Good evening everyone. My name is Jan
Liot, mayor and chair of this council
meeting. We will now rise from close
session. And councelor Cooper, you have
that motion.
There we go. Thank you, May. I'm just
waiting for my my microphone to come on.
Yes. Uh recommendation the council rise
from close session at 6:52.
» I will ask the clerk to call for that
vote, please.
>> Opening voting.
Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
So during close session this evening,
council and staff had discussions and
council provided staff with direction on
confidential negotiations,
confidential litigation matters, and
confidential legal advice.
Please note that the city of Cambridge
council meetings are broadcast on the
city's YouTube page and are archived on
the city's website. It is imperative
that we as city council promote public
participation using a variety of methods
including YouTube. On that note, our
last council meeting had 779 views on
YouTube and 10 delegations. For staff
and delegates alike, please be sure that
you stand 6 to 8 in from the microphone
at the presenter's podium for optimal
sound quality. There is no there is a
remote at the podium you may use in
advance for your slides. In the event of
an emergency, please evacuate. council
chambers using the nearest exit
staircase. And should you require
assistance, please see our clerk staff.
They will provide you with support to
exit the facility. Once you have
evacuated the building, please gather
outside of city hall in the farmers
market parking lot and await further
instruction. And now it is my pleasure
to introduce council. Council Hamilton,
Councelor Meta, Councelor Kimson,
Councelor Roberts, Councelor Cooper,
Councelor Schwerry, Councelor Ernshaw,
and Councelor Divine. We will now sing
the national anthem. If you are able,
please rise and follow along.
Oh Canada,
our home and
True patient love
in all of our
with
the true north and free
from far and wide. Oh heaven and earth
we stand on
thee
God
for
glorious
and free
oh
God for thee.
All
and all we stand on guard
for
we embrace our shared responsibility
with the first nations people to take
care of this earth and its creatures. We
can only do so by walking the path as
partners stewarding this land since we
have been given the duty together to
live in balance and harmony with all
living things. We acknowledge and
respect the Inishnab Chinankton and the
Hodneson peoples who came before us and
who we live amongst by honoring this
truth of past and present. May we come
to true reconciliation through
listening, reflecting and learning.
Before we begin, I'd like to take a
moment to acknowledge and thank everyone
for joining us this evening. We
appreciate your participation
and we're looking forward to the
delegations this evening. As we come
together to serve the community, I ask
that we create a welcoming and positive
environment for everyone that includes
respect,
kindness, inclusion. Together, we can
make this meeting space one where
respect, kindness, and inclusion are at
the heart of everything we do. that this
is a safe space. Behavior that is
disrespectful, disruptive, aggressive,
or intimidating will result in those
individuals being asked to leave. And I
have to say
almost 100% of the time we have had all
of those three things from our delegates
and we appreciate that very much. A
reminder to members of council that the
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
requires council members to declare any
direct or indirect pecuniary interest in
relation to a matter under
consideration. Are there any
declarations this evening?
I see none. We have two presentations
this evening. Our first is from Sheila
Jones from Vox Veritus Consulting
regarding member of council compensation
review. Uh first I'll ask our city clerk
Jennifer Shaw to make some opening uh
remarks. And following Jen's remarks, I
will ask Sheila to come to the pod. Is
Sheila here? When Jennifer finishes,
I'll ask you to come to the podium.
Thank you.
I would first like to thank council for
uh your time in meeting with Sheila and
our clerk's team as part of the
one-on-one interviews that we did uh for
the compensation review process. Your
insights and experiences were
appreciated and trying to understand and
capture the important work that you do
within the community. Uh there have been
some comments received since the report
and recommendations were published uh
that are important to address before
Sheila starts with her presentation this
evening. Uh the first is that council
member attendance was pulled from the
minutes of each type of meeting that was
used as part of the analysis and is
correct based on our records. As council
is aware, minutes from each meeting form
part of the subsequent council
information package and if there are
errors or emissions, those should be
noted at the time the minutes are
adopted by council as part of the
consent agenda motion.
