[3:42] Good evening everyone. My name is Jan

[3:44] Liot, mayor and chair of this council

[3:46] meeting. We will now rise from close

[3:48] session. And councelor Cooper, you have

[3:50] that motion.

[4:08] There we go. Thank you, May. I'm just

[4:10] waiting for my my microphone to come on.

[4:13] Yes. Uh recommendation the council rise

[4:15] from close session at 6:52.

[4:24] » I will ask the clerk to call for that

[4:26] vote, please.

[4:28] >> Opening voting.

[4:34] Closing voting.

[4:36] That carries unanimously.

[4:38] So during close session this evening,

[4:40] council and staff had discussions and

[4:42] council provided staff with direction on

[4:44] confidential negotiations,

[4:47] confidential litigation matters, and

[4:49] confidential legal advice.

[4:53] Please note that the city of Cambridge

[4:55] council meetings are broadcast on the

[4:57] city's YouTube page and are archived on

[4:59] the city's website. It is imperative

[5:01] that we as city council promote public

[5:04] participation using a variety of methods

[5:06] including YouTube. On that note, our

[5:09] last council meeting had 779 views on

[5:12] YouTube and 10 delegations. For staff

[5:14] and delegates alike, please be sure that

[5:16] you stand 6 to 8 in from the microphone

[5:18] at the presenter's podium for optimal

[5:20] sound quality. There is no there is a

[5:23] remote at the podium you may use in

[5:25] advance for your slides. In the event of

[5:28] an emergency, please evacuate. council

[5:30] chambers using the nearest exit

[5:32] staircase. And should you require

[5:34] assistance, please see our clerk staff.

[5:36] They will provide you with support to

[5:38] exit the facility. Once you have

[5:40] evacuated the building, please gather

[5:42] outside of city hall in the farmers

[5:44] market parking lot and await further

[5:46] instruction. And now it is my pleasure

[5:48] to introduce council. Council Hamilton,

[5:51] Councelor Meta, Councelor Kimson,

[5:54] Councelor Roberts, Councelor Cooper,

[5:56] Councelor Schwerry, Councelor Ernshaw,

[5:59] and Councelor Divine. We will now sing

[6:02] the national anthem. If you are able,

[6:04] please rise and follow along.

[6:31] Oh Canada,

[6:36] our home and

[6:41] True patient love

[6:45] in all of our

[6:50] with

[6:55] the true north and free

[7:00] from far and wide. Oh heaven and earth

[7:05] we stand on

[7:08] thee

[7:11] God

[7:14] for

[7:16] glorious

[7:18] and free

[7:21] oh

[7:26] God for thee.

[7:31] All

[7:33] and all we stand on guard

[7:37] for

[7:50] we embrace our shared responsibility

[7:52] with the first nations people to take

[7:55] care of this earth and its creatures. We

[7:57] can only do so by walking the path as

[8:00] partners stewarding this land since we

[8:02] have been given the duty together to

[8:03] live in balance and harmony with all

[8:05] living things. We acknowledge and

[8:08] respect the Inishnab Chinankton and the

[8:10] Hodneson peoples who came before us and

[8:13] who we live amongst by honoring this

[8:15] truth of past and present. May we come

[8:17] to true reconciliation through

[8:19] listening, reflecting and learning.

[8:22] Before we begin, I'd like to take a

[8:24] moment to acknowledge and thank everyone

[8:26] for joining us this evening. We

[8:28] appreciate your participation

[8:30] and we're looking forward to the

[8:32] delegations this evening. As we come

[8:35] together to serve the community, I ask

[8:36] that we create a welcoming and positive

[8:39] environment for everyone that includes

[8:40] respect,

[8:43] kindness, inclusion. Together, we can

[8:46] make this meeting space one where

[8:47] respect, kindness, and inclusion are at

[8:49] the heart of everything we do. that this

[8:51] is a safe space. Behavior that is

[8:53] disrespectful, disruptive, aggressive,

[8:55] or intimidating will result in those

[8:58] individuals being asked to leave. And I

[9:00] have to say

[9:02] almost 100% of the time we have had all

[9:05] of those three things from our delegates

[9:07] and we appreciate that very much. A

[9:09] reminder to members of council that the

[9:11] Municipal Conflict of Interest Act

[9:13] requires council members to declare any

[9:15] direct or indirect pecuniary interest in

[9:17] relation to a matter under

[9:19] consideration. Are there any

[9:20] declarations this evening?

[9:24] I see none. We have two presentations

[9:27] this evening. Our first is from Sheila

[9:29] Jones from Vox Veritus Consulting

[9:31] regarding member of council compensation

[9:33] review. Uh first I'll ask our city clerk

[9:36] Jennifer Shaw to make some opening uh

[9:38] remarks. And following Jen's remarks, I

[9:41] will ask Sheila to come to the pod. Is

[9:43] Sheila here? When Jennifer finishes,

[9:46] I'll ask you to come to the podium.

[9:48] Thank you.

[9:51] I would first like to thank council for

[9:53] uh your time in meeting with Sheila and

[9:55] our clerk's team as part of the

[9:57] one-on-one interviews that we did uh for

[9:59] the compensation review process. Your

[10:01] insights and experiences were

[10:03] appreciated and trying to understand and

[10:05] capture the important work that you do

[10:07] within the community. Uh there have been

[10:09] some comments received since the report

[10:11] and recommendations were published uh

[10:13] that are important to address before

[10:14] Sheila starts with her presentation this

[10:16] evening. Uh the first is that council

[10:19] member attendance was pulled from the

[10:20] minutes of each type of meeting that was

[10:22] used as part of the analysis and is

[10:25] correct based on our records. As council

[10:27] is aware, minutes from each meeting form

[10:29] part of the subsequent council

[10:31] information package and if there are

[10:32] errors or emissions, those should be

[10:35] noted at the time the minutes are

[10:36] adopted by council as part of the

[10:38] consent agenda motion.

[10:40] Secondly, we understand that there are

[10:43] some ad hoc working groups, advisory

[10:45] committees, and local boards that are

[10:46] not part of the attendance records in

[10:48] the report. Council compensation reviews

[10:51] typically do not use attendance data

[10:53] from these types of bodies because not

[10:54] all members of council are appointed to

[10:57] a body uh like these and some members

[10:59] may have several advisory committees or

[11:01] local boards or working groups while

[11:03] others may only have one or none. So

[11:06] they are not typically a good basis for

[11:08] comparison from a council compensation

[11:10] perspective. That said, the report does

[11:13] acknowledge that these bodies are an

[11:15] additional responsibility that some

[11:17] members of council have uh and they do

[11:19] factor into the workload impacts, but

[11:22] they don't affect salary

[11:23] recommendations.

[11:25] Finally, on page 14 and 15 of your

[11:27] agendas, there is reference to council

[11:29] appointments to various committees and

[11:31] boards. This information was provided to

[11:34] Sheila by clerks from appendix A of

[11:36] report 22-074

[11:39] CRS which was approved by council at the

[11:42] start of the council term. Uh when this

[11:44] report went forward the late Donna Reed

[11:46] was appointed to the archives working

[11:48] group celebration of women and arts art

[11:51] connect. Uh so a reasonable presumption

[11:54] was made that these groups would

[11:55] transfer over to councelor Shweri.

[11:58] However, it is my understanding that

[11:59] none of them have met since the start of

[12:01] the council term, which sometimes

[12:02] happens. The same report also appointed

[12:05] councelor Devine to the Grand River

[12:06] Conservation Authority Board of

[12:08] Directors, but I do understand that the

[12:10] city has not allocated a city rep to

[12:12] this at this term and your council

[12:16] divine is instead appointed as a private

[12:18] citizen. So I again would just highlight

[12:20] that these nuances are why advisory

[12:22] committees and boards are not used as a

[12:24] basis for comparison for compensation

[12:27] review purposes. Thank you.

[12:33] » Welcome Sheila.

[12:35] Good to see you again.

[12:38] >> Go ahead.

[12:39] » Go ahead.

[12:40] >> You as well.

[12:42] » You as well.

[12:42] So good evening mayor and members of

[12:45] council. It is nice to see all of you

[12:47] again. Some we have met in person, some

[12:50] we met virtually.

[12:52] Thank you again for the opportunity to

[12:54] work with you on this compensation

[12:56] review. So this evening, I'm here to

[12:59] just provide a short recap of the

[13:01] recommendations and to answer any

[13:03] questions you may have.

[13:06] To start, let's acknowledge that your

[13:09] role of mayor and counselor are not

[13:12] conventional jobs.

[13:15] As elected officials, the Ontario

[13:17] Employment Standards Act does not apply

[13:20] to your positions

[13:22] and the courts have ruled that members

[13:24] of council are not considered employees

[13:28] of the municipality.

[13:30] So yours is not a job that is supported

[13:34] by an agreement, an employment

[13:36] agreement, an employment contract that

[13:39] would typically outline your hours of

[13:41] duty or your hours of responsibilities

[13:45] or other uh terms of employment.

[13:50] These types of contracts are generally

[13:52] seen in the the staff, the

[13:54] administrative staff that sit around

[13:55] you. So yours is not a conventional job.

[13:59] Yet, the municipal act does permit

[14:03] municipalities to set remuneration and

[14:06] expenses for members of council and they

[14:09] expect municipalities to establish those

[14:12] remuneration policies uh with balancing

[14:15] fiscal stewardship and fair recognition

[14:18] of the time, the expertise

[14:21] and the effort required in order for you

[14:24] to carry out your statutory duties.

[14:27] So this review provides you with an

[14:30] independent and objective basis to

[14:33] assess your remuneration

[14:35] that aligns with the local economy,

[14:38] comparable municipalities,

[14:41] and supports the attraction and

[14:43] retention of qualified candidates.

[14:49] So our engagement approach took in uh

[14:52] into consideration several activities.

[14:54] We benchmarked your current salary

[14:57] against uh the eight comparator

[14:59] municipalities that share comparable

[15:02] conditions and governance complexity.

[15:05] So these comparators included both

[15:07] single tier and lower tier

[15:09] municipalities having populations

[15:12] ranging from as high as 330,000 to as

[15:15] low as 123,000.

[15:18] Municipalities that are similar in

[15:20] economic profile.

[15:22] The services of the comparables vary as

[15:25] lower tier municipalities do not offer

[15:28] the same services as single tier

[15:30] municipalities.

[15:32] Yet we needed to understand the

[15:33] structural differences in order to

[15:36] perform an accurate council compensation

[15:39] benchmarking and the scope of the

[15:41] services provided do directly impact the

[15:45] counselor workload. The complexity of

[15:48] the governing oversight as well as time

[15:51] commitments. We reviewed internal and

[15:54] external data gathered from those

[15:57] interviews and thank you very much for

[15:59] participating in those interviews.

[16:01] And we actually had the completion of

[16:03] the workload survey done as well. And we

[16:06] looked at publicly available reports

[16:08] both from your own city of Cambridge

[16:10] website as well as those comparator

[16:12] municipalities.

[16:14] We reviewed the Ontario Municipal Act as

[16:17] well as the Ontario Municipal

[16:19] Counselor's Guide in order to ensure we

[16:22] had a clear understanding of the

[16:24] responsibilities of the members of

[16:26] council. for it is very important for

[16:28] council compensation to reflect the

[16:31] breadth, complexity, the risk and the

[16:34] time commitment of the roles.

[16:37] And lastly, we used a role valuebased

[16:40] compensation model to anchor the member

[16:43] of council compensation and base

[16:45] salaries to the economic reality of the

[16:48] constituents.

[16:50] And in pegging compensation to the

[16:52] median full-time employment income of

[16:55] the municipality, adjust it for

[16:57] inflation and applying a complexity

[17:00] multiplier in order to uh account for

[17:04] the services within each of the lower

[17:07] tiers. It removes the one-sizefits-all

[17:10] approach. This approach recognizes the

[17:13] local economic conditions and works to

[17:16] create a strong link between the local

[17:19] community paying a member of council

[17:22] salary while reflecting the actual

[17:24] governance burden of the elected

[17:26] officials.

[17:35] So all the re research and analysis

[17:37] resulted in our recommendations in the

[17:40] following areas. In the matter of base

[17:43] salary for the counselor, a moderate

[17:46] increase in base salary to $59,827

[17:51] representing an increase of

[17:53] approximately $3,620

[17:56] per counselor in the first year of the

[17:59] new term of council.

[18:01] In addition, starting in 2027,

[18:04] the counselor salary would be increased

[18:07] based on the Ontario Consumer Price

[18:10] Index or CPI in order to keep the

[18:13] counselor salary anchored at 65% of the

[18:16] local median full-time income.

[18:20] Why 65%.

[18:22] Pegging the counselor role at 65%

[18:26] treats the counselor position as a

[18:28] substantial part-time role in economic

[18:31] terms and it signals that Cambridge

[18:34] counselors are expected to carry a

[18:37] significant and ongoing workload for

[18:40] governance constituency work and it

[18:43] reflects that the role is not a casual

[18:46] or an occasional commitment nor is is it

[18:50] a conventional staffing job.

[18:53] And for the mayor, we are recommending

[18:56] no increase. While the mayor's role is

[18:59] anchored at 135% of the local median

[19:03] full-time employment income, the model

[19:05] recommendation salary is less than the

[19:09] current salary for the mayor. For this

[19:11] reason, the mayor's salary is

[19:14] recommended to remain at the 2026 base

[19:17] salary with an annual increase based on

[19:20] Ontario CPI beginning in 2027.

[19:25] Why 135%.

[19:28] At 135% of the local median full-time

[19:32] employment income, this anchor treats

[19:35] the mayor's position as a fully

[19:37] full-time high accountability leadership

[19:40] role in economic terms. It signals the

[19:44] Cambridge mayor is expected to assume

[19:48] overarching responsibility for citywide

[19:51] governance, strategic direction, and

[19:54] external representation

[19:56] with continuous demands often extending

[20:01] well beyond the standard work week.

[20:06] In the manner of benefits and allowances

[20:09] for both counselors and mayor, we are

[20:12] recommending these remain the same as

[20:15] those in place at the current time.

[20:26] In addition to the remuneration

[20:28] recommendations, we've made some

[20:30] recommendations to enhance transparency

[20:33] and accountability

[20:34] given the components of remuneration and

[20:37] the various factors to consider.

[20:39] Establishing guiding principles for the

[20:42] use in future years uh of council

[20:44] remuneration reviews can help to

[20:47] maintain a compensation practice aligned

[20:50] with the municipality's values,

[20:52] governance philosophy and community

[20:55] expectations

[20:56] even as specific economic or political

[20:59] conditions evolve.

[21:02] Having member of council mandates or

[21:04] position descriptions helps to define

[21:07] clear expectations around key

[21:10] responsibilities and can serve as a

[21:13] guide for potential candidates for new

[21:16] members of council and for returning

[21:19] incumbents.

[21:21] And attendance reporting is a form of

[21:23] performance measurement and including

[21:26] this information in the annual council

[21:28] remuneration report aids in transparency

[21:31] and accountability.

[21:35] I do um expect myself to accept

[21:37] accountability and I will point out in

[21:39] my last review of the report today uh

[21:43] for many times that I read and reread

[21:45] and proofread it, I did note that there

[21:47] is a u transposed figure on page 12 in

[21:52] the mayor's role valuebased salary and

[21:55] it's transposed that the figure should

[21:58] actually read $13,546.

[22:02] 6. This amount is correctly reported in

[22:06] the table below it on page 13.

[22:09] In closing, the report, admittedly

[22:12] lengthy, establishes the rationale for

[22:15] our recommendations.

[22:17] Again, thank you for your opportunity to

[22:20] work it with for me to work with you in

[22:23] this compensation review. Mayor, I turn

[22:26] it back to you.

[22:29] >> Thank you, Sheila. Uh, questions.

[22:34] Councelor and Sha.

[22:36] >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Lead and you

[22:38] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor Lead and you

[22:38] Sheila. Thank you for your report. Could

[22:40] you just elaborate a little bit on how

[22:42] you came to the uh complexity multiplier

[22:44] of 1.2? I I didn't really see that

[22:48] explained in in the report or I missed

[22:50] it if you wouldn't mind.

[22:51] >> Certainly, Councelor Ernshaw through you

[22:54] » Certainly, Councelor Ernshaw through you

[22:54] mayor.

[22:56] The 1.2 to figure comes from a number of

[22:59] factors that are considered and appendix

[23:02] um

[23:07] appendix B does contain the some I will

[23:10] say some of the details councelor

[23:12] Ernshaw it it does tell you the factors

[23:15] but it does not give you the numerical

[23:17] value associated with his factors the

[23:20] reason for that is this is a proprietary

[23:23] model and so if I actually publish that

[23:26] I

[23:30] you can understand where I'm going but I

[23:32] did come up with the 1.2 uh by using

[23:35] those factors and using the numerical

[23:37] values associated with those factors.

[23:40] >> Thank you

[23:42] » Thank you

[23:42] >> councelor Schwer.

[23:45] » councelor Schwer.

[23:45] Thank

[23:47] you mayor and thanks Sheila. Um, I know

[23:50] we talked about it. So, a part-time role

[23:54] from an employer's uh, perspective would

[23:56] be 20 hours. Um, and and you noted that

[24:00] a lot of the counselors work much longer

[24:02] than that. Around 32, I said, or I about

[24:05] 35 minimum. Um, so what there so those

[24:10] are not part-time hours, but we're our

[24:12] role is part-time. Should maybe that

[24:15] kind of be explained that it's not

[24:16] really part-time that what counselors

[24:18] are doing?

[24:21] >> So through you mayor um councelor Shiri

[24:23] » So through you mayor um councelor Shiri

[24:23] that's a very um good observation and I

[24:27] that's why I have started my I started

[24:29] my comments with yours is not a

[24:32] conventional job.

[24:34] So the standards of practice related to

[24:38] hours of work defined in the Employment

[24:41] Standards Act

[24:44] don't apply to these positions as

[24:47] elected officials. That doesn't diminish

[24:50] the fact that you are spending hours in

[24:53] order to fulfill your commitments.

[24:58] those hours and the hours you choose to

[25:01] fulfill are fully discretionary in how

[25:04] you as individuals decide to fulfill

[25:08] that duty. So it is very challenging and

[25:12] I think those are the words I used in

[25:14] the report. It is very challenging to

[25:17] actually establish that this might be

[25:21] full-time or part-time.

[25:24] I have qualified it as substantially

[25:28] part-time recognizing it is not a casual

[25:31] or an occasional commitment.

[25:34] >> Okay. Thank you

[25:37] » Okay. Thank you

[25:37] >> councelor Meta.

[25:39] » councelor Meta.

[25:39] >> Thank you Mayor Jan through you um my

[25:41] » Thank you Mayor Jan through you um my

[25:41] question when you did the comparison

[25:43] with the different municipalities did

[25:45] you look at one of whether those um

[25:47] counselors um or those councils whether

[25:50] they had one counselor per ward or two

[25:52] per ward. So for example, Brford's got

[25:55] two per ward and G does as well. So does

[25:58] that affect the workload at all? Like

[26:00] when you're looking at the pay across

[26:02] the municipalities because in Cambridge

[26:03] we have one per ward as you know. So

[26:07] >> through you mayor a very interesting

[26:11] » through you mayor a very interesting

[26:11] observation with respect to Brford and

[26:14] G. Those are both single tier

[26:16] municipalities as well. uh so they do

[26:19] have a different structure and a

[26:21] different governance approach than

[26:23] Cambridge.

[26:25] it really in in comparison and I believe

[26:28] if you look at the

[26:31] comparison against the uh other

[26:33] benchmarks uh which includes the P50 and

[26:37] the average for lower tier which is the

[26:39] table on page 14 you'll see that um

[26:45] your

[26:46] current salary as a counselor and I'm

[26:49] going from my memory because I don't

[26:51] have page 14 in front of me but if I go

[26:54] from that I don't believe you're that

[26:56] far off in terms of those

[27:01] P50, which is the 50th percentile

[27:05] of the all tiers and the 50th percentile

[27:08] of the lower tiers.

[27:16] » Thank you, Mayor Jan. And another

[27:18] question, and I thought the report was

[27:20] very good, by the way. Uh my other

[27:22] question is uh to do with the two-tier

[27:24] government. So even though we are a

[27:27] two-tier structure and the city doesn't

[27:29] have jurisdiction over transit or

[27:31] garbage collection for example, I still

[27:34] get calls on those issues and residents

[27:37] expect to meet with me on those issues

[27:39] and they expect me to go to the region

[27:41] and all that and and I know we have

[27:42] regional counselors and I involve them

[27:45] as well but they want the ward counselor

[27:47] to also get involved. So, how do we draw

[27:49] the line, you know, when it comes to

[27:52] defining our job on Cambridge Council

[27:54] like with that the two-tier structure

[27:57] makes it difficult because residents

[27:58] want us to get involved in those issues,

[28:00] but they're not our jurisdiction. But,

[28:03] but it's very time consuming. That's

[28:04] kind of what I'm saying.

[28:06] >> Yeah. Through you, mayor. Um, it would

[28:09] » Yeah. Through you, mayor. Um, it would

[28:09] not be fair for me to comment on how you

[28:13] decide how you're going to allocate your

[28:16] time and what issues you're going to

[28:17] become involved in.

[28:22] » Councelor Kimson,

[28:25] >> thank you very much, Mayor Jan, and

[28:26] » thank you very much, Mayor Jan, and

[28:26] through you. Uh, thank you for your

[28:28] presentation and all the work that

[28:29] you've put into this. I'm wondering sort

[28:32] of as a generalization through the work

[28:34] that you've done with us here at the

[28:36] city of Cambridge as well as other

[28:38] municipalities,

[28:40] what would you recommend that we could

[28:42] do in order to increase the diversity of

[28:45] people that um pursue this type of

[28:49] elected work

[28:52] >> through you mayor. Um that is indeed a

[28:55] » through you mayor. Um that is indeed a

[28:55] very good question

[28:58] and it is

[29:00] probably the challenge of most municipal

[29:03] councils.

[29:05] How do we attract the candidates that

[29:10] represent the community? One part of

[29:13] that is compensation.

[29:16] That is why once a term typically you

[29:19] undertake to do a compensation review to

[29:23] ensure that what you are willing to pay

[29:27] because it is your decision will

[29:29] actually help to attract.

[29:32] That's the only thing I can comment on.

[29:36] what other mechanisms or areas that you

[29:39] can do uh or activities that you can

[29:42] undertake that was not part of the

[29:45] compensation review.

[29:47] >> Thank you,

[29:50] » Councelor Cooper.

[29:52] >> Yes, thank you. Thank you for your

[29:54] » Yes, thank you. Thank you for your

[29:54] report. I know you put a lot of work

[29:55] into this.

[29:57] I've just got a question in concern with

[29:59] if I can go back to your response to um

[30:01] to councelor Sher here where we were

[30:04] talking about the hours um obviously you

[30:06] talked to a lot of us about the hours

[30:08] that we do and and they are substantial

[30:10] this is not a part-time job um I do not

[30:12] believe it is um and we're also I mean

[30:15] we're on 24/7 it's it's made very clear

[30:17] to us um so my concern is if you're

[30:19] asking about the hours obviously you

[30:21] believe that's going to affect your

[30:23] recommendations

[30:25] um but I did hear you date that um when

[30:29] cancer shy stated the hours that were

[30:30] done there clearly more than more than

[30:32] part-time and some people put in more

[30:34] work than that that it seemed like he

[30:36] was stating that because we are elected

[30:38] officials and our job is a little

[30:40] different than others that we frankly

[30:43] sound like we don't get compensated for

[30:46] that as if past part-time it is optional

[30:50] and that's on us if we want to do it and

[30:52] we don't have to do it but we do I can

[30:54] tell you that for

[30:56] So I'm wondering why did it sound like

[30:58] because of our position as elected

[31:01] officials that we shouldn't get

[31:04] compensation based on the work that we

[31:06] do because this is and to councelor

[31:08] Kimson's point this is one of the

[31:10] reasons why this is this job is not

[31:11] really that practical for a lot of

[31:14] people that have homes and families

[31:15] because of relatively low relatively low

[31:18] pay especially when you consider the

[31:19] work and stress we go through. So I'm

[31:21] wondering it it sounded like you've just

[31:23] kept this at part-time despite what we

[31:25] actually do.

[31:28] >> Your how you fulfill your role is 100%

[31:32] » Your how you fulfill your role is 100%

[31:32] within your respon your area of

[31:35] responsibility.

[31:38] Some counselors may choose to spend more

[31:42] hours than others.

[31:44] So it would be from a compensation

[31:47] perspective, from even thinking and

[31:49] looking at that, it would be very

[31:51] challenging to say and to apply and go

[31:55] that route. It's very challenging to

[31:57] apply what you want to hear. You want

[32:01] somebody to say this is full-time. That

[32:05] in my humble opinion is very challenging

[32:08] to do because you are not in a

[32:11] conventional job.

[32:14] Okay. Well, my followup, I just want to

[32:15] say um I'm not asking for someone to say

[32:17] it's full-time um but to have

[32:19] appropriate um consideration for the

[32:20] hours that people do put in. Um that's

[32:23] all and not to be judged on the ones

[32:24] that do the least work.

[32:25] >> That's a hard time. Is it purely density

[32:28] » That's a hard time. Is it purely density

[32:28] or is it the workloads? I'm just curious

[32:31] and I'm not insinuating that we should

[32:33] do that right now. That's a substantial

[32:35] step in transformation in the way our

[32:37] government would function. But out of

[32:39] curiosity, what are those steps? because

[32:40] other municipalities have crossed that

[32:42] threshold for

[32:46] >> through you mayor. Uh to my knowledge,

[32:48] » through you mayor. Uh to my knowledge,

[32:48] Toronto, Hamilton, and Ottawa are

[32:51] full-time counselors.

[32:54] They are substantially large. Um Toronto

[32:57] operates under its own charter.

[33:00] to my knowledge the

[33:08] » Okay, we're going to have to pause

[33:10] because our live stream has gone down.

[33:13] >> Oh,

[33:13] » Oh,

[33:13] >> so

[33:15] » so

[33:15] we don't want to make it look like we're

[33:17] doing a closed door meeting here. So, we

[33:20] just if you want to take a seat till

[33:21] it's gone back up. Thanks.

[33:27] » We're back up. Um,

[33:29] >> hey, we broke the internet.

[33:30] » hey, we broke the internet.

[33:30] >> Yeah. So, so is, so you're expecting

[33:35] » Yeah. So, so is, so you're expecting

[33:35] this methodology to start to go across

[33:37] the province as more cities. You're

[33:39] hoping I guess

[33:40] >> I would be hopeful.

[33:41] » I would be hopeful.

[33:41] >> Yeah. Yeah. Your experience is quite

[33:43] » Yeah. Yeah. Your experience is quite

[33:43] extensive. Really appreciative of it of

[33:46] it. Um,

[33:51] so if we looking at this, this is as it

[33:55] sits today,

[33:57] but knowing that the region

[34:00] is under review by the province now,

[34:03] this could all be moot by the time

[34:06] January 1st, 2027 comes around.

[34:10] >> Are you mayor? Um, that is anybody's

[34:13] » Are you mayor? Um, that is anybody's

[34:14] >> guess

[34:14] » guess

[34:14] >> guess. Yeah. Okay. Um, are there any

[34:19] » guess. Yeah. Okay. Um, are there any

[34:19] other questions here by anybody? Now's

[34:22] your chance. You've got the expert up

[34:24] here at the mic.

[34:29] Okay, I have one more. Um,

[34:34] so let's just talk about me. It's all

[34:36] about me here, guys. Um,

[34:39] so can you explain because I it took me

[34:42] a while to get through this and into my

[34:44] brain here. Um, on page 14, it says that

[34:51] the mayor's current 2026 base salary of

[34:54] $135,000

[34:56] positions the role below the market at

[34:59] 14 to 17%.

[35:02] Um

[35:05] so what is the market that you're

[35:08] looking at? What what is that wage?

[35:10] Right. So through you mayor if you are

[35:14] referring to the table on page 12 which

[35:19] is the role valuebased salary table. The

[35:23] mayor's salary is the position that I

[35:26] transpose the numbers on. So where it

[35:29] says 130, it should actually be 103,000.

[35:34] And when I'm referring to the market,

[35:37] then that is within the um your P50,

[35:42] your 50th percentile of your

[35:44] comparators.

[35:46] >> Okay? and that the mole the model's

[35:49] » Okay? and that the mole the model's

[35:49] recommended salary of 124 would increase

[35:53] this discount moving it to approximately

[35:55] 21 to 24% below

[35:58] >> below where you currently are.

[35:59] » below where you currently are.

[36:00] >> Yes.

[36:00] » Yes.

[36:00] >> Mhm.

[36:01] » Mhm.

[36:01] >> Okay. Um

[36:05] » Okay. Um

[36:05] and I think Jen, you want Jen's going to

[36:09] talk about some things that errors that

[36:11] were made that you wouldn't have been

[36:13] aware of.

[36:18] Oh, councelor Kimson, sorry.

[36:22] >> Thank you, Mayor Jan. I just thought of

[36:23] » Thank you, Mayor Jan. I just thought of

[36:24] something as well. Um, question. As

[36:27] elected officials, um, at least here in

[36:30] the city of Cambridge, we don't have an

[36:32] aotment of holidays, per se. Is that

[36:35] something that's consistent across other

[36:37] municipalities where elected officials

[36:39] sort of take them as they need them or

[36:42] is it something where some

[36:43] municipalities lay it out where there's

[36:46] a minimum? I know the employment

[36:47] standards doesn't apply to us, but is

[36:49] that something that is um unique to us

[36:54] or it is consistent?

[36:56] Because that's another thing that um the

[36:59] public may not be aware of is that this

[37:02] is a as we choose to do our jobs and how

[37:06] we serve the public that we do it

[37:07] effectively and efficiently. So, I'm

[37:09] just wondering if that's something that

[37:12] um is unique to us or across the board.

[37:16] >> Through you, mayor. Uh in my research

[37:18] » Through you, mayor. Uh in my research

[37:18] with the comparator municipalities and

[37:20] looking at benefits allowances, vacation

[37:23] was never mentioned.

[37:31] I would say councelor Kimson that as

[37:35] counselors in any community it's very

[37:37] very difficult to take a bank of

[37:39] holidays because we have meetings

[37:42] constantly and I know even though I just

[37:44] took four weeks holidays I attended

[37:47] regional meetings closed dooror meetings

[37:49] at both council levels other meetings

[37:52] that were happening with administrative

[37:54] staff as well as uh dealing with regular

[37:59] emails from people and trying to get

[38:00] things done behind the scenes. And I

[38:02] know each and every one of you do the

[38:04] same thing when you're on vacation. And

[38:06] I don't think the public even

[38:07] understands that we don't truly get a a

[38:10] holiday and we can't just take a bank

[38:13] all the time. So yeah, it's very

[38:15] difficult and I think the public needs

[38:17] to understand how much we give up with

[38:20] our families as well. It's very very

[38:22] hard and and I know you know that show

[38:24] because you've been in our shoes before.

[38:26] So, okay. Now, I'll have Jen speak to

[38:29] this.

[38:30] >> Um, just going back to page 15 of the

[38:33] » Um, just going back to page 15 of the

[38:33] agenda. Um, it is noted here that

[38:37] councelor Roberts is vice chair of the

[38:39] budget and audit committee and councelor

[38:41] Hermeta is chair of that committee. We

[38:44] also have the economic development

[38:45] advisory committee which no longer

[38:47] exists and uh budget and audit does

[38:50] technically still exist within the

[38:51] procedure bylaw. However, we have not

[38:53] been using that body since uh strong

[38:55] mayor legislation came into effect. So,

[38:58] uh we will look uh with Sheila's uh

[39:01] consent here to maybe make some of those

[39:03] changes for the public u agenda or the

[39:06] public report so that it's not

[39:08] misleading.

[39:12] » You wouldn't know any of that, Sheila.

[39:14] So, our apologies for leading you astray

[39:18] on that one.

[39:19] >> Apology accepted.

[39:20] » Apology accepted.

[39:20] >> Okay. Okay, last call, guys.

[39:25] » Okay. Okay, last call, guys.

[39:25] Great report.

[39:27] >> Thank you.

[39:27] » Thank you.

[39:27] >> Great report. Thank you very much.

[39:34] » Okay, councelor Ernshaw, you have this

[39:36] motion.

[39:42] I do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. It's u

[39:45] moved by me and seconded by you, Mayor

[39:48] Liot, that the base salary for

[39:50] counselors increase to $59,827

[39:55] effective January 1, 2027 with annual

[39:59] increases based on the Ontario consumer

[40:02] price index and that the mayor's salary

[40:05] of $135,67

[40:08] remain unchanged effective January 1,

[40:11] 2027

[40:12] with annual increases based on the

[40:15] Ontario Consumer Price Index

[40:18] and that the current benefits remain the

[40:20] same for mayor and counselors effective

[40:23] January 1, 2027

[40:26] and that the current allowances remain

[40:28] the same for the mayor and counselors

[40:30] effective January 1, 2027

[40:33] and that guiding principles be developed

[40:35] for council remuneration to deliver

[40:38] clear benchmarks for assessing

[40:40] compensation proposals, minimizing bias

[40:43] while aligning choices with public needs

[40:45] and budgetary discipline.

[40:48] And that position mandates be developed

[40:50] for the mayor and counselors to define

[40:52] clear expectations around key

[40:54] responsibilities including policy

[40:56] development, constituent representation,

[41:00] budget oversight, and committee

[41:02] involvement.

[41:03] and further that staff be directed to

[41:05] include

[41:07] a council member a council member

[41:09] attendance in the annual council

[41:11] remuneration report to enhance

[41:13] accountability, transparency and public

[41:16] trust.

[41:20] » Does anybody have any questions about

[41:22] the motion?

[41:24] Councelor Divine,

[41:27] >> is that on? Yeah. Okay. Thank you chair.

[41:29] » is that on? Yeah. Okay. Thank you chair.

[41:29] Um, I noticed

[41:32] as we went through the attendance here,

[41:36] um, there's a, you know, I was shown up

[41:38] as being missing.

[41:41] Those were times I took vacation.

[41:43] Okay. And it's there was no there was

[41:46] nothing there to indicate that I was on

[41:48] vacation.

[41:49] And everybody here knows that I'll tell

[41:51] always take a week in May

[41:54] and you can probably book the week now.

[41:56] You know that. All right. Now, I I think

[41:59] we have to have a look at that. Then

[42:02] when somebody's absent, if they have an

[42:05] excuse such as vacation,

[42:08] then that needs to be put in. Not just

[42:11] that they're absent, right? If

[42:13] somebody's absent, somebody's absent.

[42:15] Okay? So be it. You know, you fall,

[42:17] break your leg, you break your toe,

[42:18] whatever. But if somebody's on vacation,

[42:20] that's that's not an absence. That's an

[42:22] excused absence. So I think we need to

[42:25] correct that. Thank you. Councelor

[42:29] Meta.

[42:29] >> Thank you, Mayor J. I thought councelor

[42:32] » Thank you, Mayor J. I thought councelor

[42:32] very quickly I thought councelor Devine

[42:33] did raise a good point because uh one of

[42:36] the meetings that I ended up missing I

[42:37] had my car stolen and I wasn't able to

[42:40] right. You remember that right? So um I

[42:42] mean just for record sakes thanks

[42:47] >> councelor Cooper.

[42:50] » councelor Cooper.

[42:50] >> Yes. Thank you Mig.

[42:52] » Yes. Thank you Mig.

[42:52] um just like to bring a comment forward

[42:54] about this because I know over the years

[42:56] um some of what I'm going to say now has

[42:57] been said by pretty much all counselors.

[42:59] Uh we know this um

[43:02] regarding this topic. I think the most

[43:04] important thing here is that our

[43:05] residents get the best representation

[43:08] possible.

