Council, this is your 2-minute warning. >> Good evening, everyone. >> [laughter] >> Okay, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the second half of our council meeting. We met this afternoon from 2:00 until about 4:30, and we will recommence now with uh with the second half of our agenda. And I was saying to a few people, um we don't normally have uh that many people in in the chambers, so uh welcome to everyone, whether this is your first time being here, or maybe you maybe you're long-time listeners, first-time callers, but uh welcome to the chambers um for whichever item you're here for. So, we'll start again with the disclosure of pecuniary interest in the general nature thereof, Council. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize. Do you need a minute? Okay. Um okay, so seeing no disclosure of pecuniary interest. Um so, staff reports, the first item tonight is the Committee of Council Review Recommendations Committee Policy Terms of Reference Review. We have [snorts] uh Natalia Shabell here to provide um a presentation. Over to you, Na- Natalia. >> Uh good evening, Mayor and members of Council, and everyone here present today. Tonight's report uh presents staff recommendation recommendations arising from the Committee Council review. As Council will recall, the review included engagement through multiple channels and extensive research into municipal practices. The review confirmed that committees continue to provide valuable community perspectives. At the same time, committees are one of the earliest public engagement forms. Since their inception, community expectations around engagement in the municipal government and internal expertise and engagement methods have evolved. The review also identified opportunities to modernize governance, improve accessible accessibility and representation, strengthen onboarding and training, and better align engagement models with operational needs and Council strategic priorities. The majority of proposed measures on strengthening and modernizing the city's committee governance framework I brought through uh the committee policy amendments. Uh these amendments introduce working groups into the committee policy and provide greater clarity regarding how these engagement models are established, administered, and supported. The amendments also clarify the role of advisory committees. They reinforce that committees provide advice within their approved mandates and do not act as decision-making bodies or representatives of the city unless specifically authorized to do so in the terms of reference. Several proposed amendments focus on improving accountability and governance practices. One of this is a 2-year ineligibility period uh for former members of Council and former uh post-term and former staff post-termination. Um staff propose an exception though for former staff applying to quasi-judicial committees where where experience with legislation and then adjudication are helpful. Another amendment is an increased attendance threshold that triggers council review. Uh staff are proposing um a jump from 25% to 50% of meetings annually. Staff also propose to establish disclosure and recusal uh requirements where a committee applicant is related to a sitting member of council. Several amendments are intended to improve the committee member experience. This include mandatory orientation for all committee members, a rotating chair model to encourage broader participation in leadership roles, and a minimum quarterly meetings uh meeting frequency uh while allowing committees the flexibility to meet more where operationally uh feasible or required. In addition, staff are recommending amendments to the terms of reference for the economic uh Waterloo Economic Development Advisory Committee, Creative Sector Advisory Committee, and Appeals Tribunal to improve consistency, modernize the language, and reflect recent changes to uh committee's policy. The report also recommends uh moving from an opt-in honorarium model to an automatic honorarium model. This change um ensures a consistent approach to recognizing the time and expertise contributed by committee volunteers and to reduce admin- administrative barriers for both uh staff and volunteers. Staff are bringing forward two structural recommendations that relate to the Sustainability Advisory Committee and Waterloo Advisory Committee on Active Transportation. Staff are recommending that these committees transition to working group models. Since these committees were established, city has considerably increased its internal expertise, strengthened coordination across department, adopted key policies and strategies, and expanded opportunities for targeted community engagement. As a result, the way we seek and use community input has involved sorry, evolved. Both groups would operate under formal terms of reference and frameworks developed in consultations with current committee members. Staff acknowledge and appreciate the feedback received from the committees regarding maintaining a connection between these groups and council. To support this, the proposed policy amendments include a provision that would allow a working group to request an appointment of a council liaison. If approved by council, the liaison would attend meetings, receive updates, and help facilitate communication between the working group and council. These recommendations are not intended to reduce engagement, rather it is intended to provide a more flexible approach that allows expertise and community input to be engaged in a more focused way when it is most relevant to a project, policy initiative, or an operational need. Should council approve the recommendations, staff will proceed with a broader committee modernization initiatives as part of the upcoming recruitment cycle, and begin work on the development of the new working group structures. Staff also commit to providing review of the working models of the two committees half term, and included in the comprehensive committee review in in 2031. Thank you. We would be pleased to answer any questions, and I have my esteemed colleague here from strategic initiatives and active transportation. >> Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate the um the update. Um council, are there questions of staff? Councilor Wright. Thank you, through you, chair. Um so I I read with interest the section on youth civic engagement. And I was wondering, you know, in in this term of council, um Councilor Rowe and I have um on a pretty regular basis met with post-secondary um student groups. And I'm I'm just wondering if there's a potential there, you know, the old adage is to um uh go where the people are. And I'm and I'm wondering whether there's um maybe an opportunity to formalize something like that where um the youth engagement could liaise with the existing groups that are uh you know, representing our post-secondary institutions' students as well as something like the youth planning table instead of recreating the the wheels. So, I'm just curious what the opportunities might be like there and whether those have been explored at all. >> Uh through you, mayor. Um thank you, Councilor Wright, for this question. As you may um as you may have seen in in this report, um and um previous summary of the previous report, um students do prefer engagement on campus. Only a small percentage of students engage uh 77% So, of students engage on campus. Uh we heard that loud and clear. So, definitely there is an opportunity there, and it could be reviewed um through a larger public engagement sort of strategy perspective. >> I'm just I'm also thinking about this just in terms of, you know, like the youth planning table does so much research, demographic research on its own. Um and and so they'd already have aggregated all that material, um which would be so useful to us as a council, I think. >> Thank you. Definitely something um we can look at. Uh we again, we we haven't looked at engagement uh broader than committee engagement. This was the goal, but obviously something to look at with corporate communications and strategic initiatives and government relations. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councillor Wright. Uh Councillor Hamner. >> Uh thank you, through you, Mayor. Um thank you very much for the report. You've done a great job uh reviewing all of the committees and trying to look at ways that we can streamline uh a few of the activities that we've got going. I noticed a couple of the I've got two questions. I noticed a couple of the committees um as you move into a quarterly meeting, you've got more people attending. And so, one of my concerns and the one that pops in my mind is WEDAC has gone from a committee of about 12 to almost 20. Um that changes the nature and type of discussion that can have at the committee meeting. Just curious what thoughts were given to that and what truly is the expectation coming out of a committee that that that's that large. >> Um great question. Thank you. Uh the I'll start with rationale to moving to um sort of fewer coun- council, sorry. >> Few fewer meetings. >> committee meetings. So, it's basically we we the feedback that we received is that the meeting frequency and timing is an issue with uh quite a few of members. Okay, so, uh one of the we did a pilot with WEDAC for a few years and moved to a quarterly meetings sort of to save on administrative time and on volunteer time. So, that was the rationale behind it. In terms of larger committees, uh the Interesting. I'm I'm not quite sure how that would impact the frequency. >> It's not so much the frequency, and it may be something you want to think about and and take away. It's more the type of conversation that may happen when you've got a larger number of people, and it potentially could impact just quorum, too, with so many people and changing the frequency. Again, it can be something that we we look at for this year, too. It's just a question. >> Thank you. I believe Julie wants to take it on. >> Uh thank you. Through the chair to Councillor Henman, I uh part of this policy change is a recognition that the committee might have different requirements. So, we're starting with that as a base, but if the committee found that unworkable, then there's an opportunity to increase the number of meetings, and we also know that some committees have subcommittees as well. So, certainly, this is um this is a type of policy change that we see evolving over time and watching to see, and it might not be the right uh mix for every committee. >> So, then to that last point, thank you. If I might, before I ask my other question, consideration in the terms of reference when we finally fit those is to have a section that allows the subcommittees to be established if they need if they need them, and I didn't see that anywhere. Maybe I missed it. >> Yeah, through the chair to Councillor Henman, that exists currently in the policy, and it's not a change. That's why we didn't specifically spell it out, but there's that opportunity to have subcommittees. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. And my final question is around the student uh I'm going to call it the wrong thing, and I always do. The student resource position, which I think is a great opportunity for those that want to get involved and figure out uh how where they may be able to contribute in different ways. I know some of the committees have struggled a little bit with keeping that person engaged. Are we going to be doing anything different going forward to help support the student resource people? >> Um this is something we can touch on during orientation with staff liaison in in this time around where we will plan for orientation with staff liaison and we can definitely touch on that and provide this feedback. Um the reality is that there are different requirements for staff liaison sorry student resource on committees. They for example, there is no attendance requirement and so on. So and again, recognizing how busy lives can be um of students. Um they what we heard from actually committees is that not a whole lot of them often participate and attend. So it's it's that balancing act. Um again, we'll we'll engage committee liaison and see how that can be that resource can be a more impactfully engaged. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Councillor Hanmer. Councillor Badley. >> Uh thank you through you, Mayor McCabe. I want to take a moment notwithstanding some of the other changes that are within this committee review that two of the most substantial changes are on committees that I'm currently the council liaison to the sustainability committee and the active transportation committee. Personally, I welcome these changes. I think that it's going to make the way that the committees interact with staff more flexible. It's going to allow for us to get that expertise and or lived experience that we desperately need out of those committees in a way that's a little bit less bureaucratic, much more targeted, and going to allow us to to have those experts connect with all sorts of staff members at the at the city as opposed to just through the the staff liaison uh the bureaucracy of the way some of our committees are uh the way committees are advisory committees to councilors currently set up. So, I look forward to seeing how this works and I hope that uh maybe this will be almost a pilot for us to see whether or not this is this committee structure makes sense for other committees uh as well. Uh that said, I do want to excuse me, highlight uh the uh a couple of things. Uh one that there is a little bit of tension from from some on particularly the sustainability advisory committee about the loss of standing that they have in connecting directly with council, which you alluded to. So, a couple of the things that you that are noted in the report. One is the ability for us to have a council liaison still sit there. I think that's extremely important and I think we might want to consider that almost mandatory as we as we move forward. Um the uh current members being uh part of establishing the terms of references for these new committees, I think is extraordinarily important. So, if we could absolutely make sure that their expertise uh is uh utilized to ensure that we get those terms of reference uh right. I think that's really going to be important, but I'm wondering if you can maybe speak to any other mechanisms that these working groups are going to have to communicate with council uh to possibly hold council to account where they may deem that appropriate. And specifically within there, is there an opportunity for >> [clears throat] >> these technical working groups to present to council uh during committee night? >> Um thank you, Councillor Bodaly, through you uh Mayor. Um So, working groups that the way staff envision this to happen is working groups uh will provide their input uh on a project um operating matter uh or what have you, strategy or what have you. And uh that input as appropriate would be recognized in staff report like any engagement outcome would or would be. They could potentially be invited where appropriate to co-present with staff members, which happens now with advisory committees of staff. So, that would be the same pretty much channel communicating with with council. What you may have noticed is that a lot of advisory committee members actually delegate to council and engage with the city outside committee governance process. This old and email council as private individuals or representatives of the organization that they represent. All these channels are still available to them and they're actively using them right now. So, nothing will change. Again, they I would like to highlight that um advisory Sorry, uh member input uh through presenting with staff on a project is a very popular channel across the surveyed municipality. So, nothing will change there despite the status of the group. Um yeah, so and regarding the committee night, the committee night is a is a channel is is a reporting channel for advisory committees, quasi-judicial committees, and whatnot. Uh so, they're ongoing committees with ongoing mandates without um sunset pretty much um terms. Um so, staff don't believe that this is necessarily the right channel. However, we're happy with to work with council recommendations if council thinks otherwise. >> Yep, that's right. Thank you. Uh and just as a follow-up comment through excuse [clears throat] me through you mayor and to my colleague's points about some of the youth engagement. I know we had undertaken a public engagement discussion with our city studio folks at Laurier and one of the biggest things that they spoke about was having flexible project project-based engagement opportunities as opposed to full-time commitments on these committees. And so I think that this new structure is going to allow hopefully for us to reach out to members of the community who otherwise wouldn't be able to have [snorts] that same level of time commitment. Not a question here, but my final comment here is I I just given how substantive these two these changes are to these two committees. It would be sort of my expectation that future council is going to have an opportunity to receive a report an update. This is how it's working. Here's the things that are working well. Here's the things that are not working well and and that staff are going to be willing to make some modifications as appropriate as we move forward. And so I'll just leave you with that and when it's appropriate I'm happy to move the recommendations. >> Thank you Councillor Broadley. Are there other questions by members of council? Okay, seeing none. I have I just have a couple. Um >> [clears throat] >> One is about it's on page 171 of the of the report around the appointment of relatives. So I was curious about what your your thoughts are like I know it has here that to align it with the principles of with our recruitment policy. But I'm also just conscious of you know the the need to as it also said to increase transparency and opportunities for others. So I'm would like to hear the why behind um if there's value in saying that current and immediate past council members and their partners should not be able to there should be like a cooling off period. So to speak like two years or something of that nature prior to them applying to be on committees, advisory committees. Just curious what your thoughts were on that. >> Thanks, Mayor. Staff went quite a bit back and forth on on this matter, and different versions and options were considered. So, we landed on this one considering that um recruitment can be challenging. [clears throat] And you have seen it yourself. Uh not everybody chooses to come to the city hall. And um you know, in a very formalized way. So, basically we landed on a softer provisions of the policy here. But if if we did receive feedback that um through the review that it can be challenging to um sort of be in the same room on the same committee with uh or liaising for the committee where uh relatives of the sitting council are. >> Right. Um but did we not have these safeguards in place before? Like this isn't really a change, is it? >> We did not. >> We didn't have these safeguards in place before. Oh, okay. >> We had practices. So, it's something that um this office has followed through the appointments, but it wasn't formalized through the policy. >> Okay. Okay, so this would formalize it. Okay. Um thank you for that. And my other question is I wasn't sure if we were getting an update on GRAC tonight. Is that part of this update or no? >> Uh Julie has a answer. >> Sorry, I should the Grand River Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee. >> Uh uh sorry, um Mayor, no, that is not part of this particular report. That work is ongoing between the city of Waterloo and the region of Waterloo. They're working on revised terms of reference and I believe that is slated to come to one of the first meetings in September in time for the recruitment. >> Okay, so, um, I was just curious then how so when we get the revised terms of reference for for that committee how that will like how we're going to fold them into this or is that being considered sort of entirely outside of this review because it is involving the region? >> Uh, so GRAC is what we call an interagency committee and the changes that are contemplated with that committee don't affect the policy or the review. So it's not part of this report, but it also won't conflict with the work that's being done. >> Okay, okay, thanks for that clarification. Um, Okay, Council, um, are there any there's no other questions or comments on that? Um, so we have eight recommendations in front of us here. I would like to propose that and I didn't I didn't let staff know about this, but I would like to propose just adding some stronger language around around not permitting former members of Council to immediately sit on committees. So [snorts] I don't know, sorry Brooke, I probably should have given you a a heads-up on that, but um, do you want me to sort of draft a an amendment or >> Uh, let me know if if this isn't the right, but what I would suggest then and and Councillor Barley has moved the motion, so I think it would >> I said I would have moved it but >> Yeah, you would have moved it, yeah. So I what that would mean is I think uh, amendment to recommendation two where you're approving amendments to the corporate policy um, with the amendment to provide a an eight I'm not certain if you're looking for like appointments are usually 2 years, so perhaps a 2-year um window where a former member of council could not >> apply for >> apply for a committee. >> The first 2 years, is that in there? >> Sorry, Julie. This one is in the policy. It's about the relatives of sitting council. >> Sorry, I meant the relatives of sitting council. Sorry, I did did I say Sorry, my apologies. Yeah. Did I say members of council? Okay, I meant the the the >> If you wanted to suggest something alternative would be an amendment to recommendation two. >> Two. Okay. >> To um >> To provide a 2-year window or um I don't know what the word is, pause or interval, maybe. >> Yeah. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it it sounds to me like you're asking staff to not permit uh sitting council members' relatives to be on committees. >> Correct. >> So, the sit-out period is not relevant. >> [clears throat] >> Just current members of council's relatives not permitted on committees? >> Not ever, just while they're on while someone sitting members of council. Yeah. >> Yeah, I'm not suggesting I'm in favor or opposed to it. I'm just clarifying. Is that what you're looking >> That's what I'm suggesting. Yeah. And the definition of relative would be consistent with the recruitment policy at the city, which I believe I I think. I just wanted to define relative, so we're clear. Um which is I think immediate family members, so siblings or not siblings, sorry. Partners, children, spouses. Children, spouses. >> I believe is the current definition of relative in that policy. >> I believe Julie in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, um, it's parent, spouse, or child. Um, siblings aren't listed. >> Yes, correct. There There Yes, um, through the Marriage to Council Act, there are different definitions. I think if our intention is to align it with >> with the recruit with the HR recruitment policy. >> Um, but if if for clarity, it would actually probably be helpful to include that in this. That that exclusion would apply to parent, uh, spouses, partners, children. If that's what's being suggested. >> Thanks for capturing that. Um, thanks for your assisting assistance, Councillor Bodaly and and Roach and for working through that language there. So, I'll put that forward as an amendment to the, um, to the recommendations that are already there. Um, happy to have if people have questions or want to comment on it or if you want to take the recommendations separately to vote for or against it. Yep. Go ahead, Councillor uh, Hammer. >> Thank you. Through you. Are we limiting ourselves by, um, by this? And I understand why we want to have it from a conflict standpoint, but also we've had situations where there's expertise that's been needed on our committees and it may be excluding all those people. So, I am not comfortable with this recommendation. >> Okay. And I would appreciate it being taken out of the current listing when we approve when we go to approve it. Okay. Um, the Well, there there is language in another part of the report. Probably, Natalia, you could >> Can you change it to >> You could um you could say exactly where that is, where it does speak to like requiring certain expertise. And that's for particularly for some of the quasi-judicial. I'm just not seeing it right off the top of my head where it is, but like for quasi-judicial um rules that require particular Oh, there it is. Um permit quasi-judicial committees to establish their own rules of procedure. So, the piece about requiring certain expertise, absolutely fair, but that is captured in the report here. >> I recognize it's in the report. It just needs to be reflected appropriately in the amendment, and whether policy H-12 does cover that. >> Go ahead. >> Um through the mayor to Councillor Hanmer, I I suggested the amending the wording to H-12 because the the definition in that policy is actually quite long. It's um spouse, common-law partner, person living in a conjugal relationship, natural child, adopted child, stepchild, child-in-law, natural parent, adoptive parent, step-parent, parent-in-law, natural siblings, or step-siblings. So, quite long, but still intending to cover the the the basic intent. Um The uh second part of that is if you wish those individuals to be eligible to sit on a quasi-judicial, which is the exclusion that we gave for staff. So, I think um in that case, we would just add with the exception of quasi-judicial committees. Um And and alternatively, an easier language is to say that this would apply to advisory committees of council, which uh does not include quasi-judicial, staff working committees, inter-agency committees. So, perhaps that's probably better meeting that >> be specific about the advisory committee. >> Advisory committees. Thank you. It's just to make sure that we're not limiting ourselves to potential expertise cuz we could have experts in fields that we need to have access to. Great. Councilor Roach, did I see your hand? No. Okay. I thought I saw someone else's hand. Oh, okay. Councilor Freeman. >> Yeah, I I guess I'm I'm I think I still would like this language voted on separate. Um cuz it suggests there's a problem or there has been a problem in the past and I don't think there has been. Like you know I I think you know, it was mentioned that it is hard sometimes to find people to serve on these committees. And um I I've never seen undue influence happen from somebody who's When I've served on a committee where someone was a family member of a of sitting member of council, I never felt that that they they you know brought a different level of power, shall we say, to the conversation on the committee. And I and I so I'm just I'm I'm not comfortable with this language. Um I mean, we we have staff that work here at the city that are partners and and they may they may work in different departments where their department may or may not have conflict with their with their family member and yet they're very professional about how they approach that. And I think it happens in many workplaces, so I just I like I say, I I feel like this is suggesting there's a problem that doesn't exist. >> You know, I I'm not I'm not suggesting there's a problem. I don't know and certainly I don't know if Natalia There's nothing in the report that suggests there's a problem. I just as we're cleaning up and and modernizing the um the policies that we have here, I thought it made sense to include that as well. Again, I'm not aware of any problems in the past, but I think it's I think it's in my mind it's something that makes a lot of sense as as a go-forward position. So Councillor Vassallo. >> Thanks to you, Mayor. Thanks for bringing this forward. I actually had the same question that I asked of staff ahead of time. And one of the reasons I thought was because I was thinking of future council because I'm not running anymore and I thought could it potentially family members like if you don't appoint a family member as a council as one example what could there be conflict between council members or like some animosity that animosity that's built or something. It was just a question I had out of curiosity. And I was satisfied and I'm I'm still satisfied with staff's answer that um it's uh I don't think we need to move ahead with it because there hasn't been a problem for various reasons, but two I have two thoughts because if if it were ever to be a problem I think staff would bring it to us, but how I left it with staff was maybe just like if if you think this is something you need to review in the future. You know, sometimes we hear of things from other municipalities where something goes awry and so we review it. So if anything like that were to happen, maybe we would want to review it in the future. So I'd also be curious if I were to support something like this, I would want to know about the comparators. Are there any other municipalities that have said that relatives shouldn't be on the committee and what do they do and what were the catalysts for that? So one I don't have enough information about that in this report because I don't think that that was the intent of this and so I I I can't I can't do this because even I like did a quick search online and the Ontario government says it's like okay. And so I can't see anything that says it's not um, that there have been any concerns. So I'm not concerned about it. And so if staff were to bring it, maybe I I could be in the future. But the one thing I think, cuz I will vote against this if it comes forward, um, though I think it's a a good topic of discussion, um, is around the training because the training has been enhanced and strengthened, um, because of this policy to say that it's a requirement, um, because sometimes policy members haven't come for the training or um, it just hasn't been formalized. So I think it could be something that we, um, uh, ask staff to bring back to the training and just, um, talk about relatives, um, broadly, you know, like, um, uh, sometimes they're like around confidentiality, uh, you know, if you know anyone who works at the city, whether you're a family member or a friend, everything we talk about here is confidential unless it's a public information. So it might be something for staff to incorporate in the training is what I thought maybe I would say to leave it with staff cuz I don't think it's a bad i- idea to have the discussion, but I just don't, uh, support the motion, uh, to implement it at this time. I hope that's okay. >> Your vote is your vote, counselor. Um, okay, are there any other comments on this? Okay, so, um, we can So, Counselor Boddy has said that he'd move the motion, but I'm going to say that you move the motion with the exception of, um, amendment two. Is that an accurate way? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but >> Uh, I'm happy to move all the items except two and vote on two separately, or I'm happy to highlight the parts of two that are the amendment and vote on all of it except for the highlighted part and then vote on the highlighted part separately if that's what council would like. >> You tell us Oh, sorry, go ahead. >> If I could suggest that council votes on adding the additional language to number two first, and then >> Okay. And then if it's voted down, we'll go revert to the original. Okay. >> Does it need to be put forward as is to start with and then that >> I I would propose that someone, if if they were interested, would move and second emotion that um adds to the staff recommendation number two, the wording that Roe has highlighted. And we will word smith that. >> So, since I was the one adding it um should I pass the chair to get to counselor Wright just in the meantime or do you want me so that I can move that piece? >> No, you can stay there. I'm now the chair. >> You're the chair. Okay, so I I'm making the I'm making a uh proposal here. >> moved it. >> I'm moving that part, yeah. >> just looking for a seconder for this motion. >> Uh that's counselor Bodily has seconded the motion. Um so now we can uh is there any further discussion? And uh I guess now we vote on it. Uh all in favor? And that is >> There was three in favor and five opposed. Yeah, that's right. I was counting. >> Just the amendment. >> It's just number two. >> Just the amendment. >> Yep. >> Yeah, so confirming the vote was uh it was opposed but there were three in favor and five opposed. >> We didn't call Yeah, just >> Oh, sorry. >> for the >> O- Okay, did anybody Sorry, what? Who was opposed? Please raise your hands. Okay, so that's five opposed. It fails. Okay. >> Would you like to be chair again? >> I'll be chair again. And my apologies, I thought counselor Wright, you were the acting mayor. It was counselor Hand, mayor. My apologies. I I'm sorry about that. Um okay, so then we will return to the uh original uh recommendations and counselor Bodily, do you want to move those? Okay, moved by counselor Bodily, seconded by counselor Roe. All in favor? Okay, that is carried. Thank you, Natalia and staff for your work on this. Look forward to the evaluation when that comes. Okay, so the next item here is the notice of intention to designate multiple properties under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. We'll just give staff a couple minutes to get settled here. And whenever you're ready, Susan and Dominic. >> All right, thank you, Mayor McCabe. Good evening, Council and members of the public. My name is Dominic and with me today is Sue Schappert. I'd like to introduce everyone Sue. She's our new senior heritage planner with the city. So she comes to us with over 20 years of experience in heritage planning. So you'll be seeing a lot more of her at the the Horseshoe. We're here today to present staff report IPPW 2026 013. Um and we're proposing to designate five properties. And so because Sue and I are collaborating on this report, hope you'll don't mind that we're going to do a high school style and share the presentation back and forth and I'll pass it over to Sue first. >> Thanks very much and thank you members of Council and members of the public here. I am happy to be here for my first night in front of Council and as Dominic said, I am sure I will see you all again. Hopefully soon. Heritage is definitely a passion of mine both personally and professionally and um the conservation of heritage properties is something I think that's very important to the city of Waterloo as well. So this is just a bit of a refresher. Um I know that heritage designations haven't been in front of council for a little bit. So, just to uh bring everybody up to speed, there are three types of heritage properties um identified under the Ontario Heritage Act, which is the legislation that we use to protect heritage properties. There are listed properties that are um under Section 27, Part 4. Um they're usually called um properties on the register. Uh they are not fully designated, but they've been flagged as having potential cultural heritage value by council. Uh the next category is Part 4, or individually designated properties. And so, those are properties that would have a heritage designation bylaw registered on title for that specific parcel of land for its uh own merits and cultural heritage value. And then, the third type of type protection is heritage conservation districts, which includes the protection of entire neighborhoods or multiple properties all at once. So, what I just like everyone to remember is that designation is a tool that manages change and does not prevent it. Um there's an entire section of the Ontario Heritage Act, actually multiple sections, that are devoted to the process of how to manage change. Heritage properties are not museums, they're not frozen in time. That but they do conserve the important features of our community for the enjoyment and education of future generations. Because once heritage is lost, it's a non-renewable resource. So, um just a little bit of background um as to how some of these uh files got to you this evening. Um Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, um provided new policies that indicated municipalities uh needed to deal with their listed properties. Either uh designate them, or by January 1st, 2027, those properties would be removed from the heritage register. Doesn't mean they still can't be designated, but it does mean that the interim control that listing provides, which is a waiting period for a demolition permit, is removed from those properties. And so in 2024, staff undertook um uh a review of a number of properties on the register by retaining Timmins Martelle Heritage Consulting, uh who evaluated uh 46 properties on Waterloo's heritage register. And so the phase one of uh this report came to council in February of 2025, which was recommending the designation at that time of 14 properties. However, there was uh substantial discussion at council um and most of those uh designations were deferred pending a review of financial incentive programs. Um two properties did proceed with heritage designation at the time. Um that was 75 Allen Street East and 39 Dupont Street East. So what the Timmins Martelle Heritage Consulting report um did, along with a lot of historic background on those 46 properties, was an evaluation of all of those properties against Ontario Regulation 906. And this is the criteria that the province has set out that says exactly what cultural heritage value or interest is. And a property, in order to be designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act, has to meet two or more of nine criteria that are set out in this regulation. They're loosely grouped by design or architectural value, historical value, and contextual value. And so each property in the report that's before you this evening has satisfied five or more criteria, which is a lot. Um the cultural heritage value of each of these properties is very strong, and we feel that uh the conservation of these properties are very important to our community to retain its unique historic identity. And with that, I'm going to pass it to Dominic who will tell you a bit more about these properties. >> Thank you, Sue. Uh, yeah, so to get, um, into the meat of the report, uh, for phase two A properties, uh, are listed right there. Um, the first four are located within the uptown commercial core cultural heritage landscape, um, and the last one the fifth property there is located in the Mary Mary Allen neighborhood cultural heritage landscape. Um, just to situate yourself a bit more, the first property, um, is located across the street from the Waterloo Public Square. Uh, properties two, three, four are on King Street, um, between Erb and Dupont, and the last street is at the corner of Mary and John Streets. So, the first property is 36 to 40 King Street South. It's known as the Letter Block. Um, it's a building that was, uh, designed in the Italianate architectural style by local architect and city engineer Charles Mook. It was constructed in 1880 and redesigned in 1907. Um, the property has historical associations with John Letter, a formal count former counselor and businessman, um, but also has, uh, notable associations with, um, Addison C. Moyer who, um, operated his photography business out of this building. Uh, he was known as, uh, Waterloo's first professional photographer and based on the Chronicle Telegraph from 1906 was described as among the best pro best produced in the country. You may know it most, um, I guess recently as the restaurant, the Trio restaurant. Next building is 15 King Street North. It's the Conrad Block. Um, this is another, uh, Italianate architectural style building constructed in 1880 and rebuilt in 1888. It has historical associations with the Conrad family why it's called the Conrad block who operated their business here for 88 years. Jacob Conrad senior was an immigrant to Waterloo and was a long serving counselor member and a former mayor in 1887. In the corner there you'll see a painting by Newfeld depicting the Conrad block as well as another building you'll see later in this presentation. The next building is 16 to 24 King Street North. It's known as the former Waterloo theater. It was the site of Waterloo's first purpose-built movie theater which opened in 1937 and operated for nearly 60 years. It's unique design which is a blend of Art Deco and modern classicism styles is attributed notable architect Herbert George Doerr. Doerr designed at least 22 movie theaters across Ontario for the famous players theater chain. The next building is 23 to 25 King Street North known as the Roos building. It's the northernmost section of a block of commercial buildings as you can see in the the photo in the corner. Another Italianate style building constructed in 1895. The son of immigrants Jacob S. Roos established his shoe making business here and became one of the largest custom shoe manufacturers in Western Ontario. And the last property I'll pass it back over to Sue. >> Thank you and the reason why I'm taking this one is because it wasn't part of that Timmons Martel report that I referenced earlier. This is actually an owner requested heritage designation that came into the municipal heritage committee relatively recently and so the research report for this property is attached um, part of the appendices in the staff report. This is the Beam House, um, constructed circa 1910. It's an excellent example of Edwardian Arts and Crafts architecture and has a very unique interior feature, um, called a cloisonne glass. Um, it's unusual to protect interior features as part of a heritage designation, but we are moving forward with this with the full support of the property owner, uh, for which we are truly grateful. It is a a stunning piece of glass work. And so, we're just going to wrap up fairly quickly by just talking about a little bit about the heritage attributes that are listed in the notices of intention to designate in draft form in the appendices of this report. And so, what we just wanted to highlight quickly is that, uh, specifically for the buildings that we're looking at in Uptown Waterloo, most of the heritage attributes are limited to the exterior elevations that are visible from the public right-of-way and there are no interior features protected here. And so, uh, what this does is that it will help to streamline the heritage permit process in the future if property owners want to make changes to the exterior of their buildings and if they're not dealing with a heritage, uh, a facade that has heritage attributes on it, um, a heritage permit may not be required at all. So, this provides a lot more flexibility for property owners to renovate and adapt their buildings to support, uh, whatever their needs may be. As I mentioned earlier, heritage designation is not about freezing a building in time because heritage attributes can be altered, even though they're listed in the bylaw, through the heritage permit process. That's why the process exists. And so, alterations may certainly facilitate the inclusion of the building into a redevelopment that's supported by other City of Waterloo policies. So, there can be significant changes made to designated heritage buildings. And here we have the, uh, former post office as an example of a Part 4 designated property that's had a very substantial um and supported addition made to it. The process that we'll be going through to complete uh this should council support the recommendation of staff um is to notice the intention of designate to the property owners and they're also uh published on the city's website. Following that, there's a 30-day objection period where a property owner can object to the notice of intention to designate. Um I would like to note that we have made commitments to all of the property owners that we'll be working with them on finalizing the details of what would go into a designation bylaw uh following the issuance of a notice of intention to designate and we believe that we have the support of all of these property owners at this time to work with us on moving that process forward. However, if there is an objection, it will be brought back forward to council who will then consider whether or not to pass a designation bylaw. Following a designation bylaw passage, there is another appeal period. This time, any appeals that are made to the designation would go directly to the Ontario Land Tribunal and a hearing would be held. If there is no appeal filed um or after appeals are resolved, if that's the case, a designation bylaw is then registered on title for the property, which means that it carries forward no matter who the property owner is. And so, Dominix is going to close up with our next steps. >> Thank you, Sue, and uh I know we're over time, so yeah, we'll make this quick. Uh in terms of next steps um as council is aware and then indicated in the report, there's a number of properties that were evaluated through this project. Um this is just a small subset of those properties, so we hope to bring forward another uh portion uh for council's consideration of heritage designation hopefully in September before the election. Um and then being mindful of the election and then getting the new council on board um we hope to bring forward um more properties in 2027. And here are the recommendations that we have same as what's in the report. We're asking council to approve the report and issue notices of intention to designate for the five properties listed there as per appendix A and appendix C of the report. Thank you. >> Thank you very much Dominic and Susan. I appreciate the information and the report. Um and particularly the pictures which it's really interesting to see the LRT from I think that was 1920 or something like that. Um So thanks very much. Okay, Council are there questions about this report? Councilor No, okay. Sorry, I thought you were All right, well seeing no with Did you have questions counselor Roe? No, okay. I know we've had a lot of back and forth on this. Um Um in advance of this and in numerous discussions. Okay. You're ready to move it? Okay. Okay, so then we'll look for a mover. Counselor Wright is prepared to move this. Councilor Roe is prepared to second it. Okay, um then all in favor? That is carried. You did a great job explaining it all. No questions. Thanks very much. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. So moving on we are at um item 14A. This is a in it Oh, sorry. Did you have Oh, okay. Yeah, thank you. Okay. This is an informal public meeting to consider item 14A zoning bylaw amendment Z 26-09 city initiated housing accelerator fund initiative number nine. There will be no decisions made tonight. Council and the public are seeing this application for the first time. Council is looking for feedback from interested parties with respect to this application. Tonight's comments will be taken into consideration in developing a staff position on this application and a staff report, which will be considered by council during a formal public meeting at a future meeting. All property owners within 120 m of the subject lands and anyone who signs the registry, which is located at the back, will will receive notice of the formal public meeting. And just note there's no date for the formal public meeting at this point. Anybody who wants further notice of this application, including the formal public meeting and passage of any bylaws, should sign the appropriate registry located on the desk at the rear of the council chambers. If there is more than one registry, please make sure you're signing the appropriate one. The city's planner, Brenna McKinnon, will now provide a brief overview of the application. Welcome, Brenna. >> Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor McCabe, members of council, city staff, and members of the public. As noted, this is an informal public meeting for zone change application Z 2609, a city-initiated zoning bylaw amendment application to expand the zoning permissions on 14 places of worship located in the city. There's been a lot of questions about how this amendment came about. So, why is this amendment proposed? In February In February 2024, the city received $22 million requires from the government of Canada through the Housing Accelerator Fund, through which the city of Waterloo agreed to proceed with several housing-focused initiatives. So, for a total of of nine initiatives. A zoning bylaw amendment to permit multi-unit residential to to permit multi-unit housing as a right on places of worship properties will help streamline development approvals process and remove barriers facing faith communities in moving forward with redevelopment projects. And as I said, this is one of the initiatives of the Housing Accelerator Fund. In 2025, this particular project um the city received additional funding through the Housing Accelerator Fund to practically carry out these assessments and associated bylaw amendments to enable a wider range of housing types and community spaces on places of worship properties. The goal of the initiative, as I said, is to streamline the development approvals process for the owners of places of worship by reducing cost, uncertainty, and time associated with securing planning approvals. In recent years, the city has been approached by multiple places of worship interested in exploring middle missing housing options on their lands, which became the genesis for this Housing Accelerator initiative. Again, to identify places of worship where additional zoning permissions are appropriate, including to enable missing middle housing or affordable housing, attainable housing, as well as look at providing what I'll get into is called third spaces. So, as noted, the zoning bylaw amendment also seeks to authorize additional community uses within places of worship, which will enable third spaces to collocate on the lands if desired. Third spaces are informal, accessible community gathering spots distinct from where you live and where you may work. Third spaces may help congregations diversify their sources of income while maintaining worship and community activities. And I'll go a little bit further after reading some some research from academics in the in the United States. A third place is a public setting that hosts regular, voluntary, and informal gatherings of people. It is a place to relax and have the opportunity to know and be known by others. It is a place where people like to hang out. And these were traditional spaces, you know, myself growing up and others would often be the mall, the bowling alley, the library, um and some of those places, unfortunately, are disappearing. We are losing these spaces as organizations outgrow their current space, while others may lose their current space or looking for more affordable rent places to rent. As an example, uh a fairly local example, St. Peter's Lutheran Church on King Street in Cambridge is utilizing spaces that is often empty during the week. Scouts Canada, Grand River Hockey, Bradshaw Recreation Therapy Services, and the Redeemed Christian Church of God all rent spaces from St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Cambridge. It is a creative way to use existing spaces to generate additional income and support other community organizations. So, moving forward, here in front is a map of the 14 places of worship that are uh proposed or under consideration in the city of Waterloo. There's a lot of words in it that's uh difficult to place all of the places on on one uh slide here. But here are the 14 places um that are under consideration. You can see their current zoning, their current official plan designation, the address, as well as the size of the parcel. So many questions on how are the sites selected? As I said, the size of the property was one consideration. The the well the site um sizes range between about 1 acre to over 5 acres in size. Current zoning was also a consideration. The properties are currently zoned residential one, residential four, or residential nine. Just a note, freestanding places of worship will continue be permitted on these properties. The zoning bylaw amendment is intended to provide enhanced land use permissions uh and land use flexibility. I would like to emphasize that the city is not purchasing or expropriating these properties. They will remain private properties independently owned by the place of worship. The zoning bylaw amendment seeks to expand the zoning permissions on these properties. It is possible through engagement other sites may be asked to be included or sites may come off the list. There is no requirement for places of worship to act upon the expanding zoning permissions and can continue to use their property as is for the foreseeable future. Locally there have been a number of places of worship that have undergone redevelopment on their lands in part or in whole, to renew aging spaces, create new housing with worship space and spaces for community uses built within or on, for example, underutilized parking spots or parking spaces. Some examples have resulted in newly constructed places of worship in conjunction with new housing. One example that we may all be familiar with is All Saints Anglican Church located on Northfield Drive. So, prior to 2021, the top picture shows the previous church and the parking lot beside it. The size of the site at that time was around 3 acres and, as I said, mostly a parking lot. In 2021, the church sold 2 acres to Cook to develop for Cook Homes and 76 townhouses are currently under construction. It's called Arbor Park. In 2021, the remaining lands were built with a new church, still called All Saints Anglican Church, as well as the 676 townhouse units. The new 12,000 square foot church is a modern design, so it can also serve as a sidewalk community center offering neighborhood programming such as weekly yoga, dance music classes, as well as as well as pick up basketball and is fully accessible. Other locations in the city that have undergone previous uh home building include Luther Manor, which is Trillium Lutheran Church behind City Hall here. There is an affordable house There's affordable housing for low-income seniors, which is 81 units, and they were built in the 1980s. Waterloo Mennonite Homes, now beyond housing, on 27 George Street, there is 46 senior apartment buildings and located to uh adjacent to WK United Mennonite. Another one is the Woodland Terrace Seniors Residence of 60 units, located adjacent to First Street uh First uh Baptist on on Erb Street, and that has 60 units. Oh, sorry. Over the next few months, staff will be undertaking additional consultation, including in-person and online engagement to seek community feedback, and will encompass members of congregations and leaders of congregations, as well as the community. There was a noted um lack of signage for this for these sites, and staff are moving ahead with producing those signs and getting those signs on the right-of-way as as quickly as we can. In early fall, it is anticipated that staff will return to council with a final recommendation. And if you would like more information about the site, please do register on the engage page, uh where you'll be notified of new information, as well as uh any public meeting and engagement. That is all for my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you very much, Brenna, for the information and um and the presentation. Um so, I know we'll take questions from council now, um and but I just want to reiterate a couple of things that you said. Um that there are going to be no decisions made tonight and that the public engagement process is at the beginning stage. Um you mentioned that you're putting some signs up um as well. And city staff will be hosting engagement sessions throughout the summer on this item. Um and I would also just remind council that um that at this point be we we are looking for only as this is an informal meeting, we're only looking for questions of clarification. Council members should not express opinions at this point. So just a a reminder of that and um and I just also wanted to before we go we go too far into this this agenda item to just say we want to thank everyone for all the we've been receiving an awful lot of emails, messages via many uh social media channels. Um staff are receiving them, council are receiving them. We may not have responded because the volume has been pretty a um pretty um pretty intense, but we are receiving them and we will review them all and take them all into account. So I wanted to make sure that uh people understand that. So we will turn to um council first with uh questions. We'll start with counselor Hamner. >> Thank you. Uh thank you. Thank you, Brenna, for your for your presentation. I just wanted to follow up on one comment that you made and I will say I will have other questions after the delegations, if that's okay. Uh the clarification question I have, you mentioned that the list you put the list together, but you also mentioned that through your work places may come off the list. What are the criteria that are going to be used to remove any, if any, places from the list? >> Through the mayor to counselor Hamner, as we move through the engagement process, there may be concerns about certain sites or certain considerations that staff need to hear either from the congregation members, the community, um or leaders of the congregation themselves. So, the there is the opportunity to expand the zoning permissions, but at this point in time, if if that is not something they are looking at at doing or wanting to undertake, uh that is okay, and uh in the future, if they do want to undertake such a such redevelopment, they would submit their own uh application at that time. >> Okay, thank you. I would appreciate when you come back with the formal piece that you do include what criteria were used to either take them off if that's what the case would be. So, thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor Hanmer. Councillor Freeman. >> Um I just I have quite a few questions, but I kind of really wanted to hear from the delegations before I kind of walk that path of questions, cuz we've received 140 independent pieces of email on this matter, and >> [clears throat] >> I suspect that um that the broader citizenry really might like to hear how we heard their comments and then asked questions based on what we heard. And so, it's just a process piece. I know we normally ask council questions of the planner now, but I just I don't I'm I'm open to my colleagues thinking differently, but that's >> Normally, though, when we've been when we've been at this point, we we ask questions of staff. There's delegations, and then there's often been questions of staff that are based on what the delegates have said. So, I think that's a that's that's our regular process, so I think it makes sense to stick with that, but if you want to start with a couple of your questions, and then we'll go to other members of council, and then we can come back if you had more. >> I have two pages of questions. I They They lead into one another, so I'll just wait. >> Start to ask your first two questions and like we what we've done in the past is if we go around the horseshoe and we'll come back to we'll come back to you if you have additional questions. >> What's the proposed density per hectare for each of the properties that you're looking at? >> That is to be determined. The The application before you is to rezone the property if the places of worship wish to continue with the process and at the time of a staff recommendation, there will likely be some some tailored uh um site-specific um provisions made to to particular site. >> Okay, so you're telling me they're going to vary. Um in in my ward, in Ward 4, where WMB is located, there are no fewer than um Where is it? seven driveways, one major intersection, and one residential street, and two driveways serving a multi-tenanted plaza, two serving a multi-tenanted retirement community, and two serving a very busy church community being WMB, all within 270 m of each other. And right now, there are two development applications under consideration for council. One is for 376 new units um in two new residential towers, 55 new townhouse units, on top of the fact that this council already approved and it's been built a 216 unit residential building. And again, this is all within 270 m. On a sing on a two-lane road, not a four-lane road. >> with this? It's coming. Thank you. >> And the transportation study that was done for the most recent application for the 55 new townhouses show that the level of service for transportation turning movements at Sandown and Andale and all the way over to Bridge Street Dunvegan will operate at a level of service F, which is a complete lack like a complete breakdown of transportation flow. Bridge Street's left turn lane is insufficient to handle the current traffic. And Andale will also fall to almost a level of service F, uh which is a complete breakdown of the intersection. I I just it is unfathomable to me that we're considering changing the zoning at WMB. And so I I and so my question is >> Freeman, I'll just remind you we are not to express opinions at this point. I can tell that you're a little you don't appreciate me breaking in, but we'll I'll ask you to ask a question. There's not because you know also and I will also Counselor Freeman, just a moment. I'll also just remind all of us around the horseshoe there's no active um planning applications on any of these properties in within this informal planning um up report that's come forward. So no opinions at this point, but please do ask your question. And it sounds like you may need uh I don't know if we have a transportation planner here, but please ask your question. >> My question is when are we going to follow our planning process, which is that we look at planning applications based on all of the required information, transportation studies, site servicing studies, contextual um care and application to the neighborhood. We don't just upzone properties and make them they make their value triple overnight. >> Okay, I'm just going to So, again, just remind you, Counselor Freeman, and everyone else around the horseshoe and in the and in the chambers tonight, there are no active planning applications regarding any of these any of these properties. And so, so I will let I will let staff respond, but but just we need to scope our questions to the actual report that's before us and not speculate about what or what may or may not happen far into the future. So, Brianna. >> Through you, Mayor, to Counselor Freeman. What staff are considering right now is is putting an H or holding provision on the properties. So, the rezoning could occur, theoretically, an H would be placed on the property, and any studies identified to lift that H would need to be completed, such as a transportation impact study. >> And and you would say and regular planning processes. Right. Okay. So, so >> Is the zoning expectant that the church remains in place? >> The I just just because there's people on YouTube just responded. Not you're not in your head. >> Through Counselor Freeman through the Mayor to Counselor Freeman. The the sizes of the properties are such that, uh, the church can remain as is and potentially, uh, another building could go on the site. >> But the question becomes if the church chooses to sell the whole property by right of zoning, the entire footprint could eventually uh essentially convert. >> The church is a >> Oh, sorry. Through, uh, through the mayor. The church is already in in private hands. So, if the if the upzoning, uh, does occur, the church could, yes, sell the property off. >> Okay. Just just I'm just going to put you on hold there for a minute, Councillor Freeman. Are there other questions of members of council around this? Okay. Um, Okay, Councillor Bodaly, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, >> [clears throat] >> through you, Mayor McCabe. Um, for the property you you mentioned R1, R4, R9 were the, uh, zoning, uh, current current zoning permissions that were looked at as part of the justification here. Um, can you explain a little bit more about why those were the sites that we were we were looking at, uh, as opposed to sites that maybe already have special provision areas or uh, maybe have to undertake a more thorough planning process in order to in in order to change what's on the site? >> The through you, Mayor, to Councillor Bodaly. The purpose of the application is to expand the the zoning permissions on, uh, on these sites