definitions and regulations. Proposed updates to transition provisions. Streamlining and consolidation of zones and symbol changes from RL to R for ease of transition. This includes related updates to the mapping. We've got updates to requirements for sideyards, window wells, lot coverage, garage area, and residential floor area. Introduction of height requirements based on roof slope. They've um also introduction of items such as driveway setbacks, soft landscaping requirements, and minimum yards for additional residential units. and updates to special provisions for heritage conser conservation districts which include the provision for the Trafalgar Road heritage conservation district and overall updates to special provisions to align with the recommended changes to the zoning bylaw. At the saturated public meeting, matters of interest were mentioned that staff have explored and provided more information on through the staff report attached under item 8.1. At the statutory public meeting, various questions about residential soft landscaping came up. Minimum soft landscaping strips and percentages are recommended to be introduced into the zoning bylaw. Staff is of the opinion that regulating residential soft landscaping is appropriate and will benefit the community and result in the reduction of negative impacts on adjacent homeowners through improved storm water management. On the screen is a diagram that demonstrates that even on our smallest lots in the town, a walkway along the side of the house is possible and development will still be functional. Earlier today, a resident expressed concerns with some proposed changes to the zoning bylaw. In light of this communication, I thought I could provide further clarity regarding proposed changes. The resident expressed concern with including private garages in the calculation of residential floor area. Currently, garages are regulated through a maximum garage floor area, and we regularly see variances requesting to allow for flexibility for tandem parking or for additional storage. By adding what is currently permitted for garage area to the total residential floor area, residents will have more flexibility in how they design their home. They can be in control of whether they pri prioritize space in their garage or in their home. They can also convert portions of the an existing garage into livable space without requiring relief from the zoning bylaw. Garages will now be regulated based on the width at the opening to ensure that a garage does not dominate the front of the h home rather than regulating the overall size and parking can still be provided within the garage or on the driveway. The resident also expressed concerns with the proposed approach to sideyards and lot coverage. Staff are of the opinion that a more equitable approach is being taken by tying requirements the size of the lot rather than simply the zone label. It is more tailored approach to the lots. Through public consultation, sideyards were identified as insufficient with drainage and tree preservation cited as significant concerns. Increasing setbacks and tying to lot frontage will alleviate flooding issues and improve tree retention and allow for residential soft landscaping. Lot coverage is also proposed to be tied to lot size. This results in a home that is appropriate for the size of the lot and maintains a balance between built form and open space. This approach will result in more consistency across neighborhoods when there's a variation in loting fabric. In addition to the updated approach to lot coverage, we are proposing a 10 square meter exemption for accessory buildings so everyone can have a shed on their property without requiring additional relief to the zoning bylaw, furthering the goal of flexibility for residents. Throughout the course of this review of the zoning bylaw, various bills have been passed, including the most recent, which received royal ascent on June 2nd, 2026, which is bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, which includes changes to the Planning Act. These changes reference limiting the ability of zoning bylaws to require the minimum area of a parcel of urban residential land to be greater than the prescribed area or to require a minimum lot frontage or minimum depth of a parcel greater than the prescribed area. Currently, there are no regulations prescribing a specific threshold. Staff have has considered the implications of bill 98. However, the province has not indicated a timeline for sharing any maximum requirements related to lot area frontage and depth. Without any confirmation of a date or whether changes will happen, town staff recommend proceeding with the town initiated amendments proposed to the zoning bylaw through bylaw 202688. Staff will respond once changes are brought forward by the province. I'd like to highlight that the proposed refinements modernize Oakville's residential zoning for clarity, flexibility, and environmental performance. The framework promotes clearer interpretation and streamlined application of zoning standards. Collectively, these changes position zoning as a responsive, forward-looking tool aligned with the goals of the livable livable Oakville plan. Most importantly, the proposed amendments are consistent with the provincial planning statement 2024 and conform to the Halton region official plan and the livable Oakville official plan. I'd like to close by turning us back to the recommendation that the recommended town initiated zoning amendments to zoning bylaw 2014014 as amended be adopted that the bylaw 2026 088 be passed and the notice of council's decision reflects that council has considered all written and oral submissions relating to this matter and that those comments have been appropriately addressed. I am now here joined by Joe Nether of Nether Planning to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you very much. Um the chair is going to recognize councelor Null for the motion to approve. >> I'm happy to give you the motion, but I did see uh councelor's hand. Okay, I know. Okay, I'll give you I'll give you the motion to approve. >> Thank you. And and councelor Grant for the second and councelor for your questions. >> Uh thank you very much. And I I know at the public meeting I'd raised um the issue of sort of where we measure grades from and in in some site plans we had um you know grades had to slope forward and it and it created a big one. Can can you maybe just go over um sort of what those changes look like or how we've addressed that that concern that was brought up last time >> through you mayor Burton. Thank you for that question. Um, councelor Omira in our um staff report on page 10, we do outline and discuss the measurement of height from established grade. Um, at this time height is currently being measured from established um grade which is the center point of the front lot line for interior lots and the average of the center points of each lot line abuing a road for corner lots through lots through corner lots and interior lots having more than one separate front lot line. It's a little bit of a mouthful on that second piece, but really it's um at the center point of the front lot line and it's an important point because that's an point that is in the municipalities control. We know that we can measure from it. It won't be manipulated. Um other municipalities will sometimes take a look at uh measurements around the interior close to the house which can be manipulated or changed over time or they can be quite complex to measure. And at this point, staff are recommending to continue the use of the established grade. It um is a clear measure. It's usable for the building