[43:10] Okay, that's what our job is and it's

[43:13] about when it comes to this whole

[43:14] remuneration thing.

[43:17] Does it hold us back? Does it hold the

[43:19] city hall back the councils back from uh

[43:21] from doing the best job possible? One

[43:23] thing I know, I've heard it from

[43:25] everybody here from previous counselors.

[43:27] It does deter strong people from coming

[43:30] to this job when the job isn't respected

[43:33] and treated the same way the way the way

[43:35] that it should be.

[43:37] Okay? This isn't just about the hours

[43:39] that are put in um and and the stress

[43:42] and all that stuff that we all know that

[43:44] maybe people in the public don't all

[43:46] know that we go through. It's not just

[43:48] about the hours, whether it's full-time,

[43:50] whether it's threequarters time, whether

[43:52] it's part-time. It's about what this

[43:55] could be and what's the best benefit to

[43:58] the people of this community. If you

[44:00] take someone works a regular job, let's

[44:02] say they're working in a restaurant, you

[44:03] tell them it's part-time, you give them

[44:05] part-time pay, you're going to get

[44:06] part-time,

[44:09] if their job is respected

[44:12] and treated the way it should be, and

[44:13] they get the appropriate compensation,

[44:15] which is not massive amounts, not asking

[44:18] to be rich here, but if the job is

[44:20] treated as full-time, and you're told

[44:21] it's full-time, then maybe that's what

[44:23] you're going to get.

[44:26] Because right now we have people doing

[44:28] all different hours all over the place

[44:29] and there's not a heck of a lot of

[44:30] motivation to do a lot more even though

[44:33] many of us do. So this is not just about

[44:35] money. It's about getting respect for

[44:37] the job and having be able to bring in

[44:39] people that not just retirees, people

[44:41] that can raise a family on this. Smart

[44:44] people out there instead of people that

[44:46] you know are retired or have already got

[44:47] they've already got retirement set up.

[44:49] Um it's about what's best and what this

[44:51] job could be. And I think um

[44:56] results like this where I'm sorry but I

[44:58] feel there's a lack of respect for the

[44:59] work that's put in or somehow because we

[45:01] are a different job. Yes we are but

[45:03] somehow we shouldn't be compensated for

[45:05] that. Um I do not agree with that. That

[45:07] deters people. So yeah again um I'll

[45:10] support this obviously um but I want

[45:13] people to consider what this job could

[45:15] be if we went full-time because that's

[45:17] the best the best way to serve the

[45:18] people that we we are intended to serve.

[45:20] Thank you.

[45:24] Are there any other comments,

[45:28] questions?

[45:29] So, to follow up on councelor Divines,

[45:32] um I think it's good that you brought

[45:35] that up because I don't think that I

[45:37] think when the public or the media

[45:38] reports out attendance records, it makes

[45:40] it look like people have missed this.

[45:42] And I know you take vacation to help

[45:44] your daughter and son-in-law bring off

[45:46] harvest.

[45:48] You fly down to Wyoming and you help do

[45:50] that. And you can't I mean we have

[45:52] council meetings during that time. Um

[45:55] for myself I was at a summit I was a

[45:58] panelist in Alberta at a summit and one

[46:00] I had emergency surgery one night uh

[46:03] where I couldn't be here as well. So uh

[46:06] the public doesn't understand that sort

[46:08] of thing. Um but every single council

[46:12] member of council around this horseshoe

[46:14] is totally dedicated to their job.

[46:18] That's so true. And for anybody to think

[46:22] otherwise based on uh this attendance

[46:25] um is uh that's a mistake. And this

[46:28] attendance also does not talk about all

[46:30] the closed dooror meetings that we have

[46:33] that they're not counted in here. There

[46:35] are nights where we have closed dooror

[46:36] meetings without a regular council

[46:38] meeting. And I think there's 146

[46:41] meetings in the these um years here

[46:45] without the closed door meetings. That's

[46:47] a lot of meetings. It's a lot of

[46:49] agendas, a lot of studying, a lot of

[46:51] research, and this report speaks to

[46:54] that, speaks to the amount of work that

[46:56] goes behind being a counselor around

[46:59] this horseshoe and being dedicated to

[47:01] our community. So, I thank you for being

[47:03] part of the team that I am on, the one

[47:05] that I'm leading. I really appreciate

[47:07] every one of you. And I think this

[47:10] report can tell the public that if the

[47:13] public actually reads it themselves and

[47:15] it's going to take two or three times to

[47:17] go through this and and comprehend that.

[47:19] So, thank you to council. Thank you to

[47:21] Sheila for such a great report um and

[47:25] staff for your input into it as well.

[47:27] So, now we will call that question.

[47:32] Okay. Opening voting.

[47:37] Closing voting

[47:39] that carries unanimously.

[47:46] » Okay. So, our next presentation is from

[47:49] um some of our favorite people in the

[47:52] city who are also very dedicated to

[47:54] their jobs, the Cambridge Neighborhood

[47:57] Associations concerning municipal

[47:58] support to neighborhoods. And joining us

[48:00] are Jamie Mcconi, Kim Fowler, Emily

[48:04] Yarmsma, Amanda Horn, Taylor Bolstrod,

[48:08] Dana KMA, Eliah Lashnig, and Sandra

[48:12] Gamage. So, you've asked for you're

[48:15] going to do a group one tonight. You're

[48:16] going to each take a part and you're

[48:18] going to do 10 minutes total.

[48:20] Okay. How many of you?

[48:22] >> Four.

[48:23] » Four.

[48:23] >> Four. Oh, I thought there was more.

[48:25] » Four. Oh, I thought there was more.

[48:25] >> They're all here. We're all here.

[48:27] » They're all here. We're all here.

[48:27] >> Okay. Are you going to remain in your

[48:29] » Okay. Are you going to remain in your

[48:29] seats or you going to stand up here and

[48:30] take credit or do you want to wait till

[48:32] at the very end and take credit at the

[48:34] end?

[48:35] >> I was gonna I was going to

[48:36] » I was gonna I was going to

[48:36] >> Okay, I saw that thumbs up there, Emily.

[48:40] » Okay, I saw that thumbs up there, Emily.

[48:40] >> Okay, go for it.

[48:42] » Okay, go for it.

[48:42] >> Good evening, Mayor Leot,

[48:45] » Good evening, Mayor Leot,

[48:45] council, and staff. Thank you very much

[48:47] for your time. We really appreciate the

[48:49] time that you're allowing us to have

[48:50] here this evening. My name is Kim Fowler

[48:53] and I'm the executive director of the

[48:54] Fiddlesticks Community Center in

[48:56] Northeast G. I'm here this evening with

[48:59] my colleagues rep representing each of

[49:01] your Cambridge Neighborhood

[49:03] Associations. And I have to say as the

[49:05] old person, I put this on my phone

[49:07] thinking they would tease me if I came

[49:09] with papers and they all came with

[49:10] papers. So

[49:12] I just can't win. So, I'd just like to

[49:14] introduce uh from Allison Neighborhood

[49:16] Community Center, Jamie Hatfield.

[49:19] Myself from Fiddlesticks Community

[49:20] Center, Emily Jarsma.

[49:23] From the Greenway Chaplain Community

[49:25] Center, from HVNA or Hespler Village,

[49:27] Amanda Horn Davidson hiding behind me.

[49:31] uh from the Kimbridge Community

[49:32] Association, Taylor Bolstrad,

[49:36] from Langs, Dana KMA,

[49:39] from PHCG, Elliot Lischnik, and from

[49:42] Silver Heights Neighborhood Association,

[49:44] Sandra Gamage. And you will be relieved

[49:47] to know that we are not here to ask for

[49:50] a single thing

[49:53] because that's normally not how this

[49:54] works. Uh, but what we want to do is we

[49:56] want to tell you about what we do and

[49:59] how your financial support and just your

[50:02] support in general coming out to our

[50:03] events, what that means to us and how

[50:06] that impacts our neighborhood work. And

[50:08] I'll pass it over now.

[50:15] » Good evening. Thank you, Kim. Uh this

[50:17] evening's presentation highlights uh our

[50:20] Cambridge neighborhood community

[50:22] development model as adopted by the

[50:24] Cambridge neighborhood organizations.

[50:26] Our so social infrastructure that

[50:29] comprises of our not forprofits and

[50:31] charities. Our fiscal stewardship, a

[50:34] demonstration of how the city's core

[50:36] funding leverages the work we do,

[50:39] people, place, and prosperity. Bringing

[50:41] our CD model to life through

[50:43] storytelling and conclusion and

[50:45] questions. We look forward to hearing

[50:47] from you as council.

[50:52] What is the neighborhood community

[50:54] development model? Collaborating with

[50:57] community. We engage with community

[50:59] members to assist them in recognizing

[51:01] the needs within neighborhoods.

[51:03] Residents play an active role in shaping

[51:06] the programs and services available in

[51:08] their area. Neighborhood associations

[51:11] focus on building relationships

[51:13] resident to resident, resident to their

[51:15] neighborhood association and resident to

[51:18] building leadership capacity. And this

[51:20] model is distinct amongst the city of

[51:23] Cambridge providing benefits to the

[51:25] entire Cambridge community.

[51:29] So our CD model as a network of the

[51:33] Cambridge neighborhood organizations,

[51:35] our impact and what we hope for is a

[51:38] thriving connected neighborhood. We do

[51:40] that by measuring increased

[51:42] connectedness, an understanding of

[51:45] residents needs, wants, and perspectives

[51:48] and an increased neighborhood leadership

[51:50] capacity.

[51:52] We do this most commonly through

[51:54] engaging and convening residents, most

[51:56] commonly through recreational

[51:58] activities, broadly asking and assessing

[52:00] residents perspectives, and facilitating

[52:03] residents in addressing their issues and

[52:05] their goals.

[52:13] So the Cambridge Neighborhood

[52:15] Organization provides social

[52:16] infrastructure by serving the members of

[52:18] the community in spaces close to home

[52:20] which enables so social connection. Uh

[52:23] the Cambridge Neighborhood Association

[52:25] is made up of eight or uh eight

[52:27] neighborhood associations across 10

[52:28] sites and we provide a decentralized

[52:31] service delivery model meaning that we

[52:33] serve within our boundaries. This allows

[52:35] us to tailor programs to support each

[52:37] neighborhood's unique needs. And while

[52:39] we are eight separate organizations, we

[52:41] overlap in the types of opportunities

[52:43] that we provide across the city. All

[52:45] eight organizations are either a charity

[52:47] or a not for-profit organization with a

[52:49] governing board of directors. We provide

[52:52] similar programming such as before and

[52:54] after school programs, recreational

[52:56] drop-in programs for all ages, summer

[52:58] camps, youth leadership development, as

[53:00] well as our annual events such as our

[53:02] neighborhood days, youth dances, sports

[53:04] tournaments, and seasonal festivals. We

[53:06] also serve as a hub to bring external

[53:08] organizations into each neighborhood.

[53:10] These partnerships include House of

[53:12] Friendship, the Cambridge Food Bank,

[53:14] Earlon, the YW.CA, and more.

[53:21] So, in relation to Cambridge's vision of

[53:23] people, place and prosperity, we want to

[53:25] highlight how this comes to life across

[53:27] our organizations and the work that we

[53:28] do. So we see this through volunteerism,

[53:31] our program and event stats as well as

[53:34] um highlighting different stories from

[53:36] the work that we do and our

[53:37] organizations.

[53:41] » Next

[53:42] and I get to do this I get to do the

[53:44] stats. So as Amanda here I have to get

[53:48] my dog out of the way.

[53:50] As Amanda had mentioned

[53:53] that our primary purpose is to engage

[53:55] those in our neighborhoods, build

[53:56] relationships and connections among our

[53:58] neighborhood our neighbors. And how do

[54:00] we do that? We do it through

[54:02] volunteerism and recreation. So, as you

[54:05] can see on the screens, I'm sure you

[54:06] have in front of you. Together, we

[54:09] support 1,125

[54:11] volunteers. And in 2024, which we have

[54:14] all of the stats for, we had 37,357.5.

[54:20] That.5 is important to an afterchool

[54:22] program parent when a volunteer stays

[54:23] because they're late. Those are the

[54:26] hours that were spent. That's the

[54:28] equivalent of 20 full-time jobs. So,

[54:32] pretty pretty impressive. This kind of

[54:36] um inind service calculated at a living

[54:38] wage with uh the region of water's

[54:42] living wage is representative of

[54:44] $859,211.

[54:48] So that is what it would cost us to do

[54:51] the work if we did not have the

[54:52] volunteers that we have. We are also all

[54:55] proudly affiliated with volunteer

[54:56] Canada.

[55:02] Next, we'd like to talk about the visits

[55:04] to our neighborhood centers. So, as you

[55:07] can see, we have registered recreation

[55:09] programs, drop-in recreation programs,

[55:11] events, and summer camps. We had over

[55:15] 122,000 visits to our neighborhood

[55:17] centers this year. So, across Cambridge,

[55:19] we were able to have that many visits.

[55:22] We also, as Amanda had mentioned, we

[55:24] have or actually I think it was Jamie

[55:27] had mentioned that we host um other

[55:30] organizations that can provide services.

[55:32] So among all of the neighborhoods, we

[55:34] provided 3,915

[55:37] hours of facility time that other

[55:40] organizations were able to offer

[55:42] services within our communities, within

[55:44] our neighborhoods.

[55:49] The annual funding from the city of

[55:50] Cambridge is so important to the work

[55:53] that we do.

[55:55] What this does for us is it demonstrates

[55:58] to other funding bodies that there is a

[56:01] level of trust that our municipality has

[56:03] in our organizations that we are

[56:07] good stewards of our money, that we're

[56:09] trustworthy, we're fiscally responsible,

[56:12] and because of that we're considered

[56:14] established organizations. And in many

[56:16] many funding applications that we apply

[56:20] to, it asks those questions. How do we

[56:23] how can we tell that you are established

[56:25] organizations? And how do we know that

[56:27] you will be good stewards of our money?

[56:30] So here are some great statistics. If

[56:32] you can take a look at this, the city's

[56:35] investment in the neighborhoods is

[56:36] matched fourfold through grants, fees

[56:39] for service, and community

[56:40] contributions.

[56:42] So our total budgets or sorry the city's

[56:46] uh contribution annually or this uh for

[56:48] 2024 was 1,248,834.

[56:54] The total budgets of our organizations

[56:56] was over $5 million. 5,382,772.

[57:03] So that we were able to leverage $4,133.

[57:08] So for every dollar that the city of

[57:11] Cambridge is investing

[57:13] dollar-wise, we are bringing that back

[57:15] four-fold.

[57:17] On top of that, that doesn't count our

[57:20] inind contributions. So that doesn't

[57:22] count the volunteer time. That doesn't

[57:24] count um you know, donations of food

[57:27] from the food bank. That doesn't count

[57:28] or to the food bank. Doesn't count

[57:30] donations that come in that aren't

[57:32] monetary donations from our communities.

[57:35] All of this, the benefits extend through

[57:37] the entire city. So, we would just like

[57:40] to thank you for your confidence in us

[57:42] as neighborhood organizations and the

[57:46] trust that you have in us that we will

[57:50] be good stewards of the funds. Oh my

[57:52] goodness,

[57:52] >> that's a good date.

[57:55] » that's a good date.

[57:55] >> Amazing. Um, just with the little bit of

[57:58] » Amazing. Um, just with the little bit of

[57:58] time that we do have left, we want to be

[58:00] able to speak upon some stories with

[58:02] that lens of people, place, and

[58:03] prosperity. Um within our presentation

[58:06] booklet there is all the stories from

[58:08] each of the organizations that we do ask

[58:09] that you read at some point. Um so our

[58:12] first story highlights the theme of

[58:14] people. Um and it's about a participant

[58:16] from Langs who started as a participant

[58:18] moved into volunteering and then ended

[58:20] up becoming a staff. Um as well she was

[58:23] awarded the city of Cambridge High Five

[58:25] Champion Award uh which highlighted her

[58:28] dedication to ensuring quality

[58:30] programming. And then our next story is

[58:34] the theme of place from Allison. If you

[58:36] really

[58:37] >> really quickly,

[58:38] » really quickly,

[58:38] >> I'll just speak quickly. We have a

[58:39] » I'll just speak quickly. We have a

[58:39] volunteer who's been a participant

[58:41] basically since she was in elementary

[58:43] school. Uh she was always very shy.

[58:45] She's now very outgoing, very

[58:46] enthusiastic, and she calls Ala

[58:48] neighborhood her second home, which we

[58:49] really love.

[58:55] » Very good.

[59:00] There we are.

[59:02] >> Okay, we have Are you finished?

[59:04] » Okay, we have Are you finished?

[59:04] >> Yes,

[59:05] » Yes,

[59:05] >> we are.

[59:06] » we are.

[59:06] >> Okay, this perfect timing. The rest of

[59:09] » Okay, this perfect timing. The rest of

[59:09] you want to get up here in case there's

[59:10] questions for you, too.

[59:14] I see questions here.

[59:18] Councelor Divine.

[59:20] >> Yes. Thank you to the chair.

[59:23] » Yes. Thank you to the chair.

[59:24] I'd really like to

[59:26] thank

[59:28] you folks for what you do because you

[59:31] have taken some kids that and given them

[59:34] a home and looked after them after

[59:37] school through the day. Um a few years

[59:40] up there I know and please please keep

[59:44] up the good work. I I I don't know how

[59:45] you can take that nickel and stretch it

[59:47] to a quarter, but by golly you do a

[59:49] great job at it. Please keep up the good

[59:51] work. and we in the city are proud of

[59:55] each and every one of you and everyone

[59:57] that works in the centers. Thank you

[59:59] very much.

[1:00:01] >> Councelor Sher,

[1:00:03] » Councelor Sher,

[1:00:04] thank you Mayor Lean. I don't have a

[1:00:05] question but have a comment as Mike

[1:00:07] Divine um said. So I got more to know

[1:00:11] Preston Heights Community Group um

[1:00:14] neighborhood association and I as well

[1:00:16] am very impressed and proud of you. Uh,

[1:00:19] I've met with Parkway um public school

[1:00:22] and basically you're a lifeline to a lot

[1:00:26] of those families. There's a lot of

[1:00:28] those families are very needy and and

[1:00:30] they just count on their kids being able

[1:00:32] to be looked after you. I didn't realize

[1:00:35] that the quickie store in I guess all of

[1:00:38] Ontario or maybe more sells the most

[1:00:41] ramen those noodles um because they're

[1:00:44] cheap and they feed people and it's and

[1:00:46] it was so sad to hear that. But just

[1:00:49] thank you and I I know I followed Justin

[1:00:51] through with one of his trips to Ottawa

[1:00:53] and wish I could have been there. It

[1:00:55] sounded so much fun and just all the

[1:00:58] cool things that you do and just to make

[1:01:00] those families, the kids so much their

[1:01:03] lives so much better. So, thank you.

[1:01:05] Haven't gotten involved with the Silver

[1:01:06] Heis, but I'd like to be more involved

[1:01:08] with them because you're in my war, too.

[1:01:10] But yeah, I'm just so impressed with

[1:01:12] you,

[1:01:15] >> councelor Meta.

[1:01:16] » councelor Meta.

[1:01:16] >> Thank you.

[1:01:17] » Thank you.

[1:01:17] >> Strictly kudos here to

[1:01:20] » Strictly kudos here to

[1:01:20] >> We'll take them.

[1:01:21] » We'll take them.

[1:01:21] >> Thank you, Mayor Jan, through you. I

[1:01:23] » Thank you, Mayor Jan, through you. I

[1:01:23] also would like to extend my kudos as

[1:01:25] well. I am absolutely amazed at what you

[1:01:27] do with the resources that we give you

[1:01:29] and uh it's incredible just to see how

[1:01:32] far you stretch the dollars and how you

[1:01:34] make a difference in people's lives. And

[1:01:37] I know of people today who would not be

[1:01:39] alive if they didn't get involved in the

[1:01:42] neighborhood. So, um I want to commend

[1:01:45] um Fiddlesticks and Northview Heights

[1:01:46] and all of you really um for touching

[1:01:49] those lives. I think there's a lot of

[1:01:50] stories that we don't know about and

[1:01:52] those people are here today because of

[1:01:54] you. So, I commend you for that. And um

[1:01:56] in Northeast G in particular, because I

[1:01:58] inter interact with my constituents the

[1:02:01] most, I'm always hearing about the fun

[1:02:03] that they have at the events and um you

[1:02:05] know, your hospitality. So, keep up the

[1:02:07] great work.

[1:02:09] >> Councelor Kimson,

[1:02:11] » Councelor Kimson,

[1:02:12] >> thank you very much, Maryanne, and

[1:02:13] » thank you very much, Maryanne, and

[1:02:13] through you. Um thank you.

[1:02:16] It it's incredible when I look out at

[1:02:19] everyone here representing the different

[1:02:21] neighborhood associations that we have

[1:02:23] within our community and and you provide

[1:02:25] the programming where it is needed most

[1:02:28] and that's right where people are and

[1:02:32] it's specific to what is needed and you

[1:02:35] adapt it based on what comes through

[1:02:37] your door. Whether you're adopting a

[1:02:39] program on the fly that day or whether

[1:02:42] you're seeing a need in the community

[1:02:44] and you're figuring out how do we

[1:02:45] address it, um the value you bring goes

[1:02:48] well beyond dollars. Um you change lives

[1:02:52] and I'm just very grateful for

[1:02:54] everything that you do and I know our

[1:02:56] community is as well. So give yourselves

[1:02:58] all a pat on the back for not allowed to

[1:03:00] clap in council, but please um consider

[1:03:04] this a non-clap and pat yourselves on

[1:03:07] the back. Thank you,

[1:03:09] >> Councelor Hamilton.

[1:03:11] » Councelor Hamilton.

[1:03:11] >> Thank you, Mayor Leon through you. I do

[1:03:12] » Thank you, Mayor Leon through you. I do

[1:03:12] have a question if that's okay.

[1:03:14] >> Absolutely.

[1:03:14] » Absolutely.

[1:03:14] >> I echo the congratulatory praise of all

[1:03:17] » I echo the congratulatory praise of all

[1:03:17] of my colleagues because you all do

[1:03:18] tremendous work across every

[1:03:19] association. Um, but across the eight

[1:03:22] associations and the 10 locations, we

[1:03:24] know there's kind of the there's the

[1:03:25] triple threat of a decline in donor

[1:03:27] funds, challenges with HR and staffing,

[1:03:30] and escalating social crises, right? And

[1:03:32] then the neighborhood association is

[1:03:34] right in the middle of that widening

[1:03:35] gap. I know every association is

[1:03:38] different and there are different

[1:03:39] pockets of Cambridge with specific

[1:03:41] needs, but are there any general trends

[1:03:43] across the city that you as neighborhood

[1:03:45] associations on the ground are

[1:03:47] identifying and are there ways that the

[1:03:49] city can help you with those because you

[1:03:51] are on the front lines seeing them as

[1:03:52] they emerge?

[1:03:54] >> Yeah, I would say youth mental health

[1:03:57] » Yeah, I would say youth mental health

[1:03:57] would be something else.

[1:04:00] >> Sorry. Don't cry.

[1:04:02] » Sorry. Don't cry.

[1:04:02] >> I won't cry. Uh, I would say youth

[1:04:05] » I won't cry. Uh, I would say youth

[1:04:05] mental health would be something that

[1:04:07] would be um across all of our

[1:04:09] organizations. I actually was uh so

[1:04:12] you're saying don't cry. Um I was

[1:04:13] actually speaking with a parent today

[1:04:15] who's very concerned about their young

[1:04:16] person. Um, I don't know what council

[1:04:20] can do about that, but supporting us the

[1:04:22] way that you do certainly helps us to be

[1:04:25] there when that parent sends an email

[1:04:27] and uh, you know, knows that we're

[1:04:29] local, knows that we know this kid

[1:04:32] because he's come to our programs and

[1:04:35] he's he's very connected with um, you

[1:04:38] know, the staff and uh, and young

[1:04:40] volunteers who are local as well. So,

[1:04:43] you know, continued support is

[1:04:46] wonderful. Um, but yeah, youth mental

[1:04:49] health.

[1:04:50] >> Thank you.

[1:04:52] » Thank you.

[1:04:52] >> Uh, thank you to all of you. Um, I think

[1:04:56] » Uh, thank you to all of you. Um, I think

[1:04:56] that you probably do more for the

[1:04:59] children's mental health, all of you

[1:05:01] combined, than we could ever do around

[1:05:04] this council table. The sense of purpose

[1:05:06] that you give kids is very big. a place

[1:05:09] for them to go when they uh home is not

[1:05:13] a good place to be is excellent. What we

[1:05:17] do around this horseshoe is we provide

[1:05:19] funding for uh programs within the city.

[1:05:22] We pro we provide facilities where kids

[1:05:25] can go. I'm really impressed with how

[1:05:28] many of your kids come back and

[1:05:30] volunteer later on. It's just it it just

[1:05:34] shows the value of what you do and what

[1:05:36] what you bring to them. Um we ask uh

[1:05:42] every um August at AMO we ask for more

[1:05:45] funding to be put into mental health and

[1:05:47] addictions and thank you for your

[1:05:49] upstream work to stop that and being

[1:05:52] partners with us on that. I will tell

[1:05:56] you that uh we just um on the 31st we

[1:06:00] just submitted our

[1:06:02] 31st was the deadline uh submitted it to

[1:06:05] Minister Bethnafaly for his budget and

[1:06:09] children's mental health hospital

[1:06:11] funding for that for programs there. Um,

[1:06:15] that was something that I asked for in

[1:06:17] my my letter to him to put more money

[1:06:20] into that along with the infrastructure

[1:06:22] and everything else which goes without

[1:06:23] saying, but

[1:06:25] it's extremely important that we partner

[1:06:28] with you on that. And um I I I I can't

[1:06:33] say enough about how much I love all of

[1:06:35] you guys. The work that you do is just

[1:06:38] incredible. So, thank you so much for

[1:06:40] that. and thank you for just coming and

[1:06:43] patting yourselves on the back and

[1:06:45] promoting all the work that you do

[1:06:47] because it's it's uh it's just amazing

[1:06:50] and I hope the media has picked up a lot

[1:06:52] of good stuff from you here tonight. I'm

[1:06:54] sure they have. Right. You have, right?

[1:06:56] Yes. I got a nod from the back of the

[1:06:58] room. So, thank you so much. Thank you.

[1:07:05] » Um, so we finished that part of the

[1:07:07] program tonight and we're going to move

[1:07:09] into the delegation portion portion of

[1:07:11] the agenda where all registered

[1:07:13] delegates may speak to matters on

[1:07:15] tonight's council agenda. To be

[1:07:17] respectful and mindful of everyone's

[1:07:19] time, we will hear from all

[1:07:20] pre-registered delegates first. Then we

[1:07:22] will continue to discuss and vote on

[1:07:24] each item in order of the published

[1:07:26] agenda. We have eight pre-registered

[1:07:28] delegation requests this evening and I

[1:07:30] will call each one in the order that we

[1:07:33] received their delegation requests. So

[1:07:35] Larry Mo on behalf of the Waterlue

[1:07:38] Region Home Builders Association

[1:07:41] uh read the comprehensive zoning bylaw

[1:07:44] review. Welcome Larry.

[1:07:45] >> I'm going to disappear for 10 minutes.

[1:07:47] » I'm going to disappear for 10 minutes.

[1:07:47] Go exercise.

[1:07:56] Excuse me. My name is Larry Masio and I

[1:07:58] serve as an adviser to the Waterlue

[1:08:01] Region Home Builders Association.

[1:08:04] The WHBA previously delegated to city

[1:08:07] council at the public meeting for this

[1:08:10] matter held on December 15th last year.

[1:08:14] And while we concur with most of the

[1:08:16] staff recommendations which are before

[1:08:19] you this evening as well as the majority

[1:08:22] of changes summarized in the staff

[1:08:24] report, our primary concern remains.

[1:08:28] This concern relates to the proposed

[1:08:30] regulations for private driveways as

[1:08:34] highlighted on pages 12 and 13 of the

[1:08:36] staff report and included within tables

[1:08:40] 7.3A

[1:08:41] and 7.3B

[1:08:43] of the draft bylaw before you tonight.

[1:08:47] Quite simply, the proposed increase in

[1:08:50] the minimum front yard to a garage,

[1:08:53] commonly known as the driveway length,

[1:08:56] from 6 m to 8 m, is problematic, does

[1:09:00] not reflect good planning, is

[1:09:02] inconsistent with other regulations of

[1:09:05] the zoning bylaw, and is contrary to

[1:09:08] provincial directions around making

[1:09:10] housing more affordable.

[1:09:14] We note that this that a six meter

[1:09:16] standard is widely used across Ontario

[1:09:20] and already forms the basis of much of

[1:09:22] Cambridge's existing residential

[1:09:25] development.

[1:09:26] The proposed increase would have

[1:09:28] significant and unintended impacts.

[1:09:32] These are legal nonconformity for

[1:09:36] existing homeowners. Many homes would

[1:09:38] instantly become legal non-conforming,

[1:09:41] creating the need for minor variances

[1:09:43] for common property improvements,

[1:09:46] including the provision of ARUS and

[1:09:49] adding unnecessary cost and complexity

[1:09:53] for homeowners.

[1:09:55] Disruption to approved subdivisions.

[1:09:59] Numerous currently built out draft

[1:10:01] approved subdivisions were designed

[1:10:04] around the 6 m standard. Changing the

[1:10:07] requirement midstream would en would

[1:10:10] undermine established product lines,

[1:10:13] constrain lot design and increase costs

[1:10:17] thereby affecting housing affordability.

[1:10:21] Thirdly, design and affordability

[1:10:24] impacts on new development and resulting

[1:10:26] financial impact to end users. To

[1:10:30] accommodate an 8 m driveway, future lots

[1:10:33] would need to be deeper or rear or rear

[1:10:37] yards smaller, driving up lot costs or

[1:10:41] diminishing private outdoor space. This

[1:10:44] creates a competitive disadvantage

[1:10:46] compared to nearby municipalities that

[1:10:48] do not impose these requirements,

[1:10:51] resulting again in higher cost of

[1:10:53] housing and for the end user within the

[1:10:56] city of Cambridge.

[1:10:59] Fourthly, lack of alignment with

[1:11:02] provincial norms. A proposed mandatory 8

[1:11:05] meter driveway is not consistent with

[1:11:07] standards across the region or the

[1:11:09] province where 6 m remains the accepted

[1:11:13] norm in urban contexts.

[1:11:16] We remind council that the driveway

[1:11:18] length requirement is a minimum. There

[1:11:20] is nothing preventing a homeowner who

[1:11:22] needs a longer driveway from incurring

[1:11:24] the cost themselves or working with a

[1:11:28] builder to develop a lot with a longer

[1:11:30] driveway.

[1:11:32] And finally,

[1:11:34] inconsistency within the new zoning

[1:11:36] bylaw. Whereas driveways in front of new

[1:11:40] garages of new dwellings will now be

[1:11:42] required to be 8 meters in length, the

[1:11:45] garages themselves, as well as parking

[1:11:48] spaces within parking lots and parking

[1:11:50] garages will still only need to be 6 m

[1:11:53] in length. We're not sure this makes

[1:11:56] sense, and it suggests that people

[1:11:58] driving oversized vehicles only park in

[1:12:01] residential driveways.

[1:12:04] In summary, the combined effect of these

[1:12:06] requirements is substantial and will

[1:12:10] result in higher development costs, less

[1:12:13] efficient site design, a greater

[1:12:15] proportion of land area dedicated to

[1:12:18] parking, and increased pressures on

[1:12:20] housing affordability.

[1:12:22] These outcomes run counter to broader

[1:12:25] municipal and provincial objectives to

[1:12:27] encourage product compact development

[1:12:31] and reduce reliance on automobiles.

[1:12:34] More importantly, they are contrary to

[1:12:36] the objective of housing affordability

[1:12:39] and raise serious concerns within the

[1:12:41] home building industry.

[1:12:43] To ensure alignment with best practices

[1:12:45] and support efficient, affordable

[1:12:47] development within Cambridge, we

[1:12:50] respectfully request that council

[1:12:52] maintain the minimum driveway length at

[1:12:54] 6 m consistent with regional norms and

[1:12:58] original staff recommendations.

[1:13:01] Thank you for the opportunity to provide

[1:13:03] feedback on this important matter and I

[1:13:06] would be happy to answer any questions

[1:13:08] should there be any.

[1:13:10] Are there any questions?

[1:13:13] >> Councelor Meta

[1:13:15] » Councelor Meta

[1:13:15] and

[1:13:16] >> thank you for your presentation. What

[1:13:18] » thank you for your presentation. What

[1:13:18] would you say the average depth is of

[1:13:20] the lots throughout Cambridge like in

[1:13:22] the newer subdivisions? Is it about 100

[1:13:25] ft deep or

[1:13:26] >> 100 to 110 typically would be in feet

[1:13:29] » 100 to 110 typically would be in feet

[1:13:29] would be the I think the norm.

[1:13:31] >> Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:13:33] » Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:13:33] >> You're welcome.

[1:13:35] » You're welcome.

[1:13:35] Larry, do you recognize the fact that

[1:13:37] there are municipalities besides ours

[1:13:39] across the province who are starting to

[1:13:41] look at the lack of parking? For

[1:13:42] instance, I look at London. The deputy

[1:13:45] mayor there is bringing forward a motion

[1:13:47] to roll back their decision, previous

[1:13:49] decision of one one parking unit for

[1:13:51] every two units and to requiring two.

[1:13:54] That's coming forward at the city of

[1:13:56] London because of the problems with on

[1:13:58] street parking. No, we're we're aware of

[1:14:01] uh parking requirements generally

[1:14:04] throughout the province and and the

[1:14:06] direction in that regard. The issue here

[1:14:08] is that a 6 m parking space is

[1:14:11] sufficient for virtually every vehicle

[1:14:15] vehicle that would normally and

[1:14:18] reasonably be parked in a residential

[1:14:20] neighborhood. So increasing that length

[1:14:23] to 8 mters for

[1:14:28] like almost nobody uh you know somebody

[1:14:32] who essentially is driving a commercial

[1:14:34] vehicle that really has no place in a

[1:14:37] residential uh neighborhood.

[1:14:40] uh that that's where we are concerned

[1:14:43] because that just adds unnecessary cost

[1:14:47] to the new homeowners which is contrary

[1:14:51] to just about every objective this

[1:14:53] council and this provincial government

[1:14:55] has with respect to housing.

[1:14:59] >> So you're saying that commercial

[1:15:00] » So you're saying that commercial

[1:15:00] vehicles don't belong in neighborhood

[1:15:03] driveways? So, so the small business

[1:15:05] owner that may have a commercial

[1:15:08] vehicle, they can't they shouldn't be

[1:15:11] parking it in their driveway.

[1:15:13] >> Again, um most commercial vehicles that

[1:15:17] » Again, um most commercial vehicles that

[1:15:17] are uh reasonably used in a uh and

[1:15:22] needed to be parked in a residential

[1:15:24] plan of subdivision can be accommodated

[1:15:26] within a 6 m driveway. you're only into

[1:15:30] the larger, you know, what you would

[1:15:33] call superduty

[1:15:35] uh type commercial vehicles that

[1:15:39] typically in our experience those

[1:15:42] vehicles remain in the business yards

[1:15:45] and employees don't take them home. uh

[1:15:48] where they do again uh in situations

[1:15:52] like that, those very few individuals

[1:15:55] can negotiate with their individual

[1:15:58] builder a a larger driveway length to

[1:16:01] accommodate their need. But to impose

[1:16:04] this across every new dwelling in

[1:16:06] Cambridge, as I uh outlined in my pro in

[1:16:10] my presentation, not only does it impact

[1:16:13] the housing affordability on those lots,

[1:16:15] new lots going forward, it puts just

[1:16:17] about every existing single detached

[1:16:20] dwelling in Cambridge in a situation

[1:16:22] where those residents to do anything

[1:16:25] with their property need to come before

[1:16:27] a committee of adjustment and plead to

[1:16:31] do something and pay hundreds of dollars

[1:16:34] in fees and perhaps consulting fees to

[1:16:37] assist them to do that. And we think

[1:16:39] that's quite frankly wrong and we don't

[1:16:42] think it's the right direction to go.