that are currently R1 through to through to R9. Other sites already have uh, or may have permissions to go to multi-unit residential, um, in height or in or in in density or types of units. So, these are the properties that currently have uh a limited ability to do that. >> Got you. And uh if I may as a follow-up through you, Mayor McCabe, I'm thinking specifically in Ward 2 of Creekside Creekside Church. Could you maybe uh expand a little bit on whether Creekside Church was considered for this or >> [clears throat] >> and why it was excluded, particularly given, I guess, the substantive amount of housing that's going in in and around there currently? >> Through you, Mayor, to Councillor Bodaly, and I've and I've also heard this question. Um It's my understanding, and Adam or Joel can can weigh in as well, Creekside is currently zoned future determination, and what that zone permits is what is on the site today. So, if Creekside wanted to do something else on the property, they themselves would have to apply for a zoning amendment application. >> And just as a final follow-up, if I may, that makes perfect sense. Uh through you, Mayor McCabe, uh if we were to move just just for my own refresher and for anyone new who's watching here, if any of these sites were rezoned to uh the new six-story uh sort of permission that is being contemplated here, and in the future the church wanted to say "Make a 10-story building or a 12-story building." It would then be incumbent upon them, as it would currently be today, for them to come to council and undertake a planning process to say, "I know six stories is allowed here, but I actually think I'd like to build 10, and here's the reasons why." And then our planning staff would review that uh uh document uh those documents and and make a decision one way or the other. Is that fair to say that we're not hamstringing them? That this now is only they what they could build here, they're still able to go through a planning process. >> Uh through you, Mayor, to Councillor Bodaly, that is correct. And and and perhaps in those instances an official plan amendment may be required to go higher than six stories. >> Thank you, Councillor Bodley. Councillor Vasek. >> Thanks. And just kind of building on that last through you, Mayor. Building on Councillor Bodley's last question. Um how much does it cost to come in? So, if a church wanted to come in, say Parkminster, which is just around the corner from me, wanted to come in to do what we're doing here or suggesting we might do here. Um what would what costs would that congregation incur if they wanted to zone to allow for third spaces and six stories? >> Through you, Mayor, to Councillor Vasek. I may turn over this question over to Joel cuz I actually don't uh know the cost of a zone change application in the city. >> Uh through the Mayor to Councillor Vasek. It It depends on the nature of the application, but it would be in terms of fees somewhere between likely 20 to 40,000 dollars and zoning related fees. Uh third B site plan and building permit application fees that would follow. Um but that would just be the fees to the city. There would also be supporting studies and other consulting consultants that would likely be need to be retained, uh which would add to the cost to the overall process. >> Uh thanks very much. Um and just to follow up through you, Mayor. Uh uh and they would likely have to This isn't something that the churches would be able to do on their own or so they would likely have to hire a consultant and instead of doing that like in-house, you know, like if you're a you hire a lawyers, you don't self-represent. So, it's similar in this. >> Uh through the Mayor to Councillor Vasek. There's a wide range of I guess development options on our property. A church could seek to add, you know, two houses to their property. They may be able to do that for through a very fairly minor uh planning process. If they were looking to add, say a series of stacked townhouses or a small apartment building, some more uh substantive application and would require more analysis. >> Thanks, and I know you can't speak >> [snorts] >> to the costs the private costs, but do you have a ballpark or a range of what it might cost for all various studies and for the consultant? >> Through the mayor to Councillor there's too many variables. I wouldn't want to wager a guess on that. But it would it would be uh there'd be significant costs incurred. >> Thank you Councillor uh Councillor Hammer. >> Thank you. My question is through you mayor back to Briana. I should have asked it when I asked you the criteria for coming off. In your response you said that if the congregations didn't want it maybe I presumed incorrectly with the list that was before us that all of these properties had been approached to be included initially on the list. Can you clarify that for us? >> Through you uh mayor to Councillor Hammer. A number of the properties did approach the city um through this initiative. There were uh numerous letters and emails sent out to uh not only these lists but the the the list that we created the inventory of places of worship in in the uh city of Waterloo and as we narrowed the list down uh we determined as staff that uh in order to accommodate uh the place of worship itself plus perhaps some uh additional spaces or or buildings, we looked at size and we looked at the limitations in the current zoning. So to answer your question, not every not every church reached out to say I want to be on that list. >> Or not every church was contacted contacted. >> Every church was contacted. >> Okay. Okay, thank you. Um mayor I'd like to reserve asking other questions from the after the delegations. to Thank you. Um Counselor Rowe, are you on the list? >> I'll ask a question. >> Okay. >> Just just to be 100% clear, and this may be clear to everyone, um but I'm not sure in the conversation if it is, but being regardless if a church goes on this list or not, they have the option to come to City Hall at any time to up-zone or or re-zone for building, yes? >> Yes, they do. >> Okay. Did you Okay, thanks, Counselor Rowe. Uh Counselor Wright. >> Thank you to you, Mayor. Um just a couple of questions of clarification. Are Are any of the um places of worship on the list this list also um falling within the community planning permitting system that we approved earlier this spring, and if so, what happens in that case? >> Through the Mayor to Counselor Wright, that is a good question cuz I'm thinking uh I can't remember where the boundary is for First Baptist, but I believe First Baptist Church is outside of the of the boundary. >> Okay. And then my my follow-up question Okay. Uh my follow-up question I'm forgetting cuz Oh Oh Oh Oh Yeah. Okay. So, some of these churches um and the like yeah, I look at the last one on the list, which is in my ward, the Waterloo Kitchener United Mennonite Church is R9, and there are a couple of places of worship in Ward 7 that already have um developments on them. I I think of Luther Manor over by um Trillium Lutheran, and uh and then the Waterloo Kitchener Mennonite to a great example of one that had already uh done a development. Um what how how is the zoning impacted in that particular case where like I'm I'm noting the R9 that exists currently. Um how would that zoning change in a with an additional uh density, I guess, on on a proposed property? >> Through you, Mayor, to Councillor Wright. The R9 zoning does permit apartment uh dwellings. However, it does not permit the use of third spaces or offices for for organizations. >> Okay, that's really helpful to to better understand. So, some of this is is literally about zoning for the um change in use. And so, I guess the other question I have I'm just trying to pull this out of the ether. Um so, these are all zoned institutional right now as places of worship? No. What it what what is the use? What is the zoning use? >> The current zoning uh R1, R4, or R9. Sorry, through Mayor to Councillor Wright. They're all Sorry for the Through you Through you, Mayor, to Councillor Wright, the the places of worship are all have a residential zone on them. >> Residential, so um I get it now. Okay, so so uh would would the change in use trigger a record of site condition for each of those properties? >> As I Through you, Mayor, to Councillor Wright, as I noted earlier, depending on the stage of where they are in their uh development application process, there are a number of uh places of worship that are are farther along in some of their initial stages of of redevelopment. Um if a record of site condition is is required, as I noted, there uh we are looking at uh considering placing a holding provision on on sites. So, prior to uh getting a building permit that each would have to be lifted and it would be subject to completing those those studies such as a record of of site condition. >> Is is it safe to say though because there's no planning applications currently with any of these that it would be too soon to tell if there's anything like a any anything like a record of site condition or anything like that? >> It through you, yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Did you have a follow-up counselor, right? >> No, I was just I was just trying to work my way through the change of use aspect of it. So, >> That's Okay. Okay, thank you. Um Uh okay, yeah, back to Counselor Freeman. >> I just wanted to better understand your answer to I think it was Counselor Hanmer's question about the church selection. Was it you that asked that, Counselor Hanmer? Um there's a lot of other faith communities other than the Christian faith community that hold a lot of lands and I just wanted to better understand whether all those communities were reached out to as well. >> Through you, uh Mayor to Counselor Freeman. So, at the beginning of the initiative all the places of worship that we had in our inventory were were uh were uh uh we announced that we had the had some funding to conduct some uh assessments and looking at um zoning bylaw amendments to expand uh zoning permissions. So, the properties um that are listed have zoning permissions that don't allow or are limited uh multi-unit residential permissions or community spaces. >> So, is all that to say that the in your review you found that's a variety of faith-based church or places of worship. Again, some had some some were taken off the list because constrained sites, size of sites, etc. Is that what you're saying? >> Through you, Mayor Harris. So, yes, that was the predominant consideration was how large the the place of worship would is. And secondly, many places of worship already have zoning in place to allow multi-unit residential buildings. >> Thanks. Did you have a follow-up, Councillor Freeman? No? Okay. Councillor Rowe. >> Thank you. Through you, Chair. Actually, I just wanted to follow up about the community planning permit system and I'm really appreciate Councillor Wright raising that. And maybe Adam can speak to it to it as well or we can talk about it offline, but I don't actually think that it doesn't encompass this church. So, maybe we could clarify that. Um because just I'm just looking at the map and it may or may not. So, if that's something we could clarify, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. >> And did you want to respond to that right now, Adam, or do you need a minute? >> Yeah, if I could, I I was looking at So, Councillor Rowe is referring to the First Baptist Church, 306 Erb Street West. I do believe that is in the boundary of the community planning permit system. For context, I think I think that is the case, yeah. >> And could you maybe just provide for the benefit of everyone here, just maybe provide a quick summary of what that means. >> The community planning permit system is a framework to streamline three different forms of planning applications. And was approved by council just not that long ago. And so, the question is whether or not um this particular property, 306 Erb Street West, is within the boundaries of of that framework. Um that framework is is in a pilot phase and uh the city is testing out uh whether or not that that tool to streamline the planning process uh has is is a good one. Yeah. >> Okay, thank you. Did you have a follow-up, Counselor Rowe? Okay. Um just a couple quick questions from me. I was curious about the Waterloo Kitchener Mennonite Church cuz it's on the list, but my understanding was that they are already going through some type of a maybe not an official official application, but that they're in like are they not are they one of the ones that approached us to to have their property rezoned already? I thought they were already in process. >> They are in in a process uh through Mayor the uh site um in talking to Beyond Housing and and members of the congregation, they are looking to have uh or create the ability for third spaces or community uses to exist on the property, which isn't currently permitted. Hence, they came to us and and looked to seek authorization through the zone change to allow those uses. >> Okay, thank you. And just the the I'm curious about um like the places of worship because we know there's uh some places of worship that have been around much longer in our community than others, some that are kind of new newer people who've come to and and and newer faiths that have come to Waterloo that are looking for places to establish a place of worship, but um as we know it's it's land's expensive and it can be difficult to find um to find land uh that's zoned for that. So, through this process in in reaching out to various places of faith and all and all places of faith, um do you did you get any sensors or that of like of the ability to share space among different um among different faith groups like if if one of the one that are listed on the one of the 14 here have extra like they're dwindling congregation that they could share space with another um with another faith group. I mean, I guess that's similar to um the one that's in I'm the Cedars. Yeah, the Cedars in Ward 1 is is that a possibility or though is that sparking some of those conversations cuz my understanding is that some some faith groups are looking for space and can't find it. >> Through you, that's it isn't something I've come across quite yet, but it is not an unusual scenario um where as I mentioned the site in Cambridge also shares space with with other faith groups and I'm sure that will continue. There's nothing through this zoning bylaw amendment that would restrict from that from that continuing or being enhanced. >> Okay, thank you. And and I would just it was interesting to see the different examples that you had in your presentation of some faith places of worship that have already gone through it like All Saints Anglican and I forget some of the others that that you oh Trillium um so I so is it fair to say that this isn't a new concept, but my but my other question is with with those churches that you that you highlighted in in your presentation having gone through that process, would they have had to pay the the various process fees that Councillor Vasic was asking about? >> Through you, Mayor. It's so Uh, yes, All Saints uh, Church did go through a planning process to sever off the the parking lot. And I'm not sure if I don't believe the property was rezoned. It's It has an R4 zoning on it with which which allows for the the spiritual use. I Through you, Mayor Joel, I don't know if you have any other uh, additional comments on that one. >> Yeah, through you to the mayor. There were a number of planning applications on that particular property that addressed matters of zoning, land use, parking, setbacks, and whatnot. So, there was a process along with the the division of the property into two pieces that were then tied together with certain, um, covenants, if you will. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, um, are there any other questions right now of staff? I know we we can Okay, Counselor Freeman. >> I mean, just for clarity, you indicated that the plan was to potentially use the H, like use a holding provision, such that to lift the H, the property would have to go through a full process where they'd have to look at all of the um, supporting documentation to to support a planning application, right? >> Through you, uh, Mayor to Counselor Freeman, that is correct. So, if as you identified earlier, if there was an issue of transportation, uh, and that, you know, a new, theoretically say, a a new building is proposed on a site, um, that may trigger a transportation impact study, which would need to be looked at, uh, prior to the issuance of a building permit. >> But for clarity, the lifting of an H is a public process that requires a council decision. So, all of the fees and such that Mr. Cotter mentioned, plus the the the fees associated with the consulting work to do all of that would still need to be paid. >> Through you, Mayor, to uh Councilor Freeman, um it's my understanding that the H is not a public process, but perhaps I'll turn that over to Joel. >> Uh through you, Mayor, to Councilor Freeman, the removal of a holding provision is a public process, but it's a delegated process to staff. So, there's a lesser um zoning process that is undertaken. It is still a public process. There are still fees, uh substantial fees that are tied to those processes. I think through this through this uh project, we are looking to evaluate properties. That evaluation hasn't been undertaken for each of these properties, but in the event that we determine, for example, that transportation in a in a context of a particular property is a substantial issue, that might be a criteria to remove that property from the list and leave it to a broader and larger zoning process. If we determine, for example, that there is a warranted, say, transportation intersection improvement or turning improvement process, a lesser kind of transportation review, maybe that is the type of situation that a holding provision could be applied. But we've not completed those evaluations as of yet. The holding provision is a tool that we have at our disposal, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we'll it will be applied should, you know, the concerns be larger and more substantive that we would believe as staff they're better addressed through a bigger and larger process by council. >> Thank you, Mr. Cotter. Do you have a follow-up to that? Okay. And then I'll go to Councillor Hammer. >> So, at what point does Council get to ask questions about whether or not Council thinks there might be a large transportation problem with one or any of the applications if I can't ask those questions tonight? >> Through through the mayor to Councillor Freeman, I think um you know, this process identifies an opportunity for Council to say you know, that there um is particular properties where staff should be reviewing matters of transportation, matters of whatever it may be of Council's interest with specific properties. So, we've heard from Councillor Freeman you know, that transportation is a concern with a particular property. If there's other properties that transportation is a concern, it will form part of staff's evaluation. >> Um Yes. >> I was trying to ask those questions earlier. >> Well, you had a chance to ask those questions right now. Um Councillor Hammer. >> Um thank you through you, Mayor. Uh Mr. Carter, your comments have just uh prompted a couple of questions for me. Uh two, um the evaluation You talk about the evaluation of the property. So, that has not occurred yet. Is that correct? And is the plan to have the evaluation of each of the properties completed before the formal meeting? >> Uh through the mayor to Councillor Hammer. Some evaluation has been undertaken, sufficient analysis to get us to this point in time, but a full and complete evaluation has not been undertaken. Though this So, the process before Council today is to receive public input, identify issues that may be were weren't further evaluation and review. Those will be undertaken by staff. We will also continue our review and evaluation of the properties, and ultimately that will formulate staff's recommendations back to Council through a staff report, which would be considered at a formal public meeting sometime in the future. >> In the future. Great, thank you. Mayor, I think I'll let the There are a number of delegations that are here from Ward 1 and for the church that's listed in Ward 1 and I think I'd like to hear from the delegations and there may be a few other issues that come forward for staff to consider. I expect there will be. Yes, thanks Councillor Hammer. Um with that are we Councillor Freeman, I know you've said you have a number of questions but are you can we can we move ahead with the delegations and there's always time as we've done through normal regular practices to ask staff other questions afterwards. So, did you want to ask a couple more questions and then we can move on with the delegations? >> Well, I thought I heard Mr. Cotter say that this is a time in which issues could be raised with regard to particular holdings. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I would like to raise some issues associated with the holding at 245 Lexington if that's okay. >> Yeah, as long as you keep keep the these I mean again, the caution with these formal informal public processes is that we are to ask questions of clarification. We are not to provide our opinions on these on these in through through through this report. So, but I would remind you that we do have 15 I think it is 15 or 14 delegations who are waiting patiently for them to have to share their information and their opinions and their with with staff. So, I'll give you a couple more questions and then we'll go to delegations. >> Well, actually what I'm trying to do is give points of issues because that's that's what's salient at this particular site. So, the traffic study that was done for the three towers that are considered one built, two under consideration uh done during COVID, so it's not applicable. The traffic study that was done for a more recent application for the church across the street from WMB, the traffic counts were taken when school was finished. So, that is not applicable. The third issue is conflicts with a number of driveways that I'd like to leave with you. And my other question more broadly with all of the sites relates to our nodes and corridor and heightened density plan, because I believe that none of the sites fall into a major or a minor node or corridor or fall in alignment with our heightened density plan. So, I'll leave that with you. >> Okay, thank you very much. Um with that then, we will Sorry, where am I here? Okay, so um we will Thanks, Brianna. We will let you sit down now. Um I will now will now proceed to the delegations. Um and I would just start by because we have a large group today, which is which is welcome, but unusual for us. Um I'm just going to start with um a bit of a highlight regarding delegations and some of the It's a very formal process, Council, um and just to just to share some of the rules that go along with this. So, Waterloo City Council welcomes and encourages members of the public to comment on matters of interest to them. A principle of a fair public hearing is that those in favor or in opposition that they feel comfortable to speak at this meeting of Council. For this reason, we ask or require that you do not cheer, clap, or make negative comments during any person's presentation or delegation. Delegates are cautioned that offensive, discriminatory, derogatory, or inappropriate remarks that may constitute slander could could lead potentially to legal action against them. So, I know you're not going to do that, but I just it's part of the process. If such comments are made, the delegate will be not permitted to continue speaking. The microphone will be muted and the live stream may be disabled. Any such comments will not be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The chair will inform all delegates as they get close to the allotted time. Delegates may also monitor their own time by using the clock on the podium desktop, which you'll see when you when you're up at the at the podium. You can also raise and lower the podium. There's a on the left side, there's um arrows there, so you can adjust it to your height as well. You can adjust the microphone, so it's more comfortable. Um any delegate every delegation is asked to say only their name and their municipality in which they live. Please do not provide your full address because again, this is this is being recorded on YouTube, so you don't need to let everyone know uh your exact address. Okay? Um and again, if people are interested in I just encourage people to remember to sign the register at the back for future um information. So, we will get started now with Sherry Wolfe. Is Sherry Wolfe here? >> [snorts] >> Okay, welcome Sherry. And again, you can adjust the microphone in the in the podium as you need. Um and registered delegates have 10 minutes. I will just say um with there's there's I think 12 12 12 delegates who have 10 minutes and two that have five minutes. If people are if you if someone's already said what you were thinking of saying, you know, just in the interest of time, not that we want don't want to hear from people, but just, you know, you don't have to repeat everyone doesn't have to repeat the same points. We are listening and and certainly staff are as well. So, start us off, Sherry. And thank you for coming. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. My name is Sherry Wolf and I live in Waterloo and have for 26 years. I recognize that Waterloo faces housing challenge and I support the needs for housing with caution, water resources, infrastructure, health care and education. All of these things need to be planned together. However, I have serious concerns about the process being used here. Passing zoning with a plan of project. I work in residential construction and in my experience when a developer seeks rezoning, a variance, they must submit detailed plans, studies, analysis, traffic, servicing, design impacts, and public consultation. It is the process that ensures clarity, feasibility of the land, and the community. These studies and reports and application fees are that of the developer and in this case my opinion should be of the church. Not the residents and not any public funding. The process exists for a reason. It ensures councils and residents understand what is actually being built before the decision is made. That is why I find the process difficult to understand. At the 14 sites in this this initiative, all of those all are places of worship that have served their communities for decades. Each site is different, each neighborhood is different, each impact is different. And yet they are being treated the same. For example, St. Agnes Church on Bluevale sits beside two schools with over 1,500 students. The parking lot is used for kids being dropped off at schools and both schools are at capacity. That raises real concerns of pedestrian safety and traffic during peak school periods as the same as likely for other church sites. All within established communities. Compatibility, traffic, safety, and neighborhood characters are inherently site-specific. They cannot be assessed in advance without a proposal. Yet can council is being asked to approve significant zoning permissions without a building design, a site plan, traffic studies, service analysis, shadow impacts to neighboring properties. For a planning perspective, this is putting the cart before the horse. I respectfully ask why the standards applied to private applicants are not being applied here. I also ask the question why the city is initiating rezoning on properties where property owners are not making out the application. And why taxpayers and funding are working with developers that normally have to undertake this weight. If the goal is to reduce development barriers, then that should be applying fairly to all developments, sites, and all development applications. Every site is unique, every neighborhood is unique, and yet one zoning approach is being applied across all 14. I understand the need for housing, but I understand with the why. Why is this begun with long-standing institutions of worship? Why not focus on vacant land, commercial land, undersized plaza, or underutilized plazas, sorry, and large surface parking lots that have fewer neighborhood impact. Once zoning is changed, the character of these sites is permanently altered. And in many ways, so are the pressures that follow. As I I was also concerned about a comment made by counselor at a council meeting in March regarding another church property where they said the city has the opportunity to reimagine places of worship and provide leadership of repurposing them for community benefit. I respectfully disagree with this direction. Places of worship are not simple real estate. They are part of a social and moral fabric of our communities that provide community support, meaning across generations. It is not the role of the city to reimagine these institutions before the congregations themselves choose to do so. Once broad permissions are granted, these properties become fundamentally different assets. And future development pressures pressures, whether intended or not, become much easier to advance. Residents are being asked to approve something today and the council, sorry, without knowing who may own these lands or what they may be proposed. That is why site-specific review matters. My personal concern is in the park um Minister United Church at 275 Erb Street. I have lived on Cardinal Crescent for 26 years and my home is less than 40 ft from the exiting um driveway. That it is a quiet residential development from the 1960s. It was never designed to function as a high access point for a higher intensity development. Like my neighbors, I chose this neighborhood for its stability, quiet streets, low traffic, privacy, larger setbacks, and established homes. This stability is not incidental. It is what defines the community. We made long-term investments here with reasonable expectations that change would be reviewed through a transparent site-specific process. What concerns us is not the change itself. It's the uncertainty created by a broad permission being granted in advance. At the north and south ends of Cardinal Crescent, there are two access points to Bright at Park where children play in the Crescent, families walk through it, cyclists use it, and pedestrians often show share the roadway. There's also a Montessori preschool operating on the church site, as well as many, many amazing community programs running out of the church. So, with this, there's added drop-off traffic, young children, and and there is some peak period congestion, which would only be more problematic with residential added to the site. Any future proposals may consider the combined impacts of all uses to the site. Additional concerns include parking spillover, emergency access, noise, privacy, overlooking, and building massing that is may not fit within the neighborhoods. They are not minor details. They are core planning considerations. In closing, meaningful planning happens when the council evaluates a defined proposal with clear details. Today, I don't feel that there is enough clear details to be able to speak to any one of these properties. Not one with broad permission being granted in advance. We are asking council to We are not asking council to reject housing. We are asking that the current process at the development continue to be utilized. We are asking for thoughtful growth and for the same level of scrutiny being applied to private applicants to be applied here. Established neighborhoods should not lose stability and certainty without a clear understanding of what is being proposed and meaningful opportunity to evaluate it. I ask council to ensure the decision the decisions respect not only housing needs, but also that of public safety, neighborhood compatibility, and long-term character of the communities. And each of these sites apply individually if they each of these sites can apply individually for up-zoning if they wish to and use the current process. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you very much, Sherry. Um so, we'll just see if any if there's any questions of council, but I do just want to underscore again, we're not making any decisions tonight cuz I did hear you say about decisions that we're making and it's we're not making any decisions tonight. I just want to underscore that for everyone. Okay, thanks. Are there questions, uh, counselor Freeman? >> Um, I just wanted to thank you for providing a presentation today and I believe that you also supplied some written comments as a part of the process. One of the things you said that really resonated with me was about whether or not the broader citizenry should be paying for this process to happen at this time as opposed to going through the regular process and I just wanted to say thank you. That really resonated with me. I hadn't thought of that. >> You're welcome. Thank you, counselor Freeman. Um, okay, seeing no other uh, questions. Thanks very much for your for your presentation, Sherry. We'll move to Manju Porwal who's a director of Bra- Brason Montessori. Welcome. And again, you can adjust the podium or the microphone as you need, Manju. And I hope I'm saying your name properly. Okay. Go ahead. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Manju Porwal and I'm the director of Brason Montessori, a licensed child care center currently operating within Parkminster United Church since 2024. Parkminster United Church is one of the 14 places of worship that will be affected under under this proposed amendment. Our center is enrolled in the CWELCC program as well as the subsidy pilot program supporting accessibility and affordability for many families, including those from racialized and marginalized communities. In April 2024, we completed a rezoning process to formally permit the operation of a licensed child care center at this location with the intention of establishing long-term stability. Councillor Vasic, you were very supportive at that time and very encouraging of this endeavor. Currently, we hold 15-year lease and have made significant investments both operationally and within the community based on this understanding. We serve 63 families, employ 15 staff, and utilize 100% of the church building, um mainly the basement and the gym upstairs. We use two playgrounds in the property and out of all the parking spots that are available, Bryson uses 83 parking spots. The church staff and the outreach program that happens during weekdays use the rest of it. That means 100% of the building and the parking lot in the church has been utilized. If size and underutilization was the criteria for this selection, I wonder why was Parkminster United Church selected? Given this context, the proposed city-initiated rezoning raises several serious concerns. The first one is operational stability. How will this rezoning impact existing child care operations within the within these properties? Will there be any risk of displacement or even pressure to vacate in the future? What about long-term planning certainty? As a center that has recently undergone rezoning approval and entered into a long-term lease, what assurances can the city provide that the child care operations will remain protected and supported within these redeveloped or mixed-use frameworks. I'm also worried about the safety and environment for children. I heard one of my fellow members from publics that spoke before me, Sherry. I understand that the Cardinal Crescent, we have Parkminster has two openings. One opens to Argue Street and the other to Cardinal Crescent, and our children there often walk through Cardinal Crescent the cul-de-sac to access Wright Up Park for going on to forest and outdoor learning. The introduction of high-density residential developments may significantly alter the physical environment. How will the city ensure the safety, outdoor space, traffic patterns, and overall suitability for young children is preserved? There will be impact on families. Our center plays a critical role in enabling more workforce participation for families in the community. Any disruption or uncertainty could have immediate and far-reaching consequence for working parents and their children. Lastly, I was also worried about policy alignment. Given the provinces and municipalities stated goals of expanding access to affordable child care, how does this proposal align with protecting and strengthening existing licensed child care spaces that are already serving the community? While we understand and support the need for increased housing and thoughtful redevelopment, it is essential that existing community-serving uses, particularly licensed child care, are not inadvertently destabilized in this process. I respectfully request clear confirmation that existing licensed child care centers within these properties will be protected. There will be inclusion of specific provisions within zoning framework to safeguard child care operations. That means the infrastructure including the physical environment inside and outside. Lastly, direct engagement with affected child care operators as key stakeholders in this whole process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. >> Thank you very much, Manju. Um Council, other questions? Councillor Vasek. >> Uh thanks through um uh Mayor McCabe. Uh thanks for coming and thanks for delegating. I have a couple questions for you and then I have a question for staff um based on it. Uh is that okay or >> Well, we'll keep the questions for staff till the till after all the delegations, so >> That's good. Um yeah, thanks for your delegation, so we'll ask later. Um but for you, have you spoken with your landlord, Parkminster United Church, about some of your concerns? >> I did briefly. Um right now the congregation, as everybody knows, is majorly made of um all people that are approaching retirement age. Um we have developed a very um you know, a relationship of synergy where um they're very happy with the Montessori being there and taking care of the property. And um you know, in return we we pay a a handsome rental to the Parkminster Church. Right now they don't have any I've spoken to one congregation member. Um and right now they don't have any intention to, but I fear that as congregation moves and changes and you know, the demographic changes, um what would happen to the future of Parkminster? >> Sorry, I appreciate that. Sorry, I'm just not clear based on your answer. Have you talked to your landlord directly or have you just talked to the one congregation member? >> Um this congre this this member is the property committee ex-property committee uh head. So, yes, I have. >> Great. And And do you think that they're open to talking about um it sounds like a like you said a synergistic partnership. Um but both sides benefiting. Um do you feel like they'd be amenable to conversations about um what it would look like to work together if they wanted to build something? If this were approved down the road and if they wanted to build something, do you think they'd be based on your conversations amenable to working together to um ensure that you're not displaced? I have that question for staff later, but just based on your relationship with them. >> When I had that brief conversation with them, they said that they had, you know, I had nothing to worry and they have no intentions of doing that and they don't understand why Parkminster was included in this list to begin with. >> Hm. I Okay, we'll save that for staff. I was under the impression that I had the answer to that from their presentation, but I'll clarify with staff later. Um and then the other thing is I have you can sit I know it's um it's a big change uh potentially. Uh and uh it can feel scary. Um and I understand those two streets are busy. I live right in between them and I watched my kid zip off on his bike across Bridgeport today in the rain cuz we promised him he could go to school on his bike this morning. So, I understand the fears that come with that. Um um with uh traffic, but you know, uh it's uh it's a relatively safe area. Um so just to say, I get the fears of all kinds. Um and uh but at the same time, like have you thought about what this could mean for the potential to um expand uh child care spaces at this location and what that might um mean for the um spaces we don't have and not just for um your Montessori uh if you can't go bigger, maybe you could partner with another one, but just wondering if you kind of flipped it. Have you thought about what it's like what the potential to expand might be if this were to be approved and if something were to to be built in the future? >> According to my understanding, this was we were only talking about building affordable housing. >> Um and third spaces as well. So, um yeah, it yeah, uh >> I do understand that, but I think that um with us there Brace and Montessori being there and all the outreach program that happens at the church, we utilize 100% of that property including the parking lots, the playground, the labyrinth, and the building. >> Okay, thank you for your um delegation and and responses to my questions. Appreciate it. >> Thanks, Councillor Vasica. Are there other questions of the delegate? Okay, seeing none. Thanks very much, Manju. Thank you. All right, appreciate that. Um the next delegation is Brian Shellenberg, member of the Church of God German. Welcome, Brian. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor McCabe. Um good evening. Um my name is Brian Shellenberg. Um thanks for having me here and giving me this opportunity to speak today. It's nice to be here and see see everybody. Um so, yeah, I'm here regarding the proposed rezoning as everyone else. Um I want to begin by uh making one point very clear. This is not an argument against housing in any way. Um it's not an argument against redevelopment in any way, either. And it is not an argument that church properties should never evolve. So, I just wanted to make that clear before I go on. Um my concern is much narrower. So, it is whether council should proactively grant substantially greater development permissions to a private property >> [snorts] >> through a blanket city-wide rezoning when the property owner has not requested those permissions, does not support the rezoning, and no site-specific planning case has been made that this particular property is an appropriate for RMU 20. So, that's an unusual circumstance, I believe. Normally, when significant new development permissions are sought, the process begins with the property owner or the applicant. Studies are prepared, planning impacts are evaluated, the neighborhood has an opportunity to respond to an actual proposal. Council then decides whether the requested permissions are appropriate for that specific site. That's normally how it works. Um that process exists for a reason. It ensures that major planning decisions are based on evidence specific to the property being considered. Here, that sequence has been reversed. The city is proposing to establish in advance that a six-story apartment zoning is appropriate for this property without first demonstrating why this site is suitable for that level of intensity. In my respectful view, that requires compelling planning rationale. I have not seen one. The question keeps One One question keeps coming to mind. Why this site? The Housing [snorts] Accelerator Fund initiative includes 14 places of worship. Those sites are not interchangeable. They differ in size, surrounding neighborhoods, existing land uses, community functions, and physical constraints. What objective planning criteria led to the conclusion that 170 Middlebury Drive should be rezoned RMU 20? Why this property instead of others? That explanation has not been clearly presented, although we touched on it a little bit this evening. Instead, the proposal appears to assume that because these properties are all places of worship, they should receive essentially the same zoning treatment. But good planning is not based on categories alone, as Adam would tell you. It's based on context. 170 Middlebury Drive sits within a neighborhood that is overwhelmingly low-rise in character. The existing R4 zoning reflects that context. RMU20 is a fundamentally different planning framework. It permits apartment buildings up to six stories along with a broader range of residential and commercial uses. That is not a minor housekeeping amendment. It represents a significant change in the long-term development potential of the property. Whether that change is appropriate should be demonstrated through a site-specific planning analysis. This has not been done. The site itself also contributes to the neighborhood in ways that deserve consideration. Although privately owned, it functions as an important area of openness within the community. Residents use the property informally for all kinds of recreation, including walking their dogs, playing with their children, impromptu soccer and baseball games, flying kites, general gathering and socializing, and in many, many other ways. Those activities may not create legal rights, but they illustrate that the property already provides neighborhood value beyond its primary use as a place of worship. The parking lot also serves as a practical community function by accommodating teacher parking for a nearby school, Holy Rosary. If the property were ultimately redeveloped, that capacity could disappear, creating impacts beyond the boundaries of the site itself. These are exactly the kinds of site-specific considerations that should be evaluated when redevelopment is actually proposed. They reinforce why one-size-fits-all rezoning is not the appropriate planning tool. I also want to address what happens if this rezoning proceeds. Once RMU20 is applied, council will already have answered one of the most important planning questions. Is this property appropriate in principle for a six-story apartment development? Future appro- approvals may refine the design. They may address landscaping, architecture, access, and technical details, but they will not revisit that fundamental land use question in the same way. That is why today's decision matters, and I know it's not today, it's in the fall, but in the at some point. I also recognize that there is significant neighborhood concern with more than 400 450 maybe up to 500 residents that have signed a petition opposing this rezoning. This petition does not determine the planning outcome, of course. Planning decisions should be based on sound planning principles, but it does demonstrate that this is not an isolated concern. Residents are asking council to look carefully at whether this particular property is an appropriate candidate for this level of intensification. Finally, I want to emphasize what I am not asking council to do. I am not asking council to prohibit future housing on this property. I don't that that's not what I want at all. If the church or a future owner wishes to redevelop the site, that proposal can and should be evaluated through the normal planning process. Supporting studies can be prepared, traffic, compatibility, parking, neighborhood contacts, contacts, built form, and community impacts can all be assessed based on an actual proposal. Council would then have the information necessary to make a fully informed planning decision. That is the process our planning system was designed to follow. What I am asking council is something different. I am asking council not to grant a six-story redevelopment permission through a generalized city-wide exercise for a property whose owner has not requested that and for which no site-specific planning case has been made. Good planning is not simply about enabling development. It is about matching permissions to context, making evidence-based decisions and ensuring that significant changes to land use are justified on the merits of the individual site. Respectfully, I do not believe that standard has been met for 170 Middlebury Drive. For those reasons, I ask council not to rezone 170 Middlebury Drive to RMU20 as part of this blanket initiative. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. >> Thank you, Brian. Um are there questions to to Brian? Uh go ahead, Counselor Hammer. >> Uh thank you. Through you, Mayor. Brian, thank you very much for presenting today and and sharing issues and concerns. I just have one question. You talked about the church a few times and I recognize you're a member of the church. Did you have an opportunity to talk to the leadership at the church? >> Through you, Mayor Mayor, to uh counselor. Um yes, I've talked to the pastor on multiple occasions about this and the chairman of the board as well. And they both asked me to come here to represent the city to the the church um to the city and to say they have no plans to and I want to I don't want to put this out to the general neighborhood as well. They have no plans to redevelop and they do not think um this is necessary. They have not asked for it. Um they were sent a letter the day before the deadline to submit um comment, but um they it's it's zoned R4. They're happy with having it zoned for and if they want to plan something um they would follow the regular process. >> At a at a later date. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you very much for coming. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Counselor Hammer. Uh seeing no other questions from council, thanks very much, Brian. Appreciate your delegation. Uh the next delegate is Karen Noble, resident of Waterloo. And again, just your your name and um the city in which you live and not your address. >> I don't think I remember. >> Good evening. Very good. Good evening to Mayor McCabe and the counselors of Waterloo, the city staff, and the public who is present here tonight. Um I'm Karen Noble and I live in Ward 1. My backyard is within the 100 and 100 m of the Church of God at 170 Middlebury Drive. I was not informed at all about this proposal until recently from a neighbor of a neighbor of a neighbor. You know how it goes, telephone chain. And many of the people in direct 100-m distance were not informed as well. I'm not really here tonight to talk about that, but it was one of the concerns that I just wanted to mention. Tonight I am here to speak about the proposed rezoning of the Church of God. Um I will outline a few factors as to why you shouldn't think about proposing the R20 zone change at the Church of God at Middlebury Drive. The proposal of the bylaw was included in the 14 churches being rezoned within the city. While some churches on that list may have requested rezoning to move forward with their plans for multi-family, high-riser, higher density housing, the Church of God has not. This property is just one of four 14 local places of worship being subjected to a sweeping blanket zoning amendment initiated initiated by the city's planning division. By forcing a higher density multi-unit framework on an interior R4 neighborhood, the city is bypassing localized planning principles in favor of a broad mandate. This one-size-fits-all logic misses the fact that real people are affected by the changes that occur when you implement these sweeping changes. Another point I wanted to say is that many other churches within the city that were not were not included on the list to be rezoned. I know that Brennan mentioned she did explain that, but I just wanted to go over it quickly. I have asked about the criteria for selecting the 14 churches on the city's website. And I understand I will get an answer later on with that, I believe. Anyway, but I was just concerned about that. Um The church is already zoned RF4, which permits townhomes and low-density housing on it. It is in keeping with the residential area right now. The proposed rezoning will include higher-density housing with at least six-story apartments and larger-scale residential places on the site. It'll change the character of the neighborhood completely. So completely. It's it's such a lovely, lovely place to be in. Um Finally, I just wanted to say that one of the things that is of utmost importance to the people in the West Fail area is the green space around surrounding the church itself. If the proposed amendment is passed, it will be in complete con- conflict with the climate strategic act action plan of 23 2023 to 26. The plan included taking care of our parks and green spaces and growing our networks of paths, trail bike lanes, and routes, which was important. Forcing higher density into the interior of low-density neighborhoods far away from primary transit corridors, will naturally increase car dependency and localized emissions. This is the exact opposite of the climate aligned growth. If the city is interested about this, the environment strategic action plan, which I know you are, um it should not just pass blanket amendments that strip away localized climate resilience. I wanted to just mention that I'm also not here alone. I have brought with me 500 and Nope. I correct I'm going to correct it. 421 petitions um from the people of Westvale who are opposing this. This was within a week, a week of when we found out. So, it is still growing. I know that if you haven't had access to the webpage that was sent, uh it was sent last night, and it continues to grow. It's set up so that it is continually growing. So, I was asked to bring this in, um so that the city could take a look at the petitions and so on and have a hard copy. Um I also wanted to mention as well that All Saints Anglican Church was mentioned by Brenna, and um All Saints Anglican Church is my church that I go to on Northfield Drive. I've gone there for approximately 10 years. And it is a huge success in so many ways. One of the big things I wanted to say about All Saints was that it was determined it was factored in by the people who ran the church themselves. They were the decision-makers. They were the people that made the decisions to go to the city to ask for this to be changed and so on. I also wanted to mention that when you compare the city or Church of God to All Saints Anglican, All Saints Anglican was a parking lot that they lost mostly. When you take a look at the area around Westvale, it is so completely different. So different. It's like comparing apples to oranges. There is no comparison whatsoever. So, I also wanted to say um the effect on the community of Westvale that surrounds the Church of God is staggering. And I know that I'm sure the residents that were behind the Anglican Church of All Saints were probably upset, too. But All Saints is located on Northfield Drive. It is on a main thoroughfare. It's very easy access. You just turn off of Northfield, turn left and go left and there you are. When you take a look at Middlebury Drive, you have a crescent that you have to go around. It's very difficult in the wintertime. There are so many obstacles in that regard. And it is not on a main thoroughfare at all. So, there would have to be a lot of decisions being made in that regard as well for transportation. Um all of those things. So, I just wanted to mention that as well. Um I'm going to conclude. I would love I'd like to thank you for listening to me. And um just I will hang on to these petitions until the end of the night. Okay? >> Thank you for gathering those. You can leave them with the clerk actually. Thanks Julie for picking those up. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. Thank you again Karen. Are there any questions for Karen? Councillor Hammer. >> Thank you through you mayor. Karen, thank you very much for coming today and sharing with with us the issues and concerns around the Church of God and and asking some really pertinent questions of things we need to consider as we as we go forward. So I really appreciate that as well as the leadership that you've shown in rallying your neighbors and and wanting to provide factual information about the the process and and thank you for I was amazed when you had 300 last week when I was speaking with you and now you're over 420 and I'm sure we'll hit 500 at some point. >> I think we will likely by the end of the week and then some. So it Thank you for for that. I I'd also like to say that it isn't just me that's working alone. There are so many residents that have put so much input into this this past week since we found out so many of us have rallied together and it's been wonderful to see. So we all share the same common goal and that is to make sure that uh Middleberry 170 Middleberry stays the same. Okay? >> Thank you. >> for Thank you. >> Thank you for your delegation. I see no other questions of the delegate. So thank you very much. The next is Mary Ennis who's also a resident. Is Mary here? Oh. >> Yes. >> Thank you Mary. And again just your name and the city of your residence. >> Thank you. To the mayor and members of council, thank you for the time to speak this evening. My name is Mary Ennis. I'm a Waterloo resident of Ward 1. I'm here in multiple capacities this evening as a teacher of the WCDSB, a lifelong resident of KW, a homeowner in Westvale, a representative of the Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Parish, and a neighbor within 120 m of the Church of God property at 170 Middlebury Drive. I speak not only for my own household, but for an organized collective of residents, parishioners, and parents who up to this point seem to have been systematically obstructed from participating or from full transparency in the legal proceedings that are being proposed in this initiative. I've structured my remarks as a series of questions to be formally placed on the record to ensure the transparency which seems to have been denied up to this point, and I am requesting that this council direct the planning department to provide a comprehensive written report addressing the following inquiries prior to any further consideration of this proposal. And I ask that this be treated as a formal request for information to be appended to the official minutes of this meeting. First, regarding legal notifications and transparency, the city website states that the implementation timeline for this initiative is March 3rd, 2025 to June 30th, 2026, and that by the end of this period the city will have researched, consulted on, and developed policy. The vast majority of my neighbors and I, located well within the 120 m zone of required notification for the proposed site at 170 Middlebury, received no notification via mail, email, or otherwise. Further, the city requires that signage be posted at sites where this type of rezoning is proposed, and to date there is still no signage at the Church of God or Our Lady of Lourdes, despite the fact that residents in our community contacted the city a week ago regarding the lack of signage specifically in Middlebury. So, my first question is how does the city reconcile the Planning Act's mandatory notification requirements with the fact that these legal notifications failed to be delivered? Secondly, and perhaps most importantly regarding property rights, this proposal claims to streamline processes for faith communities who are in financial straits. Um, I'm aware that Mr. Lauder, who is city manager for community planning, is here this evening. He was quoted this week by the CBC saying that the city is, quote, looking to explore providing land use flexibility for those faith-based organizations so that they could, if they wished, accommodate additional housing or third spaces. However, at this time, to my knowledge, at least four communities on this list, specifically First Baptist, Our Lady of Lourdes, Saint Louis, and the Church of God, have explicitly informed the city that they are uninterested and wish to be removed from this list of properties under consideration. So, my second question is, how is this not the city effectively moving to expropriate these lands regardless of owner consent? Please note that in the case of Our Lady of Lourdes, and I assume Saint Agnes and Saint Louis, as they are all owned by the Hamilton Diocese, I've been told that if these parishes are still not removed from this list, the legal team for the Hamilton Diocese intends to address this directly Third, regarding infrastructure and demographics, there is a decades-long documented strain on our regional water table, so much so that in February of this year, Waterloo Hydrogeologic reported that we were in such a crisis that a development freeze was imposed across much of the region because our water system has been operating at a 97% capacity for the past three consecutive years, exceeding far beyond the 80% threshold. While I can't speak to the specifics of all 14 of the sites, six of the sites in question are located in communities specifically designed decades ago for low-density single dwelling homes, specifically the Westfield neighborhood built in the '80s, the Our Lady of Lourdes neighborhood built in the '50s, and the Saint Louis neighborhood built between 1880 and the early 1900s. The sewer infrastructure and narrow street corridors, and additionally the historic streets in the case of Allen and George streets, were never designed or intended to accommodate the impact on the residents and the nearby trails such as the Spur Line and the Laurel Trails, which are heavily used by both pedestrians, dog walkers, and commuting cyclists into Uptown Waterloo. In light of these facts, my next questions are: Where are the independent engineering studies proving that the sewage systems in these locations can support any additional medium or high-density housing without triggering failures for the pre-existing properties? Secondly, where are the independent studies assessing the environmental and wildlife impacts on these heavily trafficked calm neighborhoods, particularly regarding pedestrian safety and the ongoing loss of local wildlife habitat? Thirdly, where are the independent studies assessing the impact of increased density on emergency response services? The For example, the 170 Middlebury proximity to the Waterloo Paramedic Depot and the well-documented congestion on Ira Needles, which is frequently cited according to CAA for the fourth consecutive year as the region's worst road, suggests that additional density could severely further restrict the ability of fire, police, and ambulance services to reach residents effectively. Fourth, where are the independent studies explaining why the current zoning infrastructure in the city is in such dire need of land that we are considering these churches, which in many cases appear not to have requested this rezoning, rather than uh pre-existing sites because we are apparently so overstretched? 