Secondly, we understand that there are
some ad hoc working groups, advisory
committees, and local boards that are
not part of the attendance records in
the report. Council compensation reviews
typically do not use attendance data
from these types of bodies because not
all members of council are appointed to
a body uh like these and some members
may have several advisory committees or
local boards or working groups while
others may only have one or none. So
they are not typically a good basis for
comparison from a council compensation
perspective. That said, the report does
acknowledge that these bodies are an
additional responsibility that some
members of council have uh and they do
factor into the workload impacts, but
they don't affect salary
recommendations.
Finally, on page 14 and 15 of your
agendas, there is reference to council
appointments to various committees and
boards. This information was provided to
Sheila by clerks from appendix A of
report 22-074
CRS which was approved by council at the
start of the council term. Uh when this
report went forward the late Donna Reed
was appointed to the archives working
group celebration of women and arts art
connect. Uh so a reasonable presumption
was made that these groups would
transfer over to councelor Shweri.
However, it is my understanding that
none of them have met since the start of
the council term, which sometimes
happens. The same report also appointed
councelor Devine to the Grand River
Conservation Authority Board of
Directors, but I do understand that the
city has not allocated a city rep to
this at this term and your council
divine is instead appointed as a private
citizen. So I again would just highlight
that these nuances are why advisory
committees and boards are not used as a
basis for comparison for compensation
review purposes. Thank you.
» Welcome Sheila.
Good to see you again.
>> Go ahead.
» Go ahead.
>> You as well.
» You as well.
So good evening mayor and members of
council. It is nice to see all of you
again. Some we have met in person, some
we met virtually.
Thank you again for the opportunity to
work with you on this compensation
review. So this evening, I'm here to
just provide a short recap of the
recommendations and to answer any
questions you may have.
To start, let's acknowledge that your
role of mayor and counselor are not
conventional jobs.
As elected officials, the Ontario
Employment Standards Act does not apply
to your positions
and the courts have ruled that members
of council are not considered employees
of the municipality.
So yours is not a job that is supported
by an agreement, an employment
agreement, an employment contract that
would typically outline your hours of
duty or your hours of responsibilities
or other uh terms of employment.
These types of contracts are generally
seen in the the staff, the
administrative staff that sit around
you. So yours is not a conventional job.
Yet, the municipal act does permit
municipalities to set remuneration and
expenses for members of council and they
expect municipalities to establish those
remuneration policies uh with balancing
fiscal stewardship and fair recognition
of the time, the expertise
and the effort required in order for you
to carry out your statutory duties.
So this review provides you with an
independent and objective basis to
assess your remuneration
that aligns with the local economy,
comparable municipalities,
and supports the attraction and
retention of qualified candidates.
So our engagement approach took in uh
into consideration several activities.
We benchmarked your current salary
against uh the eight comparator
municipalities that share comparable
conditions and governance complexity.
So these comparators included both
single tier and lower tier
municipalities having populations
ranging from as high as 330,000 to as
low as 123,000.
Municipalities that are similar in
economic profile.
The services of the comparables vary as
lower tier municipalities do not offer
the same services as single tier
municipalities.
Yet we needed to understand the
structural differences in order to
perform an accurate council compensation
benchmarking and the scope of the
services provided do directly impact the
counselor workload. The complexity of
the governing oversight as well as time
commitments. We reviewed internal and
external data gathered from those
interviews and thank you very much for
participating in those interviews.
And we actually had the completion of
the workload survey done as well. And we
looked at publicly available reports
both from your own city of Cambridge
website as well as those comparator
municipalities.
We reviewed the Ontario Municipal Act as
well as the Ontario Municipal
Counselor's Guide in order to ensure we
had a clear understanding of the
responsibilities of the members of
council. for it is very important for
council compensation to reflect the
breadth, complexity, the risk and the
time commitment of the roles.
And lastly, we used a role valuebased
compensation model to anchor the member
of council compensation and base
salaries to the economic reality of the
constituents.
And in pegging compensation to the
median full-time employment income of
the municipality, adjust it for
inflation and applying a complexity
multiplier in order to uh account for
the services within each of the lower
tiers. It removes the one-sizefits-all
approach. This approach recognizes the
local economic conditions and works to
create a strong link between the local
community paying a member of council
salary while reflecting the actual
governance burden of the elected
officials.
So all the re research and analysis
resulted in our recommendations in the
following areas. In the matter of base
salary for the counselor, a moderate
increase in base salary to $59,827
representing an increase of
approximately $3,620
per counselor in the first year of the
new term of council.