[1:16:46] >> Councelor Schwar,

[1:16:48] » Councelor Schwar,

[1:16:48] thank you Mayor Ligan and and thank you

[1:16:50] for your presentation. So, I just want

[1:16:53] to get be clear. Your concern is not the

[1:16:56] amount of parking spots because uh a

[1:16:59] home can choose to have a double car

[1:17:02] garage and double parking. It's just the

[1:17:04] length.

[1:17:05] >> Correct.

[1:17:06] » Correct.

[1:17:06] >> All right. Thank you.

[1:17:07] » All right. Thank you.

[1:17:07] >> The the length in front of the garage.

[1:17:08] » The the length in front of the garage.

[1:17:08] So, in in the vast majority of cases

[1:17:11] that we're talking about here, there

[1:17:12] would be a garage, which is the legal

[1:17:14] parking space, and then there would be

[1:17:16] the driveway, which also can accommodate

[1:17:19] the parking of a vehicle. So, there's

[1:17:21] your two vehicles. If you have a double

[1:17:22] car garage, you have perhaps up to four

[1:17:25] vehicle parking.

[1:17:27] >> So, it's just the the

[1:17:28] » So, it's just the the

[1:17:28] >> it's the length of the driveway in front

[1:17:30] » it's the length of the driveway in front

[1:17:30] of the garage,

[1:17:30] >> right? Thank you.

[1:17:31] » right? Thank you.

[1:17:31] >> You're welcome,

[1:17:33] » You're welcome,

[1:17:33] >> Councelor Hamilton.

[1:17:35] » Councelor Hamilton.

[1:17:35] >> Thank you, Mayor. That getting through

[1:17:36] » Thank you, Mayor. That getting through

[1:17:36] you. Thank you very much, Larry, for

[1:17:37] presentation. Um, if I'm understanding

[1:17:39] you correctly, you're saying this is

[1:17:40] basically a trade-off between more space

[1:17:42] for the housing or more space for the

[1:17:44] parking. Are you familiar with or can

[1:17:48] you give us any other municipalities

[1:17:49] that have made the parking length

[1:17:51] standard at 8 m?

[1:17:53] >> We're not aware of any to be honest uh

[1:17:55] » We're not aware of any to be honest uh

[1:17:55] that require an 8 m driveway. Uh as I

[1:17:58] said in my presentation, just about

[1:18:00] every uh situ municipal situation that

[1:18:04] we're aware of is a six standard 6 m

[1:18:06] driveway and it's also the norm in every

[1:18:09] municipality in Waterl region.

[1:18:12] >> Thank you.

[1:18:12] » Thank you.

[1:18:12] >> You will.

[1:18:13] » You will.

[1:18:13] >> I see no more questions. Thank you.

[1:18:16] » I see no more questions. Thank you.

[1:18:16] >> Uh we're going to take just a quick

[1:18:17] » Uh we're going to take just a quick

[1:18:17] pause here to take uh they're waiting

[1:18:20] for me out here in the rotunda for just

[1:18:23] a second and I'll be right back.

[1:21:12] So, next up is Valerie Cameron. Read

[1:21:15] 25-034PG

[1:21:18] comprehensive zoning bylaw review.

[1:21:22] Welcome once again, Valerie.

[1:21:25] You have five minutes. Hello. Welcome

[1:21:28] back. And I do hope that you all have

[1:21:31] had some chance to have some recharge

[1:21:33] time after what I heard from the first

[1:21:35] part of this meeting. But I would also

[1:21:38] like to point out that I know that a lot

[1:21:40] of counselors

[1:21:42] behind the scenes have been working to

[1:21:46] look at this formbbased

[1:21:49] model

[1:21:50] more closely. And there's going to be

[1:21:53] pictures on the screen, but I'm really

[1:21:55] not going to refer to them when I'm

[1:21:57] speaking. And the copy that you have

[1:22:00] been given is a longer format of what I

[1:22:04] am going to read because I'm just

[1:22:06] reading highlights because I know I'll

[1:22:08] never get through the the whole thing.

[1:22:11] So, welcome back.

[1:22:14] We shouldn't meet like this all the

[1:22:16] time. Okay. And we're into my time, are

[1:22:19] we?

[1:22:21] Okay. During the December meeting,

[1:22:23] councelor Adam Cooper suggested a

[1:22:25] compromise be developed. a hybrid model

[1:22:28] utilizing components of the current at

[1:22:30] 15085 zoning bylaw with a formbbased

[1:22:33] model blending the both best parts of

[1:22:36] both zoning bylaws together. The

[1:22:38] formbbased model in its current form

[1:22:41] relinquishes controls of council to act

[1:22:44] and the rights of residents to

[1:22:46] participate. Council needs to bring

[1:22:48] forward a motion to instruct planning

[1:22:50] staff how to proceed and what safeguard

[1:22:52] clauses need to be incorporated as both

[1:22:55] models are inadequate and require

[1:22:57] extensive extensive language revisions.

[1:23:00] With these revisions, the powers to act

[1:23:03] by our elected city officials would not

[1:23:05] be undermined, nor the rights of

[1:23:07] residents to engage in the process. We

[1:23:10] all know that developers, investors in

[1:23:12] the past and today

[1:23:16] continue to abuse our current

[1:23:17] regulations by applying to the OOLT.

[1:23:21] This is due to the loopholes in both of

[1:23:23] these zoning bylaws in the language and

[1:23:25] clauses used. These very loopholes bring

[1:23:28] about the bureaucracy that developers

[1:23:30] constantly criticize the city for. This

[1:23:33] is what impacts their bottom line. The

[1:23:35] OOLT has indicated this fact to the city

[1:23:38] on numerous occasions. while allowing

[1:23:40] developers, investors to bypass council

[1:23:43] decisions with these loopholes. This

[1:23:46] needs to stop. The inefficiencies that

[1:23:49] are present in formbbased zoning include

[1:23:51] but are not limited to council decision

[1:23:54] powers controls shifted to non-elected

[1:23:57] staff. Eliminates community residents

[1:24:01] the right to consult and engage within

[1:24:03] the housing process. Affordability,

[1:24:06] displacement of residents without equity

[1:24:08] and inclusion policies, lack of

[1:24:11] architectural design diversity,

[1:24:14] gentrification, transforms

[1:24:16] neighborhoods, allowing displacement of

[1:24:18] workingclass or economically challenged

[1:24:21] individuals.

[1:24:24] Ignores land use impacts. Inflexible

[1:24:28] limited create limitations created when

[1:24:32] community needs change. Skilled

[1:24:34] specialized staff are essential,

[1:24:36] requiring expensive training, expensive

[1:24:39] to enforce, subjective and ineffective,

[1:24:42] allowing developers to dispute. These

[1:24:45] examples are only a fraction of the

[1:24:46] irregularities in the formbbased model.

[1:24:49] Note that I refer to formbbased zoning

[1:24:52] as a model, a framework, a template to

[1:24:55] be revised and updated reflecting the

[1:24:58] character, heritage, and vision of the

[1:25:00] residential neighborhoods. With the

[1:25:02] emerging of the hybrid model and the

[1:25:04] inclusion

[1:25:06] of firm concrete clauses, the loopholes

[1:25:09] that exist now will no longer be viable.

[1:25:12] Without these zoning clauses, our big

[1:25:15] lots will continue to be exploited. Some

[1:25:18] of these clauses need to be embedded in

[1:25:20] the laws included but are not limited to

[1:25:24] purpose and intent clause, permitted

[1:25:27] uses only clause, strict definition

[1:25:30] clause, absolute density and unit caps.

[1:25:35] um height, variance and exception

[1:25:38] limits, prohibition, no delegation of

[1:25:41] zoning authority, anti-precy,

[1:25:47] enforcement and penalties.

[1:25:50] With these clauses incorporated into the

[1:25:52] hybrid model, adequate separation of

[1:25:55] powers will be established while

[1:25:57] supporting resident engagement in the

[1:25:59] process. Even with these preventive

[1:26:02] measures in place, our community can

[1:26:04] continue to develop and prosper while

[1:26:06] working within restrictive boundaries

[1:26:08] that current legislation has created. As

[1:26:11] our elected city leaders, a motion to

[1:26:13] approve this hybrid zoning model with

[1:26:16] supporting safeguard clauses embedded as

[1:26:19] is required. In doing so, planning staff

[1:26:21] will be able to continue to refine our

[1:26:24] residential established zoning bylaws as

[1:26:27] an evolving document for the future.

[1:26:30] This will produce the beginning of a

[1:26:31] solid visionary residential zoning by

[1:26:34] the law unique to our vibrant community.

[1:26:38] Others gravitate to clearly more work

[1:26:40] needs to be done.

[1:26:43] And that's it. Thank you. We're going to

[1:26:45] have to stop meeting like this.

[1:26:47] >> Yes, we should.

[1:26:50] » Yes, we should.

[1:26:50] >> Um, does anybody have any questions for

[1:26:53] » Um, does anybody have any questions for

[1:26:53] Valerie this evening?

[1:26:56] >> So, you got all your points across

[1:26:58] » So, you got all your points across

[1:26:58] there, Valerie. Thank you.

[1:27:00] >> That it.

[1:27:00] » That it.

[1:27:00] >> Yeah.

[1:27:01] » Yeah.

[1:27:01] >> Okay.

[1:27:02] » Okay.

[1:27:02] >> Thank you.

[1:27:03] » Thank you.

[1:27:03] >> Next up is Martin Wis on the same uh

[1:27:06] » Next up is Martin Wis on the same uh

[1:27:06] topic, comprehensive zoning bylaw

[1:27:09] review. Welcome again, Martin.

[1:27:14] » Thank you.

[1:27:35] Good evening, Mayor Leot counselors and

[1:27:36] all in attendance tonight. Thank you for

[1:27:38] hearing me. My sympathies go out to

[1:27:40] counselors Cooper and Kimson tonight.

[1:27:44] My name is Martin Wis. I live at 135

[1:27:46] West Cliff Way in Cambridge and our

[1:27:49] family has property on Shaun Hill. When

[1:27:52] the adjacent property was proposed for

[1:27:54] development, we were invited to a public

[1:27:56] hearing to have our say. This was only

[1:27:58] fair and we don't want to see that

[1:28:01] opportunity taken away from our fellow

[1:28:03] citizens through the blanket reszoning

[1:28:06] that's proposed here. Rather, our

[1:28:09] experience says that neighbors should be

[1:28:10] informed and given their say much

[1:28:12] earlier than we were. The Shaun Hill

[1:28:15] proposal was discussed between the

[1:28:17] developer and planning staff for four

[1:28:19] years before we were invited to

[1:28:21] participate. We think that had we been

[1:28:23] consulted from the beginning,

[1:28:26] that project might already have been

[1:28:28] built or might have been aborted in

[1:28:31] favor of a better plan and location. So

[1:28:33] the proposal before you would do away

[1:28:35] with neighbors input altogether

[1:28:37] supposedly because public input slows

[1:28:40] down development. We say no, that's not

[1:28:43] the tr that's not true. Keep the the

[1:28:46] keep the opportunity for public input.

[1:28:49] It will lead to better outcomes.

[1:28:52] On this slide, I want to emphasize my

[1:28:54] recommendation for a more gradual

[1:28:56] transition. I think there are some good

[1:28:57] things you're trying to do, but it's

[1:29:00] being done too fast and in the wrong

[1:29:01] way.

[1:29:05] And on this slide, I want to emphasize

[1:29:07] that um adjacent property owners should

[1:29:11] be notified much earlier in the process.

[1:29:15] Now, I want to address the concern some

[1:29:18] of you expressed back in December over

[1:29:20] possible loss of federal funding through

[1:29:22] the housing accelerator fund if this

[1:29:25] proposal does not pass.

[1:29:27] Also, some of you expressed concern that

[1:29:29] the province might come in with a heavy

[1:29:31] hand or the OOLT would override your

[1:29:33] decision.

[1:29:35] So, first of all, um, senior planner

[1:29:37] Brian Cooper told me that only 250,000

[1:29:41] of the 13.3 million relates to this

[1:29:45] particular initiative.

[1:29:47] Uh, you'll need to ask him or somebody

[1:29:48] for clarification. I would say if that's

[1:29:51] the case, it's a drop in the bucket.

[1:29:53] Now, in the worst case scenario, you're

[1:29:55] looking at 13.3 million could be lost.

[1:29:59] And I say it probably would not be

[1:30:02] forfeited if you can show that you did

[1:30:05] due diligence and exercised your powers

[1:30:08] in the best interests of your residents

[1:30:10] and came up with a better solution.

[1:30:14] As for the OOLT, your defense your

[1:30:16] defense would be similar. a robust

[1:30:18] discussion here with with your your

[1:30:22] strong opinions on the record and then

[1:30:25] placed into the notice of decision in a

[1:30:28] written form is a strong defense. You

[1:30:30] have not always had that when you went

[1:30:32] to the OOLT

[1:30:34] in regard to knowing the will of the

[1:30:36] people.

[1:30:38] I suggest an even stronger case could be

[1:30:41] made by holding a referendum. That would

[1:30:44] strengthen your case in both situations

[1:30:46] and it shouldn't cost too much to do

[1:30:48] that this year with the upcoming

[1:30:50] election.

[1:30:57] In regard to the housing accelerator

[1:30:58] fund money, I did a quick calculation. I

[1:31:00] could be wrong. Somebody should check

[1:31:02] that number, but I think you have more

[1:31:04] than 120 million at risk. Forget about

[1:31:07] the 13 million.

[1:31:10] So I say to you in regard to housing

[1:31:12] accelerator fund, don't be afraid of the

[1:31:14] clawback.

[1:31:17] Fear the unreimbured costs.

[1:31:20] To further put things into perspective,

[1:31:24] and it's just a wild guess as to how

[1:31:27] much the uplift could be, but you could

[1:31:28] be talking a $6 billion market uplift

[1:31:33] if you pass this zoning. And I think

[1:31:36] that deserves a lot more consideration

[1:31:38] before it happens.

[1:31:44] What if you reject this proposal?

[1:31:47] You have the right. You're the elected

[1:31:49] council of Cambridge.

[1:31:53] Even Doug Ford is backpedaling

[1:31:57] on some things that he thought were

[1:31:59] important. He thought was important.

[1:32:05] And I actually think the money being

[1:32:08] thrown at the pro at the problem is part

[1:32:10] of the problem, but we'll talk about

[1:32:11] that another day.

[1:32:17] Um, the OOLT

[1:32:21] did not give deference to your decision

[1:32:25] on Preston Springs and they should have.

[1:32:28] You can hold them. You should make them

[1:32:31] do that.

[1:32:34] Um, I have more things to say.

[1:32:37] >> I'll give you I'll give you just a

[1:32:39] » I'll give you I'll give you just a

[1:32:39] couple more minutes. I know this is

[1:32:40] extremely important. You've been

[1:32:41] delegating in front of us repeatedly on

[1:32:44] this issue. So, I'd like to give you

[1:32:47] like if you could sum up though, I'd

[1:32:49] appreciate it.

[1:32:50] >> Thank you. I appreciate it.

[1:32:53] » Thank you. I appreciate it.

[1:32:53] Um,

[1:32:56] I'm quoting Councelor Hamilton on the

[1:32:58] screen. I don't really want to single

[1:32:59] him out, but he said some things on on

[1:33:03] the news that I that concerned me and I

[1:33:07] I really think it's important that this

[1:33:09] council remember they work for residents

[1:33:13] uh not the province, not the feds, not

[1:33:15] the region, and not for staff. And also

[1:33:18] the zoning bylaws are your strongest

[1:33:20] document. They are the most critical

[1:33:22] local document that that expresses the

[1:33:26] will of the people and how we want

[1:33:28] things done. The official plan is up

[1:33:31] there somewhere. Not the same priority.

[1:33:36] And briefly, I found a good quote from

[1:33:39] somebody you may know, Robert Layman, an

[1:33:42] urban planner. He reminds us that we

[1:33:45] need to plan with people, not for

[1:33:47] people. And I think some work is needed

[1:33:50] in that area.

[1:33:52] Finally, um, a referendum is a great

[1:33:56] idea. Thank you.

[1:34:01] » Thank you, Martin. Are there any

[1:34:02] questions?

[1:34:05] >> I see none. Thank you for delegating

[1:34:07] » I see none. Thank you for delegating

[1:34:07] again.

[1:34:09] Next up is Debbie Fee, another regular

[1:34:12] delegated uh delegate on this particular

[1:34:15] item. Welcome, Debbie. You'll have five

[1:34:17] minutes. Um, mayor and members of

[1:34:20] council, um, I'm going to focus a little

[1:34:23] more on process versus a lot of changes

[1:34:25] to the bylaw because that they've

[1:34:27] already been mentioned to you.

[1:34:28] Notifications to residents.

[1:34:29] >> Can you pull your mic down, Debbie,

[1:34:31] » Can you pull your mic down, Debbie,

[1:34:31] please?

[1:34:33] Notific. Is that okay? Okay.

[1:34:36] Notification to residents regarding a

[1:34:39] new build under this bylaw by posting a

[1:34:40] sign on the subject property and

[1:34:42] circulation of a noticed area. residents

[1:34:44] within a defined area is not part of

[1:34:46] this uh bylaw and or the process.

[1:34:49] Taxpayers and your constituents will not

[1:34:51] have the ability to express our concerns

[1:34:53] on issues or issues to council members

[1:34:55] on construction of a property beside us,

[1:34:58] across the street, or down the road. The

[1:35:00] only way residents will know that a

[1:35:02] property will be slated for some type of

[1:35:04] construction is when a bulldozer pulls

[1:35:06] up in front of the property. This is not

[1:35:08] satisfactory.

[1:35:09] This new practice has stripped your

[1:35:11] constituents of their ability to have a

[1:35:12] voice and undermines their judicial

[1:35:14] rights through a public process.

[1:35:17] Under the new bylaw, council has

[1:35:19] delegated its authority over to the

[1:35:21] chief planner to approve routine

[1:35:22] applications. This is supposed to

[1:35:24] accelerate the site plan and building

[1:35:26] permit approvals. As a result of this

[1:35:29] change, council will not receive reports

[1:35:31] to approve builds. This bylaw is a major

[1:35:35] change and the mis municipality does not

[1:35:38] know if it is even going to work.

[1:35:41] Benchmark reports need to be put into

[1:35:44] place and sent to council perhaps every

[1:35:46] 6 months. These reports are crucial as

[1:35:49] council will be informed and if any

[1:35:51] amendments need to be made to the bylaw

[1:35:53] if it is approved, they can be made in a

[1:35:56] timely manner. Since this um this bylaw

[1:35:59] affects construction of residential uses

[1:36:02] residential us units using water supply.

[1:36:06] Since the signing of the CHCA half

[1:36:08] agreement on January 31st, 2024, the

[1:36:11] region of Waterlue has announced a water

[1:36:13] a water supply crisis. As a draft zoning

[1:36:16] bylaw relates to residential

[1:36:17] construction which will impact water

[1:36:19] usage. And since we are also requesting

[1:36:22] certain amendments to the bylaw and the

[1:36:24] processes, it would seem appropriate to

[1:36:26] send a letter to CHC and request an

[1:36:29] extension of the deadline or andor until

[1:36:32] the city receives the reports from the

[1:36:34] region on our water supply. This would

[1:36:36] be a reasonable ask of CHC under the

[1:36:40] current circumstances. Water is life and

[1:36:43] this region is in a crisis.

[1:36:47] The following recommendations are

[1:36:48] respectfully proposed. Amend the bylaw

[1:36:51] and/or appropriate documents to include

[1:36:53] notification to residents by posting

[1:36:56] signs on an affected property slated for

[1:36:58] construction and circulation by notice

[1:37:00] to area residents within a circ within a

[1:37:03] circulation area of 200 meters through a

[1:37:06] public process. and that taxpayers and

[1:37:08] constituents have the ability to contact

[1:37:10] their war counselor and or come to

[1:37:12] council as a whole concerning any type

[1:37:15] of build through public process.

[1:37:18] Benchmark reports prepared every six

[1:37:20] months by staff on residential builds

[1:37:23] units in the city. The report to include

[1:37:25] builds by ward, street name, type of

[1:37:28] build, any issues and concerns

[1:37:30] encountered by staff, and pictures and

[1:37:33] images of the build.

[1:37:36] and a letter be sent to CHC requesting

[1:37:39] an extension of the half deadline date

[1:37:42] by perhaps six months and or until the

[1:37:44] city receives all necessary reports from

[1:37:46] the region of water on our current water

[1:37:49] supply crisis. The recommendations

[1:37:52] suggested are to improve the bylaw and

[1:37:54] the process as a whole. This bylaw

[1:37:57] affects our existing properties and

[1:37:59] homes and the investment we have made in

[1:38:02] our established residential

[1:38:04] neighborhoods over many years. The

[1:38:07] character and landscape of our

[1:38:08] neighborhoods will change forever.

[1:38:11] We are part of the process too and we

[1:38:14] are going to be the most impacted. But

[1:38:17] we are being ignored, shoved aside and

[1:38:19] we feel betrayed and we deserve better

[1:38:22] as taxpayers and your constituents. This

[1:38:26] should not be an exercise solely to

[1:38:29] improve staff time to expedite building

[1:38:31] permits or completing the required

[1:38:34] number of units by specified dates and

[1:38:36] deadlines so they can be reflected on a

[1:38:39] chart. The bylaw gives more liberty and

[1:38:41] control to developers and builders. It

[1:38:45] also removes council's control on

[1:38:47] application approvals as proposed. It

[1:38:50] removes taxpayers ability to have a

[1:38:52] voice and come before council regarding

[1:38:55] our issues and concerns. And for the

[1:38:58] most part, all of these changes are

[1:39:00] being done so the municipality can

[1:39:02] receive money from CHC.

[1:39:05] Your constituents should never come

[1:39:08] before money.

[1:39:10] Thank you. If there's any questions, I'd

[1:39:13] be happy to.

[1:39:17] » Are there any questions of Debbie?

[1:39:20] I see none. Thanks, Debbie.

[1:39:22] >> Thank you.

[1:39:23] » Thank you.

[1:39:23] >> Next up is Crystal Mura on behalf of

[1:39:26] » Next up is Crystal Mura on behalf of

[1:39:26] Cornerstone Association of Realtors. And

[1:39:28] this is on the same item, comprehensive

[1:39:30] zoning bylaw review, formbbased zoning

[1:39:32] bylaw. I don't think you've been before

[1:39:34] us before. Have you?

[1:39:36] >> I haven't spoken before you. No.

[1:39:37] » I haven't spoken before you. No.

[1:39:37] >> No, I didn't think so. Welcome.

[1:39:39] » No, I didn't think so. Welcome.

[1:39:39] >> It's my pleasure.

[1:39:40] » It's my pleasure.

[1:39:40] >> Welcome.

[1:39:41] » Welcome.

[1:39:41] >> Good evening, Mayor Leget and esteemed

[1:39:43] » Good evening, Mayor Leget and esteemed

[1:39:43] members of city council. My name is

[1:39:45] Crystal Moira and I'm here on behalf of

[1:39:47] Cornerstone Association of Realtors

[1:39:49] representing over 2500 dedicated

[1:39:52] professionals across the region.

[1:39:55] Firstly, I would like to commend the

[1:39:56] council's leadership in advancing

[1:39:58] Cambridge's new form-based zoning bylaw.

[1:40:01] Your commitment to modernizing the

[1:40:02] city's outdated zoning framework is a

[1:40:05] crucial and commendable step towards

[1:40:07] addressing the housing crisis that

[1:40:09] continues to challenge our community. We

[1:40:11] fully support your efforts to increase

[1:40:13] housing options across the city,

[1:40:16] particularly the inclusion of more

[1:40:17] missing middle housing such as duplexes,

[1:40:20] triplexes, and the missing middle.

[1:40:23] These gentle density solutions are

[1:40:26] essential for providing attainable

[1:40:27] family oriented housing options that

[1:40:29] benefit first time benefit firsttime

[1:40:32] home buyers, downsizing seniors, and

[1:40:35] working families alike. Missing Middle

[1:40:38] Housing helps bridge the significant gap

[1:40:40] between single family homes and

[1:40:42] high-rise apartments, offering the

[1:40:44] diverse housing choices our our growing

[1:40:46] community needs. A diverse and flexible

[1:40:49] housing market is crucial for

[1:40:51] stabilizing prices and promoting home

[1:40:53] ownership opportunities. By focusing on

[1:40:56] the physical form, scale, and design of

[1:40:58] buildings rather than the restrictive

[1:41:00] housing types, Cambridge is poised to

[1:41:02] effectively support the creation of the

[1:41:04] missing middle housing, fostering a more

[1:41:06] lucrative, inclusive, and vibrant

[1:41:08] community. While we broadly support the

[1:41:11] new bylaw, we do have concerns regarding

[1:41:13] the changes to parking space

[1:41:15] requirements. According to the staff

[1:41:17] report, the current driveway length of 6

[1:41:18] mters is adequate for most truck models

[1:41:21] and mod modifying this could necessitate

[1:41:23] minor variance applications when adding

[1:41:26] additional dwelling units. Furthermore,

[1:41:28] our members have not received feedback

[1:41:30] from clients indicating that driveway

[1:41:32] lengths are a pressing issue. Buyers

[1:41:35] prioritize affordability and change that

[1:41:38] complicate home design may hinder

[1:41:39] efforts to provide affordable housing

[1:41:42] options. In conclusion, we affirm our

[1:41:45] strong support for your continued

[1:41:46] efforts to modernize Cambridge's housing

[1:41:48] policies. Together, we can ensure that

[1:41:51] every family dreaming to call Cambridge

[1:41:53] home finds a place to belong. Thank you

[1:41:55] so much.

[1:41:58] >> Are there any questions of Crystal?

[1:42:02] » Are there any questions of Crystal?

[1:42:02] >> Councelor Schwar

[1:42:06] and thank you Crystal. I just have a

[1:42:08] question because you're in real estate.

[1:42:10] How many um of the home homeowners that

[1:42:14] have purchased homes in single

[1:42:16] residential areas? Because currently

[1:42:18] right now you're allowed according to

[1:42:20] the planning act single home, semi-

[1:42:22] detached, triplex, three units. So this

[1:42:25] form bay zoning is is changing the three

[1:42:29] units to three stories unlimited base

[1:42:31] units. You can have a sixplex, 9plex and

[1:42:34] in a beautiful subdivision. How many of

[1:42:36] your clients would really like that?

[1:42:38] Have you is this something from the real

[1:42:40] estate or is this something feedback

[1:42:42] from the general public that buy the

[1:42:44] homes?

[1:42:49] » It's a double-edged sword to some

[1:42:50] degree. However, we believe that housing

[1:42:52] is a necessity and everybody should have

[1:42:54] access to it and to put barriers in that

[1:42:57] in way of it um is unfortunately

[1:43:02] something that we need to address.

[1:43:04] >> Okay. So, it's your the opinion, not

[1:43:07] » Okay. So, it's your the opinion, not

[1:43:07] residents. Basically,

[1:43:09] >> I can't speak for all right

[1:43:11] » I can't speak for all right

[1:43:11] >> the community at large in that respect.

[1:43:12] » the community at large in that respect.

[1:43:12] No, I'm sorry.

[1:43:14] >> Thank you.

[1:43:19] » Um Crystal, I have a question because

[1:43:20] you talked about the 6 meter versus the

[1:43:23] the um

[1:43:25] 8 meter. Are you aware that the parking

[1:43:29] situation and these new neighborhoods

[1:43:32] where all these new housing is is the

[1:43:34] bane of our existence? It is the biggest

[1:43:36] problem we have currently

[1:43:39] >> and I think it we really came to the

[1:43:41] » and I think it we really came to the

[1:43:41] forefront during all the snow that we're

[1:43:43] having.

[1:43:44] >> We have multiple people living in houses

[1:43:46] » We have multiple people living in houses

[1:43:46] now with not enough parking in their

[1:43:49] driveways, not enough parking on the

[1:43:51] streets, people getting tickets. We get

[1:43:54] constant emails. You're not aware of

[1:43:55] that?

[1:43:56] >> Oh, I'm aware of these issues that have

[1:43:59] » Oh, I'm aware of these issues that have

[1:43:59] happened. However, I don't believe

[1:44:01] adding 2 meters is going to resolve the

[1:44:04] issue at large. I think there's more

[1:44:06] considerations that need to be uh

[1:44:10] investigated to find a reasonable

[1:44:12] solution.

[1:44:15] So, would you be able to tell us what

[1:44:19] some of those solution I mean you're

[1:44:21] saying we need to find solutions. So,

[1:44:22] one of our solutions was to do that.

[1:44:25] Have you thought about any solutions for

[1:44:28] us that would be helpful to us?

[1:44:35] » I suppose there are

[1:44:38] situations where people widen their

[1:44:39] driveway via paving stones, which is

[1:44:42] something they can't cut curbs, but they

[1:44:44] find ways to ex uh widen their

[1:44:48] driveways. um this is something that

[1:44:51] they can choose to do after the fact if

[1:44:54] the ne if the need is necess is a

[1:44:56] necessity. Um

[1:45:00] lengthening the driveways as Larry had

[1:45:02] um shared really does impact the the

[1:45:07] building process and as well impacts the

[1:45:10] budget via the variance um requests that

[1:45:14] would be need to be made.

[1:45:16] Okay, just to follow and then I'm going

[1:45:17] to go to councelor Divine. So, you're

[1:45:20] saying to widen the driveway. So, you're

[1:45:21] saying we should require the minimum

[1:45:23] width of the of of a of a lot to be

[1:45:26] widened in order to accommodate that

[1:45:28] versus lengthening the driveway.

[1:45:32] >> I not necessarily not necessarily the

[1:45:35] » I not necessarily not necessarily the

[1:45:35] lot in a as a whole, the driveway.

[1:45:40] >> Okay. Thank you, councelor Dubine.

[1:45:43] » Okay. Thank you, councelor Dubine.

[1:45:43] >> Yes. Thank you to the chair. Um,

[1:45:47] » Yes. Thank you to the chair. Um,

[1:45:47] what's the length of an extended cab

[1:45:49] pickup?

[1:45:50] >> Do we know?

[1:45:52] » Do we know?

[1:45:52] >> Off hand, I don't recall, but I believe

[1:45:54] » Off hand, I don't recall, but I believe

[1:45:54] it's 18 to 20 ft.

[1:45:56] >> 20 ft.

[1:45:57] » 20 ft.

[1:45:57] >> Mhm.

[1:45:59] » Mhm.

[1:45:59] >> We have a lot of people out there that

[1:46:01] » We have a lot of people out there that

[1:46:01] are starting businesses.

[1:46:04] All right. Um, young couples that

[1:46:08] and that's their mode of transportation.

[1:46:12] All right.

[1:46:13] And be honest with you, uh, we don't

[1:46:16] want to detract those people from

[1:46:18] starting those businesses. Um, and I

[1:46:21] think it's I just heard it's 20 ft. I

[1:46:23] think it's over 20 ft. It's about 21 and

[1:46:24] a half, I think. All right. So, I have

[1:46:27] no problem with the the driveways at 8 m

[1:46:30] to be honest with you. I really don't.

[1:46:32] Um, and the homes can be designed around

[1:46:35] that.

[1:46:36] And you know, we got to we got to get in

[1:46:39] the the real world where there's a lot

[1:46:42] of homebased businesses now. There's a

[1:46:45] lot of people, whether it be

[1:46:46] electricians, plumbers, whatever, that

[1:46:49] uh work out of their home and

[1:46:51] consequently work out of their truck. So

[1:46:53] I don't I don't think by going back to

[1:46:56] six meters is an answer. Be honest with

[1:46:59] >> Do you have a secondary question,

[1:47:01] » Do you have a secondary question,

[1:47:01] counselor?

[1:47:01] >> No, that was it. That was just a

[1:47:02] » No, that was it. That was just a

[1:47:02] comment.

[1:47:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:47:04] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:47:04] >> Thank you, Crystal.

[1:47:08] Next up is Melissa Dele regarding the

[1:47:12] ion stage one reimbursement.

[1:47:15] Melissa, I don't think you've appeared

[1:47:16] before us either.

[1:47:17] >> No, I have not. This is my first time

[1:47:19] » No, I have not. This is my first time

[1:47:19] being in front of council.

[1:47:20] >> Well, welcome. And you'll have five

[1:47:22] » Well, welcome. And you'll have five

[1:47:22] minutes.

[1:47:22] >> Thank you. So, mayor, members of

[1:47:25] » Thank you. So, mayor, members of

[1:47:25] council, staff, good evening. Before I

[1:47:27] begin, I did want to acknowledge the

[1:47:30] earlier discussion on council

[1:47:32] compensation. The time, complexity, and

[1:47:34] responsibility involved in municipal

[1:47:36] governance is substantial,

[1:47:38] and I appreciate the work council

[1:47:40] members do in service of our community.

[1:47:44] I'll proceed. I'm speaking as a

[1:47:46] concerned Cambridge resident. I'm here

[1:47:48] to speak in opposition to the

[1:47:51] proposition or to the proposed motion of

[1:47:53] IO on stage 1 reimbursement. I oppose

[1:47:56] the motion because it undermines

[1:47:57] democratic decision-making. In effect,

[1:48:00] it's anti-democratic.

[1:48:02] The ION project has gone through years

[1:48:05] of regional planning, multiple business

[1:48:08] cases, environmental assessment, funding

[1:48:11] strategies, and public consultation and

[1:48:13] surveys.

[1:48:15] These decisions were made democratically

[1:48:17] in public by elected representatives

[1:48:19] across the region, including

[1:48:21] representatives from Cambridge.

[1:48:24] Disagreeing with the pace or the cost

[1:48:26] does not undo those decisions. What

[1:48:29] concerns me about the motion is not that

[1:48:31] it raises questions. Questions are

[1:48:33] healthy and a part of democratic

[1:48:35] society, but that it takes up public

[1:48:38] time and attention by attempting to

[1:48:40] relitigate settled regional policy is a

[1:48:43] grievance.

[1:48:45] Regional transit is by definition

[1:48:47] regional. Cambridge residents contribute

[1:48:50] to infrastructure we not may not

[1:48:51] personally use every day. that is the

[1:48:54] social contract and municip of municipal

[1:48:56] and regional government in Canada. We do

[1:48:59] not ask for our taxes back because we

[1:49:02] don't have children in public school or

[1:49:05] because we don't use specific regional

[1:49:07] health services or because a road

[1:49:09] upgrade happens on a street we never

[1:49:11] drive on. Treating regional taxation as

[1:49:14] a peruse system sets a troubling

[1:49:17] precedent. What frustrates me the most

[1:49:20] is the opportunity cost of this motion.

[1:49:22] When motions suggest residents can get

[1:49:25] their money back, quote, they risk

[1:49:28] misleading the public and losing trust.

[1:49:31] There is no authority for the

[1:49:33] retroactive reimbursement of regional

[1:49:35] taxes. This council and our community is

[1:49:38] facing real urgent issues.

[1:49:41] Housing affordability, infrastructure

[1:49:44] maintenance, climate resilience, transit

[1:49:46] reliability within Cambridge, and the

[1:49:48] cost of living pressures residents are

[1:49:50] feeling every day.

