High-level summary - The council debated zoning bylaw amendments to enable a 40-unit medium-density residential development at 123 Lawrence Avenue and 186 & 192 Major Mackenzie Drive East, with related bylaw changes and site-specific standards. The meeting adopted the agenda and moved to refer comments back to staff for further review, with several topics—housing affordability, unit design, parking, accessibility, and public input—driving discussion and next steps.

Five most important topics (with resident impact and quotes) 1) Zoning bylaw amendments and development concept - The applicant seeks two zoning amendments to facilitate townhouse development: rezoning from RM3 to RM2 with site-specific exceptions, and minor site-specific amendments under By-law 93-25. A staff overview note frames this as information for council and the public. Quote: "We’re requiring two zoning bylaw amendments... to permit staff townhouses with site-specific exceptions." File/bylaw references: RM3 to LMU-COR rezoning; Bylaw 66-71; Bylaw 93-25; potential alignment with local planning designations. - Public comments in this thread emphasized the broader regulatory path and the site’s regulatory context.

2) Housing unit types, size, and density concerns - Councillors questioned whether the proposed mix (smaller units) and density fit the site. A concern raised was whether high density is appropriate for the parcel size, even if the design complements the neighborhood. Quote: "My only real comments were that it was the limited options... and I felt it was too dense for the size of the property." - This topic ties directly to affordability and marketability, informing future discussions on unit count and mix.

3) Affordability considerations - Affordability was highlighted as a critical objective, with questions about whether smaller units adequately meet affordability goals. Quote: "Presumably those smaller units would be hopefully meeting some of what we’re trying to get at in terms of affordable housing units." - Staff indicated that smaller units can help satisfy affordability requirements, subject to policy review and market response.

4) Parking and visitor parking, and transit orientation - The proposal’s parking plan, including visitor parking, drew attention. A key concern was the absence of designated visitor parking spaces and the potential impact on parking demand. Quote: "There’s no parking space identified at this point in time for visitors... something to consider realistically for potential visitors." The project’s proximity to transit and its PMTSA status further shaped parking expectations.

5) Accessibility, public space, and amenity considerations - Accessibility and on-site accessibility features were discussed, including the need for accessible design and disabled parking on-site. A board member stressed ensuring accessible units and parking: "As the chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, these are not accessible... we would require disabled parking to be on site." In addition, outdoor amenity space (central corridor) was noted as exceeding minimum standards: "There’s a central outdoor amenity corridor provided for the residents on site, so that is being counted towards the amenity area for the proposed development." - The public and council process for feedback and collaboration with staff and other stakeholders was also emphasized as an avenue to address concerns.

File numbers and bylaw references discussed - By-law numbers and zoning references mentioned: - RM3 (Residential Multiple Third Density) and potential rezoning to LMU-COR (local mixed-use corridor) under Bylaw 66-71. - Comprehensive zoning bylaw amendments represented by By-law 93-25. - General reference to site-specific standards and the plan’s alignment with the LMU-COR designation. - PMTSA (Protected Major Transit Station Area) designation for transit-oriented considerations. - Specific notes observed: File numbers discussed in some sections include By-laws 66-71 and 93-25; RM3 vs RM2 discussions; 40 stacked townhouse units; three four-story blocks; 4.3-acre site.

Opportunities for public input - Public input avenues highlighted: - Oral or written submissions are necessary to retain the right to appeal decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Quote: "If a person, public body, or specified person does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions... they are not entitled to appeal a decision of the city council to the Ontario Land Tribunal." - Some sections note that the report is for information and that staff will consider comments; future opportunities for public consultation may arise as the project progresses. - Practical next steps for residents: submit oral or written comments at public meetings, or contact staff to ensure consideration of concerns during the review process.

Motions and outcomes - Adoption of the Agenda — Passed. - Details: Moved by Councilor Thompson and seconded by Councilor Tree. - Referral ofComments on Proposed Development and Zoning Bylaw Amendments (send back to staff for review) — Passed. - Next steps: Staff to review comments from council, the public, and external agencies; applicant to address feedback collaboratively. - Motion to Address Accessibility Concerns — Deferred for further discussion with staff and the applicant. - Motion to Approve Signalization Threshold Report — Deferred until a future recommendation is presented; staff to report back on feedback from the Region of York. - Motion to Approve Development Plan with Current Unit Sizes — No formal motion passed; discussion ongoing; applicant to respond to market feedback and potentially adjust unit sizes. - Motion to Adjourn the Meeting — Passed.

Councillors present - Mayor (presiding over the meeting; name not provided in the transcripts) - Councilor Thompson - Councilor Tree - Deputy Mayor Chan - Councillor Davidson

Notes - The materials include multiple transcripts with overlapping topics (zoning amendments, housing affordability, density, parking, accessibility, transit proximity, and public input). The summary above consolidates the key themes, decisions, and motions across those sections to reflect how residents would experience the meeting and its outcomes. If you’d like, I can tailor this into a brief for a specific neighborhood or extract a one-page handout with the most resident-impacting points.