In addition, starting in 2027,
the counselor salary would be increased
based on the Ontario Consumer Price
Index or CPI in order to keep the
counselor salary anchored at 65% of the
local median full-time income.
Why 65%.
Pegging the counselor role at 65%
treats the counselor position as a
substantial part-time role in economic
terms and it signals that Cambridge
counselors are expected to carry a
significant and ongoing workload for
governance constituency work and it
reflects that the role is not a casual
or an occasional commitment nor is is it
a conventional staffing job.
And for the mayor, we are recommending
no increase. While the mayor's role is
anchored at 135% of the local median
full-time employment income, the model
recommendation salary is less than the
current salary for the mayor. For this
reason, the mayor's salary is
recommended to remain at the 2026 base
salary with an annual increase based on
Ontario CPI beginning in 2027.
Why 135%.
At 135% of the local median full-time
employment income, this anchor treats
the mayor's position as a fully
full-time high accountability leadership
role in economic terms. It signals the
Cambridge mayor is expected to assume
overarching responsibility for citywide
governance, strategic direction, and
external representation
with continuous demands often extending
well beyond the standard work week.
In the manner of benefits and allowances
for both counselors and mayor, we are
recommending these remain the same as
those in place at the current time.
In addition to the remuneration
recommendations, we've made some
recommendations to enhance transparency
and accountability
given the components of remuneration and
the various factors to consider.
Establishing guiding principles for the
use in future years uh of council
remuneration reviews can help to
maintain a compensation practice aligned
with the municipality's values,
governance philosophy and community
expectations
even as specific economic or political
conditions evolve.
Having member of council mandates or
position descriptions helps to define
clear expectations around key
responsibilities and can serve as a
guide for potential candidates for new
members of council and for returning
incumbents.
And attendance reporting is a form of
performance measurement and including
this information in the annual council
remuneration report aids in transparency
and accountability.
I do um expect myself to accept
accountability and I will point out in
my last review of the report today uh
for many times that I read and reread
and proofread it, I did note that there
is a u transposed figure on page 12 in
the mayor's role valuebased salary and
it's transposed that the figure should
actually read $13,546.
6. This amount is correctly reported in
the table below it on page 13.
In closing, the report, admittedly
lengthy, establishes the rationale for
our recommendations.
Again, thank you for your opportunity to
work it with for me to work with you in
this compensation review. Mayor, I turn
it back to you.
>> Thank you, Sheila. Uh, questions.
Councelor and Sha.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Lead and you
» Yes. Thank you, Mayor Lead and you
Sheila. Thank you for your report. Could
you just elaborate a little bit on how
you came to the uh complexity multiplier
of 1.2? I I didn't really see that
explained in in the report or I missed
it if you wouldn't mind.
>> Certainly, Councelor Ernshaw through you
» Certainly, Councelor Ernshaw through you
mayor.
The 1.2 to figure comes from a number of
factors that are considered and appendix
um
appendix B does contain the some I will
say some of the details councelor
Ernshaw it it does tell you the factors
but it does not give you the numerical
value associated with his factors the
reason for that is this is a proprietary
model and so if I actually publish that
I
you can understand where I'm going but I
did come up with the 1.2 uh by using
those factors and using the numerical
values associated with those factors.
>> Thank you
» Thank you
>> councelor Schwer.
» councelor Schwer.
Thank
you mayor and thanks Sheila. Um, I know
we talked about it. So, a part-time role
from an employer's uh, perspective would
be 20 hours. Um, and and you noted that
a lot of the counselors work much longer
than that. Around 32, I said, or I about
35 minimum. Um, so what there so those
are not part-time hours, but we're our
role is part-time. Should maybe that
kind of be explained that it's not
really part-time that what counselors
are doing?
>> So through you mayor um councelor Shiri
» So through you mayor um councelor Shiri
that's a very um good observation and I
that's why I have started my I started
my comments with yours is not a
conventional job.
So the standards of practice related to
hours of work defined in the Employment
Standards Act
don't apply to these positions as
elected officials. That doesn't diminish
the fact that you are spending hours in
order to fulfill your commitments.
those hours and the hours you choose to
fulfill are fully discretionary in how
you as individuals decide to fulfill
that duty. So it is very challenging and
I think those are the words I used in
the report. It is very challenging to
actually establish that this might be
full-time or part-time.