[1:49:52] Instead of focusing limited time and

[1:49:54] energy

[1:49:56] on those challenges, we're debating a

[1:49:58] reimbursement proposal that staff and

[1:50:00] the region cannot realistically or

[1:50:02] legally implement. Finally, I want to

[1:50:05] say this respectfully. Every member of

[1:50:08] this council is privileged enough to

[1:50:09] have stable housing and a platform. Many

[1:50:12] Cambridge residents do not. They need

[1:50:14] leadership that looks forward, not

[1:50:16] backwards. leadership that works within

[1:50:19] decisions already democratically made

[1:50:21] regardless of personal positions to

[1:50:23] achieve the best possible outcome for

[1:50:25] our region, our city, and the people who

[1:50:28] live here. I urge council to reject the

[1:50:31] motion and refocus on advocating

[1:50:33] constructively for Cambridge. Thank you.

[1:50:39] Um I ask for questions. Uh I'm not

[1:50:43] seeing anywhere in this motion where

[1:50:44] it's saying to stop the LRT make a

[1:50:47] decision to go backwards or anything.

[1:50:49] This

[1:50:49] >> it was about the taxation reimbursing

[1:50:52] » it was about the taxation reimbursing

[1:50:52] citizens for taxation.

[1:50:53] >> I hadn't finished. Hang on a second.

[1:50:55] » I hadn't finished. Hang on a second.

[1:50:55] >> Okay.

[1:50:55] » Okay.

[1:50:55] >> Um but there's nothing in this motion

[1:50:57] » Um but there's nothing in this motion

[1:50:57] that talks about um stopping the LRT to

[1:51:02] Cambridge.

[1:51:03] >> Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

[1:51:05] » Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

[1:51:05] Okay. Any questions?

[1:51:08] I see none. Thank you.

[1:51:16] Okay, I lost my place. Sorry, I've just

[1:51:20] lost my place here for a second.

[1:51:26] N found it again. Uh, next up is Ibraham

[1:51:29] Tahir on the uh comprehensive zoning

[1:51:33] bylaw review formbbased zoning.

[1:51:36] Welcome. You'll have five minutes.

[1:51:39] >> Okay.

[1:51:42] » Hi there. Good evening, council. My name

[1:51:44] is Ibrahim. I'm 29 years old and I'm a

[1:51:47] lifelong resident of Cambridge in the

[1:51:49] South G area. I'm here today to give my

[1:51:52] support to a change in our zoning

[1:51:53] bylaws. I became interested in this

[1:51:56] issue the same way many Canadians my age

[1:51:58] have. They're looking for solutions to

[1:51:59] the housing crisis. It's been top of

[1:52:01] mind for for us in the last few

[1:52:03] elections in the country. Every

[1:52:05] publication and politician across the

[1:52:07] board has had to reckon with the fact

[1:52:09] that for decades our population has been

[1:52:11] going up and we have simply not been

[1:52:12] building enough homes to keep up that

[1:52:14] we're beginning to try now. Um the

[1:52:17] government of Ontario for its part has

[1:52:19] set up an online tracker for housing

[1:52:21] supply progress. So I took a look at it

[1:52:23] and I found that Cambridge isn't even

[1:52:25] close to its targets. This problem is

[1:52:27] less evenly distributed for people who

[1:52:29] own land and homes. If you're a

[1:52:31] homeowner, you have seen rising property

[1:52:32] values and insulation from housing

[1:52:34] instability. Yes, homelessness is

[1:52:37] increasing with fewer homes to go

[1:52:38] around, but a home a homeowner may not

[1:52:41] feel the effects of that quite as

[1:52:42] acutely. My generation, however, will

[1:52:45] have to bear the costs the brunt of the

[1:52:47] cost of the shortage. In my personal

[1:52:50] experience reading about housing, pretty

[1:52:51] much any expert or serious study affirms

[1:52:53] that current exclusionary zoning laws

[1:52:55] are far too restrictive. Some kind of

[1:52:57] missing middle needs to be built. I

[1:52:59] personally think a form-based zoning

[1:53:01] framework is a reasonable and measured

[1:53:03] solution to allowing more types of

[1:53:04] housing while still not letting

[1:53:06] developers build whatever they want. It

[1:53:09] it still has clear and defined

[1:53:10] guidelines, but it's just a little more

[1:53:12] permissive than before. Far from a

[1:53:14] radical departure, this is exactly the

[1:53:16] approach to take if one wants to

[1:53:17] increase density while preserving

[1:53:19] neighborhood character. I can sympathize

[1:53:21] with some reluctance to change. For

[1:53:23] someone who owns a house to be primarily

[1:53:25] concerned about things like aesthetics

[1:53:26] and neighborhood character is

[1:53:28] understandable. These are important and

[1:53:30] worthy considerations. I just ask is

[1:53:33] this a crisis or not? And if it is, will

[1:53:35] Cambridge be part of the solution?

[1:53:37] Perhaps that isn't a priority for some

[1:53:39] residents. Perhaps that is something for

[1:53:40] other cities like Kitchener and Waterl

[1:53:42] to handle, both of which have met their

[1:53:45] uh their housing targets. But the answer

[1:53:48] cannot be to just keep the 40-year-old

[1:53:50] standards. I do think concerns over any

[1:53:52] house in any neighborhood being knocked

[1:53:54] down to build a multiplex are valid, but

[1:53:57] those are things that can be addressed

[1:53:59] in the implementation of new bylaws

[1:54:01] rather than rejecting the idea of any

[1:54:03] change to the status quo wholesale.

[1:54:05] Controlling things like that are what

[1:54:07] zoning is for, and this is still zoning.

[1:54:09] I don't want to approach this as an

[1:54:11] ideologue of any kind. It's just what

[1:54:12] I've read. If we can at least agree on

[1:54:14] the need to build housing, it's fine to

[1:54:16] disagree on the process. If there's a

[1:54:18] workable, economically sound, and

[1:54:20] evidence evidence-based alternative, I'm

[1:54:23] absolutely eager to hear it. My concern

[1:54:25] with the current system, though, is the

[1:54:27] asymmetry. If an existing property owner

[1:54:29] wants to say no, it gives them greater

[1:54:31] power and incentive to try to do that

[1:54:33] than prospective residents to say yes.

[1:54:36] This feels like a pretty unproductive

[1:54:37] mechanism to me. I do understand the

[1:54:40] inclination towards localized consent. I

[1:54:43] just want to assert that it is a

[1:54:44] substantive policy choice that you make.

[1:54:47] It allows a smaller group like a single

[1:54:49] neighborhood to make decisions that

[1:54:51] affect the entire city's housing supply,

[1:54:53] shifting the costs onto those with fewer

[1:54:55] resources and the next generation. It

[1:54:58] gives veto power essentially to those

[1:55:00] who arrived first. All public policy

[1:55:03] comes with trade-offs. We usually accept

[1:55:05] that decisions with uneven impacts are

[1:55:07] made at the societal level rather than

[1:55:09] just by those immediately affected. We

[1:55:12] wouldn't, for example, give a particular

[1:55:14] income group a veto before adjusting tax

[1:55:17] policy for their bracket. With housing

[1:55:19] scarcity, the benefits acrew locally,

[1:55:22] but the costs affect the whole city. If

[1:55:24] that is your priority, I would want to

[1:55:26] know what other plans council has put

[1:55:27] forth for delivering the required

[1:55:29] housing. I think a more democratic

[1:55:31] solution is for council to set clear and

[1:55:33] updated guidelines. After all, it's the

[1:55:35] residents of Cambridge who voted council

[1:55:37] in to make these decisions. I found out

[1:55:40] about this proposed bylaw change when

[1:55:42] researching why more housing is not

[1:55:43] being built. I found a local news item

[1:55:46] that explicitly cited local builders and

[1:55:48] developers saying that they want to

[1:55:49] build housing in Cambridge, but they

[1:55:50] can't because of current laws. They

[1:55:52] attempt to build housing, bylaws halt

[1:55:54] them, and then they go to the Ontario

[1:55:56] Land Tribunal to try to plead their

[1:55:57] case. This doesn't seem like a system

[1:56:00] that is working for housing or even for

[1:56:02] local protection. But with public

[1:56:03] participation in a new framework, people

[1:56:06] might at least know what to expect, and

[1:56:08] it may reduce the incentive for

[1:56:09] developers to appeal in the first place.

[1:56:11] I think it would be a mistake to let

[1:56:13] surmountable obstacles prevent action on

[1:56:15] an issue every municipality needs to

[1:56:17] play its part in. We can retain our

[1:56:19] identity while building enough to

[1:56:21] accommodate those who want to live here.

[1:56:23] I just ultimately ask council to give

[1:56:25] those without a seat at the table a

[1:56:27] chance. uh thanks for engaging with me

[1:56:29] on this issue and for considering the

[1:56:31] long-term future of the city.

[1:56:34] >> Ibrahim, I I want to thank you for

[1:56:37] » Ibrahim, I I want to thank you for

[1:56:37] coming and uh delegating. You're

[1:56:39] extremely well spoken, very

[1:56:40] knowledgeable. I just want to I just

[1:56:42] want to fix some misconception that you

[1:56:44] seem to have. You say we haven't met our

[1:56:46] targets because developers are saying

[1:56:48] that that's too difficult and whatever.

[1:56:52] There are over 5,000

[1:56:55] units that we have approved that would

[1:56:58] we would be meeting our targets if the

[1:57:00] developers would put the shovel in the

[1:57:02] grounds. So with the building faster

[1:57:04] fund, it's not based on how many permits

[1:57:07] we give, but how many units the

[1:57:09] developers have shovels in the ground

[1:57:11] on. So it's not on us. It's not us.

[1:57:14] We're doing our job, but our staff is

[1:57:16] doing an amazing job. So I just need to

[1:57:19] change that. what you said that that's

[1:57:22] that's not correct. The statement that

[1:57:24] you had said it's not us. Developers

[1:57:26] will say things all the time, but they

[1:57:28] have uh reasons for why they don't um

[1:57:32] build houses, but it's not because we're

[1:57:34] not giving them the right to build. We

[1:57:37] are uh any questions?

[1:57:40] I see none. Thank you.

[1:57:42] >> I'd like to see you back again.

[1:57:44] » I'd like to see you back again.

[1:57:44] >> Sure. Sure thing.

[1:57:49] So, next we have no more people in the

[1:57:51] audience to speak. Uh, but we do have

[1:57:53] somebody online waiting to come in.

[1:57:55] Alyssa Hernick.

[1:57:57] >> She's in

[1:57:58] » She's in

[1:57:58] >> Oh, sorry. She's in the waiting room.

[1:58:04] » Oh, sorry. She's in the waiting room.

[1:58:04] >> Oh, there you are, Melissa.

[1:58:07] » Oh, there you are, Melissa.

[1:58:07] Welcome. And you are speaking on behalf

[1:58:10] of the Northwest Community Builders,

[1:58:12] Inc. on that's the same thing as

[1:58:14] comprehensive zoning bylaw review.

[1:58:17] That is correct.

[1:58:18] >> Go ahead. You'll have five minutes.

[1:58:20] » Go ahead. You'll have five minutes.

[1:58:20] >> Good evening. Thank you, mayor, members

[1:58:22] » Good evening. Thank you, mayor, members

[1:58:22] of council. Thank you for the

[1:58:23] opportunity to speak tonight um on this

[1:58:25] popular topic, the comprehensive zoning

[1:58:27] bylaw. Um yes, my name is Alyssa

[1:58:30] Herrenic. I am a registered professional

[1:58:32] planner with the firm Malone Given

[1:58:34] Parsons. Uh we are the planners and the

[1:58:36] urban designers for the Northwest

[1:58:38] Heslers Community Builders. Um and

[1:58:40] that's who I'm speaking on behalf

[1:58:42] tonight. Uh the Northwest Hesplers

[1:58:44] Community Builders Group is composed of

[1:58:46] established community and homebuilders

[1:58:48] um that represent about 80% of the lands

[1:58:51] in an area we call the northwest Hespler

[1:58:53] secondary plan area. This area is

[1:58:55] generally north of Maple Grove Road uh

[1:58:59] north west of Hespa Road and east of

[1:59:02] Beaverdale Road. So, back in December,

[1:59:04] we submitted an official plan amendment

[1:59:06] application to bring these lands into

[1:59:08] the city's urban area um consistent with

[1:59:11] the region's uh community area and to

[1:59:13] establish um a detailed land use

[1:59:16] framework to guide development through a

[1:59:18] secondary plan. Um that application is

[1:59:20] currently under review with the city. Um

[1:59:23] in this context, I'm offering comments

[1:59:25] on tonight's zoning bylaw. I think

[1:59:26] you've heard a lot of great comments. Um

[1:59:28] and we generally want to um express our

[1:59:32] support for the deferral of the land

[1:59:34] subject to um the Northwest Hesler

[1:59:36] secondary plan area. Um I think that's a

[1:59:39] great first um approach, but we do offer

[1:59:42] some comments I think for your

[1:59:43] consideration and cons and concerns. Um

[1:59:47] so we are overall supportive of a

[1:59:49] formbbased zoning approach. We think

[1:59:51] that's the right u next step um in

[1:59:54] moving towards as others have mentioned

[1:59:57] um a more conducive environment for um

[2:00:00] flexibility and supportive housing and

[2:00:03] increasing our housing supply. Um, I

[2:00:07] have so I think my details um and our

[2:00:09] concerns are outlined in our letter and

[2:00:11] I'm not going to go into each of one of

[2:00:12] those, but I think generally what we are

[2:00:15] finding and maybe what you're hearing

[2:00:17] tonight is that

[2:00:20] you have three zones before you and

[2:00:23] maybe they're trying to pigeon hole um a

[2:00:25] multitude of issues. some that you would

[2:00:27] experience in more contemporary new

[2:00:29] communities and some that you would

[2:00:31] experience in um traditional

[2:00:33] neighborhoods that are experiencing

[2:00:35] infill and intensification.

[2:00:37] So there might need to be um a

[2:00:39] consideration and a few more zones to

[2:00:42] consider sort of the differences and

[2:00:45] issues that come up with these quite

[2:00:47] different forms. um you'll actually find

[2:00:50] newer neighborhoods are generally much

[2:00:52] more dense um have different housing

[2:00:55] types and development forms than some of

[2:00:57] the more traditional neighborhoods. And

[2:00:59] so I think that's where you're having

[2:01:00] some of these inconsistencies and some

[2:01:02] of these concerns with three blanket

[2:01:05] zone standards. I think the zone

[2:01:07] standards are great and that they

[2:01:08] provide flexibility and type, but I

[2:01:10] think we need to look um maybe more

[2:01:12] particularly at some of the particular

[2:01:15] um standards in each of those. So, we

[2:01:17] our letter just outlines some of those

[2:01:19] concerns. Um, we're just asking council

[2:01:21] to consider that, maybe have staff come

[2:01:23] back and take a look at ways we could

[2:01:25] tweak the bylaw. I think the bylaw is

[2:01:26] really close. We really commend staff's

[2:01:29] efforts to date. Um, it's a lot of work.

[2:01:31] It's in the going in the right

[2:01:32] direction. Um, maybe there's a

[2:01:35] subsequent phase that looks at uh zones

[2:01:38] more appropriate for new communities.

[2:01:40] you know, these communities are quite

[2:01:41] different from the uh issues and the

[2:01:44] forums and the design principles that we

[2:01:46] experience in traditional communities.

[2:01:48] So, I thank you for your time tonight.

[2:01:50] Um, if you have questions or any other

[2:01:52] comments that you would like to make,

[2:01:53] I'm available to answer those.

[2:01:57] >> Does anyone have any questions?

[2:02:01] » Does anyone have any questions?

[2:02:01] >> I I have a question, Alyssa. This is all

[2:02:03] » I I have a question, Alyssa. This is all

[2:02:03] the land that was just added in through

[2:02:06] ROP 6 currently, correct? So this this

[2:02:09] would expand outwards versus upwards

[2:02:12] >> in our density.

[2:02:14] » in our density.

[2:02:14] >> Um our application would be I'm but I'm

[2:02:17] » Um our application would be I'm but I'm

[2:02:17] speaking tonight on the terms of the

[2:02:19] comprehensive zoning bylaw. Correct.

[2:02:21] Yes.

[2:02:21] >> Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure

[2:02:23] » Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure

[2:02:23] that I've got the right group of

[2:02:25] builders. So this was land that was

[2:02:27] added in for down the road, not for

[2:02:29] currently.

[2:02:29] >> Right. But I I guess we're commenting

[2:02:32] » Right. But I I guess we're commenting

[2:02:32] tonight um through you uh mayor in the

[2:02:34] fact that hopefully this is a

[2:02:36] comprehensive bylaw. um that sets

[2:02:38] standards, you know, that we don't have

[2:02:40] to come every single time and and ask

[2:02:43] you for um a tweak here, a tweak there,

[2:02:46] right? So, I see this as a really um

[2:02:48] important project to participate in now

[2:02:51] to make sure that when we are or when

[2:02:53] these home builders are building homes

[2:02:54] in 5 10 15 years, you you've got

[2:02:57] standards that are um appropriate and in

[2:03:00] place for those those new communities.

[2:03:03] >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Roberts.

[2:03:10] There we go. Thank you, Mayor Jan,

[2:03:11] through you. Um, and thank you, Alyssa,

[2:03:13] for your presentation. I just have a

[2:03:15] question. When you say a tweak here and

[2:03:16] a tweak there, are you saying that the

[2:03:19] the formbbased zoning doesn't allow for

[2:03:22] enough density or it's too much density?

[2:03:24] I'm just having trouble following your

[2:03:28] >> train of thought there.

[2:03:29] » train of thought there.

[2:03:29] >> Sorry. Um, I was trying to be brief in

[2:03:31] » Sorry. Um, I was trying to be brief in

[2:03:31] my comments. I know you guys have a long

[2:03:33] night ahead of you. Um, and so those

[2:03:35] those tweaks and those comments are

[2:03:37] detailed in our submission and

[2:03:38] correspondence that were sent out. I

[2:03:40] have no problem with the density. It's

[2:03:43] things like is it the right lot lot

[2:03:46] frontage um on an R3 zone which permits

[2:03:50] a variety of building types from um uh

[2:03:54] town houses in condo blocks up to

[2:03:57] apartments. So they're minor things,

[2:03:59] right? Maybe should we be considering um

[2:04:01] a different provision? there's some

[2:04:02] inconsistencies on the width of the

[2:04:05] driveways. So, um, and and there's some

[2:04:07] conflicts there and you you're hearing

[2:04:09] tonight some comments on the length of

[2:04:10] the driveways. So, when I talk about

[2:04:12] tweaks, it's not fundamental big tweaks.

[2:04:16] It's it's sort of minor things in and

[2:04:18] making sure that um the the zones

[2:04:22] consider um new communities that are

[2:04:25] very much different in character and

[2:04:26] design and parameters than maybe

[2:04:28] traditional communities that are

[2:04:30] experiencing more infill.

[2:04:32] Okay, thank you.

[2:04:35] >> I see no more questions. Alyssa, thank

[2:04:37] » I see no more questions. Alyssa, thank

[2:04:37] you. And this is your first time

[2:04:39] presenting to us, wasn't it?

[2:04:40] >> It was. Yes. Thanks for having me.

[2:04:42] » It was. Yes. Thanks for having me.

[2:04:42] >> Thank you very much. Thank you.

[2:04:46] » Thank you very much. Thank you.

[2:04:46] >> Okay. Um, we're going to go through uh

[2:04:49] » Okay. Um, we're going to go through uh

[2:04:49] consent agenda and then consideration

[2:04:51] reports. Then I'm just going to take a

[2:04:52] quick bio break if everybody doesn't

[2:04:56] mind.

[2:04:58] consent before we get into

[2:05:00] >> Yeah, I'm going to do consent. Yeah. Um

[2:05:04] » Yeah, I'm going to do consent. Yeah. Um

[2:05:04] so the next item is the consent agenda

[2:05:07] and um councelor Hamilton, you have that

[2:05:09] one.

[2:05:15] » Thank you, Mayor Liot. Through you. It's

[2:05:17] moved by myself and seconded by

[2:05:18] councelor Kempson. The recommendation

[2:05:20] that all items listed under the heading

[2:05:22] of consent agenda for February 3rd, 2026

[2:05:25] be adopted as recommended. Item 8.1,

[2:05:27] council meeting minutes, December 15,

[2:05:29] 2025. 8.2, Special Council Meeting

[2:05:33] Minutes, January 13, 2026. 8.3, Council

[2:05:37] Information Package, January 9th, 2026.

[2:05:40] And item 8.4, Council Information

[2:05:42] Package, January 23rd, 2026.

[2:05:48] So we'll call for that vote now

[2:05:52] and opening voting.

[2:05:57] Closing voting

[2:05:59] that carries unanimously.

[2:06:04] Sorry, not the consideration of reports

[2:06:06] because that's going to get into

[2:06:07] presentation on the comprehensive zoning

[2:06:09] bylaw which is going to take a while. So

[2:06:11] we're just going to take a quick bio

[2:06:12] break here.

[2:23:37] So, this bio break has taken a lot

[2:23:39] longer than what was expected to be. So,

[2:23:42] we're we're going to switch some things

[2:23:43] around because there's staff working

[2:23:46] with counselors on some different

[2:23:47] things. Could you please sit down,

[2:23:49] Helen?

[2:23:52] Um, we're going to start with uh 55

[2:23:56] Kerr.

[2:23:58] Um, because we have a presenter here, I

[2:24:02] believe.

[2:24:04] Um, we have Elden Theodore from MHBC

[2:24:07] planning to speak on behalf of the

[2:24:10] applicant on 26-001PG

[2:24:13] zoning bylaw amendment.

[2:24:15] Welcome, Elden. Nice to see you back.

[2:24:17] It's been a number of years.

[2:24:22] Go ahead. You'll have five minutes.

[2:24:31] Um, yes, it it has been a while. I think

[2:24:34] um I've got some more gray hairs than

[2:24:36] when I was first before you. Um, when

[2:24:39] this application was um adopted by

[2:24:42] council in uh 2021. Um, I have a lengthy

[2:24:46] presentation, but I'm not going to do

[2:24:48] that. Instead, I'm going to focus on

[2:24:50] what is before you. I'm going just going

[2:24:51] to take you to the actual proposal

[2:24:54] itself.

[2:24:59] There we go.

[2:25:07] Um so as a reminder to council um this

[2:25:14] current proposal before you in the staff

[2:25:16] report um was what was adopted by

[2:25:18] council in 2021 for two 18story tall

[2:25:22] buildings with 445 units and uh 445

[2:25:27] parking spaces. And uh the

[2:25:29] recommendation went to um regional staff

[2:25:34] uh planning for consideration uh which

[2:25:36] has since been dissolved. So it has now

[2:25:39] come back to city staff for as the

[2:25:42] approval authority on the matter. Um a

[2:25:44] couple of things that I just want to

[2:25:46] point out. First and foremost is that

[2:25:48] I'm supportive of staff's

[2:25:49] recommendation.

[2:25:51] Um as it relates to the bylaw and

[2:25:54] particularly the secondary bylaw that's

[2:25:56] been added. Um I just wanted to clarify

[2:25:58] a number of items. Uh the first being

[2:26:01] that um item number excuse me just

[2:26:05] making sure I have the right in front of

[2:26:06] me. Um

[2:26:09] uh provision number five which speaks to

[2:26:11] the um uh the amount of private common

[2:26:15] amenity space. That was an item that was

[2:26:18] actually missed from the bylaw, but was

[2:26:21] uh discussed and recommended in the

[2:26:23] staff report back in um 2021. And so

[2:26:28] that's really just an error that's been

[2:26:29] addressed. The other items number six,

[2:26:33] seven, and eight, um they all deal with

[2:26:37] uh source water protection and ensuring

[2:26:40] that this development does everything it

[2:26:41] can as it relates to restrictions on

[2:26:44] geothermal wells and as it relates to

[2:26:46] restrictions on infiltration and passive

[2:26:49] active dewatering, ensuring that that

[2:26:51] does not occur. And last but not least,

[2:26:54] um the addition, which is section five,

[2:26:56] which deals with the holding provisions.

[2:26:58] These were all items that were ongoing

[2:27:01] and and in the works uh being resolved

[2:27:04] with the region but had not been

[2:27:06] resolved and through the recommendation

[2:27:08] that they be placed as holding

[2:27:09] provisions so that they once uh should

[2:27:13] this development proceed to the next

[2:27:14] stage through site plan um they would be

[2:27:18] addressed uh to the satisfaction of

[2:27:20] council. So that age would need to be

[2:27:22] lifted prior to site plan approval

[2:27:24] occurring. And so I wanted to just uh

[2:27:26] clarify those items. Um, I reviewed

[2:27:29] staff's report. I support the

[2:27:31] recommendations. Happy to answer any

[2:27:33] questions.

[2:27:36] >> So, you've met all of the conditions of

[2:27:37] » So, you've met all of the conditions of

[2:27:37] the holding provision.

[2:27:39] >> We have not yet. Um, we were in the

[2:27:42] » We have not yet. Um, we were in the

[2:27:42] midst of meeting those items and then

[2:27:44] the partners on the project changed and

[2:27:47] then the economy fell out and so they

[2:27:50] are yet to be fully satisfied. So,

[2:27:53] that's why they are holding provisions

[2:27:55] in the bylaw.

[2:27:56] >> Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

[2:27:58] » Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

[2:27:58] Okay. I I love the changes that you know

[2:28:01] the listening to council, listening to

[2:28:04] the residents, dropping the number of

[2:28:06] units, dropping the height, everything.

[2:28:08] I realize some of that's financial, but

[2:28:10] I really appreciate it. Are there any

[2:28:12] questions from council here?

[2:28:17] And you still the commercial on the

[2:28:19] bottom? Like

[2:28:20] >> there is still commercial on the ground

[2:28:21] » there is still commercial on the ground

[2:28:21] floor. Yes.

[2:28:22] >> Okay. It's been a lot of long long time

[2:28:24] » Okay. It's been a lot of long long time

[2:28:24] coming.

[2:28:25] >> Yes. and a lot of collaboration went

[2:28:27] » Yes. and a lot of collaboration went

[2:28:27] into bringing this forward back then and

[2:28:30] um just happy to

[2:28:32] >> uh finally bring this to closure at

[2:28:34] » uh finally bring this to closure at

[2:28:34] least this chapter of this application

[2:28:36] >> and Mr. Whitel still the architect I saw

[2:28:38] » and Mr. Whitel still the architect I saw

[2:28:38] on your

[2:28:40] >> uh that's correct madame mayor.

[2:28:42] » uh that's correct madame mayor.

[2:28:42] >> All right I see no oh councelor meta

[2:28:45] » All right I see no oh councelor meta

[2:28:45] >> thank you mayor

[2:28:46] » thank you mayor

[2:28:46] >> and through you and thank you for the

[2:28:47] » and through you and thank you for the

[2:28:47] presentation and all your work on the

[2:28:49] file and to everyone working on this um

[2:28:52] the question that I have and I may have

[2:28:54] missed it. Um what would be the time

[2:28:56] frame for construction and how long will

[2:28:57] it take to build the whole thing like

[2:28:59] when does the developer feel they can

[2:29:01] break ground and all that? Thank you.

[2:29:03] >> Um that is a great question. right now

[2:29:07] » Um that is a great question. right now

[2:29:07] that's a little bit in limbo. Um, this

[2:29:10] project had originally been looking at a

[2:29:12] potential as it related to a condo

[2:29:14] development. Um, condo is not in vogue

[2:29:17] at the moment. Um, and so um the right

[2:29:23] now the developer is looking at how they

[2:29:25] can pivot to a potential rental um and

[2:29:28] partnering with a partner. Obviously,

[2:29:30] when doing rental, there's a lot more

[2:29:33] financial

[2:29:34] um obligation that has to come in the

[2:29:36] forefront of that project. So, um

[2:29:38] whether there's an ability to get Cac

[2:29:41] funding or other funding sources or

[2:29:43] having a JV partner to help assist with

[2:29:46] that, those are part of the back

[2:29:48] discussions that are happening. So, I

[2:29:50] couldn't give you a firm timeline. And

[2:29:52] what I could tell you is that if it did

[2:29:54] um if it did go ahead, we'd still have

[2:29:57] to go through site plan um with working

[2:29:59] with your staff um which you know

[2:30:02] probably you know 6 to 8 month process

[2:30:04] and then this construction with um with

[2:30:08] the underground parking you're looking

[2:30:10] at probably a 2 to three year

[2:30:11] construction period.

[2:30:16] » Thank you. I see no more questions.

[2:30:19] >> Thank you.

[2:30:19] » Thank you.

[2:30:19] >> Thank you very much.

[2:30:21] » Thank you very much.

[2:30:21] Uh Melissa Moore, senior planner, is

[2:30:23] here to present on this project.

[2:30:33] Welcome, Alyssa.

[2:30:35] Thank you, Mayor Wicket and Council, all

[2:30:38] in attendance this evening. I don't see

[2:30:40] the presentation up on the board, but

[2:30:54] Okay, there we are. Um, so I am

[2:30:57] presenting staff's recommendation on a

[2:30:59] staff initiated amending zoning bylaw

[2:31:01] for 55 Kurr Street in the east part of

[2:31:04] G.

[2:31:12] So again, the site uh norththeast corner

[2:31:14] of Kerr and Shade Street

[2:31:19] and uh I can take you through a bit of

[2:31:21] the history. So in 2021, council adopted

[2:31:23] the official plan amendment and zoning

[2:31:25] bylaw amendment uh for a 18story

[2:31:28] building or sorry to permit two 18story

[2:31:31] buildings with a total of 445 dwelling

[2:31:33] units as well as aggra commercial space

[2:31:35] in one of the buildings on site. The

[2:31:37] official plan amendment was sent to the

[2:31:39] region for a decision. The region did

[2:31:41] not make a decision on the official plan

[2:31:43] amendment as additional studies were

[2:31:44] required relating to archaeology, noise,

[2:31:46] source water protection and uh also

[2:31:50] prohibitions.

[2:31:51] On January 1st, 2025, the city became

[2:31:54] the approval authority

[2:31:56] for uh sight specific official plans

[2:31:59] through the passing of bill 23. And as

[2:32:02] the application predated the transfer of

[2:32:04] approval authority from the region to

[2:32:06] the city, the official plan amendment is

[2:32:09] with the ministry of municipal affairs

[2:32:11] and housing for a decision. Currently,

[2:32:14] the ministry has consulted with with the

[2:32:16] city uh and regional staff regarding the

[2:32:19] application and city staff agreed to

[2:32:20] incorporate these outstanding issues

[2:32:22] into an amending bylaw. uh and it's

[2:32:25] related to source protection as well as

[2:32:27] holding provisions to obtain the

[2:32:29] outstanding studies as well as to

[2:32:31] recognize as uh Alden had previously

[2:32:33] stated a previously approved uh

[2:32:36] provision relating to amenity area that

[2:32:38] was identified in the purpose and intent

[2:32:40] of the bylaw but not actually in the

[2:32:42] provision itself of the bylaw. So it's

[2:32:44] really just a cleanup of the existing

[2:32:46] bylaw.

[2:32:50] And I apologize the uh clicker is not

[2:32:52] working here. But again, prohibitions

[2:32:53] include uh prohibition on geothermal

[2:32:55] wells, prohibition on engineered

[2:32:57] infiltration infrastructure, and a

[2:32:59] prohibition on permanent passive or

[2:33:00] active dewatering infrastructure. Now,

[2:33:02] those all relate to source water

[2:33:03] protection measures. And uh the further

[2:33:07] uh the amendment is to implement a

[2:33:09] holding provision to obtain the

[2:33:10] following studies. An archaeological

[2:33:12] assessment and corresponding ministry

[2:33:13] acknowledgement letter. a stationary

[2:33:15] noise study, a hydrogeeological study

[2:33:18] that includes a vulnerability assessment

[2:33:20] and sensitivity analysis and source

[2:33:22] water protection potential contamination

[2:33:24] study.

[2:33:28] Uh so once a decision has been made on

[2:33:30] the amending zoning bylaw by council,

[2:33:32] the Ministry of Missile Affairs and

[2:33:33] Housing will then follow through with

[2:33:35] the making a decision on the official

[2:33:37] plan amendment um after after a decision

[2:33:41] this evening. In providing staff's

[2:33:44] recommendation to council, I have

[2:33:45] considered consistency and conformity

[2:33:47] with provincial, regional, and city

[2:33:48] policies and consideration of comments

[2:33:50] received through the Ontario Ministry's

[2:33:52] Environmental Registry public review.

[2:33:55] Staff is recommending approval of the

[2:33:56] proposed amending zoning bylaw amendment

[2:33:59] as it is consistent with the provincial

[2:34:00] planning statement and conforms to the

[2:34:02] regional official plan and city official

[2:34:04] plan. Furthermore, these additional

[2:34:06] prohibitions and holding provisions

[2:34:07] ensure source water protection is imp is

[2:34:11] uh protected and reports that are

[2:34:13] required uh are obtained through the

[2:34:16] continued review at the detailed design

[2:34:18] stage. So I want to thank you all for

[2:34:20] your time and I'm available for

[2:34:22] questions on this matter.

[2:34:24] Does anybody have any questions?

[2:34:28] I don't see any, Melissa. Some of us,

[2:34:30] there's three of us who've been here

[2:34:32] since day one on this project and we

[2:34:34] missed our targets. This was one of the

[2:34:36] properties where we missed our targets.

[2:34:37] So, I'm thrilled to see this going

[2:34:39] forward. I know it's going to be a while

[2:34:41] yet, but at least it's going forward. It

[2:34:43] provides some rental housing, which is

[2:34:46] exciting for all of us here. So, thank

[2:34:48] you.

[2:34:49] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:34:50] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:34:50] >> Okay. So on this one here, councelor

[2:34:52] » Okay. So on this one here, councelor

[2:34:52] Ernshaw, you have the motion.

[2:35:25] I do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. It's

[2:35:27] moved by me and seconded by councelor

[2:35:29] Cooper that council approves the

[2:35:31] proposed zoning bylaw amendment with

[2:35:33] additional sight specific and holding

[2:35:35] provisions for the property located at

[2:35:38] 55 Kurr Street for a mixeduse

[2:35:41] development with 445 dwelling units and

[2:35:44] approximately 113.9

[2:35:46] square meters of retail at grade and

[2:35:50] that council deems that adequate notice

[2:35:51] was provided for the public meeting held

[2:35:53] December 10th, 2019. 19 and that a

[2:35:57] further public meeting is not considered

[2:35:58] necessary and that the corresponding

[2:36:01] official plan amendment has been posted

[2:36:04] and comments closed on the Environmental

[2:36:06] Registry of Ontario ERO number 025-0194

[2:36:12] website and further that the bylaw

[2:36:15] attached to report 26-y

[2:36:18] PG in appendix D be presented to council

[2:36:23] for enactment.

[2:36:27] Are there any questions from council on

[2:36:29] this? Any comments?

[2:36:32] Seeing none, we'll ask the clerk for

[2:36:34] that vote.

[2:36:36] Opening voting.

[2:36:42] Closing voting.

[2:36:45] That carries unanimously.

[2:36:49] There you go, Elden.

[2:36:53] So, we're going to uh skip to Cherry

[2:36:55] Blossom Road one uh next. So, that

[2:36:58] report is 26-002PG

[2:37:01] recommendation report for official plan,

[2:37:03] amendment, and zoning bylaw amendment

[2:37:06] 165 Cherry Blossom Road. And we have

[2:37:08] Kate Wills from HS MHC's uh planning

[2:37:12] speaking on behalf of the applicant.

[2:37:15] Welcome again, Kate. You will have five

[2:37:17] minutes.

[2:37:19] And we have Eric Devos is also in

[2:37:23] attendance in person to answer any

[2:37:25] questions that we may have. Is that

[2:37:26] correct?

[2:37:29] » Sorry.

[2:37:30] >> Is Eric here to answer questions? It

[2:37:32] » Is Eric here to answer questions? It

[2:37:32] says in my script. Is he here?

[2:37:35] >> No. Okay.