2025 reports from the region managers of growth management indicate population stagnation, partly driven by a decline in international students. In a report made to the region's sustainability infrastructure and develop community development committee last year, it was documented that in 2025, the region's population increased by 90 residents, or 0.01%, and that according to the reports, this stagnation is quote largely driven by a net decline of students following federal caps on international study visas in 2024. And these are again direct quotes from Waterloo region's manager of growth management and data analytics in an article for CTV News last year. Furthermore, Canada as a whole has seen a 17% decrease in sorry, increase in residents emigrating with Ontario accounting for nearly half of these departures. In light of these statistics, I would like to ask why the city is pushing for massive density increases based on population models that appear disconnected from current prevention provincial and regional trends. Fourth, with respect to the designations of third space and social utility, in his remarks to CBC, Mr. Lauder also said that the intention of this proposal is for the churches in question to quote strengthen their presence in the neighborhood. I could have used my entire 10 minutes this evening to describe how connected these church communities in question are to their surrounding neighbors. But briefly, even a cursory snapshot reveals how disconnected from reality this characterization of these properties is. At St. Louis alone, for example, the gymnasium is rented out to community members for karate, fencing, pickleball, Irish ceilidhs, and until very recently served for over a decade as one of the locations for the Out of the Cold program run by the region. For over 135 years, it has functioned as a multi-generational community hub, a primary driver of Catholic education in the region, and an architectural landmark providing a dedicated consistent space for social welfare and neighborhood cohesion. The Church of the Holy Saviour just down the road, the Anglican Church, is a similar such regional significance and historical significance as the first Anglican Church in the region. In the case of the Church of God, of which I neighbor, it is precisely because of how connected this community is to its surrounding neighbors in Westvale that my neighbors and I are here this evening or even aware of this initiative at all. The ongoing decades of generosity of this church to the community of Westvale in graciously allowing us to walk our dogs, host baseball, soccer, community picnics, school activities, and countless other events on their property is treasured by the residents of Westvale. And we are here to speak in tandem with them because they are such an integral part of our community, literally in this case geographically at the heart of it. The premise that the churches in question are disconnected from their neighborhoods and in need of strengthening their presence or visibility is simply untrue. And as Karen so eloquently expressed just before me, the often cited All Saints location is a completely different set of circumstances where the church voluntarily approached the city in light of their own internal assessments. Moreover, the language of this initiative states that one of its objectives is to quote optimize the use of city-owned lands to achieve strategic objectives. One need only look to the proposed site in Westvale to ask why a property in the middle of this quiet, highly connected single dwelling neighborhood is being selected for review or rezoning when immediately down the road on Ira Needles there exists the profoundly redundant commercial footprint along the boardwalk where the city has permitted two Starbucks, two Shoppers Drug Marts, two Tim Hortons, and two dollar stores within a single walkable stretch. To conclude and to be clear, the residents of Waterloo do not oppose thoughtful, sustainable growth. We oppose the reckless dismantling of our faith communities, our heritage sites, and our residential streets. The very things that made us choose to live in these homes. We are not asking for a concession, we are asking for due process, adherence to the law, and a respect for the property rights that underpin our democratic system. This initiative appears to be a breach of the duty of care to the people of these wards and is actually legally actionable. I reiterate my request and ask my ward counselor >> to remind you you have a minute left and to please watch your language with respect to how you speak about staff. They are doing their their they have codes of professional codes of ethics that they follow. So just please watch your language in the way you're referring to them. Thank you. >> Certainly. Um can I reclaim some of that time there? Thank you. I ask my ward counselor to move for a formal staff report to be delivered in my public prior to any further consideration of this proposal and containing the following: the explicit selection criteria used for these sites, the environmental impact studies on the viability of and disruption to these proposed sites, the legal basis for the attempts to override owner opt-outs, and a detailed justification for why this council feels it has the authority to bypass procedural fairness in residential notifications mandated by the Planning Act. The profound disconnect between this proposal and the reality of our neighborhoods is the reason we are here this evening. Those who do not live or worship in these spaces cannot fully grasp the depth of our commitment to these places. We are the ones who steward these streets, donate to these parishes, and maintain our homes, and in the case of George and Allen Street, the historic buildings that we happen to be privileged to live in. We take these responsibilities seriously because we know that ownership is synonymous with protection, protection of our children's safety, living in harmony with the environment, and the preservation of our community's history. And if the voices of those who care for and sustain these neighborhoods and parishes have been consulted, I believe this proposal would never have been tabled, let alone be up for consideration this evening. I thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much, uh Mary. Um again, just want to reiterate that there are no current applications in front of us, so there So, your references around the studies, et cetera, there those come when there's an actual application. >> wanted to ensure that there are included in the required studies. Yes. Let me just finish my interest. >> Excuse me, let me just finish, please. I just want to be clear to everyone, there are no active planning applications that we are discussing tonight regarding Let me finish, please. Regarding these um places of worship. If there are, which is an if, that is when studies, et cetera, would be presented to council, or well, would be presented to staff for their review and consideration, and then and then council. So, I just you I in your in your remarks, you had asked for all kinds of different studies. Those don't exist yet because there's no planning applications, okay? >> why are these So, the locations that I've explicitly asked to be removed, why are they under consideration in the first place? We're asking for studies because they have still been included under consideration for this initiative. So, we hear your question and um there are questions to staff after the delegations are done. So, we and and part of the I mean the main purpose of having delegates come to council tonight is to ask those questions. Staff are here taking copious notes um and as our council and so um so that information will be provided in the due course. So, with that I'll just ask council if they have questions of the delegate >> Okay, counselor Pardon me? For me? Okay, I'm just going to go to counselor Hammer first. >> Uh thank you through you, mayor. Mary, thank you very much for coming and a very well-researched uh comments and and I don't think I received your comments before. So, please if you wouldn't mind sending them on to me. Thank you. One of my questions earlier on was about the criteria similar to what you're asking of of what are the criteria for having the places on the list and what are the criteria for removing them. So, I would expect when staff come back for a formal meeting that we'll have answers to to some of those kinds of questions. So, I think you've re-emphasized again the importance of a of a due process and a planning process that considers input from everyone and I appreciate you coming today and taking time to share with us. >> Thank you. With respect to that my pastor, Father Steve, again I speak for St. Our Lady of Lourdes as well. Again, explicitly in writing it was provided to the city that they wish to be taken off and again I assume the same for St. Agnes and St. Louis because they are all diocesan owned properties. So, there is great confusion specifically within my community of Our Lady of Lourdes as to why we are still on this list when it has been explicitly provided in writing to the city. Yeah, thank you. >> Thank you very much uh counselor Hammer, counselor Wozniak. >> Uh thanks through you, mayor. I just have a question for you and I know you've had other questions about process and order. The only reason I ask this question is um is if we could get staff's perspective on these sort of like cuz there's been a number of we will when >> I know I'm just the reason can I may I it's it's only because we've had several say the same thing and so many other like the others coming through may have specific question the blanket if staff might be able to comment on that at this point they don't have to it's only a suggestion >> finish with the we're going to finish with the delegations and staff are here listening and I'm I'm quite I've been making notes and I'm quite sure council has questions that they will ask of staff and we'll do it after the delegations are all done thanks counselor Vasic counselor Freeman >> Thank you thank you for your delegation like counselor Hanmer I'd really like a copy of your presentation if you're willing to share it >> Absolutely >> And I guess I could say that to anyone who has written comments today if you haven't already sent them in I would certainly appreciate receiving them thank you >> Thank you >> Thank you very much Mary >> Thank you >> Okay thanks very much for your time next is Charles By Welcome Charles And again if you need to adjust the podium or anything it's there so just again your where you live your name but not your address >> Okay my name is Charles By I live in the region of Waterloo I am within the 120 meter radius of the Church of God as well my house actually backs right on to that property that was obviously a good reason why we bought that property many years ago it is a family home that was owned by my wife's parents before that But you know Having the family home and it also being Backing onto the green space and then onto our our children's school had a lot of weight as to why we bought this home I didn't really prepare anything today as I wanted I do a lot of people would have a lot of facts and and all that kind of stuff where I wanted to speak more from the heart where what this house in this area means to us where it was my wife's parents that brought up my now wife in that home. We've since had children who play in that park back there. We hope that our children will someday have children that will also play in that space in behind our home. Um my children, my nieces and nephews, and countless other kids use that area whether it be for Resurrection, whether it be for Our Lady of Lourdes, or whether it be for Westvale Public School as a throughway for them to go from their house to their place of education in in a safe safe manner. Um So, we want to make sure that, you know, we're trying to protect that property as much as we can. A lot of people have talked about obviously the, you know, painting all these different properties with the same brush which I think we're we are doing a little bit where again that property on Northfield, it's in a main throughway. They approached help where this one is in the middle of a neighborhood where it's all lower-level homes. So, to put a big apartment building in the middle just doesn't make sense to me. I'm no city planner or anything like that, but, you know, I think it would ruin the integrity of the neighborhood and, you know, as selfish as it sounds, I would not like to have that in my own backyard. I don't know if any of you anyone that I'm speaking in front of right now are included on this list of the 14 places of worship, but, you know, you may you know, be standing in our shoes as well if, you know, that was proposed on your own property. Um as well, there's a lot of you know, there I've seen foxes, coyotes, lots of wildlife back there that as we take away all of that from inside of a neighborhood like that, we lose, you know, places that these animals live and we've been doing it for many many years and that's you know, it's just not an area that I think we need to develop in. Um like Mary said before, I feel like there's so many places within Kitchener-Waterloo that we can build and I don't know whether because of the government money that's being offered whether that's kind of that's where this direction is headed because there's funding being offered that we're now looking at where can we use this money as opposed to you know, maybe thinking about it a different way. Why do we have I don't know how many Dollar Ramas are in the are in the city, right? How many convenience stores are in the city? Can we look at redeveloping some of those properties as opposed to you know, the middle of a beautiful well-established neighborhood? So um and yeah, like there was you know, a few other things that I wanted to speak about but in light of time and all that in light of people touching on a lot of things, I think that's probably about all I have but uh you know, I just >> [snorts] >> it's a great neighborhood to live in, you know, even many years ago I know my wife and I we have pictures of our semi-formal. We were in that that area is in the background, right? So, you know, to now look you know, many years down the road and there's a big huge apartment building there. It just it wouldn't feel the same anymore. So, it's you know, we're just fighting for our neighborhood, fighting for ourselves and you know, maintaining a green space that is used by so many people whether it's be you know, [snorts] there's a there's a guy that plays bagpipes there on the weekends by himself and it's you know, carried throughout the entire neighborhood and stuff like that. It's it really has become an important part of the Westvale community and we'd like to maintain that if we can and I [sighs] I feel like and I know that there's not the church still owns the property. They it's just a a rezoning acquisition or whatever you want to call it but I feel like that once that zoning is allowed, then you're kind of it allows, you know, big developers, whether it's at a Toronto or Mattamy Homes or Cook Homes, to be then, you know, money talks, right? We all know that saying, you know, where some of these churches may not be interested in selling now, but once that zoning passes, there's a lot of, you know, things that may sway the other direction once a lot more money is involved, and I feel like if we could keep the zoning where it is, we can keep the the the neighborhood and the area the way that it is that as it stands and how we all enjoy, you know, using it as a neighborhood, so. That's about everything I got. >> Okay, thanks very much, Charles. Um Councillor Hammer. >> Councillor Freeman had her hand up before I did. >> Okay, Councillor Freeman. >> Um Thank you, through you, Mayor. Um thank you for your comments. One of the points that you raised, and I just wanted to um build on that, was about um related to upzoning, and that the the value of the land will be significantly increased as a result of the upzoning. Um and I I think it's a really uh important point, and I wanted to thank you for raising that, because I know when we have gone through official plans and zoning amendments more broadly across the city, that tremendous amount of thought has gone into looking at properties and what would get upzoned. And certainly the chambers were full of land owners, developers, and so on, who wanted their lands upzoned. And we said, as a city, uh you know, together, this isn't a node, it's not a corridor, it's not a major node, it's not a minor node, it's not where we plan to put development. So, if you want to do something there, come talk to us with a a full process. >> Right. >> And uh so I really I really appreciate your comments around that. >> Thank you, Councillor Freeman. Councillor Hanmer. >> Uh thank you through you, Mayor. Uh Charles, thank you very much for coming and really speaking from the heart. I think it you raised a number of the similar issues we heard before, but if you hearing it and feeling it from someone who's lived in the community for quite some time, that that adds another dimension to it. And I equally appreciated the comment around the value of the land, and I won't touch on that in more uh Councillor Freeman has raised that already. So thank you again for coming today. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Thank you, Charles. The next delegate is Kirsty Allan. Oh, sorry. Thanks, Kirsty. Welcome, and you can adjust the podium and the microphone there if you need. >> Hi. Uh my name is Kirsty Allan, and uh I live in Waterloo. >> Can I just get you to move the microphone a little bit closer to you? There you go. Just want to make sure that uh the YouTube um the live stream picks it up. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh my name is Kirsty Allan, and I live in the Waterloo in the Westvale area. Um I'm within the zone of the 120 ft of the church. Uh 120 m of the church. So 5 years ago, my husband and I moved from Toronto when we retired. Uh we were looking for a vibrant, friendly residential neighborhood with strong community connections. We looked in several cities, but by happenstance, we discovered Waterloo and Westvale, and it was immediately felt like home. Our property has two features that directly relate to my concerns about the proposed rezoning. First, our backyard backs onto the public pathway that connects the path around the Church of God property. Every day we see how heavily these paths are used. We watch children walk safely to school. We see families riding bikes, seniors out for a walk, dog walkers, neighbors stopping to chat, and people gathering in the green space around the church property. These pathways are much more than a convenience. They're an important part of the fabric of our neighborhood. They provide children with safe routes to schools and to friends' homes without requiring them to travel along busier roads. They encourage walking, cycling, and social interaction uh in our community, in communities that often struggle to create connections between neighbors. This space already does that. My second concern is traffic. We live in one of the busiest sections of Westville Drive. We see traffic volumes every day during the morning and evening rush hours. There is already a steady flow There's already a steady flow of vehicles traveling through the neighborhood, and unfortunately some of these drivers travel faster than they should. It is reasonable to ask what would happen if a significant residential development were added to the property with only one primary access point. More residents mean more vehicles, more deliveries, more visitors, and increased pressure on local streets that were designed for a low-density residential neighborhood. I want to be clear. I'm not opposed to new housing or to the welcoming of new neighbors. I was a new neighbor myself. Our community has recently seen the completion of two six-story apartment buildings, and there is currently construction underway of an even taller residential towers nearby. I believe these developments are good examples of growth in appropriate locations. They are situated uh in beside larger roadways roadways and close to public transport. As the property is on um Urban I Renewals. Making them well suited to accommodate increased density. My concern with this proposal is not housing itself but whether this particular site is the right place for the level of density being contemplated. Unlike those developments the church property is located within a established low density residential neighborhood with the concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety, and the loss of valuable green space deserve careful attention and consideration. So I respectfully ask the council to reject or um think about rejecting the zoning amendment to 170 Milberry Drive and I thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you very much Christie um for coming in and uh you've been here for 5 years but that's new I guess. It sounds like you're a new resident. Um are there any comments or questions counselor Hammer? >> Uh thank you very much Trina Mary Chris Christie thank you so much for expressing your opinions. We're glad that you moved from Toronto to the Westville community and neighborhood. You two have raised a couple of other considerations that as the process goes forward um I'll be asking that uh staff consider. So I appreciate you taking time to express your opinion. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Christie. Uh the next delegate is Michael Radavoy Radavoy part apologies for probably getting your name wrong. >> Radavoy no worries. >> Okay. Radavoy okay. >> Yes Radavoy. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Michael. Go ahead. >> Uh good evening, Council, uh staff, and public. It's wonderful to be here. I don't think I've been in this room since I toured it when I was a child, so it's really cool to be here. Um first, uh I want to say that I agree with the principles behind the program. Um we need more housing in the city of Waterloo, uh and rezoning existing, possibly underutilized properties is an intelligent and forward-thinking way to do that. Canada is in the midst of a housing crisis, and now is the time for creative solutions. In doing so, we should abide by the guidelines of the official plan. Uh guidelines that are meticulously crafted, iterated on, and designed to keep Waterloo livable and resilient into the future. As a throat-clearing, uh I'm not an urban planner uh or a design professional of any kind. Um just a resident trying to read the city's own documents as carefully and fairly as I can to understand the possible impacts to my community. The city's official plan makes it clear that intensification should be context-specific. Section 3.11.1 paragraph 1 states that the city shall address the integration, compatibility, build form, and relationship of new development to existing buildings and to the surrounding neighborhood character and context. My primary concern with a blanket upzoning is that it's context-agnostic. The urban design manual and the official plan has guidelines on transition and compatibility that I argue should be demonstrated prior to upzoning as a matter of due diligence. To me, it appears that if an RMU 20 zone permits a six-story building as of right, then it effectively pre-approves a build form that the UDM says should be proven to be compatible, regardless of whether current applications exist. As examples, those guidelines include, but are not limited to, concentrating intensification with within designated corridors and nodes, as outlined in sections 3.3 to 3.6 and 10.1 of the official plan. This includes proximity to adequate infrastructure for intensification, such as major transit station areas, for example, LRT stations. Providing direct, simple access to arterial or collector roads, rather than routing traffic through quiet residential streets, consistent with section 10.1.1 paragraph 12i. Additionally, balancing density with the character and infrastructure capacity of existing neighborhoods, generally as required under sections 3.9.2 paragraph 3b, and sections 3.11.2 paragraphs 4 and 6. Councillors, I understand the official plan provides flexibility. These are guidelines. Cities are dynamic, not static. However, if one of the properties in the blanket amendment meets none of these requirements that I've outlined, would that warrant reevaluating its inclusion? Would that constitute due diligence? Could failure to do so result in hidden costs and livability impacts for both current and future residents? I think it's worth asking these questions. To be specific, if one of these properties, as examples, exists outside any corridor or node, doesn't have any supporting infrastructure for intensification, such as a nearby major transit hub and others, and lacks a direct connection to a collector or arterial road, meaning increased traffic would need to be routed through residential streets not designed for it, should it be reevaluated? Granted again counselors, I'm a layman, I'm no engineer, I work in tech. The ultimate decision is best left to you and the experts you rely on. But as a resident, I believe one particular property, 170 Middlebury Drive, meets none of the requirements as far as I can tell for intensification. Flexibility is one thing, not meeting any guidelines outlined in the official plan is something else entirely. If housing were proposed here under its current designation, I'd support it. But it's inclusion in this blanket amendment, in my view, doesn't align with the principles of the official plan. Cities are dynamic, not static. And zoning can change. However, I think a blanket rezoning introduces planning risk and could hide cost and livability impacts we haven't yet evaluated. Before I close, I want to thank each of you uh for your public service and for the care you bring to these decisions. Uh I appreciate how complex the balance can be between speed and stewardship, especially in a housing crisis. In closing, uh I agree in principle, urgency is necessary, flexibility is necessary, but so are due diligence and thoughtful evidence-based planning. By all means, explore creative solutions. A housing crisis demands creativity. I want to emphasize I'm not asking council to stop housing generally. I think very few here will be. I'm asking council to apply the city's own planning framework consistently and recognize that these 14 sites may have very different contexts. To this end, my requests in the future, I understand no decisions are being made at this time. One, evidence-based planning is integral. Complete site-specific technical analyses of each of these properties and show how they fit in the official plan's guidelines for intensification and make these analyses available to the public. Two, specifically, I humbly request the reevaluation of 170 Milberry Drive in particular, given its lack of compatible attributes for intensification per the official plan and urban design manual. I believe we can pursue creative, compassionate [snorts] housing solutions while still upholding the guidelines that keep our city livable and resilient for both current and future residents. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you very much, Michael. Um let's see if there's questions from council. Counselor Hammar. >> Uh thank you very much, Mayor Srouji. Michael, thank you very much for coming tonight and for also sharing in advance your your comments and suggestions around the the process for us to include. It is encouraging to hear that um and I'm we've heard it from a number of the delegates, too, that it's not uh housing that that's being opposed. Just making sure that we're we're reminding us to use our planning tools that we already have in place. So, I appreciate the time and research you put into putting your submission together. And I know it has been shared with council, as well. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Counselor Hammar. >> Through the Mayor, thank you, Counselor. >> [laughter] >> I told you it's a very formal procedures here. >> my best, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. Thank you very much. Uh seeing no further questions or comments, thanks, Michael. >> Thank you. >> Uh Stephanie Evans is our next delegate. Welcome, Stephanie. And again, your name and the city of your residence. >> Thank you. So, my name is Stephanie Evans. I'm a resident of Waterloo in Ward 1. Mayor and members of council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on the zoning bylaw amendment Z-26-9 and specifically the proposed blanket rezoning of 170 Middlebury Drive. I stand before you largely by chance. Had it not been for a random text from a woman woman I went to middle school with, uh many of us from Westvale wouldn't even be here tonight. On June 10th, I received a text that simply read, "Um have you seen this?" And attached was a photo of the city of Waterloo's public notice. Not to ruin the ending here, but I had not seen it. >> [gasps] >> I had also not it in the mail despite living amongst the properties closest to 170 Middlebury Drive. That text set off a chain of events. Or as the great Moira Rose would say, we were brought together by a faded flap of a butterfly wing. It is all but impossible to explain why things happen the way they do. The notice outlined proposed zoning changes affecting 14 places of worship throughout Waterloo, including the Church of God property on 170 Middlebury Drive. My husband and I immediately began doing what the Planning Act expects municipalities to facilitate, informing the public and encouraging community engagement. We contacted our neighborhood association, reached out to the church, spoke with residents, created flyers, printed them, and delivered them ourselves at our own expense. The response was immediate. Within days, residents had organized a petition, lawn signs began appearing throughout the neighborhood, and more than 100 people joined a WhatsApp group dedicated to understanding and opposing this amendment. What makes this particularly remarkable is how little time people had to react. The notice stated that the written comments should be be by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 12th, 2026, a date that does not exist. June 12th, 2026 was a Friday. If the intended deadline was Wednesday, June 10th, the deadline had already passed before many residents even were aware of the proposal. If the intended deadline was Friday, June 12th, residents had little more than 24 hours to learn about the amendment, understand its implications, and to respond. Either way, it is difficult to characterize this as meaningful public engagement. I stand before you today in opposition of this amendment, not only because of the potential impact on this property, but because of the serious concerns surrounding the process that was it that brought us here today. First, there has been a clear lack of meaningful community consultation. Residents who live the closest to the property and who will be most directly affected by any future changes were not given a fair opportunity to participate in the discussion beforehand, and many only became aware of the proposal through neighbors, social media, and word of mouth. Second, the owner of 170 Middlebury Drive did not request this rezoning, does not support the proposed change. It is deeply concerning that council has been asked to amend a zoning s- uh amend the zoning of a specific property when the property owner neither sought nor supports the amendment. Third, there were significant concerns regarding notification. Residents within the notification area of 120 m were not adequately informed. The property owner was not properly engaged before this process, as they received the letter on June 11th. Public consultation only works when those most directly affected know a proposal exists. Equally concerning is the apparent absence of signage. I know it's been addressed tonight, but again, it is still up as of today. Um and public notices and signs are a basic and important tool for transparency. Without visible signage, residents who walk, drive, or spend time near the site had no idea they had no reason to know that there was a decision about the future of the site that was being considered. Beyond the procedural concerns, council must also consider the role of this property plays in the community today. I know others have touched on this as well. Although privately owned, 170 Middlebury Drive functions as an important community asset. It serves as an informal green space where children play, families gather, neighbors connect, and community relationships are strengthened. It provides overflow parking during school events and activities, helping to reduce congestion on surrounding residential streets. It has become a gathering place that contributes meaningfully to the character, functionality, and livability of this neighborhood. For many of the residents, this is not simply a parcel of land on a zoning map. It is a space woven into their daily lives and this community. Good planning requires more than just changing a zoning designation. It requires transparency, transparency, proper notice, meaningful public participation, and respect for both property owners and the communities affected by the planning. When a rezoning proposal proceeds without meaningful consultation, without the support of the property owner, without proper notification, without proper visible public notices, residents are left questioning whether or not this process has been fair and whether or not their voices matter. I respectfully ask council to reject the blanket rezoning of 170 Middlebury Drive. And that's all I've got. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much, Stephanie. Um and I'll just uh ask if Councillor Hanmer has any comments or questions. >> [laughter] >> Thank you, Mayor, through you. Uh Stephanie, thank you again for your for your comments and also your leadership in very quickly mobilizing and getting the information out to to your um to your neighbors. I know we've had the opportunity to talk about the communication process and and shared that with staff and we had reassurances through Brianna today that there would be more coming through. So, I hope we can keep those lines of communication going forward. So, again, thank you very much for all that you've done and I I do take very seriously the comments that you've made. >> Thank you. Uh Councillor Vasic. >> Uh thanks, through you, Mayor. Um I appreciate everyone's uh delegations um given this is the first opportunity for feedback. Um and [clears throat] I also I I I get that we prepare our notes before we come and so there's probably a lot you've heard tonight that um maybe you would have adapted your comments to um if you had heard some of the stuff here, like you said, "We're going to put up the signs, but they're not there yet." >> not good enough cuz I think that this this process, it's essential that more people are here speaking on this topic. And the reason why I would say almost, I don't know, 60% of the people on here are from Westvale alone. So, it's not good enough. The Planning Act sets out clear guidelines on how to inform the public and that just wasn't hap- that did not happen. Especially with the property owner. We were the ones who informed the property owner. >> Okay, I just think you might share your mayor. >> did you have a chance to ask your question yet? >> Not yet. >> No, okay. So, we'll just let the Councillor ask her question. >> Thank you, through you, Mayor. Um if it helps, you can turn the the button off cuz I also feel often compelled to um comment cuz it feels conversational even though it's not um so, it's a it's a tricky dynamic. Um >> [clears throat] >> Uh I I think I think staff agree with you. I think council agree with you. All of that was truly um unfortunate. Uh I think no one wanted it to go that way. So, I guess as a community mo- Yeah, as a community mobilizer, as uh counselor Hanmer has said, um would you consider um both continuing with the same narrative that you have? That's okay. Like it it is frustrating. I get it. Um but also is there any way to also um allow for uh city staff and council to take accountability for mistakes? People often want government to take accountability for mistakes and to rectify those mistakes. And so, if I'm just curious if you'd be willing and open to talking about um that part of the story as well. It's not enough and they're rectifying it, so we really need to rectify it particularly given this is the first um this is the start of the consultation and you're absolutely right. Everyone ought to have a say. Many [snorts] people who aren't in this room um ought to have a say and they're not here and many of them just don't feel comfortable too. So, I'm curious if you're also willing to say um that part as well as yours. I would never suggest you don't say the other part about your frustrations. They're very warranted. >> Oh. It's on. It's on. I think this is the city's job. The city's job is to inform. A simple sign out in front of the church would have done wonders. The letter was says that it was written on the 2nd, but it wasn't mailed until the 6th. So, it makes sense that residents were not getting it until the 10th or 11th. I know that there has been blame on Canada Post, but from what I understand out of the hundreds of people that have either joined the WhatsApp group chat, who have signed the petition, four received the letter. So, I have a a hard time out of maybe 120 people who should have received it. I don't think Canada Post is that bad. >> Okay, thank you. I I your answer is no. Thank you. >> Thank you. Oh, sorry um there's just another uh comment or question from council here. Go ahead, counselor Freeman. >> Sorry, it's for staff. >> Oh, okay. Well, we'll hold that until the end of uh until the end of the um all the delegates as we've said before. Um So, I just uh just Okay. So, the next delegate here is Emmy Baikondo. Welcome. And again, you can you can adjust the the podium and the microphone and just state your name and your city of residence, but not your address. Thank you. And welcome. >> Thank you. Um my name is Emmy Baikondo and I'm a resident of Westvale in Waterloo. I'd just like to say that I'd prefer to talk to you and look at your faces as I do this, but I think it's really important that I read my notes that I brought today. Okay, so So, three words: time, community, and responsibility. So, my name's Emmy Baikondo. I've been a Westvale community resident for over 37 years. I'm very close neighbor of 170 Middlebury Church of God and I'm here today to have on record that I'm against the rezoning of places of worship. I'm against building on existing community green spaces. And I'm against proposing such changes without current owners' consent. So, I have three points of interest to make. I'll tell you the first is time. So, this is anxiety, disheartening, frustrating, and sickening news. A potential rezoning of the Church of God and this came as a shock. 37 years ago, this church wasn't even there. I grew up playing in dirt hills out back with my neighborhood boys who I whose mom I now call Grandma J. I would walk back and forth to Holy Rosary School and I would make so many friends there that I'm still close with now. That dirt hill out back, it eventually became the Church of God and an amazing open green space to play and to get to and from school safely. As a young Asian girl to walk to school by myself was incredible. And to take my younger sister later on to school that's amazing and we need more of that. We need more of that in our community. In the winter we would slide at the hill by the church. Unfortunately, you've now planted trees on that hill. This is such a poor decision and the root cause is poor planning and lack of responsibility. Over time, year by year, this community has become home to me and my family. It remains constant. Westville and the green space at 170 Middlebury has been used every day since before the church and it continues to be enjoyed by everyone. We are very thankful to the church to allow us to use their space and we're forever grateful that they continue to do so. If you fast forward time I eventually purchased my parents' house and you've heard from my husband who didn't plan what he wanted to say tonight, which I was against. I could remain I purchased the house so I could remain living here in Westville and so I could raise my own family and my two twins that I brought here today. It's an amazing, safe, large open green space, and I feel so lucky that I work so hard to live in such a beautiful place with so much room for my kids to grow. The second point I'd like to make is about community. I grew up selling Girl Guide cookies to my neighbors, silly art that I I made just to make a couple bucks for the tuck shop. It's a community where I love to go trick-or-treating, and now I love to take my kids. A community that has summer gatherings, fireworks, and fun together in that green space at 170 Middlebury. A community that would bang pots for our health care workers during COVID. One that helps each other shovel out after a hard snowfall. A community that goes out of their way to help you find or keep your runaway pet safe. It's a place where many enjoy. It's a community that surrounds itself by around Middlebury. Like 170 is literally the heartbeat of Westville. And that brings me to my third point and why I'm against rezoning of places of worship, and that's responsibility. Some of you are aware that with great power comes great responsibility. And yes, Spider-Man did get me here. I did not want to be here speaking today. We have responsibility to our children and the future residents of our of our city to do what is right for the people who live here. Building on green spaces is not the answer. It can't be. We owe it to each other to do better. And we absolutely can do better. We can do better We can be better planners. We can be better researchers. And we can gather better data to make informed decisions that benefit people of the city and the community. Resoning places of worship is not the answer, and we must do more. We have to do better, and we cannot proceed with this proposal. I ask that we all take responsibility, look at more options to solve our city's problems, and start including the people of the city and communities served to be involved in the planning and decision-making. A formal apology for the lack of communication to the impacted residents, details of options available and that have been identified to solve the city's housing crisis, data supporting this crisis, and formal acknowledgement of moving on this proposal without current owner's consent. That's the city's responsibility. Along with a formal process review of this project and future projects like it. Initiative nine is a failed initiative, and internal teams needed to re-evaluate. The city has a responsibility to make this place a great place to live for everyone. And this initiative should be used as a training example of how lack of planning and lack of research can lead to devastating outcomes. I ask you live by your guiding principles. Equity and inclusion, sustainability, integrity, workplace well-being, and community-centered. Community-centered because we have time to do the right thing. A community and a city to protect and preserve and a responsibility to the future city residents of Waterloo to keep this place amazing green space to live and thrive. >> Thank you very much, Amy. Um thank you for your presentation tonight. Counselor Hammer, any comments or questions? >> Yes, absolutely. Uh through you, Mayor. Amy, thank you very much. You spoke very well. And I I you I had the chance to chat with you earlier about your your um questions as well. Uh a question for you though. The communication we've talked about that there were some gaps in that and looking forward to um correcting that and having other opportunities. What does success that way in communication look like for you? >> So, I live within 120 or 150, whatever the rules are of the location of the proposed site. And I've yet to get anything in my mail or my email or a phone call in this regard. I actually had Stephanie yell at me on my porch one afternoon. Amy, did you hear what is happening? No, I didn't, Stephanie. Did you check Facebook? Well, I don't go on Facebook. So, the only way I would have found out was if she had yelled at me on the porch. And I in then turn went to my two neighbors and told them who then in turn told Karen who then told more. I think just some simple signage in the communities that we're impacting. I do understand that you use engage and I didn't realize that. Actually, to be honest, I didn't even know this whole process. I've never been in this room before. I've never spoken in front of you, so it was very interesting to learn this process. And I commend you at the jobs that you do. It's very tough. But but a simple a simple note >> Okay. >> could have helped. >> Thank you. Direct communication. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Emmy. Seeing no further questions from council, thank you very much and thank you to your twins for sticking with us till it's quarter to 10:00. You get to stay out late on a school night. >> [laughter] >> Okay, the next delegate is Daryl O'Neil. Is Daryl O'Neil here? Thanks, Daryl. And again, state your name, city of residence, but not your full address. And welcome. >> I'm Daryl O'Neil. I've in my 30th year in Ward 1 in Waterloo and I've lived in Waterloo much longer than that. Uh since coming to university. Um Uh thank you uh uh Mayor McCabe, um council members, um staff and uh and and everyone else who's here. This has been a very interesting This is the first time I've done this. I'm not good at public speaking. Um very been very you know, informational. I think um people have without information, uh there's a lot of fear. There's conspiracy. Uh people don't know the intentions of the council, um which are I'm sure are actually good but without the information and knowledge and then with the mistakes that got made I think people fear the worst. And um a lot of the information I've heard has been helpful with that. There's been two things that um have I think created some some issue. One was the notification and that's been talked about a bit. Um one of the things I read is that if you don't show up to this meeting and sign up and do things you don't get to appeal later. And the only thing if if something can be corrected about the notification is perhaps that that needs to be extended because if people didn't know about that and they can't have participation in the in future process because they didn't hear that's a problem and I think that can be anyone makes mistakes. I don't think the council was trying to hide this from anyone. Um life happens. Um bureaucracy sometimes grinds along and that's that's understandable but I think that needs to be addressed. Um the other issue that does concern me is the one question that I've heard asked a few times and the lack of response to that question and maybe you're not allowed to respond to it. I'm not sure but the lack of response brings me great concern and then and the question that has been raised a few times is if someone specifically asked to be removed from the list and they are the property owner will it happen and the lack of response means sounds to me that the council will rezone somebody against their will and against the will of the community and maybe that's not going to happen but the lack of that answer means that that's not off the table that people will be re-zoned against the property owner and against the community's wishes. That's concerning. Okay. I have prepared a prepared thing here that was done before I heard a lot of the information um or and then and I believe that there's good intentions in general here. Um I'm here to talk specifically about and surprisingly enough uh 170 King William Berry. But I think a lot of my comments would apply to other uh locations as well and in any and including the reason region. There are many good ideas that have can have bad solutions. When decisions are rushed without proper study into the whole problem beyond addressing the immediate crisis, it may create undesirable side effects. For example, the city has a goal of plant 10,000 trees, which I agree with. However, the solution involved covering the toboggan hill across from my house, which is a questionable implementation. Likewise, there's a high housing crisis in Canada. But I will argue that replacing green spaces in cities with concrete apartment buildings and parking lots isn't the solution, especially when those neighborhoods were planned with different goals originally. There are two big stories in the record this year. One of them is lack of water for the region. Should the region be building more housing units before we address that water problem? Why do we need to re-zone now before these issues are addressed? Since it's cheaper to live in KW than in the greater Toronto area, people will keep moving in. And when you provide more construction and more housing, we've just exasperated the water problem and we haven't actually solved the the housing crisis problem. The other story concerns the number of foreign foreign students lost to the Conestoga and the universities, with students leaving, we have now over a 4% vacancy rate in the city. When landlords, and in some cases foreign investors, are keeping units empty to artificially raise rents and housing prices, perhaps it's start time to start taxing empty units. Are there other solutions to our housing problem besides, you know, using up green spaces? Some may dismiss the comments that are made here tonight bringing forward as a not in my backyard problem. complaints. This is not an NIMBY issue. Your home is your biggest investment. There's nothing wrong with high-density housing. Many people choose to have high-density housing. It can, you know, lots of people along the ION, other areas in the town, they want to be in those areas. They want They don't want to take care of their lawn, perhaps. They want someone else shovel. There's reasons why people choose that. If the city were to say the ION cost too much money, and there's too many trains being crashed, and we need to shut the whole thing down, a lot of people who made those decisions to buy there would be very upset. Likewise, people who have invested in suburban areas, for different reasons, are very upset when their green spaces and neighborhoods change without their consent. People may argue the benefits to the new occupants of these future buildings justifies any loss to the neighborhood's green spaces. That said, the occupants will benefit no matter where those places are built. You can't just say, "Oh, well, this plus gets rid of this minus." Cuz that plus can be somewhere else. There would be even more benefit to those places to those occupants if they are put in a place that it was designed for that density. As a you know, where there's planned traffic, schools and services in those areas. The Middlebury area already has schools with portables and limited traffic paths will cause that will cause congestion. The city has reduced speed limits around the schools to keep children safe. And yet the zoning a large increase of people and cars right next to a school is going to put children at risk. Removal of green spaces especially next to the school will further increase temperatures on playgrounds which I've read in the papers is is a problem for the city. There are less benefits to new occupants and there are only negatives for the existing community. Plan new housing in the correct places not to meet federal provincial financial incentive deadlines. If there are no other places for new housing that that should be an indication that we perhaps should not be building if we don't have anywhere else to build besides using up green spaces. The previous church I attended required minimum green space allotments to get building permits. I assume other churches have the same requirement and it sounds like that here. If the council approves these zoning changes it makes it easier for wealthy developers to make an offer that a church could not refuse then progress to development. I suggest that the property keep the required green space and if the church needs to sell to a different faith-based group or groups to share the area or the area should be for a community space or perhaps maybe a few houses and not a large density. The uh oh the other thing I I was very interested about this the earlier um presentation was about heritage. I was very glad that the council agreed on that and I'm going to shamelessly steal a quote from from Susan about once heritage is gone uh it can't come back. The the thing is true with green spaces. They're once they're gone, they're gone. There are foxes, coyotes, hawks, and last week we had a deer running through across the street right by the area. These are important things to take. The theme I hear everywhere is proper planning, not rushed planning. Good ideas need the right planning or you end up with unintended consequences. And without the proper planning, it's inevitable. You go, "Oops, didn't think of that. Well, why didn't we think of it?" >> Just want to let you know you have 1 minute left. >> That's all. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much, Daryl. Um Counselor Hanmer. >> Thank you, Mayor, through you. And Daryl, thank you very much for, again, reminding us of the importance of innovation and solutions that we come up with, but most importantly, uh the our our planning processes and the importance of taking the time to to plan and look at at the consequences. The um the question you asked earlier on, I will be asking again of staff, uh and uh I think I did get a partial answer to it in terms of criteria for taking s- um places off the list, but I will redirect it to staff at the end again. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much, Counselor. Thank you uh Daryl for your presentation or your delegation. Uh the next delegate is Craig Sloth. Welcome, Craig. And as you registered uh a bit late, you have 5 minutes. And again, just your name and your your city of residence. And welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. My name is Craig Sloth. My pronouns are he and him, and I'm a resident of Waterloo living near three of the 14 locations listed in the proposal. I'm here to express my full support for this initiative. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. At last count, 2,371 people were experiencing home- homelessness in the region of Waterloo. 11,421 people are on the waitlist for affordable housing, and the wait for supporting housing is 13.5 months. Encampments have been a fact of life in the region of Waterloo for years, and courts have twice made clear that encampment residents cannot be evicted unless they have an alternative place to go. No one likes the fact that public camping has become a necessary stop-gap measure, and we need to build enough housing so that encampments become unnecessary. If anyone is willing to come forward and say they're willing to contribute to the solution, the city should be supporting them. This proposal should aim at reducing fees and red tape for churches and other places of worship as much as possible. Allowing places of worship to build small apartment buildings on their property does just that. Spaces of worship are well suited to provide housing because many faith traditions are called to support underpriv- underprivileged members of the community. This bylaw proposal should make it easier for them to directly address the root cause of homelessness and live their values. And council should let them. In addition to the increased housing supply, another benefit I see is that one of the objectives of the bylaw is to foster the creation of third spaces for community use. I think it's important that the city allow this because I think it will provide more opportunities for places of worship to foster connections with the broader community beyond their congregations. Despite not being religious myself, I've often visited [snorts] churches to attend events such as cultural performances and community meetings and I appreciate the opportunity this provides me to form a sense of connection with religious organizations that I would not otherwise interact with. I'm a volunteer for an organization called 1 Million Neighbors, which hosted a series of round table discussions last year among community organizations about their vision for the future of Waterloo Region. One of the things I learned from listening to these discussions is that community organizations frequently have challenges finding accessible and affordable spaces to run events. There is sometimes a disconnect between organizations that have plenty of space available that's not being used at certain times and the organizations that need space to run events. Often, the organizations that have available space are places of worship. Authorizing places of worship to create third spaces provides a tool to help bridge the gap between organizations that have a space available and those that do not. And I hope that the further research on this bylaw will investigate uh in more detail what challenges uh places of worship have uh in in in in making these kind of spaces available and make whatever bylaw amendments are needed to to enable that. As more neighbors move into a neighborhood, we have to be conscious that the capacity of community gathering spaces needs to increase to accommodate the growing population. Authorizing community uses at the same time we authorize residential development provides an opportunity to increase community space as new as new neighbors join the community. When the bylaw is being developed, I suggested the city consider expanding the authorization for community use beyond just the 14 locations that are being considered for residential rezoning since there may be other places of worship that may benefit from the community use portion of the bylaw. My next piece of feedback relates to the need for the new housing to be affordable, which is clearly necessary given the housing crisis >> 1 minute. >> primarily impacts low-income individuals. I didn't see an explicit mention of affordability in the proposal, so I hope it is addressed in the final version of the by-law. Uh to provide some motivation and and precedent, um our neighbors in Kitchener are currently revising their official plan, and the current draft has a requirement that residential uses of institutional land are limited to affordable housing and residential care facilities. And I was a little bit I was surprised by the response to Councillor Wright's question that these are not currently zoned as institutional, so maybe that's something that can be looked at as part of the by-law as well, whether we need a specific uh new type of designation. Um but the important thing is requiring that the uh housing be affordable. So, I'm hoping that as part of the the the next draft we can look at what the City of Kitchener is doing and consider adding similar language to our own by-law. And uh thank you for taking the time to listen to my feedback. >> Thank you very Thank you very much, Craig, uh for your presentation your delegation. Councillor, are there questions? I just had one question. Um you mentioned 1 million neighbors. I'm not familiar with that. Could you just give maybe a 30-second explanation of 1 million neighbors and and what that organization is? Thanks. >> Uh yeah, so it's a I can't remember the history. I think it found it started up in late 2024 early 2025, but um if you do a Google search, you'll find more details. Um basically, it started with the motivation that um there are various visions being proposed for what the um what the Region of Waterloo would look like when it reached a million people. So, that's projected to happen around 2025, I think. Sorry, 2050. Yeah, sorry, I got my numbers mixed up in my head. Um so, the idea was that the current approaches are being driven by governmental or or corporate interests. So, the idea was to have an alternative vision that was driven from the ground up by grassroots organizations. So, um there was a lot of research involved to identify all the various types of community organizations that existed in the region. Um and uh organizing town halls where people to were invited to discuss and um uh describe their vision for the future. And um that process got distilled into, I think, 12 or 15 priorities. I forget I forget the exact number. I'm trying to visualize uh the infographic in my head, but it's um basically got distilled to to sort of 15 themes, and they're available in a report that's on the uh the website that I mentioned. >> Okay, thanks very much Thanks very much for sharing that uh additional information with us. I I appreciate it. Thanks very much, Craig. Um our next delegation is Shawn Booth. Oh, welcome, Shawn. And again, your name and place of residence. And welcome. >> Hello, Council. Um my name is Shawn Booth. I have lived in Westville for almost 30 years. Um my property uh backs on to uh the church's property that we've talked so much about tonight. Uh I have never been to a council meeting. Um I have never interacted with any of the council members other than when voting on election day. Uh I am just a tradesperson. Um and uh I thank for all the people that have come today um with all that are lot smarter than I am um with all the information. The Church of God has been a great neighbor. And I hope that we have been a good neighbor to it, too. Uh um I thank the representative for coming today from the Church of God. I did not know that they would have one here, although I had hoped they would. So, tonight I'm supposed to address the council, but really I'm here to address the spiritual leaders, the deacons, the elders, and the congregation members of these churches. I do not like the message that this proposal is portraying. I Um I'm hearing the churches are failing and need to convert or sell their property. And this is just not the case. I cannot talk about all the churches, although I can talk about another one that's on the list, First Baptist Church, which I have been attending for over a year now. This church is growing. Um And uh if I understood the uh business meeting that I just attended there, they've had record numbers in attendance over the last year. This is the message that I'd like to um ask the churches that are here tonight. >> [snorts] >> If you're not growing, don't sell. Don't give in to the temptation of selling your property for uh money to put in 450 uh resident complexes. Um And just to get a bottom line, grow in the word. Let your light shine in the community. I beg the churches' representatives to return to their churches in prayer and come deliver God's message to the city and the council. Stay true to the word, and your decisions will be the right one. Now, I ask the Church of God to tell us at Westville what we need what they need. If we can better uh help this church as neighbors, then this is the time to do it. With the talk and the petitions and everything on the all the stuff that has been um brought up tonight, this is the time that we are as your community can help you and we can grow together. So, um with that With this in mind, I would like I would like to congratulate the church for the awesome job they have done. Um and and and hope that they would come back to the council as I think they've already have from what I've heard and say that they do not want to be part of this rezoning. My prayers will go out to all of the churches and to the city council and each of these counselor members tonight. Thank you for your time and listening to me tonight. >> Thank you very much, Sean, for your delegation. Um Councillor Hanmer? >> Yeah. Uh thank you. Thank you very much, Sean, for your heartfelt comments and plea to um have consideration of the churches and what they want to be doing. We really do appreciate you coming forward and sharing your ideas and and thoughts. So, thank you for for doing that. I know it wasn't easy, but you did a good job. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, uh Councillor Hanmer. Um and our final delegation tonight is Heidi Ruttinger. >> Yep. That would be the German way. >> Okay. Oh, did I say it right? Okay. >> say Ruttinger, but >> Okay. Well, lucky me lucky guess for me. Um okay, so you um you have 5 minutes as well. >> That's fine. >> Okay, thank you and welcome in again. Just your name and uh city of residence. >> I'm Heidi Ruttinger. I'm from Waterloo, Ward 1. and I thank you, Mayor and Council and Planning Committee and Public Works and really the caring, thoughtful responses of the public here is overwhelming. It it really is. Um I'm proud of everybody. Um it's clear that affordable housing is needed in our city as it is in cities all across Canada. Coming up with viable solutions is a big responsibility for the city council and planning committees. When using church land, it's critical to consider the impact upon the existing neighborhood and the people who live within it. I would like to speak to the proposed changes for the Church of God at 170 Middlebury Drive and I understand there's no decisions. This is just proposals. The church currently sits at the bottom curve of Middlebury Drive on a green space next to Red River Park. Winding around it are a series of community walking paths which are regularly used. The density of homes in the Westvale neighborhood is such that there is very little green space available anywhere. And I wish, being at 37 years teaching, that I had a visual opportunity, but I did this. This is kind of Westvale on an 8 and 1/2 by 11 sheet. The places I colored green are the measly few green spaces we have. The yellow bit is the property at the Church of God. So, my visual. Um where was I now? Uh the yeah, very little green space anywhere. The church land provides a piece of quiet, natural calm in an otherwise bustling neighborhood. This is important to people living here. Maintaining a sense of sanctuary around this church provides a kind of sacred community space for the whole neighborhood at large, whether they are congregants or not. This is no small thing for council to consider. The focal point of a green piece adds to our quality of life. Having lived in three different neighborhoods in Kitchener and Waterloo, I can personally attest that Westvale is unique in its sense of pride and community. People here want to live here, and they appreciate the qualities of family and the focus on children that is evident in a community of single-family homes. Changing an R4 low-rise neighborhood to allow multi-unit residential buildings up to six stories tall would completely alter the character and flow of the neighborhood. It would stand out as a total anomaly among a community built around single-unit family dwellings. A small apartment building would dominate the skyline and would be visible to residents well beyond Middlebury Drive. That changes the whole aesthetic of Waterloo, uh pardon me, of Westvale. The resulting traffic from such a construct also changes the calm nature of movement through this neighborhood. It's not something we want. Westvale is notable in that it's a very walkable neighborhood. In fact, many residents get their daily steps by walking the roughly 3.5 km Westvale loop. There are many students who walk to one of two elementary schools or the one high school in the neighborhood. Increased traffic from a multi-unit residence would change that dynamic, and safety becomes a concern. The sense of familiarity that residents share as they greet each other on these daily walks is wonderful. Our Westvale community Facebook page reflects an active community where neighbors truly share ideas and concern for one another. We become acquainted >> Heidi, you have 1 minute left. >> Thank you. We become acquainted as we ask for referrals for a good electrician, a reasonably reasonably priced plumber, or student help for snow removal. These interactions are significant. They're significant because it is interactions with neighbors that builds community. It's interactions with neighbors that builds community. And these interactions happen because people share the common life of home ownership and family. We share similar similar problems, talk to our neighbors about solutions. We visit each others homes during neighborhood garage sales, and we buy cookies from the neighborhood girl guides. Plunking an apartment in the building middle of a quiet neighborhood alters that completely. There are already apartment buildings, as you've heard, at the edge of Westvale, including new ones. We value the quiet simplicity of living in a house and knowing our neighbors. We value the sense of safety for ourselves and for our children as we walk the Westvale loop. We value the very great few green spaces we have and don't want to lose the park-like lawn that the Church of God gives us. We don't want a multi-unit residence. Kindly consider these concerns voiced on behalf of many of the neighbors. Um >> Heidi, you you have 1 minute >> to stop right here. >> Okay, I was going to say if you'd like to sum up, that would be >> I had a respectful conclusion, but Yeah, thank you. >> you've done quite well. Okay, thanks very much, Heidi. >> Thanks. Uh Counselor Hanmer, did you have a question or comment for the >> I do have a comment. Thank you. Through you, Mayor. Heidi, thank you very much. I think once a teacher always a teacher. I thank you for the graphic and the importance of green spaces with any of the properties that we're we're talking about. So, we appreciate that reminder as well. Thank you for coming tonight. >> Thanks. >> Thank you very much, Heidi. And that concludes our delegates for the evening. I want to thank everyone who who took the time to prepare remarks and who made as Councillor Hammer has noted on various occasions very heartfelt comments. Clearly, you know your neighborhoods really well and you know, a lot of you are new to council and coming in here. So, I appreciate it's always it's always good to see people in the council chambers if they're new and particularly young people. So, thank you for that. We've had some interesting notations about references to Moira Rose, Spider-Man and someone knows a really good reasonable plumber. So, we'll I think we all want that number afterwards. But thank you very much everyone. I can I can assure you that staff who are sitting here our planning staff are taking copious notes as we're council and I know there's a number of questions that that staff now will ask of council Oh, sorry. Yes, I've got to read the final. Yes, thanks thanks thanks. Okay. Is there anyone else present here tonight who wishes to speak to this delegation or to this application? Okay, you can come forward. And you can adjust the podium there if you'd like. So, we'll just ask you to provide your name, municipality of residence for the record, not your address though. >> Okay, my name is Wendy Ridgeway and I'm a resident of Waterloo. About a year and a half ago Lincoln Heights was like Westvale and here we were filling the the city council uh chairs. Uh so, I can assure you it is not the first time that this council has heard the lack of transparency because I've experienced that myself. I have to say that. Um where Lincoln Heights 250 Lincoln is at now, the city owns the property, they've demolished the church, and we too are fearing that is it a six-story building uh completely surrounded by single detached homes that that we are going to have to deal with. So, I do sympathize with uh the residents who have spoken tonight. Um I just briefly want to say that after attending um city council meetings within the last year and everything, I I tend to look at things from a different perspective. And my fear is that if this zoning amendment does go through, I fear that over the years, as somebody said, some of these churches may not be considering housing now, but as demographics change, they may consider it in the future. And my fear is that if this zoning goes through, the city will be off the hook then years from now. And so, when a church decides to do housing, and they don't go have to go through uh a permit process and the proper um building plans, it will pit churches against community instead of uh community against the city and having a voice to speak at here. And so, that is a very big fear of mine. When you start pitting church against community, I think our city is in really big trouble. And so, I want that to be considered. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions of the delegation? Okay, thanks very much. Um are there any additional people who wish to speak to this application? Okay. Seeing none. Um if there are no more delegations, this informal public meeting is now concluded. Um uh staff will review the issues and provide further reporting to council at a later date. Although we will uh spend some time, I know there's additional questions that some members of council have of staff. Um and so we will we will do that now. And um I've got a a list that I started. Um Councillor Hammer. >> Uh thank you very Thank you very much, Mayor, through you. Uh Brianna, this question I'm coming back uh back to you. Can you share with us that you talked about there being more communication that's coming in town hall events that maybe happening community consultation? What can residents expect when uh through that community consultation? There've been a number of questions raised today. Will there be answers or information provided during those sessions? >> Through the mayor to Councillor Hammer, uh it is our intent to provide as much information as we have available. Continue to look at at the sites and continue to hear feedback from uh from the residents throughout the the summer months. We haven't yet scheduled that engagement. We expect to do that in the next couple of weeks. >> Okay, great. Thank you for that. And and specifically I think I would be looking for the question that I asked you initially around the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of properties and and how that whole process is going to go forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councillor Hammer. Um Councillor Vasek. >> Uh thanks through you, Mayor. I I don't I I have I just kind of want to list to some of the things that I've heard tonight that I understand are important to uh members of the community um that I'd like to get a better understanding of as well. Um which would be um, I think you answered this, Breanna, um, but, um, >> [clears throat] >> wanting to be very clear about whether or not the properties can be taken off of the list if they wish, which my understanding was yes, but I just think we really need to clarify that because, uh, it's been asked a few more times. Um, understanding, uh, or helping to inform, uh, the public and council about, um, if why this blanket, as it's been referred to, uh, changed, and then if site-specific considerations will be, um, thought through and how what that process would look like. Um, you know, like are our properties going to just get to if if we approve this are they just going to be able to go go ahead and build without any other parameters around it? I think the answer to that is no, but so we can all really understand that process, um, to see if we can identify any gaps in it. Um, why do we think six stories is appropriate? You've spoken to this, but given some of the water capacity issues, um, I think there are additional considerations about that. Um, and then specifically for, well, specifically for Park Minster, but this may apply elsewhere, but displacement mitigation for places that are already kind of being used. I mean, a daycare is a, you know, private or Montessori is sort of like you you pay to go there, but it's a third space in a way and we need child care. So, what are some of the mitigations for displacement? Uh, >> Councilor Vasallo, that's about five questions. So, how >> have any questions. I'm just saying these are the things I'd like to hear about in future. I don't know if we're going to be here until 2:00 a.m. So, I'm just saying I want to >> Sorry, I thought you were looking for staff to respond to those. >> no, I'm just saying I understand I clearly have m- major sad feelings about this meeting here tonight. And I also value the input that the public has had. So, I just want to make sure that, like, my constituents in particular feel like I understand their some of the concerns. And so, I'm just signaling to staff that those are some of the things that I would like answers on, but I don't need them tonight at 10:20. >> Sorry. I thought you were looking for I was just going to say that's why don't we let staff have an opportunity to respond. Sorry. >> for me and I have one more and that's it. This is just my list. I have no more questions. >> Okay. >> Um and then um oh, sorry. I have two more and then the appeals pro- process because that was brought up by one. Is there one? How would you even be able to go through that? And second, if we might be able to distinguish between what is happening at 250 Lincoln and the process for that with this. I don't want the two to be conflated. They are different. Um and so I want that to be very clear as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councillor Vasic. Um Councillor Freeman. >> Thank you. I I'm actually going to build on Councillor Vasic's comments if that's okay because um I don't have questions, but I have a lot of things that I've heard and a lot of issues that I really need to get information on down the road. So, my big question is who is not in the room? I mean, we heard from um delegates very um concisely um and I I really I'm going to point back to Emmy's delegation where she said, you know, my neighbor yelled at me when I was on my front porch. I don't subscribe to Facebook. I don't subscribe to social media channels. And if that neighbor hadn't have approached me, I wouldn't have known. So, in a similar vein to what's happening in Councillor Vasic's ward, there is an application for a church property in my ward and this church listed in this zoning is literally across the street. And so the the confusion in my neighborhood that this actually relates to an entire different piece of property is is huge. Like literally, literally, people thought this was another meeting about Christ Lutheran Church, not WMB Church. And and similarly, like no one got a letter. Whether that's a failure of Canada Post, I don't know. But um there was a a photo of the article the the record ad posted on a Facebook site. And of course, the link to the city's page was incorrect. That was on that posting. Um and I ran I didn't even know about this. Like I randomly saw that post of the cutout from the newspaper. And then went searching myself to try to find information about this. And then I tried to inform my neighbors, but again, just like what other folks said, I I didn't even get to posting this on the nearby Facebook groups in my ward until the weekend. So, um I I you know, I I think that in addition to clarification about removing properties, um there is there's no signage up in my ward, either. But I also have a lot of questions around the process. And that, you know, we are not we are not upzoning and making other church properties more valuable. Because we we have picked and like it feels like winners and losers off this list. And and I like I know that I know that my neighbors are deeply deeply interested in what goes on in the community and the fact that they're not here is shocking to me. And similarly, and I and I really think it's because 27 of them of them showed up and spoke to the application for the church across the street thinking that it applies to this property, too, which it does not. And and you know, I am there I for 20 years we have looked at the city vision as a whole and we built out plans. Where do we want height? Where do we want density? How do we build around transit station areas? How do we grow um residential um density while um supporting existing neighborhoods and not destabilizing those existing neighborhoods. Those those have been core principles that I've been a part of discussing for literally 20 years. And so this blanket zoning it just feels so contrary to everything that we've talked about in the past. So I'm I'm really going to need help in a future process in unpacking that. >> Okay, counselors, that did you have a did you have a question? >> Okay, but but there's others on the list here, so >> Can I just help explain? There is no documentation here. I don't have any studies. So all I can do is read >> The the point The point The purpose of tonight is to ask staff some questions. You've laid out some of your issues, and I'm just conscious of there's a list of other counselors here. So if you had a specific question, please ask that and then we'll move to the next person on council. >> I appreciate your comment. I don't have any documents by which I can form a question. >> Okay, thanks very much. I just just before maybe before I'll do chair's prerogative here before I move to the next uh counselor Roach is next, but staff, could you please just explain the notice the notification process that um like we've heard a number of people um express concerns about they didn't get a notice. So, my understanding of the planning act is that notification has to go out to people who are 120 m from the from the property in question. Um that's part of that's part of the legislation. Um there is no sign as I understand in council in ward four. There's not a sign up yet in ward one. Um I don't know about the other areas. Um but and there was an issue of a date that it sounds like there was a date that was used incorrectly. Obviously, we understand that I know I know planning staff put together about 60-ish or maybe more reports every year, plus they do an awful lot of consultation, etc., etc. as part of the part of the processes. So, mistakes can sometimes happen. Um but could you just unpack for us uh on council just what happened around the the notification piece and uh and and what's what's happening going forward on that. Thanks. >> Through you uh mayor and rest of council uh on this question. Yes, we received a lot of feedback. There There regrettably wasn't error on the date uh on the notification. Uh that date was to provide comments to uh to the clerk which would get to council that would be on on the agenda. Um there is obviously lots of opportunity still going forward um to provide comments on this application. This is only an informal meeting. It's the start of the engagement process as as the mayor noted. Uh when it comes to planning act requirements on notification, the city of Waterloo um does go above and beyond when it comes to notification and mail outs. The planning act states 120 m. Uh through this application and others that has uh always applied is uh generally 125 m. Uh so those notices went out to I believe it was 4,000 people uh or 4,000 residents is uh on this mailing list for this very application. Uh there was also a notice in the record uh talking about the this date for tonight and the ability to provide comments up in up until the the council date as well. Uh Joel, I don't know if you want to add anything further. Thank you, Brenna. I don't Go ahead, Joel. >> Uh yeah, through uh through your mayor to to the rest of council. Certainly this is the beginning of the process. There's lots of opportunity um to provide comments. Uh we do try and use other means as well through social media, the engage page, and other opportunities. Typically when we're doing city initiated um kind of broader applications, we don't often use signage, but uh in this case we've heard uh a desire that signage be placed on the property and and we're happy to do that. >> Okay, thank you. Um so I see you back there with your hand up. Yeah, this isn't to time now. Again, this is a very there's certain rules and procedures that we follow and um and there's there's not a time right now to take questions from delegates, but certainly happy to talk to you afterwards or or staff when this when this piece is concluded. We do have other business after this after this, but okay, so just want to be clear that any information that's received tonight Council is receiving, staff is receiving. There wasn't a cutoff when when information and feedback was was due by and and no further information can be provided. So I just want to make sure that yes, there was a mistake with the date. No one's perfect. We get that, but the information is again, this is the start of the public engagement policy or process. I just if people could just sorry if you're talking if you could go outside, it's just really distracting. Excuse me. Yeah, we just thank you very much. Okay, so back to Council Council Roach. >> Thank you Mayor McCabe through you. Um My name is Hans Roach and I am the Ward 3 Council. That's Lakeshore and and Conservation Meadows and I just have three questions just based on the delegates presentations which I thank you very much. So the first one just remind me why are RMU 20 for all 14 sites rather than a more site specific approach based on lot size, road classification, transit access, servicing and surrounding homes. >> Through the Mayor to Council Roach. Going going into this the RMU zoning is what fit both the higher density residential uh desires um or the multi-unit residential as well as the third space provisions because that zone does allow for uh other ancillary uses such as as what we listed. That is not to say that that zone will be applied on every site. We heard tonight um that there is some site-specific considerations to look at, that six stories may not be appropriate everywhere. We're taking in all this feedback and through other um discussions with with the community uh it may very well be a a a tailored uh site-specific appli- you know uh zone to to properties. Um and as a follow-up as we as we noted earlier, we are looking at uh putting in a holding provision on on on the properties that do require you know further studies and and research. >> Thank you. And my second question is how many of the 14 property owners supported being included? If you have that answer. >> Go ahead. >> Uh great question uh Counselor Roach. Uh I believe there were um approximately four that provided feedback. Uh there were a number of uh letters sent in advance of um this work starting in earnest a couple of weeks ago uh to the organizations and uh not all organizations responded. I'd say the majority didn't respond or at all. Uh over uh couple letters that were sent to them. I think there were three in total. Um Uh some So, I I think that's where I'd leave it. I'd leave it at four. Yeah, thank you. >> Excuse me, we And my final Sorry, Mayor. >> No, I was just going to say just a caution again that that that we've had the public the the public input and now it's time for council questions. So, there's please don't yell out things from the from the from the audience. Thanks very much. >> Thank Thank you, Mayor McCabe. Through you, final question is will worship, child care, school or community uses be protected in develop redevelopment? Resoning. >> Through the Mayor to Councillor Roach, there are many existing places of worship that have child care centers or or private schools. And if the place of worship decides to move forward, that is really a discussion between the the place of worship and uh the the the center itself. Certainly we know that child care is is an issue for the community as well as as housing and I would I would hope that an arrangement could be made to obviously preserve those child care spaces and and perhaps even expand upon them um with these permissions. >> Thank you. That's all the questions I have. >> Thanks, Councillor Roach. Councillor Bodaly. >> Thank you through you, [clears throat] Mayor McCabe. I want to build on the who's not in the room commentary. There are lots of people who are supportive of the discussion that's going on here today broadly notwithstanding maybe individual sites who do not feel comfortable being here this evening. There are lots of people who are trying to live in the city of Waterloo who are unable to. There are plenty of students who are looking to stay here who are also unable to. And there are folks who are unable to dedicate 4 hours and 7 minutes to attend a council meeting who are also not in the room with us this evening. We heard from delegates this evening that interactions with neighbors are what build community. So, I hope that while I understand that there are some heightened commentary this evening and that it is a challenging conversation for neighbors to see things potentially being looked at as changing in their neighborhood. I want to make sure that we are welcoming folks to the community, not excluding folks from the community as we go as we go through these processes, whether this gets approved or not. >> [snorts] >> Um one of the things I wanted to flag is some commentary around the planning process always is initiated by the property owner. I mean, that's just not true. We have the entire four-unit four-story proposal for the community was its re-blanket rezone the entire community not initiated by property owners initiated by council, initiated by council objectives, council desires like affordable housing. Nodes and corridors is another example where property owners are not necessarily involved in initiating the planning process. The entire zoning bylaw amendment of the city and many, many other justifications for why it's not necessarily initiated by the property owner. I think the question that was asked this evening by some delegates around is this particular property appropriate for this level of density is a prudent one and an appropriate one and I'm happy that we're early in the process and that we can continue to engage as to whether or not each of these individual sites are appropriate for the level of density being considered. I think I heard this this is going to lead into a question though. We also heard from a lot of community members here this evening that they are not opposing housing. Which is great to hear. So, if we have maybe one site that we have on this list of 14 is really internal to a neighborhood. And maybe the contemplation around RMU 20 as we go forward is something that staff are going to reconsider and maybe think, you know, maybe that's not appropriate here. And maybe on the flip side of that we are going to we have a site that's on a major collector road that maybe having something above RMU 20 makes more sense on those sites. I imagine that if we were here this this evening talking about for example R9 zoning on some of these internal sites where four-story stacked townhouses stacked stacked townhouses were permitted, maybe we'd have less folks out here who are opposing it because we heard from lots of folks that they're not opposing housing and maybe that's more context sensitive. Um so I'm wondering as I formulate my question here if this is something that will be considered in the conversations with the property owners as we move forward or as we analyze these sites individually to consider possibly looking at an R9 zone for some R1 sites that maybe is more appropriate. Maybe it's an RMU 40 zone on some nights some sites that are on major collector roads. And if you could maybe speak to whether that's something we might contemplate. >> Through the mayor to Councillor Baddeley, absolutely that's something we could contemplate. In fact, late yesterday I received an email from a place of worship that is not on the list wishing to be on the list in order to provide more housing and more uses on that property. So these conversations are very very active and as we as we launch into a full some engagement I expect to hear lots of conversations about what may be appropriate on some sites and not others. >> That's great. Thank you. And I just have one brief follow-up if I may through you through you mayor. I just in addressing some of the folks who are here this evening in terms of the change that is being proposed in your neighborhood and you coming out to actively have some conversations about whether or not this is appropriate. I value all of the commentary that residents have put forward and the passion that you have for communities. We all love the places that we live in the city of Waterloo and change is definitely a difficult thing to deal with. In terms of some of the commentary around why here, this is not a NIMBY situation, we're just not looking we you know, it's not a NIMBY situation, but but please don't build this type of housing here. I'm really and some of the commentary around build on the ION, build in the major transit station areas, build in the places where there are ION adjacent properties. Please, please, the next time council is coming out and receiving all the opposition we receive to those high-density developments in the major transit station areas. Please come with the same energy to support building that housing in those areas. Thank you. >> Thanks Councillor Bodaly. Um Councillor Wright. >> Thank you. I just have a question of clarification. So, in Ward 7, there are five um places of worship that are that are listed on this and I've been in and out of most of those um churches cuz they are um Christian denominations. Um I've been in and out of them for uh the last four years talking to uh congregations and participating in community events there. Um three of them are um involve a a governance structure like a diocese. And so, I'm just wondering what communication uh is happening with the higher-level governing bodies of these church communities cuz I think that's a really important piece of this whole process. Is that engagement to understand what their needs are and what they see uh of all of their church communities that they're that they're governing. >> Through the mayor to counselor Wright, uh the good question. Thank you for that. Uh there um where I have made uh somebody did reach out to me from the diocese in in Hamilton. Uh we've begun a conversation. We haven't quite finished it because we've been missing messages, and I do hope to speak to this person uh if not tomorrow then and certainly in the near future when we follow up. >> So my my follow-up question to that is that we are not the only community who is exploring a similar type of path. I mean, communities are doing all of their housing initiatives in a slightly different way. So there's no cookie-cutter involved here, but um uh especially the diocese would have seen this in you know, London, Ontario is a is a great example. Um so I'd also be interested in what you're learning from other communities have already engaged in similar projects. >> Uh through the mayor to counselor Wright, we can certainly uh provide more information on on engaging through our uh engagement process throughout the summer on other communities uh that are undertaking a a similar process uh with or without uh half funding. >> Thank you very much. Uh thanks very much for that uh those questions. Um counselor, are there any other questions for staff? Um okay, seeing none, uh I'll just uh do a quick summary to say uh thank you to again to everyone who um who joined us tonight to provide your valuable information and your feedback. I think we've hopefully clarified a lot of the information. You know, for example, there are four on the list currently who, who've indicated they want to be on the list. There is a way to remove, be removed from the list by the property owner. We all have heard very clearly about, you know, a variety of how people value neighborhoods, green spaces, the connections, etc. We've also heard about the strong need for housing and what was it, about 11,000 people currently on the housing wait list in, across our region. We've also heard that this is the start of the public engagement process. Again, no decisions are being made tonight. Council was listening carefully, staff was listening carefully. And again, if you want to continue to receive information, please sign that registry at the back. And with that, I'll say thank you again to staff for the work that you've done and for answering our questions tonight and to everyone who joined us tonight. And at this point, this this this piece of the of this informal public meeting is concluded and we will we will continue with the next item on our agenda. Thanks very much for coming. We're going to continue straight away, so if you are going to talk amongst yourselves, please, I would ask you to take that outside so we can continue our meeting. Thanks very much. Okay, so the next item on our agenda is 14B, zoning bylaw amendment Z-23 -04, 143 Columbia Inc., 143 Columbia Street West. Again, I would just thank you for coming, but please keep your Please, if you could talk outside, that would be super helpful because we are continuing with the rest of our meetings. We've got some other agenda items. Okay, so this is a formal public meeting to consider item 14B, zoning bylaw amendment Z-23-04, 143 Columbia Inc., 143 Columbia Street West. Any persons who want further notice of this application, including the passage of any bylaw, should sign the appropriate register in the binder located on the desk at the rear of the council chambers. If there is more than one binder, please make sure you are signing the appropriate one. Will the clerk please advise council of the method used to give notice of the meeting and the dates notice was given. >> Notice was advertised in the Waterloo Region Record on June 4th, 2026, and mailed or emailed on May 28th, 2026, to all property owners within 120 m of the subject property, to public agencies, to all persons who signed in or spoke at the informal public meeting held on March 6th, 2023, and to all persons who requested further notice. >> Thank you very much. Our planner, Tristan Devroe Devaux, sorry, will now give a brief overview of the application. Before you do, Tristan, I'm going to ask our acting Mayor Sandra to just take over right now. I just need a brief bio break. Thank you. Well, council can get up and go if you needed to. Do you? >> Mayor, I can't. >> I can't. So, I was expecting people to do that. Okay, do we need a 5-minute I don't really Okay, I'm going to Thank you, Councillor Hanmer, for becoming the chair for a brief moment. >> Uh thank you. Tristan, please go ahead. >> Um Thank you very much, uh chair, and uh council, and uh members of the public who uh have stuck it out. Um so, this is the yeah, formal public meeting for uh zoning amendment application Z-2304 for 143 Columbia Street West. Uh the site location is in the Northdale neighborhood. It is uh located south of Columbia Street West between Philip Street and Lester Street. Um, it's in a uh major major node uh like in the Northdale neighborhood as I mentioned um close to the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier uh University campuses as well as uh pretty close proximity to the uh Ion LRT system. Uh so this application was originally submitted back in 2023. Uh since that time there's been a number uh uh of changes and there was a couple of resubmissions um Some of those changes were results of uh conversations with um between city staff and the applicants. Um and then there was uh some legislative