community and for staff and for residents. And the conditions that you had referenced with concern around um elevated roadways and things like that really could be dealt with when a new subdivision comes in, we can take a closer look at those conditions and address it through these comprehensive zoning reviews. Um so at this time if anyone has any further questions that's the approach that we're continuing to take. >> Thank you Miss Buckfield. Councelor Chisel. >> Thank you worship. With respect to established grades who determines where the point of grade is uh before uh for an application >> uh through you Mayor Burton. It's a defined point. So it's the center point of the front lot line. Um, and it's it's defined through a surveyor. So, a surveyor will go out and confirm that. And so, I think maybe that's what you're getting at. So, it's a very technical location and um confirmed going forward. And I'm not sure um if anyone else has anything else to add, but at this point it's a confirmed point that is universal for everyone and everyone will know how to find it quite easily and that'll be through their application process uh when they're putting in for the infill uh the point of grade where it's they will do that and they will hire the surveys to do that >> through Mayor Borton. That's correct. So when someone comes in for a building permit um their survey will identify established grade and the same for any other type of planning application such as a minor variance um established grade will be determined and then height will be measured from that point. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Chisum. Anyone else? Counselor has a deal. >> Um thank you and I apologize for not asking this earlier today. Um, can you just clarify how much has the maximum residential floor area ratio changed in the area uh bounding around Allen Douglas Brtwood? Would you would you know that >> through you may burden if you could give us a moment just to kind of find that pull that out. Um I have >> Joe's looking at me like he knows the answer. [laughter] I just I it it jumped out at me that you're using a 450 to 549 and I never really saw the difference between where we were to where we are and I'd like to get to sleep tonight knowing that >> that that's totally fair. Um we're just getting it looked at in terms of residential floor area. One change that you'll see that's occurred is that we've incorporated the garage floor area. So if you see an inflation, that's part of that. And we've also made sure that the residential floor area is linked to the lot area. And so it's really going to be when you take a look at a specific area, you're going to see, okay, what's the area of that lot? And then that will correspond to the residential floor area that it will be tied to. >> Right. So, you're saying that what looks like fairly significant increases is relative to the incorporation of the garage. >> Correct. >> And what's the other part? >> And the um the size of the lot. So, it's tied directly to the size of the lot. And that's part of the that right zoning that we're doing is that instead of just looking at a zone label, you take a look. It's a combination of where what you're zoned and how big your lot is. will have a house that's appropriate for that size of lot. >> Okay. Well, I I like the theory, but I would like to understand the differential. >> Okay. [cough] You can jump in. I'm joined here um by Matt Rubik. He's a senior zoning examiner who's been a key um player in this project and I knew he would be able to pull up the data for me. So, thank you. >> No pressure, Matt. >> Uh thank you. Uh good evening, Council and Mayor Burton. Um to answer your question through you mayor Burton uh a typical lot in that location uh is approximately 655 square meters. So the current requirement for residential floor area ratio is 41% and that would be changing to 49% under the uh proposed regulations which uh incorporate the garage area. >> Okay. Thank you very much for that information. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Mcnes, your turn. >> Thank you through your worship. Um, I said an inquiry from a resident not too long ago as to why we're keeping the floor area ratio as a metric in there uh and Burlington and a few others have dropped it uh in favor of lot coverage. But um would you mind maybe just highlighting um sort of the importance of keeping floor area ratio? >> Three, Mayor Burton. Thank you for that question. So, at the town of Oakville, we have multiple mechanisms to regulate the size and um built form of a home. And so, you've already mentioned lot coverage, which is a tool. We have sideyards. And we also have residential floor area. And when you take a look at lot coverage, it's for just the portion of the home that covers the lot on the ground. And then when you take add in residential floor area, it adds that second floor. and it really works to allow for articulation, stepbacks, and and changes to the size and and built form. At this point in time, we um haven't had a we're haven't had comprehensive changes to the official plan that would lead to a change such as removing the residential floor area. But in the fullness of time, as the zoning bylaw goes through its comprehensive review and we have a subsequent um comprehensive zoning bylaw review, that could be re-evaluated. But at this time in the context of this review, it is still considered appropriate to maintain in the zoning bylaw. >> Okay. Thank you. And my understanding is it also helps uh with neighborhood character and as you said, I think articulation of that second floor so that uh you know it doesn't have the chance of all becoming uniform. Is is that proper understanding or >> uh through you mayor Burton? I I agree that we have um strong policies within the official plan at this point that speak to a neighborhood character and and that would um assist with that goal. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Mr. Ner Nethery, thank you very much for all your work on this work. Uh council appreciates it and uh it's a testimony to how good you did that we had no questions for you. Well, with the indulence of the chair here, I I think uhfield and Mr. Rubik in particular, who's not a frequent council speaker, uh have done an excellent job at distilling all this information and bringing it together into a into a final comprehensive draft for everybody. And yeah, it's it's still really nice to be able to come back for what appeared to be alumni night for town staff. I'd known I'd have brought balloons or something. Um, so it's, you know, it's [snorts] a really great job by this team, um, who have really, um, come together and are growing in this regard and, uh, it should bode really well for some really exciting projects that I think are going to be on council's agenda over the next few years here. >> It feels good to see such distinguished alumni as yourself. Thank you, sir. Um, all right, council. I'm going to put the vote. Is there any objection to the motion? Madame clerk, there's no objection. The motion carries. And that brings us to new business. if anybody has any new business to discuss um or requests for reports um and uh in that case uh we have three bylaws 2026 82 88 and 96 to uh consider read and pass. Can I have a motion for consideration and reading councelor Dudk and uh councelor Longo? And uh is there any objection? There being none, those bylaws are considered read and passed. And that ends the work of this meeting. Thank you very much to everybody for the diligence and the attention that we all gave this. And I have enjoyed very much working with you and I look forward to the next opportunity. Good night.