[2:37:36] » No. Okay.

[2:37:36] >> I don't know if he's in here.

[2:37:37] » I don't know if he's in here.

[2:37:37] >> I don't believe he's involved. Eric's

[2:37:39] » I don't believe he's involved. Eric's

[2:37:39] not involved in the application.

[2:37:40] >> Oh, okay.

[2:37:42] » Oh, okay.

[2:37:42] >> He He's Okay. He was a co-op student at

[2:37:45] » He He's Okay. He was a co-op student at

[2:37:45] our office. He's not with us anymore. Is

[2:37:48] he here? Okay. We have a strong woman at

[2:37:50] the mic who's going to carry the whole

[2:37:51] thing. That's

[2:37:52] >> You got it. You got it.

[2:37:54] » You got it. You got it.

[2:37:54] >> Um, good evening, mayor, members of

[2:37:56] » Um, good evening, mayor, members of

[2:37:56] council, and public. Um, thank you for

[2:37:59] taking the time for this application

[2:38:01] this evening. Um, this application has

[2:38:04] been presented to you previously for 165

[2:38:07] Cherry Blossom Road. There haven't been

[2:38:09] any changes since our last um,

[2:38:13] presentation. U, I'll just do a quick

[2:38:16] recap. Uh there's an existing dwelling

[2:38:18] unit uh fronting onto Cherry Blossom

[2:38:20] Road. Um there's also frontage onto

[2:38:23] Boxwood Drive. The applicant is looking

[2:38:25] to sever three lots from the property

[2:38:28] and they would be serviced privately for

[2:38:30] water and septic.

[2:38:33] Um the sight specific um applications

[2:38:37] relate to the official plan. Uh the

[2:38:39] first being that this the site is

[2:38:42] designated future urban reserve. We're

[2:38:44] amending the or the site designation to

[2:38:47] low/medium

[2:38:49] density residential with sight specific

[2:38:51] policy to allow for the private services

[2:38:54] and um this will allow for gentle in int

[2:38:57] sorry gentle intensification

[2:39:00] um with similar lot sizes to what exists

[2:39:02] in the neighborhood today.

[2:39:04] In terms of the zoning bylaw amendment,

[2:39:07] the current zoning is agricultural A1

[2:39:09] and the proposed zoning would be

[2:39:11] residential one. Uh we're asking for a

[2:39:14] sight specific which would be a minor

[2:39:16] reduction in the minimum lot area from

[2:39:18] 3,000 square meters to 2700 square

[2:39:20] meters which again aligns with the uh

[2:39:23] lots in the nearby uh neighborhood as

[2:39:25] well. Um I'm just here to say that we've

[2:39:29] had a chance to review uh the staff

[2:39:31] report and recommendation and we support

[2:39:34] um everything that is being proposed by

[2:39:36] staff uh for approval. I'm here to

[2:39:39] answer any questions that uh members of

[2:39:41] council um or the mayor may have and

[2:39:44] thank you for your time.

[2:39:48] >> Does anyone have any questions for Kate?

[2:39:51] » Does anyone have any questions for Kate?

[2:39:51] >> I see none. You got off easy tonight.

[2:39:53] » I see none. You got off easy tonight.

[2:39:53] That's great.

[2:39:54] >> Thank you.

[2:39:55] » Thank you.

[2:39:55] >> Um and Melissa, you're back up again on

[2:39:59] » Um and Melissa, you're back up again on

[2:39:59] this one.

[2:40:09] Go ahead.

[2:40:10] >> Afternoon or good evening I should say.

[2:40:12] » Afternoon or good evening I should say.

[2:40:12] Yes, I'm presenting on uh the

[2:40:15] recommendation of staffs.

[2:40:20] So I'll be presenting staff's

[2:40:22] recommendation on the official plan

[2:40:23] amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for

[2:40:25] 165 Cherry Blossom Road and it's related

[2:40:27] to O1 1125.

[2:40:30] See it there, but it's not popping up on

[2:40:32] the screen here. There we go. Wonderful.

[2:40:34] Thank you.

[2:40:37] So again uh the um site is located at

[2:40:42] 165 Jerry Blossom Road and the official

[2:40:44] plan current official plan designation

[2:40:46] is future urban reserve and the existing

[2:40:48] zoning of the land is agricultural A1.

[2:40:52] So I have some depictions of the

[2:40:54] proposed zoning and proposed official

[2:40:56] plan designation. So they're proposing

[2:40:58] to take it from Future Urban Reserve to

[2:41:01] the low medium density residential with

[2:41:02] sight specific policy 129 to permit a

[2:41:04] maximum of four residential lots for

[2:41:07] single detached dwelling on private

[2:41:09] services.

[2:41:10] The proposed zoning bylaw amendment

[2:41:12] before council is to amend the zoning

[2:41:13] bylaw from the existing agricultural A1

[2:41:16] to proposed residential one zone with a

[2:41:18] sight specific provision to permit lot

[2:41:20] areas of 2,700 square meters.

[2:41:26] In considering uh the recommendation and

[2:41:30] uh my recommendation to council, the

[2:41:32] following has been considered.

[2:41:34] Consistency and conformity with

[2:41:35] provincial, regional, and city policies,

[2:41:37] good planning, and comments received

[2:41:38] through the circulation of the

[2:41:40] application.

[2:41:41] Through the circulation of the

[2:41:42] application and the public meeting held

[2:41:44] in November, no comments were received

[2:41:46] from members of the public. In addition,

[2:41:48] no members of the public requested

[2:41:49] additional information or requested to

[2:41:51] be added to the notification list. All

[2:41:53] comments that were received were

[2:41:54] addressed through the official plan

[2:41:55] amendment and zoning bylaw amendment or

[2:41:58] will be addressed through future consent

[2:42:00] applications should council approve this

[2:42:02] uh official plan amendment and zoning

[2:42:04] bylaw amendment. This evening, staff is

[2:42:07] recommending approval of the proposed

[2:42:08] official plan amen amendment and zoning

[2:42:10] bylaw amendment as they are consistent

[2:42:12] with the provincial planning statement

[2:42:14] and they conform to the regional

[2:42:15] official plan and city official city of

[2:42:18] Cambridge official plan. Thank you for

[2:42:20] your time and I'm available for

[2:42:21] questions.

[2:42:23] Does anyone have any questions for

[2:42:25] Melissa?

[2:42:27] >> I see none. Great. Thank you.

[2:42:29] » I see none. Great. Thank you.

[2:42:29] >> Thank you for your time.

[2:42:31] » Thank you for your time.

[2:42:31] >> Okay. And councelor Shre, you have this

[2:42:33] » Okay. And councelor Shre, you have this

[2:42:33] motion.

[2:42:40] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Moved by myself,

[2:42:43] seconded by councelor Divine. Um that uh

[2:42:48] recommend uh 26-002PG

[2:42:52] recommendation report for official plan

[2:42:54] amendment and zoning bylaw amendment 165

[2:42:57] Cherry Blossom Road. The council

[2:43:00] approves the proposed official plan

[2:43:01] amendment 98 for the property located at

[2:43:05] 165 Cherry Blossom Road to permit a new

[2:43:08] residential development on private

[2:43:10] services and that council approve the

[2:43:12] proposed zoning bylaw amendment with

[2:43:15] sightsp specific provisions for the

[2:43:17] property located at 165 Cherry Blossom

[2:43:20] Road and that the bylaws attached to

[2:43:22] report 25-041-PG

[2:43:26] be presented to council for enactment.

[2:43:31] Does council have any questions?

[2:43:34] Any comments?

[2:43:37] Okay, we'll go for that vote.

[2:43:40] Opening voting.

[2:43:46] Closing voting.

[2:43:48] That carries unanimously.

[2:43:51] Okay, there you go, Kate. Good night.

[2:43:55] So, next we're going to do um the

[2:43:58] professional fire services fire station

[2:44:00] 4 expansion.

[2:44:02] And do we have somebody here to speak to

[2:44:06] this? If I'm sure council's going to

[2:44:09] have some questions.

[2:44:15] Um and councelor Roberts, you have that

[2:44:17] motion. We could put that on the floor

[2:44:19] in the meantime.

[2:44:29] Yep. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Through you,

[2:44:31] u moved by myself, seconded by councelor

[2:44:34] Cooper. Recommendation that request for

[2:44:36] quotation number Q25-85,

[2:44:39] Professional Services Fire Station 4

[2:44:41] expansion be awarded to DP AI

[2:44:44] Architecture, Inc. in the amount of

[2:44:46] $328,440

[2:44:50] excluding applicable taxes. and that the

[2:44:52] budget in capital project A/00621-30

[2:44:57] be increased by a total of 105,421

[2:45:02] funded from development charges related

[2:45:03] to fire services.

[2:45:07] » Okay, I'm sure we have questions on this

[2:45:09] one. Do we not? Councelor Hamilton.

[2:45:14] >> Thank you, Mayor Getting through you.

[2:45:16] » Thank you, Mayor Getting through you.

[2:45:16] Hello to you both. Thank you for staying

[2:45:17] this long. Um, my question obviously has

[2:45:20] to do with the adjustments to the

[2:45:22] project. So, elevating the cost by

[2:45:27] $15,421

[2:45:30] because a review of the elements of the

[2:45:31] project's original scope identified the

[2:45:33] needs for this adjustment to be made.

[2:45:35] So, what exactly were those needs? What

[2:45:37] was omitted or missed in the first

[2:45:39] assessment that caused that fluctuation?

[2:45:42] Or why do we have an additional $105,000

[2:45:45] that's being added on now?

[2:45:48] U through your your worship. Uh the

[2:45:50] original scope, the original project

[2:45:52] itself was designed for fire station 5.

[2:45:55] Um part of the fire services m

[2:45:57] >> sorry could you bring the mic up? I

[2:45:58] » sorry could you bring the mic up? I

[2:45:58] can't hear you.

[2:45:59] >> Sorry.

[2:45:59] » Sorry.

[2:46:00] >> Thanks Olu.

[2:46:01] » Thanks Olu.

[2:46:01] >> Sorry threeear worship. Um so the

[2:46:03] » Sorry threeear worship. Um so the

[2:46:04] original scope of the project was for

[2:46:05] fire station 5. The intent was to

[2:46:08] renovate or expand fire station 5. Um

[2:46:11] following uh the fire uh master plan and

[2:46:14] further assessments by the department,

[2:46:16] it was determined that that location

[2:46:18] wasn't the appropriate um location for

[2:46:21] expansion.

[2:46:23] Fire fire station 4 was recommended for

[2:46:25] the revision and the project itself the

[2:46:28] construction project itself was re was

[2:46:30] uh corrected um was expanded to to

[2:46:33] include um the actual costing

[2:46:37] um the professional services

[2:46:40] has increased the professional services

[2:46:42] cost has increased to correlate with the

[2:46:45] actual cost to reflect the cost of the

[2:46:47] construction that's needed. Fire station

[2:46:49] 5 is a newer facility than fire station

[2:46:51] 4. If we're moving sites based on the

[2:46:55] needs of the community, um the costs uh

[2:46:58] increased based on that.

[2:47:01] >> Thank you. I wasn't aware that it was

[2:47:02] » Thank you. I wasn't aware that it was

[2:47:02] moving from five to four. So that's

[2:47:05] that's very helpful. Thank you.

[2:47:08] >> But can I just ask you something on that

[2:47:10] » But can I just ask you something on that

[2:47:10] olu? We put it the budget was for

[2:47:13] station four though.

[2:47:15] >> That's that's correct your worship. Um

[2:47:17] » That's that's correct your worship. Um

[2:47:17] so original the original project was a

[2:47:20] 2025 project for fire station five sorry

[2:47:23] 2024 for fire station 5. Um but during

[2:47:28] the assessment when the fire station um

[2:47:30] master fire master plan was being

[2:47:32] carried out it was determined it was

[2:47:33] four. So the project was revised at

[2:47:36] capital budget working group to fire

[2:47:38] station five uh four. So in 2025 it was

[2:47:42] for fire station four.

[2:47:45] So you are correct.

[2:47:47] >> So when this budget was done for this

[2:47:49] » So when this budget was done for this

[2:47:49] year though, we were thinking it was for

[2:47:51] station four.

[2:47:53] >> That's correct.

[2:47:54] » That's correct.

[2:47:54] >> So you're asking for an increase based

[2:47:57] » So you're asking for an increase based

[2:47:57] on the budget that we just passed.

[2:48:03] » That's that's through your That's

[2:48:06] >> It just wasn't caught that it was the

[2:48:08] » It just wasn't caught that it was the

[2:48:08] wrong amount for the one we were just

[2:48:11] >> approved. So this project is a 2025

[2:48:15] » approved. So this project is a 2025

[2:48:16] project. So it was for the last budget

[2:48:17] cycle. Um at the start of the project

[2:48:20] was already ongoing when we when the

[2:48:23] fire station the fire mass plan got

[2:48:24] approved when the assessments were done

[2:48:27] and it was at that point that we

[2:48:29] realized that we the growth or the work

[2:48:31] was needed for four not five. So this

[2:48:34] was an ongoing project in 2025 would

[2:48:36] have been part of the 2024 budget

[2:48:39] process. The construction work is it

[2:48:43] reflects 2024 sorry the construction

[2:48:46] project reflects fire station 4 and it's

[2:48:49] been budget budgeted for accordingly.

[2:48:52] So from the construction side of things

[2:48:55] we're fine from from a budget

[2:48:56] perspective but from the professional

[2:48:59] services to design this is the design

[2:49:01] project so to design the renovations

[2:49:04] um it was a 2025 project so it was two

[2:49:07] two cycles ago. Okay, I'm going to go to

[2:49:10] counselors now and then I'll come back

[2:49:12] to this because I'm taking up too much

[2:49:15] time here. Councelor Roberts,

[2:49:18] >> thanks Mayor Jan and through you. Thank

[2:49:19] » thanks Mayor Jan and through you. Thank

[2:49:20] you so much. Um, so are we going to

[2:49:23] eventually get to station five or have

[2:49:25] we determined that station five is okay?

[2:49:28] This one was just in worse shape. Can

[2:49:30] you just give us a little bit of context

[2:49:31] there why it changed?

[2:49:33] >> So the project So through your worship.

[2:49:35] » So the project So through your worship.

[2:49:35] So the project came in through the fire

[2:49:37] department based on the needs of the of

[2:49:38] of the department. The intent was to

[2:49:42] expand the services at fire station 5.

[2:49:46] Then an assessment was done where it was

[2:49:48] determined that the actual need was in

[2:49:50] fire station 4 and not fire station 5.

[2:49:53] Hence why the project was changed from

[2:49:56] fire station 5 to fire station 4. Um and

[2:50:00] the construction reflects it.

[2:50:02] professional service didn't because it

[2:50:04] had started when that assessment was

[2:50:06] completed by the fire department.

[2:50:08] >> Okay.

[2:50:10] » Okay.

[2:50:10] Councelor Shwary, Mayor Leot, um for the

[2:50:15] sake of public, not everybody knows the

[2:50:18] address of station four or five or like

[2:50:22] I I had to look it up because I can't

[2:50:24] remember. But it's it's good to let them

[2:50:26] know where it's located, the address

[2:50:28] because it's nowhere on here.

[2:50:30] >> Okay. Off the top of my head, I would

[2:50:31] » Okay. Off the top of my head, I would

[2:50:31] not know that

[2:50:33] >> St. Andrew

[2:50:34] » St. Andrew

[2:50:34] >> through you, Mayor Leot. Excuse me.

[2:50:36] » through you, Mayor Leot. Excuse me.

[2:50:36] Station five is on Main Street and uh

[2:50:40] station 4 is on St. Andrew Street at the

[2:50:42] top of the hill. Um just to go back to

[2:50:45] your question, councelor Roberts, the

[2:50:47] reason why um uh Chief Arnold had

[2:50:50] switched, our data showed us that the

[2:50:52] call volume had switched from station 5

[2:50:54] to station 4. So the call volume went up

[2:50:56] on station 4. The other piece that uh we

[2:50:58] were looking at is geography. So if we

[2:51:01] need to get uh two stations or eight

[2:51:04] firefighters to a fire scene in 8

[2:51:06] minutes, it's a lot harder uh

[2:51:08] geographically in station four's area.

[2:51:11] So by doubling that up now, we can

[2:51:13] almost guarantee that we're going to hit

[2:51:15] that benchmark. Five is a little bit

[2:51:17] easier because you have station one in

[2:51:19] that area that can come down and assist

[2:51:20] them. So that was kind of the the data

[2:51:23] behind why we we we switched. Councelor

[2:51:28] Kempson.

[2:51:31] >> Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And I

[2:51:32] » Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And I

[2:51:32] may be following along with your thought

[2:51:36] process. So when we approved

[2:51:42] the renovations to station five

[2:51:46] first, but then the decision was made to

[2:51:49] change or to reallocate those funds to

[2:51:51] station four.

[2:51:54] Other than council approving the fire

[2:51:58] master plan, which I guess indicated the

[2:52:02] necessity for this change,

[2:52:04] did who made the decision to alter what

[2:52:10] council had already approved or did we

[2:52:13] do that by approving the fire master

[2:52:16] plan

[2:52:18] >> through your worship? So

[2:52:21] » through your worship? So

[2:52:21] fire station so council approved the

[2:52:25] budget process the capital projects in

[2:52:28] 2025. So that change was done in through

[2:52:32] the capital budget and process in 2024

[2:52:35] and we received council's approval to do

[2:52:37] that. So it was passed along with the

[2:52:39] budget. So in 2025 fire station 4 was

[2:52:43] was design was approved.

[2:52:48] » Okay. Thank you. That makes sense.

[2:52:51] >> Okay, now you've got me again. So I

[2:52:54] » Okay, now you've got me again. So I

[2:52:54] understand it and I and and I remember

[2:52:56] the presentations talking about the

[2:52:58] switch over to station four because of

[2:53:01] the need there. It had been mistakenly

[2:53:04] thought it should be station five, but

[2:53:06] it turned out to be station four that

[2:53:07] needed and council went along with that

[2:53:10] and agreed with that. Um, and I realize

[2:53:13] you didn't make the budget decisions. I

[2:53:15] I understand that you you're up here

[2:53:17] though speaking to something that you

[2:53:19] had no play in. Um so you're asking for

[2:53:23] 47% more than what was actually budgeted

[2:53:26] for. Um I got that amount from

[2:53:30] >> That's correct.

[2:53:31] » That's correct.

[2:53:31] >> Yes. Um,

[2:53:34] » Yes. Um,

[2:53:34] so it when we decided during the budget

[2:53:38] cycle for 2026 to go with station 4,

[2:53:42] then you were caught at the end of the

[2:53:44] year with nobody to do that change in

[2:53:46] the budget, right? So that's that's not

[2:53:48] that was that's not on you. You're now

[2:53:50] coming to say

[2:53:53] this wasn't done, should have been done,

[2:53:56] wasn't done. It's not bad on you, but

[2:53:59] you're telling us you cannot do what we

[2:54:02] voted to have done without this

[2:54:04] increase. Correct.

[2:54:06] >> That is correct. We worship.

[2:54:07] » That is correct. We worship.

[2:54:07] >> Okay, I got it.

[2:54:10] » Okay, I got it.

[2:54:10] Okay. Does anybody else have any

[2:54:11] questions?

[2:54:14] Oh. Oh, councelor,

[2:54:17] go ahead.

[2:54:18] >> Yes. Thank you, uh, Mayor Liot. Um, I

[2:54:20] » Yes. Thank you, uh, Mayor Liot. Um, I

[2:54:20] have questions about the reserve fund.

[2:54:23] Um, on page 476 of our materials,

[2:54:28] uh, it, uh, speaks of the development

[2:54:30] charges fire services reserve fund. I'm

[2:54:34] wondering, uh, what is the status of

[2:54:36] that fund and after this additional draw

[2:54:39] down of it, how much will be left? I

[2:54:42] wonder if I could have answers to those

[2:54:44] questions.

[2:54:46] >> Sheena, can you speak to that please?

[2:54:50] » Thank you. through you, Mayor Leget. I

[2:54:53] do not have that information on hand at

[2:54:56] the moment. I would need a moment to um

[2:54:59] pull up that figure for you. However, I

[2:55:02] can say with certainty that I have

[2:55:04] connected with staff prior to the

[2:55:07] issuance of this report and there was

[2:55:09] adequate reserve dollars in the

[2:55:11] development charge reserve for this

[2:55:14] expenditure.

[2:55:21] Okay. Um, and you're assuring us that

[2:55:24] it's going to be $105,000 and you're not

[2:55:26] going to be asking for for more money in

[2:55:28] like a couple of months from us. Just

[2:55:30] just

[2:55:33] I shouldn't hold you to that, should I?

[2:55:35] Don't answer. Yeah. Don't Oh, fine.

[2:55:38] Fine. Help. You are. He's saying don't

[2:55:41] answer. Uh, councelor Roberts.

[2:55:45] >> Yes. Sorry. Just one quick question.

[2:55:46] » Yes. Sorry. Just one quick question.

[2:55:46] Thanks, Mayor Jan. And while this

[2:55:48] construction is happening, this this um

[2:55:50] fire station is in my ward. Um what's

[2:55:53] going to happen in terms of fire

[2:55:55] response? Are they still going to be

[2:55:56] actively working out of that building or

[2:55:58] are they going to have to be relocated?

[2:56:00] How is that going to work logistically

[2:56:02] >> through your worship? Um when um we have

[2:56:05] » through your worship? Um when um we have

[2:56:05] fire stations under renovations, there's

[2:56:07] temporary accommodation that's usually

[2:56:09] placed at or near the the site um while

[2:56:13] the works is ongoing. And we tend to at

[2:56:16] times relocate certain staff to other

[2:56:18] fire stations that has capacity.

[2:56:20] But the goal is to ensure that response

[2:56:22] time. We work with the fire department,

[2:56:24] make sure they have their adequate and

[2:56:25] appropriate response times if for any

[2:56:27] emergencies.

[2:56:28] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:56:32] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:56:32] >> Okay. So, I think we're ready uh to

[2:56:37] » Okay. So, I think we're ready uh to

[2:56:37] Did we put the motion on the floor? Did

[2:56:39] somebody read that? Okay. I'm starting

[2:56:40] to lose track here. Okay. So, we're

[2:56:42] ready for the vote.

[2:56:54] timing is just bad here. Okay, opening.

[2:57:04] » Closing voting.

[2:57:06] And that carries unanimously.

[2:57:13] Okay, that was approved.

[2:57:17] Um,

[2:57:18] so what do I need to get? There's some

[2:57:21] things we may not get to tonight. So,

[2:57:23] I'm trying to skip around do the must

[2:57:25] dos tonight. So the next would be the

[2:57:29] comprehensive

[2:57:35] um

[2:57:44] 10

[2:57:51] » 11. Sorry.

[2:57:53] >> No.

[2:57:56] » No.

[2:57:56] Yeah,

[2:57:57] >> I'll stop presentation first.

[2:58:00] » I'll stop presentation first.

[2:58:00] >> Okay. So, now we're going to move into

[2:58:02] » Okay. So, now we're going to move into

[2:58:02] consideration of reports and the first

[2:58:04] report is 25-034PG

[2:58:08] comprehensive zoning bylaw review phase

[2:58:10] one of based residential zones. And we

[2:58:13] have Brian Cooper, senior planner here

[2:58:15] to present. Welcome, Brian again. Well,

[2:58:17] you've been here all night. So,

[2:58:20] um, can you also in your presentation

[2:58:23] address I think it was Mr. Re who spoke

[2:58:26] about the $250,000?

[2:58:28] Could you tell us if that's the correct

[2:58:30] amount?

[2:58:31] >> Did you catch that when he said that?

[2:58:34] » Did you catch that when he said that?

[2:58:34] >> Yes, I did. Thank Thank you, Madam

[2:58:35] » Yes, I did. Thank Thank you, Madam

[2:58:35] Mayor. I can I can speak to that. Maybe

[2:58:37] I'll start with that uh before I forget.

[2:58:40] Um so uh under the half program yes

[2:58:43] there's a $250,000 aotment for

[2:58:46] professional services for this

[2:58:48] particular project itself but but you

[2:58:50] know the entirety of the half program is

[2:58:52] is far greater than that. So that that a

[2:58:54] lotment was for professional services in

[2:58:57] support of the zoning bylaw review. So

[2:58:59] that helped pay for things like the

[2:59:01] consultants that we retained that did

[2:59:03] some of the engagement and some of the

[2:59:04] visualizations and actually working on

[2:59:06] the bylaw itself. So that's where that

[2:59:08] came from.

[2:59:10] Okay, thank you. Go ahead.

[2:59:13] >> Thank you and good evening, Mayor Liot,

[2:59:14] » Thank you and good evening, Mayor Liot,

[2:59:14] council, and the public. Tonight, I am

[2:59:16] here to reintroduce the city zoning

[2:59:18] review project, which was deferred in

[2:59:20] December of last year. And the purpose

[2:59:22] of this presentation is to provide

[2:59:24] council with information and context to

[2:59:27] make a decision on this important

[2:59:28] project.

[2:59:34] So briefly on where we've been and what

[2:59:36] we've done on this project uh which is

[2:59:38] which as you know is a half uh project.

[2:59:42] Um it started with introducing it to

[2:59:44] council formally um back in October of

[2:59:46] 2024 through a direction report and

[2:59:48] following that we proceeded to update

[2:59:50] the bylaw where it was received at a

[2:59:52] statuto public meeting in May of 2025.

[2:59:55] We completed a comprehensive engagement

[2:59:57] program at the direction of council

[2:59:59] through spring and summer of last year

[3:00:01] and reported back on the results of that

[3:00:04] engagement in October of 2025. This led

[3:00:07] to the staff recommended bylaw in

[3:00:09] December which was deferred to tonight's

[3:00:11] meeting.

[3:00:15] So a zoning bylaw is an important

[3:00:17] regulatory tool that sets out what

[3:00:20] people can do on their property. things

[3:00:22] like permitted uses, building heights,

[3:00:24] parking requirements, and setbacks,

[3:00:26] among other rules and regulations.

[3:00:29] Um, a zoning bylaw is especially

[3:00:31] important because it's the legal tool

[3:00:33] that implements a city's official plan,

[3:00:35] which is the long range vision created

[3:00:37] by the community of how a city is to is

[3:00:39] planned to grow over time. And so, the

[3:00:41] new zoning bylaw that we recommend is an

[3:00:44] opportunity for council to set the rules

[3:00:45] and the communitywide standards that new

[3:00:47] housing must meet. And the last time

[3:00:49] Cambridge Council had an opportunity to

[3:00:52] set out the rules and new zoning bylaws

[3:00:54] was back in 1986.

[3:00:56] And the world and housing sector has

[3:00:57] fundamentally changed since that point

[3:00:59] in time. And this is evident in the in

[3:01:02] with the increasing frequency of

[3:01:03] exceptions to the bylaw that we

[3:01:05] routinely approve. To date, the city has

[3:01:07] processed over 500 exceptions to the

[3:01:09] bylaw.

[3:01:11] A functioning zoning ball should be one

[3:01:13] in which the city is not regularly

[3:01:14] amending it. Council should set the

[3:01:17] rules in place and projects should

[3:01:18] conform to those rules. And this is what

[3:01:20] the recommended bylaw is intended to do.

[3:01:23] It will reduce the time, cost, and

[3:01:25] complexity of the rules for property

[3:01:27] owners to support homes of all types by

[3:01:29] all housing providers with regulations

[3:01:31] established by council.

[3:01:36] Now, the types of homes we're primarily

[3:01:38] talking about are shown on the screen.

[3:01:39] These are designs from CHC who created

[3:01:42] uh building permit ready drawings that

[3:01:45] can be used across Canada to expedite

[3:01:47] housing. So these are homes like single

[3:01:50] and twotory additional residential

[3:01:51] units, stacked town houses and other

[3:01:54] low-rise housing types.

[3:02:00] And these are some real world examples

[3:02:02] that have been built in Cambridge that

[3:02:04] are similar to that and which this bylaw

[3:02:08] supports. So on the top left is an

[3:02:10] example of an ARU above a garage, often

[3:02:12] referred to as a coach house dwelling.

[3:02:14] The top right is an example of a

[3:02:16] townhouse project that was built onto an

[3:02:18] existing heritage home that was retained

[3:02:20] and integrated into the project.

[3:02:22] Infilled town houses are shown in the

[3:02:24] bottom left. And finally, an example of

[3:02:27] a purpose-built low-rise apartment. And

[3:02:29] this recommended bylaw really supports

[3:02:31] all these housing types provided that

[3:02:33] all the rules can be met on for for the

[3:02:36] project.

[3:02:40] Now, a lot of the conversation on zoning

[3:02:42] and housing focuses on the private for

[3:02:45] and for-profit sector, which makes sense

[3:02:47] since this is the sector that builds

[3:02:49] most housing in Canada. However, this

[3:02:52] bio supports all housing providers. So,

[3:02:54] on the screen is an example of a recent

[3:02:56] co-ousing project that was built in

[3:02:58] Ottawa. So, these four individuals came

[3:03:00] together. They previously lived live

[3:03:02] lived independently and came together to

[3:03:05] build a co-ousing project where they

[3:03:06] each have their own unit as well as

[3:03:08] shared spaces. And this by supports

[3:03:10] these types of grassroot innovative

[3:03:12] housing options. In Cambridge, you

[3:03:15] typically can't do this this type of

[3:03:16] project without going through extensive

[3:03:18] planning applications like zoning and

[3:03:20] official plan amendments which are cost

[3:03:22] and time prohibitive to everyday people.

[3:03:25] The bottom example are townos uh built

[3:03:28] by the nonforprofit sector as another

[3:03:30] example of the types of homes that this

[3:03:32] bylaw supports.

[3:03:37] So this chart summarizes some of the key

[3:03:39] standards of the existing and

[3:03:41] recommended bylaw. The new bylaw updates

[3:03:44] the main rules that the city is

[3:03:45] routinely amending housing type and

[3:03:48] density limits. So in the current bylaw,

[3:03:50] most residential zones only permit

[3:03:52] singles with up to two arus. And this

[3:03:55] new bylaw will permit all housing types

[3:03:57] provided they meet requirements like

[3:03:58] height setbacks, parking, landscaping,

[3:04:01] and among other rules. The current bylaw

[3:04:04] also limits the number of units through

[3:04:06] density controls. And so the new bylaw,

[3:04:09] instead of having a density limit, uh

[3:04:11] the number of units is really limited

[3:04:12] based on how a development fits on the

[3:04:14] property. So those those requirements

[3:04:16] like parking and setbacks, that's what

[3:04:18] constrains how many units can be built

[3:04:20] on a property.

[3:04:22] Many other regulations are the same or

[3:04:25] where there are gaps, the new bylaw

[3:04:26] includes improvements. So building

[3:04:28] heights, currently the bylaw has no

[3:04:31] height limit for most residential areas

[3:04:33] and the new bylaw introduces some

[3:04:35] context appropriate uh building heights.

[3:04:38] uh front yards. Uh we're introducing a

[3:04:41] standard that requires the averaging of

[3:04:42] front yards for new infill so that it

[3:04:44] meets existing streetscapes. Side, rear

[3:04:47] yard, and parking and parking

[3:04:48] requirements are all similar between the

[3:04:50] two bylaws.

[3:04:55] And so I I mentioned averaging of

[3:04:58] sideyards. So this is what this image

[3:05:00] illustrates this concept. Uh so this

[3:05:02] this is a street where homes are built

[3:05:04] quite far away from the the street. It's

[3:05:07] a really defining attribute of that

[3:05:08] street. And uh normally um you could

[3:05:13] build all the way up to 6 mters from

[3:05:14] this front lot line. And that's what

[3:05:16] that blue line shows. That's where

[3:05:18] currently you could build a house uh in

[3:05:20] this area of the city. The red line is

[3:05:23] what the new bylaw would require and

[3:05:25] that's an averaging of the abuing

[3:05:27] properties. That's the new setback for

[3:05:29] this particular area. So that setback

[3:05:32] shifts based on the context of the

[3:05:34] street. And the gray area is an area

[3:05:36] where no development can happen or it

[3:05:38] cannot be severed. It could not be built

[3:05:40] on based on this the street condition.

[3:05:43] So this is a new regulation that's

[3:05:45] designed to ensure new housing fits in

[3:05:46] with existing street streetscapes which

[3:05:48] is a defining character of

[3:05:49] neighborhoods.

[3:05:53] So the zoning review is one project of

[3:05:56] many that provide an opportunity for the

[3:05:57] public to shape how the city grows. And

[3:05:59] upcoming projects include the city's

[3:06:02] official plan review which is uh to

[3:06:05] start this year through 2028. Secondary

[3:06:08] planning. We have ongoing secondary plan

[3:06:10] reviews like the Preston secondary plan

[3:06:11] study that'll result in updated uh

[3:06:14] policies for that area of the city and

[3:06:16] ultimately updated zoning regulations

[3:06:18] for that specific area of the city. Uh

[3:06:20] future zoning bylaw reviews. So every 5

[3:06:22] years we'll be reviewing our bylaw where

[3:06:24] it works where it can be improved. as

[3:06:27] well as there will be opportunities for

[3:06:28] public input through future sight

[3:06:30] specific development applications like

[3:06:32] subdivisions cases where zoning

[3:06:34] amendments are still required as well as

[3:06:36] minor variance in land division

[3:06:38] applications.

[3:06:42] And tonight's recommendation is that

[3:06:43] council adopt the updated zoning bylaw

[3:06:45] which reflects provincial and city

[3:06:47] official plan policies to help reduce

[3:06:49] barriers in creating different types of

[3:06:51] housing. Thank you.

[3:06:55] are there any questions?

[3:06:59] Councelor Roberts.

[3:07:07] Thank you, Mayor Jan, and thanks so

[3:07:09] much, Brian, for all your work on this

[3:07:11] and for your presentation today. I have

[3:07:13] a number of questions, but I'll just

[3:07:14] start with one. Um, so one thing that

[3:07:17] folks are are quite concerned about is

[3:07:19] the having a single family home being

[3:07:21] demolished and like a large scale

[3:07:23] development going into some of our

[3:07:25] existing residential neighborhoods. So

[3:07:27] for example, on that one image that you

[3:07:28] showed with the four different um one

[3:07:30] that might be more jarring for folks

[3:07:32] would be like the stack townhouse, like

[3:07:34] something like that happening in a in a

[3:07:36] residential neighborhood. Um would most

[3:07:38] of our typical um properties in

[3:07:42] Cambridge allow for something like that

[3:07:44] to happen or is I'll just leave it at

[3:07:48] that. You madam mayor. So so no a

[3:07:52] typical standard uh residential lot is

[3:07:54] not going to allow a stack townhouse

[3:07:56] development which is usually 12 units or

[3:07:58] more right because 12 units requires uh

[3:08:01] you know 1.25 spaces for parking per

[3:08:04] unit. So that's quite a bit of parking.

[3:08:05] you just physically can't accommodate

[3:08:07] all the requirements of the bylaw,

[3:08:09] setbacks, landscaping, parking, uh for

[3:08:13] for that type of development. So

[3:08:14] certainly larger lots, yes, there could

[3:08:17] be opportunity for that style of

[3:08:18] housing, but but most lots would be

[3:08:21] known.

[3:08:22] >> Okay. Thank you,

[3:08:25] » Okay. Thank you,

[3:08:25] >> Councelor Hamilton.

[3:08:27] » Councelor Hamilton.

[3:08:27] >> Thank you, Mayor Lean through you. Thank

[3:08:29] » Thank you, Mayor Lean through you. Thank

[3:08:29] you very much, Brian, for your

[3:08:30] presentation. Um like council Roberts, I

[3:08:32] have a few questions, but I'll start

[3:08:34] with one. Um, I think a concern we've

[3:08:36] heard consistently from the public is

[3:08:38] that if we went with something like

[3:08:40] foreignbased zoning that suddenly the

[3:08:42] floodgates would open and we'd see this

[3:08:44] unpredictable variety of housing emerge

[3:08:47] that previously wouldn't have been

[3:08:48] allowed. So, can I ask you would there

[3:08:50] have been any projects that council may

[3:08:52] have previously rejected that would now

[3:08:55] be approved if we would have had the

[3:08:56] form formbbased zoning in place?