and uh regulatory changes that happened in the in the meantime as well um that have led to various changes to to the application. Um so notably um the uh official plan amendment number 58 came into effect while this uh application was being processed which removed uh density as well as um increased the height uh permissions within the um the designation that it was in. Um parking minimums were were were removed in uh major transit station areas uh through provincial legislative changes um and there were amendments to uh the city's zoning bylaw that changed the bicycle parking rates as well. So a number of changes kind of came into effect while this application uh was in an uh was being processed um and some of those um changes uh have resulted in in modifications to the the amendment request as well as the site design. So as it currently stands, the applicant's proposal is proposing 632 dwelling units with 709 bedrooms. So, there are 77 two-unit bedrooms. The initial submission only was primarily or was completely one-bedroom units. Initial submission had one commercial space in in one of the buildings. Now, there are two separate commercial spaces, so two of the buildings are going to be mixed-use. Um There are 122 parking spaces, 100 vehicle parking spaces, 182 bicycle parking spaces. The site itself is composed of three towers. Again, the the two of them will be mixed-use with a commercial space on the ground floor. And then the final uh good [clears throat] uh part of the development is entirely residential in nature. And the heights range from 28 stories to 26 stories. Um site design as well has um a prominent uh pedestrianized space kind of along the western uh edge of the property line um curving around on kind of the L-shape um uh as well. Uh that's just a render of the development. Um so, the current planning framework, so the official plan designation designates this uh property as a high-rise residential, which again through OP 58, the maximum height was increased from 25 stories to 30 stories. Um it's within the University of Waterloo major node and is within the um University of Waterloo uh major transit station area as well. Um and so, these designations uh supports um high high levels of intensification, uh mixed-use developments, um complete community, and uh that sort of uh development. From a zoning [snorts] perspective, we have uh uh the Northdale Residential 25 Zone um in place uh with a holding provision. Northdale has a holding provision in place, so any uh development within Northdale uh is subject to certain clearing, certain requirements. Um so that's part of this application as well. It's clearing some of those uh holding requirements. Um and the zone currently um has a maximum height of 82.5 m uh and maximum density of 750 bedrooms per hectare. So, the zoning amendment um that's being proposed um there are a number of site-specific provisions that are being proposed into a a new site-specific exemption uh C271 um as well as um some changes to the holding that's currently on the property. So, I'm going to go I'm going to talk a little bit about the holding first, and then on the next slide I'll talk about the some of the site specifics. So, as mentioned, the Northdale uh holding has a number of um provisions that need to be cleared before development is allowed to proceed. Um certain aspects have been cleared through through this application process, such as uh requirement for for block planning um urban design uh adherence to our urban design manual um and items like that. Due to the current water capacity issues um that the region is experiencing um we will be maintaining the uh servicing aspect of the um holding provision on the property. So um basically, the intent here is that we if if council approves this application, we can deal with the site-specific regulations, and then once capacity is available, they can apply for a holding to to lift that and proceed to the next phase of development, their site plan application. Um we've also maintained the transportation network uh analysis. The um while they have provided transportation impact uh studies um there's a few additional uh bit of analysis that uh our transportation department has requested be done, which kind of relate more to site plan matters. Um so it's something that we do require additional information. Uh so we are keeping the holding that aspect of the holding in place as well. Um but not um um yeah. So keeping keeping that aspect as well. Pardon me. Uh the other aspect is we're adding a holding provision for geothermal wells. One of the site-specific provisions is um removal of the prohibition of geothermal wells on the area, but part of that part of the support for that is that uh the city and the region of Waterloo need to be okay with the final design of any geothermal system that's that's provided. Uh so we're keeping a holding provision to make sure we have a mechanism to to uh review that um once it comes in at a later stage. Um so I apologize it's a little small, but uh the number of provisions uh that are being posed um there's a reduction in the tower separation. Uh it's a fairly constrained lot. Um so fitting uh the towers on it um it is resulting on requirements for a reduced uh tower separation from 11 m to 8.5. Um there's also a reduced request for reduced rear rear yard setback from 7.5 m to uh 4.3. Um should be noted that that 4.3 is kind of a a pinch point. Other parts of the rear yard are a bit more than that around 5.8. Um and it's also for um the podium of the of the rear building on the site, which is substantially lower than um the uh the it's not like the tower itself is being pres- uh presented there. It's uh the podium. Um building step back require uh requirements. So, we require uh from an urban design perspective step backs from the tower uh and the podium. Um it's most important to have that on on the front uh where where people will kind of engage with the building a little bit more. Uh and that is being maintained, but um for the front for the kind of first two buildings on the sites, uh they're proposing reducing that to zero on the sides and and rear facade. Um again, a fairly constrained site and that interface is uh less important. Um and uh building C is is uh uh requesting reduce step backs um on uh the north facade and part of the western facade as well where the podium steps back a bit to allow for an amenity space. Uh changes to the maximum uh to the maximum and minimum podium heights for the different buildings A and B uh slight increase from 20 m to 20.1 and building C, which is again the farthest back from the site, uh reducing that podium from uh minimum of 10.5 m to 5.5 m. Um the uh maximum height of the building is being requested requested for building A um from 82.5 m to 83.5 m. Um the the North Dale zone does not measure height in uh in stories. Uh so, it's just the even though they're they're changing the heights from 25 stories from their initial submission to 28, 27, and 26, it's only a slight meter increase uh on the actual zone. Um increase for residential density from uh 750 to 900 bedrooms per hectare. Um minimum bicycle parking spaces, they're requesting to decrease that from 0.5 spaces to 0.25, which is actually what the provision was at the time that they applied. Um again, that changed while they were in the process of the application, so they're requesting to go back to that. Um requesting geothermal wells be permitted on the site and um and then again the holding provisions that I've already mentioned. Um, so a couple recommendations uh to council approve uh the council report before you as well as um the zoning bylaw amendment as uh set out in section six of the report. I have a question. >> Thank you very much, Tristan. Um, before we continue with questions, um unfortunately, I need a motion to extend Um >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I I I realize probably we're voting against our own wishes here, but uh moved by Councillor Freeman, seconded by Councillor Bodley. All in favor. That is carried. We I hope we don't need to do it again, but just as an FYI, we have to do it every hour from now. So, um thank you, Tristan, for your presentation. Um Council, are there questions for staff? Uh Councillor Freeman. >> Um thanks through you, Mayor. Um just a few questions. Um can you speak more to the reduced the reduction of the tower separation from 11 to 8.5 because we certainly did receive comments from another planning firm questioning that decision and I'm still struggling with understanding that. >> Certainly. [clears throat] Um through the Mayor to Councillor Freeman. So, the the regulation in question is we have a tower separation from uh uh a lot line of 11.5 uh 11 m. Um Basically, with the intent with the framework the way the framework is intended to work is on both properties, you would have that same kind of setback, so you get a 22-m setback between between towers. Um so that's that's a framework that was established um through the Northdale uh framework when it was brought in. Um Part of the challenge with this particular site, uh one, it is a fairly narrow site. The tower footprints are already quite quite small, so it'd be very difficult to reduce their towers floor plates more. Um the adjacent sites were developed uh the adjacent site specifically on the west was developed prior to that framework being in place, so their towers are actually quite close to the to the line of uh they're about 4 m uh from from the lot line. Um if we were going to require that the towers be shifted more away from that lot line, they would just encroach further onto the easterly lot line. Um So, when we're looking at this, we're looking at kind of weighing the the various balances. One of the aspects that we really like about this site is the separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffics. We have that nice pedestrian promenade on the west property line and the vehicle access on the east property line. If we require that the building be shifted to try and increase that, we would lose that aspect. Um early on in the process, we did try to stagger the buildings a little bit more, shift them on the side a bit so that at least the towers weren't overlapping, but that ended up causing issues with noise mitigation due to the location of the cooling tower on the adjacent property, so we they had to they had to get it to move that back. Um so, it was definitely um weighing a lot of of of different uh competing priorities, and in the end uh the the placement that's being recommended uh kind of fits the the best. >> Thank you. I have another >> Yep, go ahead. >> Um I was hoping that you might be able to better explain that pedes- the proposed pedestrian connection and how that kind of fits into the broader network for the area. And again, we received some written comments that talks about directing pedestrian traffic through a privately held property, they raised concerns around potential additional liability associated with that pedestrian stream, and I I was trying to think of other times when we've routed pedestrian traffic from one private development through another private development. I know that we've acquired easements and and kind of taken control of that, but this seems a little different. >> Uh through the mayor to Counselor Freeman. Um so, yeah, part of the process of uh lifting the holding was that the applicant prepare a a block plan, and one of the requirements that we were looking for when analyzing the the the block plan was um pedestrian connections through through these larger blocks. How do we break up these larger blocks um that have fairly substantial development to allow pedestrian connectivity and permeability through the through the various sites. So, we've identified the block plans identified prior to the pedestrian connections. Um what we're with the um pedestrian promenade that's being proposed, that's it does provide a a really nice large uh area that that could be used as as that connection point. Um at this stage, it hasn't been formalized yet. The through the very through site planning, um we would have continued to look at those and to see where connections to other sites may be appropriate, um and whether they're going to be appropriate now or at some point in the future. So, basically, we'd be looking to protect for those connections. Um so, that they might uh um you know, be developed on on that site, but fenced off so that it's not immediately apparent until we get agreements in place um to formalize that that kind of connection and connectivity. >> Thank you, Counselor Freeman. Um Are there other questions from council? Uh seeing none, I will now [clears throat] ask any registered delegations to come forward. We have Brandon Simon with the Planning Partnership. I know you arrived early. You've [laughter] been here with us for the evening. Um Thanks, Brandon. Uh you have 10 minutes. >> My pleasure. Um I get to see you all tonight. Um very brief presentation just walking through this project that has gone through several iterations as as Tristan noted. Um it's a very underutilized site in a prime location. It is not a place of worship. Uh it is currently uh 30 townhouse units, um but it's in a major node in a major uh transportation uh area. Um so, this is exactly where the city has planned for high-density development to help accommodate the very ambitious forecast growth uh that the city has to plan for. An ideal location for new housing given its proximity to the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University, uh the future hospital, David Johnston Research and Technology Park. So, incredible amenities, services, and opportunities for synergies for for uh intensification here. And some of the key elements of of this proposal are 632 new residential rental units, a net increase of 600 over uh what currently exists on the site. Um the mixed-use pedestrian I'll call it mews uh that that Tristan mentioned that we think will really enhance the pedestrian environment of the site, and the separation of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic that that provides for, uh as well as other sustainable design measures that will be implemented including uh efficient fixtures in terms of water and electricity as well as a potential geothermal connection as as Tristan mentioned. Um some of the improvements that have occurred over the life of this application and project have been a direct response to to the city's um approval and adoption of the provincial approval of OPA 58. So, revisiting uh the heights of the buildings um still not uh proposing what's permitted under OPA 58, which is a maximum of 30 stories, but providing a mix of now of 28, 27, and 26 stories, as well as increasing the density in order to accommodate 77 new two-bedroom units and and removing 37 one-bedroom units at the same time. Uh uh essentially tripling the commercial space, expanding the pedestrian mews with new commercial patios as a result of the uh additional flexibility that's provided with the removal of the minimum parking requirements, and at the same time also expanding the side yard buffer and protecting for potential connections to adjacent properties. And so, I'll just kind of quickly walk through the the site layout because I think it's a really unique and and I think thoughtful response to to kind of the unique configuration of the site. And so, um north is to the to the left on the on the page here. So, on the west side uh along the bottom of the page, you'll see that pedestrian mews, which provides a direct connection to Columbia Street to each of the buildings as well as to the sports court at the end. Um to to kind of show those different pedestrian connections, obviously, the mews itself provides a direct connection to Columbia Street. We're also protecting for potential future connection to the site to the south, which would provide a a real good direct access out to Philip Street. Also providing or or protecting, rather, for potential connection for the site to the west. Uh I I that that would only happen if the city was able to secure an agreement for that connection. Um but as as Tristan said, we want to make sure we protect for it now because if you don't design for it, then it'll never happen. So we're we're protecting for it and making sure that if there is an ability for the city to secure those those connections that we're we're prepared to support that. Um active ground floor uses along the mews, so the yellow indicates the two uh commercial areas and you have uh patios out front, which I'll show you in a second as well. And then you also have lobbies and amenity space, so the vast majority of the building frontages along the mews are are active spaces. And then you have active and passive outdoor amenities also along the mews, so lounge areas outside of each lobby, the sports court at the end, and the commercial patios. So um we really feel this is going to be a really animated, vibrant space. It'll create a sense of community for this project and potentially with the other neighboring uh uh buildings and sites as well when we have this opportunity for for kind of truly master-planned pedestrian connectivity. Uh Tristan did a great job covering the the um site-specific uh amendments that are proposed here, and that's a direct response to the site condition, the context, but also to enabling, you know, this layout, which we think is is an incredibly important uh aspect of this project. So um I can end my presentation there, but I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Thank you very much, Brandon. >> Um Counselor Freeman, go ahead. >> Um thank you, Mayor. >> [clears throat] >> Um the there's I have three questions. One is related to bike parking, another affordable housing, and the third is family-sized units. So, um can you explain why there's fewer bike parking spaces being offered when the site is so close to universities and cycling routes? >> Uh yeah, um through uh through Mayor McCabe, it it's a good question. Uh I think it's it's kind of a a victim of timing more than anything. So, in the course of the application process, the city revisited the bicycle parking requirements for Northdale. And so, our request was to keep the requirement where it was when the application was initially submitted and actually for a year or two while the application was ongoing. And that's not to say we're not going to look to provide more parking. I actually had a uh kind of a back and forth with Tris before about where we could look to include more bicycle parking. And there are some really simple ways to significantly increase it. So, so there is a desire to do that. But kind of the master plan that that's been advanced over the last 3 years was kind of based on that original bicycle parking requirement. But we still have to move on to the site plan process now and and and and this being a rental project, providing ample bicycle parking will be key to making these units viable. So, certainly we'll be looking opportunities to increase the bicycle supply. >> That'd be great. Um the next question I had was can you outline if affordable housing was discussed and if it was, why it why it's not being proposed? >> Sure. Certainly uh through Mayor McCabe. So, um this this applicant, as as you all know, is is is a big fan of providing affordable housing in his other projects where that's been prominently involved. Um it is not been proposed at this time um because they're looking at uh uh the model here providing the the um I mean, given the proximity, it's it's predominantly probably going to be student-oriented housing. That being said, I understand that the city is looking at advancing its inclusionary zoning policy, which I think is the potential to begin uh June or July of next year. Uh this site is within an MTSA and so, if that policy comes into effect, then there would be the obligation to provide affordable housing. In addition, the applicant is is is works very closely with CMHC, and a typical requirement of CMHC, along with improved energy efficiency, accessibility, is affordable housing. So, although it's not a mandated requirement, either through inclusionary zoning or through the CMHC requirements, there will I suspect certainly be an affordable housing provided here as well. >> Um that actually sounds very positive. So, you're anticipating that would come as part of the site planning process, then? >> Yeah, abs- absolutely. Um but I think either way, with the inclusionary zoning coming, there's going to be that mandatory requirement under the zoning bylaw, but I think most projects these days, the CMHC financing is so crucial, um and the the federal government is is leveraging that that financial might to require it, and and actually at much higher levels than what the inclusionary zoning requirement is. So, I think it's it's fairly fairly certain that there will be some affordable housing as well. >> Um thank you. And then, the last question is just given the site's proximity to the new proposed hospital site and other employment areas, um might you consider doing some unit rebalancing and including three-bedroom units? >> Uh through Mayor McCabe, that is certainly still a possibility. I mean, when the when the project was initially envisioned, it was entirely one-bedroom units, as Tristan noted, and that was a direct response of at the time what was in demand in the the applicant's, you know, vast rental portfolio, and that's what students were were looking for, but demands change, um things shift, and we're not locked into the current unit layout with this app- approval. In fact what this application does do is increase the maximum permitted density which provides flexibility for those other units and we've demonstrated how that could work with the inclusion of the 77 additional two-bedroom units. So, um there is always an opportunity to to look at this and and this being a three-building development um it'll be obviously a phased construction progress and so if there the demand is for more market units and I think there will certainly be an appetite to rebalance or to design so that the units could be reconfigured in the future or combined perhaps if that's where the demands go. >> Um thank you through you mayor. I just wanted to let everyone know that I may have expanded a little bit but that a lot of those questions were from counselor Roe because she wanted to be here to ask those questions herself and um but she had to leave early and uh so thank you for your answers and uh I appreciate it. >> Thank you counselor Freeman and yes counselor Roe has been following this um this uh application this planning application very closely and I know she regrets not being able to be here um at the final at the final um um process piece of the process. So, um are there any more questions from council seeing none um is there anyone else present tonight who wishes to speak to this application? Welcome back Craig. Are you people allowed to delegate twice in one night? Just joking. I'm just joking. Go ahead Craig. Thank you. Again just for you for the record just your name and your city of residence. >> Uh yeah so I'm my name is Craig Slass. Pronouns are he and him and I live in Waterloo. So, um yeah I know it's late so I'll be brief. Um I did decide to stay to the meeting and and convey my support for further continued building of housing. Um I'll refer you to the stats from my early delegation about the extent of homelessness in the region and I think a building this large could go um very far towards helping that. Um One thing I like in particular that I haven't really seen in a lot of buildings is the careful attention that was made to the the pedestrian connections which I really appreciate especially in that part of the city because I think folks are living in this building are going to be going to to be using the ION a lot and they're going to need easy ways to walk there. Um Two potential things to look out for. Affordability was one of my questions as well so I was happy to see that that's already being taken seriously and that there looks like there's going to be a strong potential for these to be affordable units. Um one thing I will point out is that this tends to be a lower income area of the city. So there may be a need to have more affordable units than sort of the bare minimum that's required by inclusionary zoning. So just keep that in in mind please. Um the other thing if I if I caught it right I thought I saw that there were 30 townhouses existing on the place where this is on the location where this is going to be built. So um I'd encourage there to be appropriate plans in place to ensure that everyone who's currently living in those townhouses is treated fairly and fairly in this context usually looks like offering them a a spot in the new building or providing transitionary funding while they have to move away while the new building is being built. So um yeah that's all I had on that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the delegate? Thanks very much Craig for your thought always thoughtful comments. Is there anyone else present tonight who wishes to speak to this? Seeing none. If there are no more delegations this formal public meeting is concluded and the application is now open to council for a motion and debate. I know that counselor So council if there are people who wish to have Um I know Councillor Bodley, sorry, has already indicated that he's willing to read the motion. >> Uh yeah, thank you. Through you, Mayor McCabe. Whereas Council has considered all written and oral submissions, and whereas Council has considered the professional opinions of planning staff, therefore be it resolved one that Council approve IPPW 2026-037, and two that Council approve zoning bylaw amendment Z-23-04, 143 Columbia Inc. for 143 Columbia Street West as set out in section six of report IPPW 2026-037. >> Thank you. Is there a seconder for that motion? Seconded by Councillor Wright. Um Councillor um Seeing that there's no more questions, all in favor? That is carried. Thank you very much, and I guess um Thank you um again to the developer, um and for Brandon for bringing this forward. Um there's a lot of things I think to like about this this development, and uh we look for shovels in the ground as as soon as possible. Thank you very much. [laughter] Okay. Um now we are at consideration of motor consideration notice of motion given at a previous meeting, Councillor Bodley uh Bill 60 motion. I'll turn it over to you. Did you want to speak to this? >> Uh yes, I happy to move it forward and then get a seconder and then speak to it if that's appropriate. >> Okay. Sorry, you're right. The >> [laughter] >> Uh yeah, Councillor Okay, moved by Councillor Bodley, seconded by Councillor Hanmer. >> Uh yes, thank you. Uh just brief comments through Mayor McCabe. Probably if I knew this was going to come at 11:18 at night, I might have said uh yeah, maybe next time. Uh but uh nevertheless, I trust my colleagues have read this uh motion. Uh it's about schedule 16 specifically of Bill 60. Uh there was substantive conversation at the Sustainability Advisory Committee about with the sort of slippery slope of the proposed of some of the >> [clears throat] >> some of the legislation around the water and wastewater public corporations act. I note that the province has walked back a little bit of the idea that there might be private water boards in the community and that's very good to see because that was the substantial amount of the discussion at the sustainability advisory committee about the concerns. Really wanted to take this opportunity though to ask for my council colleagues support in reaffirming how important it is to have 100% public sector ownership of water and wastewater in our communities and wanted to use this as an opportunity to advocate not only to the province on this but also to the region of Waterloo who may in the future be facing pressures that they have to consider around the water around water corporations. And so I will also direct council briefly to the correspondence from the sustainability advisory committee on this and I thank them for all of their work and thoughtful discussion that we had there. And would ask council to consider. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Councillor Bradly. Did you wish to speak to this as the seconder? >> Just very briefly. I It's just really a thank you to my colleague Councillor Bradly for bringing this really important initiative forward and I think we do need to do the advocacy to encourage and ensure that it is publicly run. So thank you. >> Thank you Councillor Hanmer. Um I too very much agree with that and thank Councillor Bradly for and and the sustainability advisory committee for bringing this forward. It's it's thoughtful and it's very timely and and it's very very important. Water is obviously one of the key key things that we all need but the system that the the city and the region run and provide to residents and I think it's absolutely crucial that it remains all all the systems remain in public publicly owned. So, thank you very much for for bringing this forward. Are there any other comments or questions? Councillor Freeman. >> I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the comments about water sovereignty, too. And that and that, you know, it it's not only should be governed by a public entity, but it is a public resource. And so, um privatizing something as public as water is as you said, a really slippery slope. >> Mhm. Thank you. Uh go ahead, Councillor Wright. >> Thanks. Uh through you, Mayor Eisen, just as a last note for anybody who wants to continue to follow along with the development of [clears throat] this, the Canadian Environmental Law Association um does put out um um opinions on on this type of um government um like a government bill like this. And um they have really great information. So, like that's that's a great place to dive into this more more deeply. >> Thank you, Councillor Wright. Um so, with that, we have a move it's moved and seconded. I'll ask all in favor. That is carried unanimously. Thank you again, Councillor Bodley, and to the SAC Committee for bringing this forward. So, notice of motion, we have none. Correspondence and communication, we have none. Unfinished business, we have none. Councillor, are there any questions of staff? Seeing none. Um is there any new business? Of staff or any new business, Council? Councillor Wright. >> Yeah, I just really briefly yesterday was National Indigenous Peoples Day, and so I just wanted to um remark on the events that were taking place in uptown on on Saturday, uh we had our very first-ever um Indigenous Market. Uh Spirit Nation was there playing um drums uh and singing for most of the day, and they are currently uh raising money to to get out to Newfoundland um for a performance. Uh so, if anybody's looking to make a a really great donation this month during uh Indigenous History Month, um Spirit Nation is local and would definitely um benefit from from community further community support. And just kudos to to William Martin for all of his uh efforts to bring this together. Thank you, Councillor Wright. Yes, um again, I was unable to go to that, but I've heard really good things about it. So, thank you again to William Martin, Scott McGovern, Councillor Wright, and Jay Isabelle Scanlon, but uh who who supported William in doing this. So, um any other Councillor Freeman. >> It is the time of year where the neighborhood associations are also hosting a lot of community events, and it's always amazing to see our um neighborhoods team out supporting them. And so, you know, please send thanks to the neighborhoods team for their support of all of these initiatives. The Eastbridge Neighborhood Association had a food truck event on Saturday. It was popular, and just like the Indigenous Market, the the rain held off and just made a lot of those events really special. >> Great. Anyone else? Any other members of Council? I'm just going to give a shout-out to Kultrun. Their um world music festival is July 10th, 11th, and 12th. Find out more information and go and participate. It's always a fantastic event. Um so, enactment of the bylaws, Councillor Bodaly. Moved by Councillor Bodaly, seconded by Councillor Freeman. All in favor? That is carried. Adjournment, Councillor Wright. Moved by Councillor Wright, seconded by Councillor Freeman. All in favor? That is carried. Have a great rest of the evening, everyone. You got 36 minutes.