[3:08:59] >> Yeah, you madame mayor. So, from from my

[3:09:02] » Yeah, you madame mayor. So, from from my

[3:09:02] experience, uh, I would say no. There

[3:09:04] there haven't been applications that

[3:09:05] council has rejected that this bylaw

[3:09:08] would would then enable. Uh the the

[3:09:11] rules and regulations in this bylaw

[3:09:13] really are in keeping with the type of

[3:09:14] approvals that you're already giving

[3:09:16] this council past councils have given.

[3:09:18] So density housing types those sorts of

[3:09:21] things and again the setbacks are very

[3:09:23] much similar to what we already have in

[3:09:25] place now.

[3:09:26] >> Right. Thank you

[3:09:29] » Right. Thank you

[3:09:29] >> councelor Roberts.

[3:09:31] » councelor Roberts.

[3:09:32] >> Thank you Mayor Jan. Um, so Brian, I

[3:09:34] » Thank you Mayor Jan. Um, so Brian, I

[3:09:34] know that um, in our agenda package on

[3:09:37] page 347, you talk about transition um,

[3:09:39] regulations and so how those are going

[3:09:41] to apply to some of the existing

[3:09:44] applications or projects that we already

[3:09:45] have on the go. So I know um, in our our

[3:09:48] correspondence package, which we had

[3:09:50] that extra bit like little book, there

[3:09:52] was a number of people reaching out with

[3:09:54] concerns about specific projects. Are

[3:09:56] all of those transition regulations

[3:09:58] going to, and I know you can't speak to

[3:10:00] each and every one, but how are we going

[3:10:01] to address all of those issues with

[3:10:04] ongoing projects that aren't maybe going

[3:10:06] to

[3:10:07] work with this perfectly? How's that

[3:10:10] going to work in the transition?

[3:10:12] >> Yeah. So, um, in terms of transition

[3:10:15] » Yeah. So, um, in terms of transition

[3:10:15] regulations, um, this is a phase bylaw.

[3:10:18] So, any project that has already gone

[3:10:20] through council and received a sight

[3:10:21] specific approval, those remain in

[3:10:24] place. those those projects will remain

[3:10:26] under the existing bylaw that we have in

[3:10:28] effect now. Ultimately, they would be

[3:10:30] brought into the new bylaw through

[3:10:32] review and we'd be reviewing those sight

[3:10:34] specific amendments to make sure they

[3:10:36] align and we're not creating undue

[3:10:37] hardship. And and the other factor of

[3:10:39] the uh transition regulations is

[3:10:41] anything that's actually actively under

[3:10:44] review right now will continue again

[3:10:46] under the old bylaw. So if someone's

[3:10:48] made an amendment now and in the

[3:10:50] process, the rules aren't suddenly

[3:10:52] changing midstream for them.

[3:10:54] >> Okay. Thank you,

[3:10:57] » Okay. Thank you,

[3:10:58] >> Councelor Kimson. Thank you very much,

[3:11:00] » Councelor Kimson. Thank you very much,

[3:11:00] Mayor Jan. and through you. Um,

[3:11:04] on

[3:11:05] page 48 of our agenda, which I'm not

[3:11:08] sure what page it is of your report, it

[3:11:09] talks about the minimum rear yard

[3:11:11] setback

[3:11:13] um, for a detached ARU to a laneway or a

[3:11:16] street. Um, I'm thinking specifically

[3:11:20] for properties that perhaps back onto a

[3:11:24] collector or an arterial arterial road.

[3:11:27] Um, and with that setback, the minimum

[3:11:30] rear yard setback being reduced, is that

[3:11:34] going to cause difficulties with any

[3:11:36] future road widening or is that

[3:11:39] something where um we might take that

[3:11:42] into consideration

[3:11:44] um as far as

[3:11:47] we're reducing the setback from the

[3:11:49] property line, but there's already going

[3:11:51] to be enough space to allow for road

[3:11:53] widening. I'm just thinking of um some

[3:11:57] of the subdivisions that back onto

[3:12:01] um roads such as McQueen Shaver or

[3:12:03] something like that where it sort of is

[3:12:06] the the end of the city. Right now it's

[3:12:10] a new road, but might that at some point

[3:12:13] be widened and is that something that's

[3:12:15] going to cause difficulty in the future?

[3:12:18] >> Yeah, it's a it's a good question. Um I

[3:12:21] » Yeah, it's a it's a good question. Um I

[3:12:21] would say most of the time um you know

[3:12:24] through the subdivision review process

[3:12:26] road widings are taken the ultimate road

[3:12:29] requirement. So I wouldn't anticipate uh

[3:12:32] that being an issue. Um

[3:12:37] yeah, the the main the kind of the main

[3:12:39] focus of that reduced setback is is uh

[3:12:42] when it's adjacent to a lane really a

[3:12:44] laneway condition is is what we envision

[3:12:46] where that would would occur uh most

[3:12:49] often. Um you know reg regional roads

[3:12:52] and things like that they're not going

[3:12:53] to give an access permit for an ARU off

[3:12:56] can parkway for example. So I wouldn't

[3:12:58] imagine that would it would come into

[3:13:00] too much of an issue myself.

[3:13:02] >> Thank you. Councelor

[3:13:05] » Thank you. Councelor

[3:13:05] Shbury. Thank

[3:13:06] >> you, Mayor Liot. Um I just I can bring

[3:13:10] » you, Mayor Liot. Um I just I can bring

[3:13:10] up a point and then I have a question.

[3:13:13] Um when you were saying a Brian that

[3:13:17] you know in the like a question was

[3:13:19] asked in the past um if something came

[3:13:23] up to council we would we would not

[3:13:26] approve it. I think it was actually

[3:13:27] Scott Hamilton. did something ever like

[3:13:30] this say come up to council and we um

[3:13:33] didn't approve it or approve it. So I

[3:13:36] think that was kind of your question.

[3:13:37] So, what happened? Um, the reason I'm

[3:13:40] concerned about the R1, for example,

[3:13:44] Ethel Street with the new zoning bylaw,

[3:13:47] when it came to us, we said, "No, it's

[3:13:49] single homes." You know, that, you know,

[3:13:51] people paid a lot of money. It to put in

[3:13:54] in that particular lot that was empty,

[3:13:57] something other than single would not

[3:13:59] fit. But that lot would have fit more

[3:14:03] homes. it could have fit, you know, a

[3:14:05] six blacker. Um, so now though with the

[3:14:09] new zoning, that won't even come to

[3:14:11] council, that wouldn't even come to to

[3:14:14] the the people, the residents, it would

[3:14:16] just go through.

[3:14:20] » Yeah. If if a project meets the the

[3:14:23] rules in in the bylaw that we've

[3:14:24] recommended to you, correct? Uh it

[3:14:27] wouldn't trigger a zoning amendment. Um

[3:14:30] I'm not sure that particular example

[3:14:32] that you're speaking to of

[3:14:33] >> Yeah. I mean that's that would be an

[3:14:35] » Yeah. I mean that's that would be an

[3:14:35] example that in the past we would say no

[3:14:37] but now people wouldn't even know.

[3:14:41] >> Um

[3:14:43] » Um

[3:14:43] I'll come back. I have another question

[3:14:44] but I'll wait for councelor Hamilton.

[3:14:47] >> Do you want to sorry Bren if maybe miss

[3:14:49] » Do you want to sorry Bren if maybe miss

[3:14:49] Neie wanted to clarify or

[3:14:56] » through the mayor. Could I ask you to

[3:14:58] please repeat the question? And I was

[3:15:00] troubleshooting another matter.

[3:15:04] » Uh yes.

[3:15:19] » Thank Thank you. So my question was

[3:15:22] because this is a concerning because

[3:15:24] councelor Hamilton asked a question he I

[3:15:27] can't repeat it verbatim but in the p in

[3:15:31] the past if something would come to us

[3:15:33] and like we had a situation on Ethel

[3:15:35] Street and Husper where there was a

[3:15:37] bigger lot and you could fit more than

[3:15:39] single homes in and right now there's

[3:15:42] just you know lovely single homes there

[3:15:45] but with this new bylaw now um you could

[3:15:48] very easily

[3:15:50] put in uh fourplex 6 plex and it

[3:15:53] wouldn't even come to council and the

[3:15:56] residents wouldn't even know or have a

[3:15:58] say. So that is my that's what the

[3:16:01] concern is right now because you were

[3:16:04] saying I just wanted to clarify what you

[3:16:08] said to um councelor Hamilton because

[3:16:11] with this one now it would never come

[3:16:14] before council with your new zoning

[3:16:16] bylaw

[3:16:19] >> through the mayor um based on you know

[3:16:22] » through the mayor um based on you know

[3:16:22] kind of a rough history of applications.

[3:16:24] We did do a review and um council has

[3:16:28] been supportive of uh residential

[3:16:33] applications that uh exceed the average

[3:16:38] development that would occur as a result

[3:16:40] of this zoning bylaw, this new zoning

[3:16:42] bylaw. And in terms of the maximum

[3:16:46] number of units that could conceivably

[3:16:48] fit on any given lot with this proposed

[3:16:52] new zoning bylaw that the maximum number

[3:16:55] of units becomes governed by the size of

[3:16:58] the site as um in terms of the maximum

[3:17:03] volume of structure that could fit

[3:17:05] within. And so I I think that we are

[3:17:10] saying the same thing in different ways.

[3:17:12] Uh but I wouldn't I wouldn't suggest

[3:17:15] that the vast vast majority of lots

[3:17:18] within the city of Cambridge would allow

[3:17:21] for uh you know a 9 flex for example.

[3:17:24] Simply the available lot size would

[3:17:27] constrain the number of units that could

[3:17:30] conceivably fit on a lot. No, I I

[3:17:33] understand that you're saying that, but

[3:17:35] we have like a I just gave an example

[3:17:38] where in a single family street, like

[3:17:42] single family homes, um beautiful homes,

[3:17:45] you could very easily somebody could put

[3:17:48] in um a request to build like a sixplex

[3:17:52] because that is a big lot. And in those

[3:17:54] cases, it would never the residents

[3:17:57] could not complain about it or talk

[3:17:59] about it and it would not become come

[3:18:01] before council like it did before.

[3:18:04] Excuse me. And we rejected it. I'm just

[3:18:06] I just want to bring that up and that is

[3:18:09] that's what the case that's what you

[3:18:11] said would happen

[3:18:13] right

[3:18:16] through the chair through the mayor. Um

[3:18:19] I guess I would need to see some example

[3:18:22] of what you're referring to. Um the

[3:18:25] provisions of the formbbased zoning

[3:18:28] really mean that the overall structure

[3:18:30] of the house of the new structure would

[3:18:34] match

[3:18:35] sort of provisions such as setback

[3:18:38] height of what uh people might expect to

[3:18:42] see today on such lots. and but as

[3:18:44] you're saying the actual number of lots

[3:18:46] within that structure that would not be

[3:18:49] a mechanism that would um lead to an

[3:18:52] application that would come before

[3:18:53] council.

[3:18:54] >> Okay. Thank you

[3:18:58] » councelor Hamilton.

[3:19:00] >> Thank you Mayor Li and through you. Um

[3:19:03] » Thank you Mayor Li and through you. Um

[3:19:04] hi

[3:19:05] welcome. Um my question has to do with

[3:19:08] driveway length and parking. Uh on page

[3:19:11] 350, it basically says that staff don't

[3:19:14] recommend the 8 m minimum driveway

[3:19:17] requirement. Uh that 6 m is a typical

[3:19:20] standard. Um why do staff not recommend

[3:19:24] the 8 m driveway length and would

[3:19:26] changing it to 6 m have any knock-on

[3:19:29] effects?

[3:19:34] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh so

[3:19:36] essentially 6 m is the standard. Uh it

[3:19:40] accommodates virtually all vehicles. Um

[3:19:42] most virtually all trucks. Some are are

[3:19:46] slightly over that, but you know, as a

[3:19:48] as a as a minimum standard, uh 6 m is

[3:19:51] staff's position, you know, makes sense.

[3:19:54] Um there's impacts on building design,

[3:19:57] uh impacts on lot depth, uh something

[3:20:00] has to give. Basically, it's either rear

[3:20:01] yard setback reduces, uh living area

[3:20:04] reduces, uh to accommodate that. So, so

[3:20:07] in staff's position, it would be to

[3:20:09] maintain the six. It's it's in it is in

[3:20:11] the bylaw at at the direction of

[3:20:13] council. However,

[3:20:14] >> thank you,

[3:20:17] » thank you,

[3:20:17] >> councelor Meta,

[3:20:19] » councelor Meta,

[3:20:19] >> Mayor Jan through you and uh thank you

[3:20:21] » Mayor Jan through you and uh thank you

[3:20:21] to you both and the team for all the

[3:20:23] work that you put into this. My question

[3:20:25] is about um the land assemblies. Um

[3:20:28] would that automatically trigger a

[3:20:30] zoning change? I know it would it would

[3:20:32] depend on the number of units and stuff,

[3:20:35] but if I bought two houses on Biscane

[3:20:37] and wanted to knock them down and put in

[3:20:39] a row of town houses, would I be able to

[3:20:41] do that without council approval within

[3:20:45] um like within certain parameters? Of

[3:20:47] course, would that be possible or do you

[3:20:49] think that would be radical enough to

[3:20:52] attract um to create the need for like a

[3:20:54] zone change and go through the process?

[3:20:56] >> Thank you.

[3:20:57] » Thank you.

[3:20:57] >> Through you, madame mayor. So in terms

[3:20:59] » Through you, madame mayor. So in terms

[3:20:59] of land assembly, typically that's going

[3:21:01] to require um still some public input

[3:21:03] through a a consent application can be

[3:21:06] of adjustment. So assembling land,

[3:21:08] right, through a lot addition would

[3:21:10] trigger that. So there's opportunity for

[3:21:12] input. Um but yes, in theory, yeah, you

[3:21:15] could acquire one or two properties and

[3:21:17] that would expand your buildable area

[3:21:20] and potentially allow for something

[3:21:22] greater than what would only be allowed

[3:21:23] on one.

[3:21:27] » Correct. And so through if if they did

[3:21:30] assemble it goes through through uh

[3:21:33] committ adjustment that is a

[3:21:34] notification process public meeting

[3:21:36] conditions can be attached uh through

[3:21:39] through um consent applications. So

[3:21:41] there's uh this is just one zoning is

[3:21:44] one piece of

[3:21:46] the multiple uh planning uh you know

[3:21:50] applications and processes that go into

[3:21:52] land development. This is one part of

[3:21:54] it.

[3:21:57] Councelor Kinson.

[3:21:59] >> Thank you very much. Mayor Jan, um could

[3:22:01] » Thank you very much. Mayor Jan, um could

[3:22:01] you provide some information to us on

[3:22:05] the process if somebody purchased a

[3:22:07] property? Um for example, wanted to

[3:22:10] demolish the existing single family

[3:22:12] house that was on it to build something

[3:22:16] else that would fit within the envelope.

[3:22:19] Is there a process to go through to

[3:22:22] allow someone to demolish an existing

[3:22:24] property? And how does that work?

[3:22:27] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, we have uh

[3:22:29] you know, permits are required to

[3:22:30] demolish uh correct me if I'm wrong,

[3:22:34] demolition control bylaw we have in

[3:22:36] effect of the city now, which is

[3:22:38] something relatively new. Um so there is

[3:22:40] a process involved with demolition. Um

[3:22:43] we also have an online portal for all

[3:22:45] permit applications, so you can find out

[3:22:47] what's happening uh by by looking up a

[3:22:50] property and things like that.

[3:22:52] >> May I follow up? Thank you. Um for the

[3:22:57] » May I follow up? Thank you. Um for the

[3:22:57] demolition process, is that something

[3:22:59] that is made public? Like would um

[3:23:01] neighboring residents be aware that an

[3:23:03] application has gone in to demolish

[3:23:05] something or that process is someone

[3:23:08] would apply, fill out an application,

[3:23:10] and unless someone knew to look, they

[3:23:12] wouldn't know until it was done.

[3:23:15] >> I'm not familiar myself with uh the

[3:23:17] » I'm not familiar myself with uh the

[3:23:17] demolition control bylaw. So perhaps I

[3:23:19] could refer that to Mr. Bombberg or or

[3:23:22] is that a matter?

[3:23:26] Thank you. Through you, your worship to

[3:23:28] to answer councelor Kimson's question.

[3:23:30] Um, if someone's looking for a

[3:23:33] demolition building permit or frankly a

[3:23:36] building permit, if it complies with the

[3:23:38] Ontario building code, there is no

[3:23:40] notification to the public. It's a

[3:23:43] decision by the chief building official.

[3:23:45] um provided that the applicant conforms

[3:23:48] to the Ontario building code um the

[3:23:52] chief building official has to issue the

[3:23:54] permit. So there is no public process,

[3:23:57] there's no notification.

[3:23:59] Um so I I hope that answers your

[3:24:01] question.

[3:24:04] >> If I may follow up on that. So, is that

[3:24:06] » If I may follow up on that. So, is that

[3:24:06] that there's no notification of the

[3:24:10] application for demolition or there's no

[3:24:13] notification of the application to build

[3:24:15] or both? Just to make sure we're clear.

[3:24:20] » That's for both.

[3:24:23] >> Thank you.

[3:24:27] » Are there any other questions?

[3:24:32] I see none. And um

[3:24:37] what we're going to do is put the main

[3:24:39] motion on the floor before amendments.

[3:24:42] Um

[3:24:45] to make it easier for those following

[3:24:47] the meeting, we'll do that first and

[3:24:49] then we'll proceed to amendments once um

[3:24:55] or have we done that part? We've done

[3:24:57] that part, right?

[3:25:00] >> We just did.

[3:25:01] » We just did.

[3:25:01] >> All right. Okay. So now we'll put the

[3:25:03] » All right. Okay. So now we'll put the

[3:25:03] main motion on the floor. Councelor

[3:25:04] Ernshaw.

[3:25:07] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. moved by me

[3:25:09] and seconded by councelor Hamilton that

[3:25:12] appendix B of report 25-034-

[3:25:16] PG phase 1 comprehensive zoning bylaw be

[3:25:20] presented to council for enactment

[3:25:22] and that appendix C of report 25-034-

[3:25:27] PG official plan amendment number 91 be

[3:25:30] presented to council for adoption

[3:25:33] and further that in accordance with

[3:25:35] subsection 17 of section 34 of the

[3:25:37] planning act. City council has

[3:25:39] determined that no further public notice

[3:25:41] is required related to the changes to

[3:25:44] the proposed zoning bylaw and official

[3:25:47] plan amendment.

[3:25:54] Do we have any more questions on the

[3:25:56] main motion?

[3:26:00] Okay. So, the first amendment is uh

[3:26:03] councelor Schwer, you have um an

[3:26:05] amendment on home occupations.

[3:26:16] » Thank Thank you, Mayor Le. So my first

[3:26:18] amendment um would be

[3:26:22] for the um formbbased residential zone

[3:26:26] phase one that moved by myself seconded

[3:26:29] by councelor Divine that subsection 4.8

[3:26:33] bracket D of the home occupations bylaw

[3:26:37] be removed for further review.

[3:26:41] Can you tell us what page of the agenda

[3:26:43] that's on?

[3:26:49] Sorry.

[3:26:50] >> Appendix B page 50.

[3:26:51] » Appendix B page 50.

[3:26:51] >> Page 50

[3:26:53] » Page 50

[3:26:53] >> of the agenda.

[3:26:56] » of the agenda.

[3:26:56] >> The big agenda

[3:26:58] » The big agenda

[3:26:58] >> or

[3:27:02] in the zoning by

[3:27:08] » just so we're all on the literally on

[3:27:10] the same page here.

[3:27:16] Could you speak to that now then?

[3:27:18] >> Um yeah, yes I guess yes I can. Uh

[3:27:21] » Um yeah, yes I guess yes I can. Uh

[3:27:21] currently currently this bylaw um

[3:27:24] prohibits home businesses from having

[3:27:27] more than three clients and it's um I

[3:27:31] think it's more review needs into that

[3:27:34] into this because I mean there's

[3:27:36] babysitters it could there's multiple

[3:27:38] home businesses and to limit them all to

[3:27:41] three doesn't seem right and I feel that

[3:27:43] we should really uh look at it deeper.

[3:27:48] So, I have a question from staff. So,

[3:27:50] when you have a daycare,

[3:27:53] you're allowed

[3:27:55] five children

[3:27:58] according to the bylaws, right?

[3:28:01] The provincial bylaw, provincial

[3:28:04] regulations, you're allowed to have

[3:28:05] five. And we don't we don't um regulate

[3:28:08] that because the province already has

[3:28:10] allowed it. Correct. I I'm saying that

[3:28:12] because you said you're thinking two is

[3:28:16] a babysitter, but it's regulated on the

[3:28:18] provincial.

[3:28:21] >> So So the two for babysitting wouldn't

[3:28:23] » So So the two for babysitting wouldn't

[3:28:23] even come into this.

[3:28:25] >> Um if so child care, home home daycare

[3:28:29] » Um if so child care, home home daycare

[3:28:29] is it's a separate use. You're correct.

[3:28:32] It's regulated by the province. Uh home

[3:28:34] occupations are things like home

[3:28:36] businesses, an accountant or something

[3:28:37] like that. So, um it wouldn't get uh a

[3:28:40] home daycare wouldn't get caught up in

[3:28:42] that that that um limit of of three

[3:28:45] clients. Um yeah.

[3:28:48] >> Okay. So, can you use some other

[3:28:49] » Okay. So, can you use some other

[3:28:49] examples then coun?

[3:28:51] >> Yeah. Yeah, sure. So, the one that came

[3:28:54] » Yeah. Yeah, sure. So, the one that came

[3:28:54] to my attention, what made me think

[3:28:56] about it was that um that home um the

[3:29:01] art teacher um where she, you know, she

[3:29:04] wanted she's only allowed three, but you

[3:29:06] know, could be four people or five

[3:29:08] people that she could accommodate and

[3:29:10] teach um kids, for example, to color or

[3:29:14] to paint or to do art. That's just one

[3:29:17] example. Um could be other types of

[3:29:20] businesses. So before we do this blanket

[3:29:23] only three clients are permitted. I just

[3:29:25] feel that we need a bit more review in

[3:29:27] that area and look at different

[3:29:29] scenarios.

[3:29:31] So that would be my my uh motion to

[3:29:34] amend at this time.

[3:29:37] >> Councelor Divine.

[3:29:40] » Councelor Divine.

[3:29:40] >> Yes. Thank you the chair.

[3:29:43] » Yes. Thank you the chair.

[3:29:43] >> It's no secret that co changed the

[3:29:45] » It's no secret that co changed the

[3:29:45] world.

[3:29:47] Okay. Um, we have a lot of uh very high

[3:29:50] price real estate in Toronto that

[3:29:52] doesn't have too many people in any

[3:29:53] longer. There's a lot of homebased

[3:29:56] businesses that weren't there before.

[3:29:58] And I have absolutely no problem just

[3:30:00] pulling that particular section out

[3:30:02] going through it and ju just having a

[3:30:05] look because the world's changed since

[3:30:07] co folks. All right. The world's changed

[3:30:10] since co and I think we need to have a

[3:30:13] deeper dive into this for the benefit of

[3:30:16] the city and our community and I I would

[3:30:19] support councelor Shury on this for

[3:30:21] sure. Thanks

[3:30:23] >> councelor Hamilton.

[3:30:26] » councelor Hamilton.

[3:30:26] >> Uh thank you Mayor Lean for you and I

[3:30:29] » Uh thank you Mayor Lean for you and I

[3:30:29] have a question uh for councelor Sherry

[3:30:30] or maybe for staff. Uh if this was as

[3:30:33] the amendment is proposing removed for

[3:30:35] further review, how long would that

[3:30:37] review last? And would it be easy to

[3:30:39] reinsert this into the bylaw should it

[3:30:42] pass? Or does this prevent a problem if

[3:30:44] if it is removed in some way?

[3:30:53] » Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. Uh

[3:30:55] so this is a phase bylaw. So phase two,

[3:30:58] we could look at uh reviewing that

[3:31:00] regulation specifically. That's

[3:31:02] expected. Uh we're looking to continue

[3:31:04] on with the bylaw uh should council

[3:31:06] adopt it.

[3:31:06] >> Great. Thank you.

[3:31:09] » Great. Thank you.

[3:31:09] >> So I guess what we're asking it's okay

[3:31:11] » So I guess what we're asking it's okay

[3:31:11] to pass this amendment.

[3:31:13] >> Yes.

[3:31:14] » Yes.

[3:31:14] >> Yep. Okay.

[3:31:14] » Yep. Okay.

[3:31:14] >> I have no concern with that.

[3:31:16] » I have no concern with that.

[3:31:16] >> Okay. Okay.

[3:31:18] » Okay. Okay.

[3:31:18] All right. I see no more questions or

[3:31:20] comments. So we'll take a vote on that

[3:31:22] amendment.

[3:31:25] » Opening voting.

[3:31:31] and closing voting.

[3:31:34] And that carries unanimously.

[3:31:47] So, the next part of this is going to be

[3:31:49] a mess. I really wish counselors had

[3:31:51] gotten together and really

[3:31:54] done some work and um come to an

[3:31:57] agreement before we got into this part

[3:31:59] of it because it's going to be really

[3:32:00] really messy.

[3:32:02] Um

[3:32:04] Councelor Kimson, I understand you have

[3:32:05] an amendment as well.

[3:32:08] I don't mean yours in particular. I mean

[3:32:10] there's more coming.

[3:32:34] Yeah. Okay. Um, so amendment two, u

[3:32:38] moved by myself, seconded by councelor

[3:32:40] Roberts, amendment that table 7.2

[3:32:43] permitted uses in residential zones be

[3:32:46] amended to add the following new special

[3:32:48] provision number five. quote, "Except as

[3:32:52] provided in section 4.19, where a lot

[3:32:55] contains a single detached dwelling or a

[3:32:58] semi- detached dwelling with a maximum

[3:33:00] permitted height of 11 m on the date of

[3:33:03] enactment of this bylaw. The maximum

[3:33:06] permitted number of dwelling units shall

[3:33:08] be four and that table 7.2 2 be amended

[3:33:12] to apply special provision number five

[3:33:15] to rows 3 4 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 for the

[3:33:25] R1 and R2 zones. And for anyone who is

[3:33:30] wondering where to find table 7.2,

[3:33:34] it's in appendix B on page 85.

[3:34:01] What is my head?

[3:34:18] What happened?

[3:34:26] Can you repeat that please? Thank you.

[3:34:30] >> Moved by myself and seconded by

[3:34:32] » Moved by myself and seconded by

[3:34:32] councelor Roberts. Amendment that table

[3:34:35] 7.2 2 permitted uses in residential

[3:34:38] zones be amended to add the following

[3:34:41] new special provision number five except

[3:34:44] as provided in section 4.19

[3:34:47] where a lot contains a single detached

[3:34:49] dwelling or a semi- detached dwelling

[3:34:52] with a maximum permitted height of 11 m

[3:34:54] on the date of enactment of this bylaw.

[3:34:57] The maximum permitted number of dwelling

[3:34:59] units shall be four and that table 7.2 2

[3:35:03] be amended to apply special provision

[3:35:06] number five to rows 3, 4, 12, 14, 15,

[3:35:12] 16, 17, 18, and 19 for the R1 and R2

[3:35:18] zones.

[3:35:20] Currently, all low density properties

[3:35:23] are allowed three units as of right.

[3:35:26] >> Sorry. Is that part of your motion?

[3:35:27] » Sorry. Is that part of your motion?

[3:35:27] >> No, sorry.

[3:35:28] » No, sorry.

[3:35:28] >> Okay. So, let's hold off on this because

[3:35:32] » Okay. So, let's hold off on this because

[3:35:32] >> your motion is going to affect the next

[3:35:34] » your motion is going to affect the next

[3:35:34] motion and Bin hasn't had a chance to

[3:35:37] look at the new the other revised one

[3:35:40] >> in order to advise us on it because

[3:35:42] » in order to advise us on it because

[3:35:42] councelor Schwerry has revised hers now

[3:35:45] based on yours. So, rather than us

[3:35:48] getting a big giant mess here, Brenn

[3:35:51] needs to look at this to see how this

[3:35:54] affects the other. and I don't want to

[3:35:57] be making mistakes tonight. So, if you

[3:35:59] don't mind, we're just going to take

[3:36:02] >> few minutes cuz the whole thing is messy

[3:36:04] » few minutes cuz the whole thing is messy

[3:36:04] and I'm as confused as councelor Divine

[3:36:06] is on all the numbers on this.

[3:36:13] » Extend

[3:36:14] >> Oh, hang on, guys. We're going to extend

[3:36:17] » Oh, hang on, guys. We're going to extend

[3:36:17] before We're going to extend um we need

[3:36:20] to take a vote now on extending the

[3:36:22] meeting if it goes past 11. We need to

[3:36:24] do that by 10:30

[3:36:28] >> to extend it past 11. And we need to

[3:36:30] » to extend it past 11. And we need to

[3:36:30] have this done before midnight tonight.

[3:36:32] >> Why?

[3:36:33] » Why?

[3:36:33] >> Because we have a deadline with the

[3:36:35] » Because we have a deadline with the

[3:36:35] federal government. They've already been

[3:36:37] kind enough to extend it when they

[3:36:39] didn't have to. So,

[3:36:41] >> okay.

[3:36:43] » okay.

[3:36:43] And opening voting,

[3:36:49] closing voting

[3:36:51] that carries unanimously.

[3:58:44] Councelor Shwary, could you please take

[3:58:45] your seat?

[3:58:50] Counselor Shwary.

[3:58:58] So, I'm going to ask the mover and the

[3:59:00] seconder of that last amendment to

[3:59:03] withdraw or just put it after councelor

[3:59:07] Schwares because we've discovered she

[3:59:08] was first off the bat with hers and it

[3:59:11] got hers got put later when it should

[3:59:16] have been hers first.

[3:59:18] Are you okay with that throwing that?

[3:59:20] Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[3:59:26] » You ready, Councelor Sherry? I don't

[3:59:28] even know which one you're putting

[3:59:29] forward anymore.

[3:59:42] » Thank you, mayor. Um so uh it's um for

[3:59:46] the formbbas zoning moved by myself

[3:59:48] seconded by councelor Cooper that the

[3:59:51] formbbased zoning proposal be amended to

[3:59:54] retain the R1 residential zone as

[3:59:58] currently defined under the planning act

[4:00:01] and that the proposed R2 zoning areas be

[4:00:04] capped to a maximum of four units

[4:00:07] uh per lot and that table 7.3A is

[4:00:12] revised to add the maximum number of

[4:00:14] units to be three unit per lot in zone

[4:00:20] R1 and a maximum of four units per lot

[4:00:24] in zone R2.

[4:00:28] Okay, I have a question Bren. How does

[4:00:30] it how does this how does this work

[4:00:33] according to can you please educate us

[4:00:36] all because I am so lost

[4:00:41] uh through you mayor um there's I think

[4:00:44] a few possible questions in there but um

[4:01:01] Is this on? Yes. Okay. Uh through you,

[4:01:03] mayor.

[4:01:05] If council makes a decision on this

[4:01:08] motion to amend

[4:01:11] in favor of the motion, then that

[4:01:16] should not be replaced by subsequent

[4:01:19] motions to amend. So um if if this

[4:01:23] motion to amend is approved by council

[4:01:27] then that would be the amendment that we

[4:01:29] will implement.

[4:01:34] » So is this all legal according to the

[4:01:37] planning act and like we're not like can

[4:01:41] you just talk about that part of it

[4:01:42] please?

[4:01:44] uh through you, Madame Mayor. This will

[4:01:48] for the R1 zone, it will conform with

[4:01:52] the planning act. So, the provincial uh

[4:01:56] minimum is three units as of right on a

[4:02:00] lot

[4:02:03] for the R2

[4:02:06] um zone. My understanding is that this

[4:02:08] motion will cap at four units

[4:02:11] um per lot and um so that exceeds uh the

[4:02:16] planning act. So there's no issue from a

[4:02:18] planning act standpoint there.

[4:02:24] » Okay. And the the the amendment that the

[4:02:28] others were so kind to remove so this

[4:02:30] could go on the floor. How will it

[4:02:32] affect that amendment

[4:02:34] >> if council

[4:02:35] » if council

[4:02:35] >> you said it would become moot but so how

[4:02:37] » you said it would become moot but so how

[4:02:37] >> so through you madame mayor if council

[4:02:40] » so through you madame mayor if council

[4:02:40] approves this motion to amend then that

[4:02:43] would be the um the motion that we would

[4:02:47] implement through the zoning bylaw. If

[4:02:50] council

[4:02:52] refuses this motion to amend, then the

[4:02:56] next motion related to the same topic

[4:02:58] could move forward for council decision.

[4:03:04] » Councelor Kimson, thank you for asking

[4:03:06] the question.

[4:03:08] >> Can I speak?

[4:03:09] » Can I speak?

[4:03:09] >> Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And

[4:03:10] » Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And

[4:03:10] through you to the chief planner. Um

[4:03:15] question for you about the amendment put

[4:03:19] on the floor by councelor Schwari. Um

[4:03:24] with R1 with a maximum of three units,

[4:03:26] R2 a maximum of four units.

[4:03:29] Can you clarify or verify the maximum

[4:03:33] building height and the setbacks?

[4:03:36] um just because it's not as clear in

[4:03:38] council's motion as it was in the

[4:03:42] previous amendment. Sorry, councilwar's

[4:03:45] amendment as the previous amendment.

[4:03:48] Please

[4:03:49] >> through you, Madame Mayor. As it's

[4:03:51] » through you, Madame Mayor. As it's

[4:03:51] written currently, it would be an

[4:03:53] additional line added to uh table 7.3A

[4:03:59] that in addition to setbacks, the same

[4:04:02] setbacks, height restrictions, etc. that

[4:04:05] are those um criteria an additional

[4:04:09] criteria would be added to cap the

[4:04:11] number of units.

[4:04:15] » So just to clarify so it would still

[4:04:17] have the

[4:04:19] um it would still have the maximum

[4:04:21] building height of 11 m and the setbacks

[4:04:27] I don't see in 73A

[4:04:30] the setback as being the average

[4:04:35] through Mayor. I may look to Brian to

[4:04:37] make sure I'm referring to the correct

[4:04:38] table.

[4:04:42] » Yes. So 7.3A is the standard for

[4:04:45] detached dwellings. So yes, that has a

[4:04:48] maximum height of 11 m. Uh a front yard

[4:04:51] a standard front yard of six for the R1

[4:04:53] zone and three for the R2. The averaging

[4:04:57] is actually in another section of the

[4:04:58] bylaw, a general provision regulation

[4:05:00] that applies to all zones where you have

[4:05:03] that averaging requirement.

[4:05:05] >> Does that make sense?

[4:05:07] » Does that make sense?

[4:05:07] >> That would be consistent.

[4:05:09] » That would be consistent.

[4:05:09] >> Thank you.

[4:05:12] » Bren, when I asked if it was legal, how

[4:05:14] is this going to affect the half

[4:05:16] funding?

[4:05:18] >> We would be still consistent for that.

[4:05:21] » We would be still consistent for that.

[4:05:21] My expectation um to you, Madame Mayor,

[4:05:24] is that the um CHC will not accept this

[4:05:29] as uh meeting our our contribution

[4:05:33] agreement for the half funding.

[4:05:38] » In what way?

[4:05:42] We have committed through that agreement

[4:05:44] to provide form-based zoning um for all

[4:05:48] residential

[4:05:50] u uses. So

[4:05:53] notwithstanding that, we also know that

[4:05:56] throughout Canada, the federal

[4:05:59] government has set four units as an

[4:06:01] absolute baseline and we have uh seen

[4:06:05] other municipalities

[4:06:06] try to deviate from that and uh the CHC

[4:06:11] has indicated that they are not meeting

[4:06:14] their agreements for the half funding.

[4:06:23] Councelor Hamilton.

[4:06:26] >> Thank you, Mayor. They getting through

[4:06:27] » Thank you, Mayor. They getting through

[4:06:27] you. I think my question actually

[4:06:28] touches on that. and and chief planner.

[4:06:32] It's my understanding that with this

[4:06:34] despite if it's a very large lot and

[4:06:38] someone has a single detached dwelling

[4:06:39] or a semi- detached, they couldn't put

[4:06:41] in let's say a forplex

[4:06:43] as they could through the proposed

[4:06:45] formbbased zoning that um or sorry that

[4:06:48] the following amendment was going, you

[4:06:50] know what I mean? This limits a

[4:06:53] particular

[4:06:55] owner of a property to three units max.

[4:06:58] Despite the size of the property,

[4:06:59] despite the setbacks, despite the space

[4:07:01] for parking, it's just three tops.

[4:07:02] There's no fourplexes. There's nothing

[4:07:04] beyond that.

[4:07:05] >> Through you, Madame Mayor

[4:07:07] » Through you, Madame Mayor

[4:07:07] >> with half.

[4:07:07] » with half.

[4:07:07] >> That would be the effect of this motion.

[4:07:09] » That would be the effect of this motion.

[4:07:10] >> Okay. Thank you,

[4:07:12] » Okay. Thank you,

[4:07:12] >> Councelor Cooper.

[4:07:23] There we go. Thank you.

[4:07:26] Um, thank you very much. I know you've

[4:07:28] got you on the spot here. Um, to follow

[4:07:30] up with Council Hamilton's uh point

[4:07:32] there, um, that is correct that they

[4:07:34] wouldn't they wouldn't be able to do it

[4:07:35] as of right, but they would still be

[4:07:37] able to come here and request something

[4:07:39] larger. Am I right? They would still be

[4:07:42] able to request a zoning amendment in

[4:07:44] which case we would be able to have a

[4:07:45] say and the public would be able to have

[4:07:46] a say in that and it wouldn't

[4:07:47] necessarily stop them. It would just

[4:07:49] bring it in front of us in the public

[4:07:51] >> through you madame mayor. That's

[4:07:53] » through you madame mayor. That's

[4:07:53] correct. A zoning bylaw amendment

[4:07:55] continues to be an option.

[4:07:56] >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:08:01] » Okay. I see no more questions. Thanks

[4:08:03] Bren. Um did you want to comment on your

[4:08:07] motion? Go ahead.

[4:08:11] Thank thank you so much mayor. So the

[4:08:13] the reason I this is very important to

[4:08:17] me is to keep our one residential zone

[4:08:20] as is single like the planning act semi-

[4:08:23] detached or triplex.

[4:08:25] Um because if we change it for people

[4:08:27] with large lots, it could in a nice uh

[4:08:30] residential area, you could have up to

[4:08:33] six or nine plex and that would change

[4:08:36] significantly

[4:08:38] alter the character of the R1

[4:08:40] neighborhoods and also negatively impact

[4:08:43] their property values and limit

[4:08:46] opportunities for public and council

[4:08:48] input on these higher densely density

[4:08:51] development. And I just want to say

[4:08:53] because about this um the funding I feel

[4:08:58] strongly that zoning decision should not

[4:09:00] be driven by potential housing

[4:09:03] accelerator

[4:09:05] uh f funding as zone policy and funding

[4:09:08] considerations are separate matters and

[4:09:11] should be kept separate. Using the

[4:09:13] possibility of reduced funding to

[4:09:16] influence the council's vote is to me

[4:09:18] inappropriate and sets out a very

[4:09:20] troubling precedent. Council must be

[4:09:22] free to vote in the best interests of

[4:09:25] the residents. Funding should never be

[4:09:27] used as a leverage to influence a

[4:09:30] counselor's vote or on something that so

[4:09:33] significantly undermines democracy and

[4:09:36] the right for residents to speak out

[4:09:38] against.

[4:09:44] » Trying to figure out councelor Cooper

[4:09:46] where to take your question next or get

[4:09:48] Binn back up here. Maybe we'll go with

[4:09:50] Bren if you don't mind. I'm sorry. I

[4:09:52] just uh

[4:09:55] or Brian, one one of you because I I

[4:09:57] wanna

[4:09:59] I understand I have the exact same

[4:10:01] concerns.

[4:10:03] Um I'm trying to play both both sides of

[4:10:07] this. um

[4:10:09] the what the rules and regulations that

[4:10:11] we're going to be put in place are going

[4:10:13] to be restrictive to what councelor

[4:10:16] Schwer is trying to propose like like

[4:10:18] she's what she's trying to ask for is

[4:10:20] what we're going to be putting in to

[4:10:22] make sure that this can't happen. Is

[4:10:23] that correct?

[4:10:26] >> Did you understand

[4:10:28] » Did you understand

[4:10:28] all over the map? What I maybe

[4:10:30] understood through you mayor is that so

[4:10:33] what councelor Schwir has brought

[4:10:34] forward is that the R1 zone be limited

[4:10:37] at the planning act um as of right three

[4:10:41] units per lot and for R the R2 zone it

[4:10:46] be um capped at a limit of four units

[4:10:51] per lot both of which comply with the

[4:10:53] planning act

[4:10:56] >> but I'm saying So, with our new our new

[4:11:01] » but I'm saying So, with our new our new

[4:11:01] um zoning bylaws that what the

[4:11:04] restrictions we're going to be putting

[4:11:05] in place though will achieve

[4:11:09] it'll still achieve the kind of

[4:11:11] neighborhood that we're trying to

[4:11:12] achieve here as

[4:11:15] council

[4:11:16] >> through you mayor. The other criteria

[4:11:19] » through you mayor. The other criteria

[4:11:19] within the new zoning bylaw

[4:11:22] really uh puts forward that the

[4:11:26] aesthetic of a neighborhood is

[4:11:29] protected. So in terms of that average

[4:11:32] setback of a structure, a height that

[4:11:35] roughly aligns with traditional height

[4:11:39] patterns within those areas, the other

[4:11:41] setbacks. So that's really what the

[4:11:43] form-based zoning criteria achieves and

[4:11:46] those provisions are not being amended

[4:11:48] through this. Only the maximum number of

[4:11:51] units is being amended through this.

[4:11:54] >> Okay. So I'm trying to have the best of

[4:11:56] » Okay. So I'm trying to have the best of

[4:11:56] both worlds here. Okay. Councelor

[4:11:58] Cooper, did you have a question for Bren

[4:12:00] or you just want to comment?

[4:12:01] >> No, this was comment. I'm gonna comment

[4:12:03] » No, this was comment. I'm gonna comment

[4:12:03] on

[4:12:03] >> Okay. Thanks, Bren.

[4:12:05] » Okay. Thanks, Bren.

[4:12:05] >> Thank you. Yeah,

[4:12:07] » Thank you. Yeah,

[4:12:07] >> Hardy. Sorry Hardy, you wanted to speak

[4:12:09] » Hardy. Sorry Hardy, you wanted to speak

[4:12:09] here. Sorry. Yeah, I think um through

[4:12:12] you your worship to to the rest of

[4:12:14] council I think one of the things that

[4:12:16] you were trying to get at were around

[4:12:17] the conditions. So we talk about capping

[4:12:20] the number of units but there are all

[4:12:22] sorts of other conditions that um we're

[4:12:25] proposing based on your feedback that

[4:12:28] that we've heard previously and and

[4:12:30] we've talked about parking requirements.

[4:12:33] Um we've talked about setbacks. So, um,

[4:12:37] we saw some photos earlier from from a

[4:12:40] member of the public where they where

[4:12:41] they showed a a single what looked like

[4:12:44] a single family dwelling set back on the

[4:12:46] lot and then on either side there were

[4:12:49] these monstrous buildings going right to

[4:12:51] the front. That can't happen. That's not

[4:12:53] what we're proposing here in the zoning

[4:12:54] bylaw. There are minimum setbacks. So,

[4:12:57] so the building that anyone would

[4:12:58] propose to build if they choose to

[4:13:00] purchase a a lot, demolish the existing

[4:13:04] building and and decide to to build more

[4:13:08] units, um they still have to meet those

[4:13:11] setback requirements. There's also

[4:13:13] landscaping requirements. There's

[4:13:14] additional walkways and spacing and

[4:13:16] maximum lot coverage. So, there are all

[4:13:19] sorts of conditions there that uh would

[4:13:22] need to be met. Um, so what we're trying

[4:13:25] to do is is provide a revised bylaw um

[4:13:30] that meets the provincial policy

[4:13:33] statements of today as opposed to 1986,

[4:13:36] but also gives council and hopefully the

[4:13:39] public some level of comfort that um

[4:13:43] anything that does get built in the

[4:13:45] future if someone wishes to to do so

[4:13:47] that it still meets and and fits into

[4:13:51] the neighborhoods.

[4:13:53] Thank you,

[4:13:56] >> Councelor Cooper.

[4:13:57] » Councelor Cooper.

[4:13:57] >> Yes, thank you, Mayor Leot. Uh, we got

[4:13:59] » Yes, thank you, Mayor Leot. Uh, we got

[4:14:00] some stuff here. I'll briefly touch on

[4:14:01] the funding issue. I'm hearing various

[4:14:02] talk about whether we we this will, you

[4:14:04] know, whether we get the have funding.

[4:14:06] Not too many complaints about the spec,

[4:14:09] put that aside, the specifics of what

[4:14:11] we're suggesting here. Um, which tells

[4:14:13] me this is maybe something that would be

[4:14:14] okay if it wasn't for the issue with the

[4:14:17] funding. And I agree with councelor

[4:14:18] Sherry that we should not be making

[4:14:20] decisions based on, you know, a carrot

[4:14:22] being dangled in front of our face. Um,

[4:14:24] these are zoning bylaws that are going

[4:14:25] to affect us for decades. And I think

[4:14:27] that's what we need to consider. We need

[4:14:28] to consider the um the established

[4:14:30] neighborhoods and uh the people that

[4:14:32] we're representing. Um, when it comes to

[4:14:34] form based zoning, I I actually looked

[4:14:36] up exactly what it is, the history of

[4:14:38] it. This was primarily for large cities

[4:14:40] in the US with common block patterns

[4:14:42] that you see over there. Um, this is not

[4:14:45] a big US city. This is Cambridge. Um,

[4:14:48] we've got a wide range of residential

[4:14:49] layouts that can be appropriately

[4:14:51] serviced by a one-sizefits-all zoning

[4:14:53] policy that also happens to further

[4:14:55] limit the the chance for local residents

[4:14:58] to have their say in the community

[4:14:59] immediately surrounding their home. Um,

[4:15:03] and this this is very important to me

[4:15:04] and we've heard from many people over

[4:15:06] the past months, this is incredibly

[4:15:07] important to the people of this city to

[4:15:09] maintain that democratic control. Um,

[4:15:12] that's that's their right. I don't think

[4:15:13] it's something that should be sacrificed

[4:15:15] uh for frankly convenience.

[4:15:18] Um council and public are not somebody

[4:15:21] are not elements that should be pushed

[4:15:23] aside to speed things up. Um the

[4:15:26] province has already assured we have

[4:15:28] very limited control over local

[4:15:29] development. So while this there's many

[4:15:33] great new rules in here which is why I

[4:15:34] was after the hybrid model. Um, I cannot

[4:15:36] in good faith as a council with

[4:15:38] responsibilities that residents of

[4:15:40] Cambridge to support the motion as is.

[4:15:43] It would further erode my ability and

[4:15:45] your ability to represent Cambridge when

[4:15:46] it comes to what happens on our resident

[4:15:48] streets. Um,

[4:15:52] so that's why I support this this motion

[4:15:54] that we this amendment they've been

[4:15:56] working on that can preserve our

[4:15:59] neighborhoods. It does matter how they

[4:16:02] look.

[4:16:04] the the established neighborhoods. I got

[4:16:06] an email from someone a while ago that

[4:16:07] got had a how home that they got uh got

[4:16:10] stuck next stood next to a big I can't

[4:16:11] remember was three or four three or four

[4:16:14] towers next levels next to them. People

[4:16:16] looking down their backyards. They lost

[4:16:18] they got it appraised. They got lost

[4:16:19] $200,000 on their um on their appraisal

[4:16:22] because of it. I mean these are the real

[4:16:24] world um consequences of this. And we're

[4:16:27] not stopping um development. This is not

[4:16:30] about an argument against growth or

[4:16:32] zoning reform. Finding efficiencies is

[4:16:34] good and there's some in here and I hope

[4:16:36] staff continue to bring some. Um but our

[4:16:38] residents do expect representation. They

[4:16:41] have a right to have a real opportunity

[4:16:43] to affect the outcomes in the immediate

[4:16:45] surroundings around their home. And as

[4:16:48] counselors, we have a duty to remain

[4:16:49] accountable to our constituents at the

[4:16:52] neighborhood level. I feel like what we

[4:16:55] are doing here, what we are trying to do

[4:16:57] um achieves that. It's it's a hybrid

[4:17:00] model that works and I feel it would be

[4:17:01] accepted by uh many people in the

[4:17:03] community. Uh many people that have been

[4:17:05] very very concerned about it and it's

[4:17:07] definitely a beginning to something I

[4:17:09] feel can be polished and made better. Um

[4:17:13] there you go. I hope you support this.

[4:17:14] Thank you.

[4:17:16] >> So Councelor Cooper, you don't when when

[4:17:21] » So Councelor Cooper, you don't when when

[4:17:21] um

[4:17:23] Mr. Bramberg and Bin were talking about

[4:17:25] how somebody would have you don't agree

[4:17:28] with them that the the what we're be

[4:17:31] putting in in in the bylaws will be

[4:17:33] protecting what you're talking about

[4:17:35] protecting.

[4:17:37] >> Uh well, I'll go back to what I stated

[4:17:38] » Uh well, I'll go back to what I stated

[4:17:38] in there. I think the the you know,

[4:17:40] we're elected to represent the community

[4:17:42] and and also we we're you know we should

[4:17:45] the people in this community should

[4:17:47] always have a say and what goes on

[4:17:49] immediately outside their front door.

[4:17:52] Um, we have beautiful established

[4:17:53] neighborhoods all over the city and they

[4:17:56] are beautiful neighborhoods because of

[4:17:59] our established bylaws. Now, of course,

[4:18:01] they're old and they need polishing, but

[4:18:03] we don't want to throw out into the

[4:18:04] garbage some of the main elements that

[4:18:06] have kept it that way and made them

[4:18:08] beautiful and made people kind of get up

[4:18:09] in arms about this because they're

[4:18:11] scared of losing what they've had. So,

[4:18:13] look at how did we get that? We got that

[4:18:16] by having uh people come here and talk

[4:18:20] to us. And when somebody comes along

[4:18:22] with a development that's a little bit

[4:18:24] out of the norm, then it comes to us and

[4:18:25] we decide and it doesn't necessarily

[4:18:27] stop them, we look at it and sometimes

[4:18:29] we have stuff we all go hell no and

[4:18:31] others we go that's great. But the

[4:18:33] second you take away that representation

[4:18:35] you know that's that's what happens when

[4:18:37] you erode public representation that

[4:18:38] happens in little chunks like that.

[4:18:40] >> You know it happens with the happens

[4:18:42] » You know it happens with the happens

[4:18:42] with this and it'll go further and I

[4:18:43] just don't think that public

[4:18:45] representation their ability to speak

[4:18:46] here and have a say is something that

[4:18:48] should ever be sacrificed. That's all.

[4:18:50] >> So Mr. Bramberg said the public would

[4:18:53] » So Mr. Bramberg said the public would

[4:18:53] still have to come to get those

[4:18:55] amendments done. Like would they still

[4:18:57] have to come before council if they need

[4:19:00] an amendment to what

[4:19:03] staff are proposing for setbacks and

[4:19:06] everything else. So we still will have

[4:19:08] that say. The public will still be able

[4:19:10] to come and speak to us about that.

[4:19:12] >> But less opportunity. There's more as of

[4:19:14] » But less opportunity. There's more as of

[4:19:14] right.

[4:19:15] >> Yeah. But my question

[4:19:15] » Yeah. But my question

[4:19:16] >> for more as of right. And how far does

[4:19:17] » for more as of right. And how far does

[4:19:17] that go?

[4:19:18] >> Good good debate. Thank you. So,

[4:19:21] » Good good debate. Thank you. So,

[4:19:21] um, but that's why I asked you that

[4:19:23] first part. So, you're not okay with

[4:19:26] staff saying, "We're going to protect it

[4:19:29] anyway. This is the only way we can

[4:19:31] protect it and still get our half

[4:19:32] funding by having the setbacks, having

[4:19:35] the heights, doing all those things and

[4:19:37] the landscaping and everything."

[4:19:38] >> Yeah. Yeah, that's good. I said, like I

[4:19:40] » Yeah. Yeah, that's good. I said, like I

[4:19:40] said, that's what I was talking about

[4:19:40] the hybrid model. There's plenty of

[4:19:41] aspects in here. I love there's great

[4:19:44] stuff in here. It's just But there are

[4:19:45] some critical ones I can't go along

[4:19:47] with.

[4:19:48] >> That's all. Okay, Councelor Hamilton,

[4:19:52] » That's all. Okay, Councelor Hamilton,

[4:19:52] sorry I preempted you there. I'm sorry.

[4:19:55] >> That's okay. No worries, Mayor. Thank

[4:19:57] » That's okay. No worries, Mayor. Thank

[4:19:57] you. Through you. Just for my own

[4:19:58] clarification, if we have comments,

[4:20:00] should we make them now because this

[4:20:02] amendment takes the form based zoning

[4:20:04] and Okay. Thank you. Um, so I can't

[4:20:07] support the amendment, although I do

[4:20:09] appreciate that councelor Cooper and

[4:20:10] councelor Sherry care greatly about the

[4:20:12] city. Um, so I I appreciate the heart

[4:20:15] they're putting into it, but I can't

[4:20:16] ultimately support it. If we pay

[4:20:20] attention what staff are saying, the

[4:20:21] last time these

[4:20:24] zoning bylaws were altered, I was 2

[4:20:26] years old. It was 1986. Now we have 500

[4:20:28] exceptions that have been put into place

[4:20:30] since then. So staff actually write in

[4:20:34] the report that our current system is a

[4:20:36] barrier to housing at a time when one of

[4:20:38] the biggest crises affecting our

[4:20:40] population is exactly that. it is

[4:20:42] housing. So I ask myself, is this

[4:20:44] somehow anti-democratic? Does it erode

[4:20:46] public representation?

[4:20:48] And I think the reality is there's a lot

[4:20:50] of things that happen in a city that

[4:20:52] doesn't come through council. We don't

[4:20:54] approve a lot of things and we shouldn't

[4:20:56] because we're not experts in it. It'll

[4:20:57] clog up the process. It's not a

[4:20:59] requirement. So examples, engineering

[4:21:01] standards and develop manual standards.

[4:21:03] They detail right of way for

[4:21:04] infrastructure, new development,

[4:21:06] reconstruction. These are needs based on

[4:21:08] asset management perspectives. We have

[4:21:10] things like cycling master plans, the

[4:21:12] transportation master plans. Some of

[4:21:14] these components get approved through

[4:21:16] things like capital forecasts, others

[4:21:18] through the operating budget. So here

[4:21:20] are examples clear-cut where there are

[4:21:23] major changes in the city. Council makes

[4:21:26] a decision about the overarching plans

[4:21:28] that sets a particular standard and then

[4:21:30] those are enacted by staff. It allows

[4:21:32] for a reduction in costs, an increase in

[4:21:34] efficiency, and ultimately a better

[4:21:35] delivery of services and amenities for

[4:21:37] our residents. And that's something I

[4:21:39] see is very synchronous with what we're

[4:21:41] proposing here. We're not experts in

[4:21:44] planning.

[4:21:46] We have staff that do that. And right

[4:21:47] now these staff,

[4:21:50] they're basically telling us that again

[4:21:52] that question is there anything that

[4:21:54] we've rejected that form-based zoning if

[4:21:57] it were implemented would allow? And the

[4:21:58] answer is no. So, what that tells me is

[4:22:01] we can have our staff work a lot more

[4:22:03] efficiently, save a lot more time and

[4:22:05] money, have a lot more housing for our

[4:22:08] residents. And here's where the

[4:22:10] Democratic thing kicks in for me. The

[4:22:12] Democratic power is returning agency

[4:22:14] back to local residents because it can

[4:22:16] actually participate in the process of

[4:22:18] creating housing where right now it's

[4:22:20] stacked in favor of wealthy developers.

[4:22:22] it can afford the time that it can

[4:22:24] afford the money to create the

[4:22:25] blueprints, create the plans, hire

[4:22:27] people to come to council to argue for

[4:22:28] amendments. This undoes all of that. So,

[4:22:31] the average homeowner might actually

[4:22:33] have a shot of creating more units on

[4:22:35] their property that if they had the

[4:22:37] money and the time would have gone and

[4:22:39] been approved anyway by working through

[4:22:41] 500 complicated exceptions that haven't

[4:22:43] changed since 1986.

[4:22:45] So, I have no problem with trusting our

[4:22:48] staff,

[4:22:50] altering the way that our city functions

[4:22:52] to allow more housing to be built better

[4:22:54] and faster, allowing our residents to

[4:22:57] participate to gain that agency. And

[4:22:59] ultimately, I think what this boils down

[4:23:01] to is a change in neighborhoods. Now,

[4:23:04] we're realizing the change won't be

[4:23:05] substantial. There are rules in place.

[4:23:07] There's setbacks. There's height. We

[4:23:08] have no height restrictions right now.

[4:23:10] This would put in height restrictions.

[4:23:12] There's parking. There's landscaping. So

[4:23:15] there are rules in place to prevent a

[4:23:17] lot of the could say the the disaster

[4:23:20] scenarios that have been prevented or

[4:23:22] presented to us. There are rules put in

[4:23:25] place to prevent that from happening.

[4:23:27] >> Councelor Hamilton, you are now at over

[4:23:30] » Councelor Hamilton, you are now at over

[4:23:30] 3 and a half minutes speaking on a

[4:23:32] comment. We're already at quarter after

[4:23:34] 11. We extended the time.

[4:23:36] >> I'll finish up. Mayor Leot, I think with

[4:23:37] » I'll finish up. Mayor Leot, I think with

[4:23:37] all due respect to Councelor Cooper, he

[4:23:38] was on for about eight minutes and so I

[4:23:40] did ask is now the time for comments. So

[4:23:42] I'll finish up my comment though. It

[4:23:43] was, but it's getting so long now. We've

[4:23:46] still got other things to get through

[4:23:47] here. So, I will wrap up.

[4:23:49] >> Thanks. I appreciate it.

[4:23:51] » Thanks. I appreciate it.

[4:23:51] >> Uh, I don't think that our neighborhoods

[4:23:52] » Uh, I don't think that our neighborhoods

[4:23:52] will be sworn by boxes. This will create

[4:23:55] variation in housing that's reasonable,

[4:23:57] and that's what cities are. They're

[4:23:58] dynamic forms of housing change,

[4:24:00] architectural styles change. The point

[4:24:02] is, does it help residents in a time of

[4:24:04] need? And the answer is yes. So I think

[4:24:06] forbay zoning is an effective way to

[4:24:07] give power and agency back to Cambridge

[4:24:10] residents while increasing our housing

[4:24:12] stock especially the missing middle

[4:24:14] housing that we so desperately need.

[4:24:16] Thanks and thank you for the time.

[4:24:19] >> Councelor Meta, please everyone please

[4:24:22] » Councelor Meta, please everyone please

[4:24:22] remember what time it is. We're all

[4:24:24] tired. We want to go home and we need to

[4:24:25] make making intelligent decisions. Thank

[4:24:27] you. Well, thank you uh Mayor Jan

[4:24:30] through you and I will pretty much

[4:24:31] summarize my comments so you all know

[4:24:33] that I'm not a fan of foreignbased

[4:24:36] zoning. Um and not all planning planners

[4:24:39] agree with it. There's different

[4:24:40] opinions and I appreciate that. Um but I

[4:24:43] do want to say that um I mean obviously

[4:24:46] I'm concerned about having less

[4:24:48] opportunities to come to council to just

[4:24:51] you know be heard about why they don't

[4:24:53] want um a reasonzoning in their

[4:24:55] neighborhood at least to be heard. Um,

[4:24:58] I've already said I'm concerned about

[4:25:00] that. I'm also concerned about land

[4:25:03] values rising, that if you make it too

[4:25:05] easy to redevelop land, the land values

[4:25:08] will go up because of the development

[4:25:10] potential. And um, people are looking

[4:25:12] for starter homes very well could be

[4:25:15] competing against speculators like land

[4:25:18] speculators. That's a concern of mine.

[4:25:20] And the land speculators have more money

[4:25:23] to buy the homes than the firsttime home

[4:25:26] buyers do. So, that's one of my

[4:25:28] concerns. Um, I am going to support the

[4:25:31] amendment. I may or may not turn the

[4:25:33] whole thing down depending on how it

[4:25:35] goes at the end of the night. But, um, I

[4:25:37] think the amendment does bring in some

[4:25:40] more restrictions.

[4:25:42] And, um, although my residents still

[4:25:44] won't be thrilled, I think it does get

[4:25:46] them a better deal. And I am accountable

[4:25:48] to them. I answer to them and I'm trying

[4:25:51] to get a better deal for them, but I

[4:25:53] still might vote against the whole thing

[4:25:54] after. We'll see. Thank you.

[4:26:00] Okay, councelor Shwer and please keep it

[4:26:03] short.

[4:26:04] >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Liant. I

[4:26:06] » Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Liant. I

[4:26:06] just wanted to

[4:26:06] >> This is This is the last speaker.

[4:26:08] » This is This is the last speaker.

[4:26:08] >> Sure. I just want to respond to respond

[4:26:10] » Sure. I just want to respond to respond

[4:26:10] to councelor Hamilton. Um yes, I did

[4:26:13] give an example uh councelor Hamilton

[4:26:16] where um in the past we wouldn't approve

[4:26:19] approved a zone base uh wouldn't

[4:26:21] approved an application and with this

[4:26:24] one uh we would and I do know in the

[4:26:27] past you haven't always accepted all the

[4:26:29] planners and all the the staff's

[4:26:32] recommendation. None of us have uh

[4:26:34] because we have different opinion and

[4:26:36] we're not throwing out the whole form

[4:26:38] based zoning with the bathwater. We're

[4:26:40] just making some improvements because

[4:26:42] we've listened to some amendment. We've

[4:26:44] listened to our residents. That's what I

[4:26:46] wanted to say. Thanks.

[4:26:51] Okay. Now, we'll call for the vote on

[4:26:53] that amendment.

[4:26:57] An opening voting.

[4:27:03] Closing voting.

[4:27:06] And that is defeated. 5 to four.

[4:27:13] Okay.

[4:27:25] » Councelor Kimson, would you like to put

[4:27:29] your motion back on the floor, please?

[4:27:38] Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by myself,

[4:27:41] seconded by councelor Roberts. The

[4:27:43] amendment reads that table 7.2 2

[4:27:46] permitted uses in residential zones be

[4:27:49] amended amended to add the following new

[4:27:52] special provision number five except as

[4:27:55] provided in section 4.19

[4:27:58] where a lot contains a single detached

[4:28:00] dwelling or a semi- detached dwelling

[4:28:02] with a maximum permitted height of 11 m

[4:28:05] on the date of enactment of this bylaw.

[4:28:07] The maximum permitted number of dwelling

[4:28:10] units shall be four and that table 7.2 2

[4:28:14] be amended to apply special provision

[4:28:17] number five to rows 3 4 12 14 15 16 17

[4:28:25] 18 and 19 for the R1 and R2 zones.

[4:28:31] >> May I speak to the amendment?

[4:28:33] » May I speak to the amendment?

[4:28:33] >> Let me ask if there's questions here

[4:28:34] » Let me ask if there's questions here

[4:28:34] first. Okay. And please everybody, we've

[4:28:37] gone through this over and over and over

[4:28:39] tonight. Staff spent a lot of time. So,

[4:28:41] if we could just get as quickly as we

[4:28:43] can to the vote so we can get on with

[4:28:46] because there's a couple more things we

[4:28:47] need to get through or else they're

[4:28:49] going to have to wait for another night.

[4:28:51] Any questions?

[4:28:54] Oh, there you're up comments.

[4:28:57] Thank you, Mayor Jan. I'll keep this

[4:28:59] brief. Um, Councelor Roberts and I

[4:29:03] worked on this amendment. Currently, all

[4:29:06] low density properties are allowed three

[4:29:08] units as of right. that's currently part

[4:29:11] of the provincial legislation.

[4:29:14] Basically, this is going to increase the

[4:29:16] allowable units by one for non-collector

[4:29:20] residential roads and only when all of

[4:29:22] the other requirements are met such as

[4:29:24] setbacks, parking, landscaping.

[4:29:27] If anyone wishes to do more than that,

[4:29:31] then the normal public process would

[4:29:33] apply. However, this would be enough to

[4:29:35] satisfy the requirements for the half

[4:29:37] funding and would be a much more subtle

[4:29:40] change to protect our residential

[4:29:42] communities.

[4:29:44] And this caps R1 and R2 at four units

[4:29:50] maximum. It's already in place in other

[4:29:52] municipalities within our region. It

[4:29:54] puts setbacks in place, height

[4:29:56] restrictions in place, and contributes

[4:29:59] to consistency.

[4:30:01] So today I was looking around my

[4:30:03] neighborhood where I've lived for over

[4:30:05] half a century and there's a mix of

[4:30:08] low-rise apartments, a three-level condo

[4:30:11] building, large over homes subdivided

[4:30:13] into flats, a semi along with single

[4:30:16] family homes. And when I looked around,

[4:30:18] I could see how they all worked and

[4:30:21] blended together because the setbacks

[4:30:23] were there, because there was

[4:30:25] consideration given to parking. All of

[4:30:28] things that with this amendment would be

[4:30:31] taken into consideration that would

[4:30:33] allow the gentle intensification but

[4:30:37] still allow us to benefit from the half

[4:30:39] funding. Thank you.

[4:30:42] Okay, we'll call for that vote. I see no

[4:30:43] other comments or questions.

[4:30:47] and opening voting.

[4:30:53] Closing voting

[4:30:57] and that uh carries 6 to3.

[4:31:02] >> Okay. Councelor Cooper, you have an

[4:31:04] » Okay. Councelor Cooper, you have an

[4:31:04] amendment.

[4:31:32] Anyway,

[4:31:36] » sorry I was confused.

[4:31:40] You have an amendment coming up. Yes.

[4:31:45] » Councelor Kimson, you have another

[4:31:46] amendment.

[4:31:48] >> I know it.

[4:31:59] » Hello again. It's me. Um moved by

[4:32:02] myself, seconded by councelor Roberts.

[4:32:04] Recommendation

[4:32:06] that table 7.3A

[4:32:09] row 4 of columns 3 4 and 5 RR zone R1

[4:32:14] zone and R2 zone be amended by replacing

[4:32:17] 8 m with 6 m.

[4:32:21] Recommendation two that table 7.3B

[4:32:25] row three of columns three four and five

[4:32:28] R1 zone R2 zone and R3 zone be amended

[4:32:32] by replacing 8 m with 6 m.

[4:32:36] Recommendation three that the following

[4:32:38] sentence of section 4.18

[4:32:41] subsection B and C be deleted. Quote,

[4:32:44] "Notwithstanding the above, in no case

[4:32:46] shall the front yard for the attached

[4:32:48] private garage facing the street or

[4:32:51] highway be less than 8 m."

[4:32:56] » And this is where you have the

[4:32:57] amendment, correct?

[4:32:59] >> Okay, now I got it.

[4:33:11] » And this will be surprisingly quick.

[4:33:14] um

[4:33:16] the 8 meter nice generous doesn't quite

[4:33:19] have to be that um what the only amend

[4:33:20] the amendment I would like to make to

[4:33:22] this is basically a compromise that you

[4:33:24] take this motion it's exact wording

[4:33:26] where it says where it says six replace

[4:33:29] with seven

[4:33:31] and the last line to be removed does not

[4:33:34] get removed but where it says eight it

[4:33:36] says seven so basically they're going

[4:33:37] down to six um I think that's a bit much

[4:33:40] to cut off from reasons we heard before

[4:33:42] about people's needs. Um, I think an

[4:33:44] appropriate compromise would be seven

[4:33:46] meters.

[4:33:47] >> Okay, we're going to call for that vote.

[4:33:50] » Okay, we're going to call for that vote.

[4:33:50] >> Oh, you need a seconder. Sorry.

[4:33:53] » Oh, you need a seconder. Sorry.

[4:33:53] >> Okay,

[4:33:58] » opening voting.

[4:34:03] » Sorry.

[4:34:06] >> Oh, yeah. I just wanted to get through

[4:34:07] » Oh, yeah. I just wanted to get through

[4:34:07] everything. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry.

[4:34:13] All right. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Um,

[4:34:14] this question is probably for Hardy, I

[4:34:17] would imagine, or one of our planners

[4:34:18] potentially. Um, what sort of

[4:34:20] implications will there be? We heard

[4:34:21] about significant implications of going

[4:34:23] to 8 mters. Will there still be

[4:34:25] significant implications um for some of

[4:34:28] those properties that we had talked

[4:34:29] about, if we go to seven as opposed to

[4:34:32] six?

[4:34:35] » Sorry, I can't turn my head around.

[4:34:37] >> To you, Madame Mayor. Uh, thank you for

[4:34:39] » To you, Madame Mayor. Uh, thank you for

[4:34:39] the question. Um so I I would imagine uh

[4:34:42] the feedback we would receive from the

[4:34:45] building industry is very similar uh

[4:34:47] that uh anything beyond six really would

[4:34:50] have an impact on on home design in in

[4:34:53] some way. So um I guess I'd leave it at

[4:34:56] that that I I I think it probably would

[4:34:58] have an impact and that's why staff is

[4:35:01] recommending uh you maintain the six

[4:35:03] would be our our recommendation.

[4:35:05] >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:35:10] Okay, here we go. Councelor Cooper.

[4:35:12] Great.

[4:35:13] >> Just to that point, yeah, I mean,

[4:35:14] » Just to that point, yeah, I mean,

[4:35:14] there's pros and cons to everything we

[4:35:16] do. I mean, if you listen to developers,

[4:35:17] I mean, they'd love it if we went down

[4:35:18] to one meter. Um, but we, you know, I

[4:35:20] know who we're representing, and the

[4:35:22] pros to this is this is going to be a

[4:35:23] heck of a lot more useful to many people

[4:35:26] um that are going to be using these

[4:35:27] homes. Um, especially with the reasons

[4:35:29] that um, councelor Divine gave. Um, of

[4:35:32] course they're going to complain. That's

[4:35:33] what developers do. Um, but we're repres

[4:35:36] representing residents. I think 7 m is

[4:35:38] uh is perfectly fine and I I do support

[4:35:40] it.

[4:35:42] >> Councelor Kimson,

[4:35:44] » Councelor Kimson,

[4:35:44] >> thank you very much and through you,

[4:35:46] » thank you very much and through you,

[4:35:46] Madame Mayor. Um

[4:35:49] I guess I I just want to clarify that

[4:35:51] this isn't something that we're going

[4:35:53] from 8 and changing it to six. We are

[4:35:57] already at six. And the difference

[4:36:00] between 8 m and 6 m isn't going to have

[4:36:04] any impact on solving our parking issues

[4:36:06] because we're not going to be able to

[4:36:08] fit another vehicle in that additional 2

[4:36:09] m at the foot of the driveway. So, I

[4:36:12] just want to be clear about that. I'm

[4:36:14] concerned about the impact that it's

[4:36:17] going to have on plans that are already

[4:36:20] in the queue that have perhaps started

[4:36:23] the process, but maybe it's at the

[4:36:26] pre-conultation and the developers have

[4:36:29] gone away and started drawing up their

[4:36:31] plans based on what they've learned at

[4:36:33] that time and they haven't yet submitted

[4:36:35] it to us for approval or site plan and

[4:36:39] and that's going to take more time and

[4:36:41] that's going to add cost. So, I guess

[4:36:42] I'm wondering if staff um how many

[4:36:46] potential

[4:36:48] people or units or developers, however

[4:36:51] we want to say it, are going to be

[4:36:53] affected by this change at this stage

[4:37:00] » through you, mayor. Thanks for the

[4:37:02] question. Um there's a number of ways

[4:37:04] that this change will have implications.

[4:37:07] So, as Brian mentioned, um it will and

[4:37:12] as you're referring to impact the number

[4:37:15] of potential units, but it also will

[4:37:19] likely be difficult to navigate through

[4:37:22] the OOLT if it gets challenged because

[4:37:25] it is a common standard. And I would say

[4:37:27] the last thing to keep in mind is uh if

[4:37:32] a renovation comes in in an existing

[4:37:34] dwelling built on the previous 6 meter

[4:37:37] standard, they'll have to go through a

[4:37:39] process of recogni being recognized as

[4:37:42] legal non-conforming because they will

[4:37:45] no longer have a driveway that meets the

[4:37:48] enforce zoning bylaw.

[4:37:53] Councelor Divine.

[4:37:56] I

[4:37:56] >> mean, this has been a hot topic for

[4:37:58] » mean, this has been a hot topic for

[4:37:58] sure. Uh 6 mters, it's awfully tight for

[4:38:02] very very tight for an extended cab

[4:38:06] F-150.

[4:38:08] And if you put a uh crew cab, it's not

[4:38:11] going to fit. Extended cab F-150 with an

[4:38:15] 8ft box is

[4:38:18] 250 in.

[4:38:21] That's what it is. Now, the world's

[4:38:24] changed. We have a lot of young people

[4:38:26] today that are working out of their

[4:38:29] homes that whether electricians,

[4:38:32] plumbers, carpenters, or whatever, and

[4:38:34] they're working out of their vehicles.

[4:38:37] I would ask I would ask U council to

[4:38:41] look at this 7 m because I think I think

[4:38:43] it's logical. I think it's logical. All

[4:38:47] right. So, I mean, I will support the 7

[4:38:50] m because it makes sense to me. 6 m is

[4:38:53] just it's off. It's too tight. It's just

[4:38:55] far too tight for that type of vehicle.

[4:38:57] All right. Unless, you know, we we're

[4:39:00] going to tell people that uh you know

[4:39:02] what vehicles they should be driving,

[4:39:04] which I don't think they should, but um

[4:39:07] you're you're 250 in. You're 250 in on a

[4:39:14] extended cab pickup. That's not even a

[4:39:15] crew cab. extended cab pickup with an 8

[4:39:18] foot box and that's what most people in

[4:39:21] construction use. Thank you.

[4:39:24] >> Okay, councelor Kimson, then I'm calling

[4:39:25] » Okay, councelor Kimson, then I'm calling

[4:39:26] the question.

[4:39:32] » So, we'll call the question now.

[4:39:36] >> Opening voting.

[4:39:39] » Opening voting.

[4:39:39] >> We're voting on seven meters.

[4:39:44] closing voting

[4:39:48] and that is carried five to four.

[4:39:52] Okay. So, we're voting on the main

[4:40:23] motion with all of the amendments.

[4:40:27] Sorry, sorry. The main amendment. So,

[4:40:29] Council Kimson and Roberts for this

[4:40:32] amendment. Councelor Cooper amended

[4:40:34] their amendment. So, now you're back to

[4:40:36] the original amendment. Council came.

[4:41:16] Oh, wow. I don't think I've ever seen

[4:41:19] this in all my years on council. So, now

[4:41:22] we're going to vote on the amendment.

[4:41:25] Your amendment with the changes for the

[4:41:28] seven. That's the word. It's like having

[4:41:32] a main motion and then having an

[4:41:33] amendment on we voted for the amendment.

[4:41:37] And now we're voting for the main motion

[4:41:39] with the amendment only. It's your

[4:41:41] amendment with the amendment. Got it.

[4:41:46] » Yes.

[4:41:49] >> It's seven meters no matter which way

[4:41:51] » It's seven meters no matter which way

[4:41:51] you look at it. So you can vote against

[4:41:54] it again if you want, but then you've

[4:41:56] lost the rest of your stuff, too.

[4:42:00] >> Good.

[4:42:01] » Good.

[4:42:01] >> Yeah, I'm good. So, we're voting for

[4:42:03] » Yeah, I'm good. So, we're voting for

[4:42:03] seven meters again

[4:42:06] and opening voting.

[4:42:12] Closing voting

[4:42:15] and that carries 6 to three.

[4:42:22] Okay. So, now we're voting for the main

[4:42:25] motion with all of the amendments on it.

[4:42:27] Does everybody understand what Nick?

[4:42:29] >> Thank you, Mayor J.

[4:42:32] » Thank you, Mayor J.

[4:42:32] A thought came to my head.

[4:42:34] >> I would like to take some streets out of

[4:42:36] » I would like to take some streets out of

[4:42:36] the R2 zone and put them in the R1 zone

[4:42:39] if we could at least have a vote on it.

[4:42:41] >> No.

[4:42:42] » No.

[4:42:42] >> No, you won't allow that.

[4:42:43] » No, you won't allow that.

[4:42:43] >> No.

[4:42:45] » No.

[4:42:45] >> Okay.

[4:42:45] » Okay.

[4:42:46] >> We're on the main motion like

[4:42:47] » We're on the main motion like

[4:42:48] >> Well, don't I have a right to put

[4:42:49] » Well, don't I have a right to put

[4:42:49] forward another amendment?

[4:42:51] >> It's up to you. You're the chair. I'll

[4:42:53] » It's up to you. You're the chair. I'll

[4:42:53] just tell the residents that I made an

[4:42:55] effort, but I would like to take Canon

[4:42:57] Crescent.

[4:42:57] >> Okay. Tell me the streets.

[4:42:59] » Okay. Tell me the streets.

[4:42:59] >> Tell me the streets. Okay.

[4:43:01] » Tell me the streets. Okay.

[4:43:01] >> So, I can vote against you.

[4:43:05] » So, I can vote against you.

[4:43:05] >> Well, it's your choice, but I'm

[4:43:06] » Well, it's your choice, but I'm

[4:43:06] accountable to

[4:43:07] >> Just tell me the streets. Just tell me

[4:43:08] » Just tell me the streets. Just tell me

[4:43:08] the streets.

[4:43:09] >> Okay.

[4:43:11] » Okay.

[4:43:11] >> Okay. There's only seven of them. So,

[4:43:13] » Okay. There's only seven of them. So,

[4:43:13] can Canning Crescent,

[4:43:16] um, MC Tag Drive, Pearl Butt Place, Ben

[4:43:20] Drive, Be Canon Lane, Tallow Tree Place,

[4:43:24] and um, yeah, that's all of them. So

[4:43:26] basically to change the R2 to the R1,

[4:43:29] that's what I want to have a vote on and

[4:43:31] I'll leave at that.

[4:43:33] >> Okay. Can I have a input from staff on

[4:43:35] » Okay. Can I have a input from staff on

[4:43:35] this please?

[4:43:44] » You have a seconder for this.

[4:43:47] >> It's up to the council. Otherwise,

[4:43:50] » It's up to the council. Otherwise,

[4:43:50] have tried and

[4:43:56] » that's what I'm I'm That's what I'm just

[4:43:58] asking staff all about.

[4:44:02] » I think we're I think we're hurting

[4:44:04] their brains over there.

[4:44:08] » It's not about that. It's about what we

[4:44:10] can do and what we can't do. Uh through

[4:44:12] you, mayor. Um the consequence of this

[4:44:15] would be the map that needs to get

[4:44:17] approved with the main motion would have

[4:44:19] to be taken back and amended. So staff

[4:44:22] would request that this motion be

[4:44:25] deferred to the phase two of the zoning

[4:44:28] bylaw review.

[4:44:31] >> Can we do that

[4:44:33] » Can we do that

[4:44:33] with the half funding? Hang on. Hang on.

[4:44:36] Hang on. Hang on. Can we do that?

[4:44:40] just uh we're just uh recommending that

[4:44:43] the motion be deferred so that the main

[4:44:47] recommendation with the current mapping

[4:44:49] can proceed

[4:44:51] today.

[4:44:52] >> I don't think we are. Isn't the main

[4:44:55] » I don't think we are. Isn't the main

[4:44:55] motion to do with the whole

[4:44:59] I know you're supposed to be the

[4:45:00] experts, but I don't want to make a

[4:45:02] mistake here because

[4:45:07] through you, mayor, staff could take a

[4:45:09] staff direction

[4:45:12] with so revise this motion to amend to a

[4:45:15] staff direction to explore removing the

[4:45:19] list of streets

[4:45:22] um from R2 to R1 uh through phase two of

[4:45:28] the zoning bylaw. We could take that as

[4:45:30] a staff direction. That'll have us do

[4:45:34] that work at that time.

[4:45:35] >> So then we run the risk too of other

[4:45:38] » So then we run the risk too of other

[4:45:38] streets residents coming forward wanting

[4:45:40] other streets put on that list again.

[4:45:44] >> Yes. Okay.

[4:45:48] » You didn't have a seconder, did you,

[4:45:49] Nick? council,

[4:45:52] but otherwise I just

[4:45:59] » you have no seconders. So your motion

[4:46:01] your thing fails.

[4:46:02] >> It'll be in the minute.

[4:46:04] » It'll be in the minute.

[4:46:04] >> Okay. Okay. I I know where you're going.

[4:46:07] » Okay. Okay. I I know where you're going.

[4:46:07] That's good. Okay.

[4:46:10] >> Now,

[4:46:12] » Now,

[4:46:12] >> main motion.

[4:46:13] » main motion.

[4:46:13] >> Main motion with the amendments.

[4:46:16] » Main motion with the amendments.

[4:46:16] >> Please ask me to try and read that.

[4:46:18] » Please ask me to try and read that.

[4:46:18] >> Yeah, she's not going to read it.

[4:46:19] » Yeah, she's not going to read it.

[4:46:19] Everybody knows what the amendments

[4:46:20] were, right? It's really messy up here.

[4:46:23] Okay.

[4:46:26] So,

[4:46:28] call the question.

[4:46:36] Opening voting.

[4:46:42] Closing voting.

[4:46:46] That carries six to three.

[4:46:50] Okay. So, I think we only have one more

[4:46:53] to go and

[4:46:55] that's Council Schwar's motion to do

[4:46:58] with the LRT funding. And you're

[4:47:01] amending

[4:47:03] or am I amending? I'm amending your

[4:47:05] motion or do you want to just change

[4:47:08] your original motion?

[4:47:10] >> Sorry. You're going to take that last

[4:47:12] » Sorry. You're going to take that last

[4:47:12] sentence out. Okay.

[4:47:17] Okay. Can you read your motion, please?

[4:47:29] Where is it? Ah, where are we? Okay.

[4:47:45] Thank you, Mayor Liot. Uh moved by

[4:47:47] myself, seconded by councelor Cooper.

[4:47:50] Whereas the city of Cambridge has

[4:47:52] contributed approximately over $60

[4:47:55] million towards the Kitchener Waterl ion

[4:47:59] stage 1 capital costs since the

[4:48:02] inception of the regional transportation

[4:48:05] master plan funding strategy in 2011.

[4:48:09] while Kitner Waterlue will not be

[4:48:11] contributed to Cambridge's ion stage 2

[4:48:14] capital cost. Whereas the city of

[4:48:16] Cambridge has been funding the

[4:48:18] operations of the Kiter Water ion stage

[4:48:21] 1 since approximately 2019 and has

[4:48:25] received none of the financial benefits

[4:48:28] from the stated $5 billion and economic

[4:48:32] investment that both Kitner and Waterlue

[4:48:35] have received. Now, therefore, be it

[4:48:38] resolved that the Cambridge Council

[4:48:40] requests that the region of Waterlue

[4:48:42] provide a funding breakdown detailing

[4:48:45] the total capital and maintenance costs

[4:48:48] levied on the Cambridge residents

[4:48:50] relating to ion stage 1. That Cambridge

[4:48:53] residents be reimbursed for the money

[4:48:56] they have contributed to ion stage 1.

[4:48:59] and that the region be requested to

[4:49:02] communicate a plan on how reimbursement

[4:49:04] will be achieved within the first

[4:49:07] quarter of 2026. And if I may speak to

[4:49:10] it.

[4:49:12] >> Okay. There's no questions to staff up

[4:49:15] » Okay. There's no questions to staff up

[4:49:15] here, so go for it.

[4:49:18] >> Councelor Kimson, you have a question to

[4:49:20] » Councelor Kimson, you have a question to

[4:49:20] staff?

[4:49:21] >> I do. Okay.

[4:49:23] » I do. Okay.

[4:49:23] Um, thank you, Mayor Jan, for you. Um, I

[4:49:26] guess my question to staff is, is this

[4:49:30] even possible for a lower tier

[4:49:33] municipality to ask an upper tier

[4:49:39] to do this?

[4:49:42] >> We can request anybody to do anything.

[4:49:44] » We can request anybody to do anything.

[4:49:44] Do you want to speak to this?

[4:49:47] >> Through you, mayor. So, a council can

[4:49:49] » Through you, mayor. So, a council can

[4:49:49] make a request on it. uh the uh upper

[4:49:53] level government can do what they want

[4:49:56] with that request uh to their

[4:49:58] prerogative.

[4:50:03] » Can I ask everybody I mean we all know

[4:50:08] like let's not go on and on and on for

[4:50:10] the

[4:50:14] » Go ahead councelor Hamilton.

[4:50:17] >> Thank you Mayor Leot and I'll make it

[4:50:18] » Thank you Mayor Leot and I'll make it

[4:50:18] quick. I think this question is for Rob.

[4:50:20] Um but the the second therefore be it

[4:50:24] resolved there's no mention of a

[4:50:25] request. It just says that Cambridge

[4:50:27] residents be reimbursed for the money

[4:50:29] they contributed for stage one. Is that

[4:50:32] enforceable

[4:50:36] through you? So the way the way it is

[4:50:37] worded the first bullet somewhat

[4:50:39] references into the second bullet on

[4:50:42] this particular motion the way I'm kind

[4:50:45] of reading it. Um but but that said uh

[4:50:48] it it it should be saying request it it

[4:50:51] all it's all a request because can that

[4:50:53] actually happen like we you as council

[4:50:56] can't make a decision for regional

[4:50:57] council regional council has to make

[4:50:59] their own decision. So you have to

[4:51:02] follow that uh train of logic in order

[4:51:04] for them to to to change their mind on

[4:51:06] something. I appreciate the

[4:51:07] clarification because the others said

[4:51:09] request and that one didn't. So thank

[4:51:10] you

[4:51:12] >> councelor Cooper.

[4:51:14] » councelor Cooper.

[4:51:14] >> Thank you Mig. Uh this is a very

[4:51:16] » Thank you Mig. Uh this is a very

[4:51:16] contentious issue. Um a lot of people

[4:51:17] are making comments on it. Um I know

[4:51:20] what time it is. Uh I'd like to be

[4:51:21] quick. There's a lot that has to be said

[4:51:23] about exactly what this is we're doing.

[4:51:26] Okay. And why this is coming about

[4:51:27] because I'm

[4:51:29] >> hang on. I know everybody wants to talk

[4:51:32] » hang on. I know everybody wants to talk

[4:51:32] on this for a long time, but can you

[4:51:35] really keep it short?

[4:51:37] >> What I'm going to say is very important

[4:51:38] » What I'm going to say is very important

[4:51:38] here regarding the last time. Councelor

[4:51:41] Hamilton was right. You did go on eight

[4:51:43] minutes.

[4:51:43] >> Okay. Okay. Well, I'm going 8 minutes

[4:51:44] » Okay. Okay. Well, I'm going 8 minutes

[4:51:44] >> because it's

[4:51:45] » because it's

[4:51:45] >> I can say this

[4:51:46] » I can say this

[4:51:46] >> quart to 12 and I don't want to get into

[4:51:48] » quart to 12 and I don't want to get into

[4:51:48] tomorrow.

[4:51:48] >> Do what I can, but I just want to

[4:51:49] » Do what I can, but I just want to

[4:51:49] explain exactly what this is and why

[4:51:51] we're doing it. Okay. A lot of BS going

[4:51:54] out around about this. Um, this is not

[4:51:56] about supporting the LRT. Got nothing to

[4:51:58] do with that or opposing it. This is

[4:52:00] about honoring our fiscal responsibility

[4:52:02] to those that we represent and writing a

[4:52:05] very expensive wrong. Uh, I'll be blunt

[4:52:07] here. I believe financially we got

[4:52:09] screwed here and I'm going to tell you

[4:52:11] why. Just a few points.

[4:52:14] unequal treatment. Cambridge has does

[4:52:16] not currently receive LRT service, yet

[4:52:19] we have been required to contribute

[4:52:21] financially. Surrounding townships also

[4:52:23] do not receive service, but have not

[4:52:25] been required to pay toward its capital

[4:52:28] costs and operations. Municipalities

[4:52:30] that receive equal levels of service

[4:52:33] should be treated equally. We are not.

[4:52:35] There's also economic equality as the uh

[4:52:38] region likes to likes to boast about the

[4:52:41] LRTdriven development and assessment

[4:52:43] growth is about 5.2 billion. Apparently,

[4:52:46] townships were never expected to receive

[4:52:48] the benefits from these assessments. So,

[4:52:50] they didn't have to pay. Cambridge was

[4:52:53] asked to pay but has received nothing in

[4:52:56] return. Some of these assessments went

[4:52:57] directly to Kitchener. They went

[4:52:59] directly to Waterloo. Nothing came to

[4:53:03] us. If financial benefit is being reaped

[4:53:06] by others but not by us, then our

[4:53:08] financial responsibility should end and

[4:53:11] our past contributions should be

[4:53:13] addressed.

[4:53:15] Saying that we will eventually benefit

[4:53:17] from the LRT is not an excuse to ignore

[4:53:19] the fiscal responsibility we have to

[4:53:21] expose and correct what many see as a

[4:53:23] shocking misuse of Cambridge taxpayer

[4:53:25] money, as well as a shocking lack of

[4:53:28] action from those that should have

[4:53:29] prevented this from happening in the

[4:53:30] first place.

[4:53:32] Cambridge Cambridge's contribution was

[4:53:34] made with the understanding that LRT

[4:53:35] would expand to Cambridge, expand to

[4:53:37] Cambridge within a reasonable time. That

[4:53:39] has change. That assumption has changed.

[4:53:42] It will take many years before this

[4:53:44] comes. It'll take many of years before

[4:53:45] it even starts, if it ever comes. When

[4:53:47] the situation has changed, financial

[4:53:49] arrangements need to be revised.

[4:53:52] Reimbursement would not give Cambridge

[4:53:54] special treatment. It would simply place

[4:53:56] Cambridge in the same financial position

[4:53:58] as other non-served municipalities until

[4:54:01] LRT is actually delivered. If that

[4:54:03] happens, this could be achieved through

[4:54:05] rebate, credit against future transit

[4:54:08] contributions, suspension of capital

[4:54:10] costs until service begins. This

[4:54:12] reimbursement would equalize treatment

[4:54:14] across the region. Almost done here. Our

[4:54:17] relationship with the region depends on

[4:54:19] cooperation and trust. If we are

[4:54:21] expected to continue paying while

[4:54:23] receiving no service alongside seeing

[4:54:26] other non-served municipalities exempt

[4:54:29] from paying, then our relationship with

[4:54:31] the region is compromised. Fairness and

[4:54:34] equity is essential to a good

[4:54:35] relationship.

[4:54:37] Revisiting Cambridge's contribution now

[4:54:39] restores fairness, builds goodwill,

[4:54:41] andre increases support for future

[4:54:43] expansion. Last bit here. We are not

[4:54:47] asking for preferential treatment. We

[4:54:49] are asking to be treated the same as

[4:54:51] other municipalities that have not

[4:54:53] received service until that day the

[4:54:55] service actually reaches our city.

[4:55:00] Okay, I see you're all loading up to

[4:55:03] speak on this.

[4:55:06] I'm not going to let you go on for five

[4:55:08] minutes. It's just not going to happen

[4:55:09] here. Um, councelor Kimson,

[4:55:15] >> thank you very much, Mayor Janu.

[4:55:17] » thank you very much, Mayor Janu.

[4:55:17] I'm not saying that I'm pleased that

[4:55:19] Cambridge has been paying for the LRT

[4:55:21] all of this time. However, we need to

[4:55:24] respect the decisions that were made by

[4:55:26] the previous council.

[4:55:28] >> This was a decision that was made by the

[4:55:30] » This was a decision that was made by the

[4:55:30] elected council of the day following the

[4:55:32] due process and that yes, the surrounded

[4:55:36] townships are not paying into it, but

[4:55:38] that was the decision that was made

[4:55:40] democratically by the elected officials

[4:55:43] at the time. And when we talk about

[4:55:45] cooperation and trust, we have to

[4:55:47] respect the decisions that are made by

[4:55:49] the different levels of government who

[4:55:51] hold the appropriate jurisdiction. And

[4:55:54] this is something where while I

[4:55:56] appreciate that yes, the other areas

[4:55:58] have benefited from the LRT and we have

[4:56:01] not yet. But following phase 2, it is

[4:56:04] now in place. It is now going forward.

[4:56:07] Should things change, then we can

[4:56:09] re-evaluate at the time. But I again

[4:56:12] want to reiterate that the democratic

[4:56:14] process was followed and we need to

[4:56:15] respect the decision that was decided at

[4:56:17] the time. Thank you,

[4:56:21] » Councelor Meta.

[4:56:23] >> Well, thank you, Mayor Jan. I won't go

[4:56:24] » Well, thank you, Mayor Jan. I won't go

[4:56:24] on and on or I'll try not to, but um

[4:56:26] from my perspective, I disagreed with

[4:56:29] the decision then and I disagree with it

[4:56:31] now. And um from my perspective, I have

[4:56:34] to stand up for what I think is right.

[4:56:36] And I think a lot of money has left this

[4:56:38] city and I think we're at a disadvantage

[4:56:41] for that reason. And this does level the

[4:56:44] playing field. It does put the city on a

[4:56:46] more equal level than what we have than

[4:56:48] where we are right now. And uh 60

[4:56:51] million is a lot of money. That's 300

[4:56:53] playgrounds, maybe more if we can get

[4:56:56] better pricing. So, you know, there's a

[4:56:58] lot of good we could do with that money.

[4:57:00] and um there's services that the

[4:57:02] residents would like us to to spend on

[4:57:04] rather than the LRT. So from my

[4:57:07] perspective, I'm fully supportive of

[4:57:09] this motion. Thank you,

[4:57:13] » Councelor Robertson. That's the last

[4:57:15] speaker because we've still got all the

[4:57:17] rest of it to do and we have to have

[4:57:18] this done by midnight. We have to have

[4:57:21] >> all the confir No, no confirmatory bylaw

[4:57:24] » all the confir No, no confirmatory bylaw

[4:57:24] has to be done.

[4:57:26] >> No, I'm going to allow you. I'm just

[4:57:27] » No, I'm going to allow you. I'm just

[4:57:27] saying

[4:57:27] >> I'll let Scott go. It's fine. Yeah, it's

[4:57:29] » I'll let Scott go. It's fine. Yeah, it's

[4:57:29] okay. I'm going to let you go. He's

[4:57:31] already spoken on this once. So, you go.

[4:57:33] >> I I don't think that he has spoken on

[4:57:35] » I I don't think that he has spoken on

[4:57:35] this issue.

[4:57:35] >> He did. He's I thought you spoke after

[4:57:39] » He did. He's I thought you spoke after

[4:57:39] Scott did.

[4:57:41] >> Oh, god.

[4:57:42] » Oh, god.

[4:57:42] >> Okay. So, everybody, we've got to get

[4:57:44] » Okay. So, everybody, we've got to get

[4:57:44] through this. Everything tonight.

[4:57:46] >> I'll be quick.

[4:57:47] » I'll be quick.

[4:57:47] >> Can't go through

[4:57:47] » Can't go through

[4:57:47] >> and succinct. I promise.

[4:57:50] » and succinct. I promise.

[4:57:50] >> I'm sorry. What? I can't hear you all.

[4:57:57] » Oh my god. Go ahead, Councelor Hamilton.

[4:57:59] Go ahead.

[4:58:01] >> Okay.

[4:58:06] » Oh, that's me. So,

[4:58:08] >> that's okay. Sorry, Council Roberts,

[4:58:10] » that's okay. Sorry, Council Roberts,

[4:58:10] please go afterwards. I'll limit this

[4:58:11] and be quick. Uh I appreciate the urge

[4:58:14] of fellow counselors to try and recoup

[4:58:16] taxes during a very tough economic time,

[4:58:18] but I feel the motion does send the

[4:58:20] wrong message at a time where we need

[4:58:22] unity in the region in terms of funding

[4:58:24] to move on to stage two, which is the

[4:58:26] business case and also regional unity in

[4:58:29] what is a very fractured national and

[4:58:31] geopolitical world. Um Cambridge has

[4:58:33] received benefits. Assessment growth

[4:58:36] from the region is not divided into

[4:58:37] areas. Assessment growth is general. So,

[4:58:40] we don't want the region coming back to

[4:58:41] us and saying, "Give me my portion for

[4:58:43] paying for McQueen Shaver or the East

[4:58:45] Boundary Road." Um, I don't feel like

[4:58:48] the motion is legal. I don't feel like

[4:58:50] it's enforceable. I don't feel like it

[4:58:52] paints a proper picture to our residents

[4:58:54] to say that we can go and solicit funds

[4:58:57] from other levels of government. Um

[4:59:01] it's in our strategic plan that the LRT

[4:59:03] is in the future vision of the city and

[4:59:05] I think we should abide by the decisions

[4:59:06] of previous councils uh regional

[4:59:08] councils and other levels of government

[4:59:10] to support this project at the benefit

[4:59:12] to our future of the city and of all of

[4:59:15] our residents. Thank you.

[4:59:18] >> Okay, councelor Roris quick.

[4:59:24] » I will be super quick. I just want to

[4:59:26] say that I do understand the frustration

[4:59:28] many residents feel about the delivery

[4:59:30] of transit infrastructure here in

[4:59:31] Cambridge, but it simply does not make

[4:59:33] sense to demand reimbursement of funds

[4:59:35] that were collected through a regional

[4:59:36] tax system to support a regional

[4:59:38] project. As a part of the region of

[4:59:40] waterlue, we contribute collectively to

[4:59:42] regionwide infrastructure whether it's

[4:59:44] waste management, public health,

[4:59:46] policing, etc. And because these systems

[4:59:48] are designed to serve the broader

[4:59:49] community, not just individual municipal

[4:59:52] boundaries, that's how we are taxed on

[4:59:53] them. Um, I'm going to skip a bunch of

[4:59:56] stuff. I just want to say our focus

[4:59:58] should really be on advocating

[5:00:00] constructively for timely delivery,

[5:00:02] fiscal responsibility, and fair service

[5:00:04] for our residents, not on trying to

[5:00:06] unwind a regional funding model that all

[5:00:08] lower tier municipalities operate

[5:00:09] within. And I agree with Councelor

[5:00:11] Hamilton that I don't even think that

[5:00:12] this is a realistic ask. And I think

[5:00:14] that it's misleading to our residents.

[5:00:16] Thank you.

[5:00:18] >> Okay. First off, it is legal.

[5:00:21] » Okay. First off, it is legal.

[5:00:21] Definitely legal.

[5:00:23] And I don't think we should be saying

[5:00:25] something's illegal when it's we

[5:00:27] wouldn't be putting it through as a

[5:00:28] motion if it was illegal. Um I'm going

[5:00:32] to support the motion. I think it tells

[5:00:33] the public that they have been paying

[5:00:37] for a number of years for something they

[5:00:39] we have not been getting. And by the

[5:00:41] time that next phase of the LRT comes

[5:00:43] in, we will have been paying still for

[5:00:46] another 10 15 years for something we are

[5:00:49] not getting. So, with that, I'm going to

[5:00:52] call for the vote.

[5:00:54] Oh.

[5:00:56] Oh my god.

[5:00:59] >> I don't have time. I don't have time.

[5:01:01] » I don't have time. I don't have time.

[5:01:01] We've got to get We've got to get the

[5:01:03] confirmatory battle and stuff done by

[5:01:04] midnight.

[5:01:10] » I'm not going to let you because we need

[5:01:12] to get this done. We You're

[5:01:17] » Can you be quick, please?

[5:01:19] >> Sure. First of all, it was not

[5:01:21] » Sure. First of all, it was not

[5:01:21] democratic because the basis of us

[5:01:23] paying um Kitchener Waterlue the promise

[5:01:27] was they would pay ours and they're not

[5:01:28] paying ours. So that's not democratic

[5:01:31] and that's I'm not undoing a decision

[5:01:33] because that decision they've undone

[5:01:35] themselves and this motion is not about

[5:01:37] anti-transit. It asks just a basic

[5:01:40] question. Cambridge residents have paid

[5:01:42] and continue to pay for transit system

[5:01:44] that does not serve Cambridge. Townships

[5:01:46] have not. Have we been treated fairly in

[5:01:49] the allocation and the benefit of major

[5:01:51] regional transit investments relative to

[5:01:54] its fin our financial contribute

[5:01:56] contributions? Did we get out what we

[5:01:58] put in? No. Cambridge contributions to

[5:02:01] Einstage One came from regional funding

[5:02:04] model not from planning choices.

[5:02:06] Kitchener Waterl received direct

[5:02:08] benefits. Cambridge did not. With the

[5:02:11] provincial funding, with the province

[5:02:12] funding Cambridge ion, it's only

[5:02:14] reasonable to ask for counting and

[5:02:16] refund. Asking for fairness and

[5:02:19] transparency strengthens Cambridge's

[5:02:21] credibility. Continuing to pay for

[5:02:23] something we do not use does not. This

[5:02:26] is what my motion is about and why I'm

[5:02:29] asking um you my fellow counselors for

[5:02:31] this support. Thank you.

[5:02:33] >> Okay. Call the question.

[5:02:36] » Okay. Call the question.

[5:02:36] >> Opening voting.

[5:02:38] » Opening voting.

[5:02:38] Closing

[5:02:42] voting

[5:02:45] that is defeated 5 to four.

[5:02:49] Okay. So the next is the introduction

[5:02:53] consideration of bylaws and councelor

[5:02:58] Sherry you have that motion.

[5:03:02] Oh sorry motion to receive.

[5:03:04] >> Councelor Divine you have that motion.

[5:03:14] microphone on.

[5:03:16] >> Okay. Sorry. Uh where are we? That all

[5:03:19] » Okay. Sorry. Uh where are we? That all

[5:03:19] presentations and correspondence from

[5:03:21] February 3rd, 2026 council meeting be

[5:03:24] received. Seconded by Corey Kimson.

[5:03:27] >> Okay, we'll call for that vote.

[5:03:30] » Okay, we'll call for that vote.

[5:03:30] >> Opening voting.

[5:03:35] » Closing voting.

[5:03:38] carries unanimously.

[5:03:41] >> Consideration of bylaws. Councelor Sher,

[5:03:43] » Consideration of bylaws. Councelor Sher,

[5:03:43] you have that motion.

[5:03:48] » Thank you. Move. Uh, mayor u moved by

[5:03:51] myself, seconded by councelor Roberts

[5:03:53] that the following by law listed under

[5:03:55] the heading of introduction and

[5:03:57] consideration of bylaws be enacted and

[5:03:59] passed. 26-002

[5:04:02] being a bylaw to adopt amendment 98 of

[5:04:06] the city of Cambridge official plan tw

[5:04:09] 2012 re 165 Cherry Blossom Road 26-003

[5:04:14] being a bylaw to amend zoning bylaw

[5:04:18] 150-85

[5:04:20] as amended with respect to Len

[5:04:22] municipality known as 165 Cherry Blossom

[5:04:25] Road 26-004

[5:04:28] being a bylaw to amend zoning ing bylaw

[5:04:31] 150-85

[5:04:33] as amended with respect to land

[5:04:35] municipality

[5:04:37] land municipally known as 55 care street

[5:04:41] being a bylaw to adopt amendment number

[5:04:43] 91 of the city of Cambridge official

[5:04:46] plan 20 2012

[5:04:50] being a bylaw to repeal the residential

[5:04:52] zone and regulation zoning bylaw as

[5:04:55] amended and replace them with new

[5:04:57] residential zones and regulation except

[5:05:00] for certain lands subject to transition

[5:05:04] transition regulations and deferral.

[5:05:08] Okay, we'll call that question.

[5:05:10] >> Just a quick note on bylaw 267.

[5:05:13] » Just a quick note on bylaw 267.

[5:05:13] The N should also say as amended because

[5:05:16] there were multiple amendments made

[5:05:18] tonight.

[5:05:18] >> Okay, opening voting.

[5:05:26] as amended.

[5:05:30] » As amended,

[5:05:33] >> are you talking to me?

[5:05:34] » are you talking to me?

[5:05:34] >> We're voting right now.

[5:05:39] » What?

[5:05:42] >> And closing voting

[5:05:45] » And closing voting

[5:05:45] carries 8 to one.

[5:05:48] Okay. Next is confirmatory bylaw.

[5:05:50] Councelor Med, you have that

[5:05:54] Jesus getting

[5:05:58] >> hurry up.

[5:06:02] » Okay. So, moved by myself, seconded by

[5:06:04] councelor Roberts that bylaw 26-008

[5:06:08] being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings

[5:06:11] of the council of the corporation of the

[5:06:12] city of Cambridge be passed.

[5:06:15] >> All in favor?

[5:06:16] » All in favor?

[5:06:16] >> Opening voting.

[5:06:18] » Opening voting.

[5:06:18] Closing

[5:06:23] voting that carries nine and

[5:06:26] unanimously.

[5:06:27] >> Okay, we reached the end of our agenda.

[5:06:30] » Okay, we reached the end of our agenda.

[5:06:30] Councelor Devine, you have the close of

[5:06:31] the meeting.

[5:06:35] » Yes. Um, the council meeting does now

[5:06:39] adjourn at 11:59

[5:06:42] p.m.

[5:06:44] >> No, it's it's 12 midnight on our

[5:06:46] » No, it's it's 12 midnight on our

[5:06:46] >> Well, that's that's a clock up there.

[5:06:49] » Well, that's that's a clock up there.

[5:06:49] But we have 12 midnight.

[5:06:51] >> Okay. 12:00 a.m. Then if you want 12

[5:06:52] » Okay. 12:00 a.m. Then if you want 12

[5:06:52] a.m., have it at 12:00 a.m.

[5:06:54] >> Whatever you want. Don't matter me

[5:06:56] » Whatever you want. Don't matter me

[5:06:56] 12:01. That's fine. You want to do that?

[5:07:00] >> Opening voting.

[5:07:04] opposing

[5:07:06] voting to me. It

[5:07:08] >> carries unanimously. Give me a number.

[5:07:12] » I should have left it. It'll be 11:59.

[5:07:15] >> Yeah.

[5:07:16] » Yeah.

[5:07:16] >> Now tomorrow at 12 a.m., right?

Council Meeting

Transcript