I have qualified it as substantially
part-time recognizing it is not a casual
or an occasional commitment.
>> Okay. Thank you
» Okay. Thank you
>> councelor Meta.
» councelor Meta.
>> Thank you Mayor Jan through you um my
» Thank you Mayor Jan through you um my
question when you did the comparison
with the different municipalities did
you look at one of whether those um
counselors um or those councils whether
they had one counselor per ward or two
per ward. So for example, Brford's got
two per ward and G does as well. So does
that affect the workload at all? Like
when you're looking at the pay across
the municipalities because in Cambridge
we have one per ward as you know. So
>> through you mayor a very interesting
» through you mayor a very interesting
observation with respect to Brford and
G. Those are both single tier
municipalities as well. uh so they do
have a different structure and a
different governance approach than
Cambridge.
it really in in comparison and I believe
if you look at the
comparison against the uh other
benchmarks uh which includes the P50 and
the average for lower tier which is the
table on page 14 you'll see that um
your
current salary as a counselor and I'm
going from my memory because I don't
have page 14 in front of me but if I go
from that I don't believe you're that
far off in terms of those
P50, which is the 50th percentile
of the all tiers and the 50th percentile
of the lower tiers.
» Thank you, Mayor Jan. And another
question, and I thought the report was
very good, by the way. Uh my other
question is uh to do with the two-tier
government. So even though we are a
two-tier structure and the city doesn't
have jurisdiction over transit or
garbage collection for example, I still
get calls on those issues and residents
expect to meet with me on those issues
and they expect me to go to the region
and all that and and I know we have
regional counselors and I involve them
as well but they want the ward counselor
to also get involved. So, how do we draw
the line, you know, when it comes to
defining our job on Cambridge Council
like with that the two-tier structure
makes it difficult because residents
want us to get involved in those issues,
but they're not our jurisdiction. But,
but it's very time consuming. That's
kind of what I'm saying.
>> Yeah. Through you, mayor. Um, it would
» Yeah. Through you, mayor. Um, it would
not be fair for me to comment on how you
decide how you're going to allocate your
time and what issues you're going to
become involved in.
» Councelor Kimson,
>> thank you very much, Mayor Jan, and
» thank you very much, Mayor Jan, and
through you. Uh, thank you for your
presentation and all the work that
you've put into this. I'm wondering sort
of as a generalization through the work
that you've done with us here at the
city of Cambridge as well as other
municipalities,
what would you recommend that we could
do in order to increase the diversity of
people that um pursue this type of
elected work
>> through you mayor. Um that is indeed a
» through you mayor. Um that is indeed a
very good question
and it is
probably the challenge of most municipal
councils.
How do we attract the candidates that
represent the community? One part of
that is compensation.
That is why once a term typically you
undertake to do a compensation review to
ensure that what you are willing to pay
because it is your decision will
actually help to attract.
That's the only thing I can comment on.
what other mechanisms or areas that you
can do uh or activities that you can
undertake that was not part of the
compensation review.
>> Thank you,
» Councelor Cooper.
>> Yes, thank you. Thank you for your
» Yes, thank you. Thank you for your
report. I know you put a lot of work
into this.
I've just got a question in concern with
if I can go back to your response to um
to councelor Sher here where we were
talking about the hours um obviously you
talked to a lot of us about the hours
that we do and and they are substantial
this is not a part-time job um I do not
believe it is um and we're also I mean
we're on 24/7 it's it's made very clear
to us um so my concern is if you're
asking about the hours obviously you
believe that's going to affect your
recommendations
um but I did hear you date that um when
cancer shy stated the hours that were
done there clearly more than more than
part-time and some people put in more
work than that that it seemed like he
was stating that because we are elected
officials and our job is a little
different than others that we frankly
sound like we don't get compensated for
that as if past part-time it is optional
and that's on us if we want to do it and
we don't have to do it but we do I can
tell you that for
So I'm wondering why did it sound like
because of our position as elected
officials that we shouldn't get
compensation based on the work that we
do because this is and to councelor
Kimson's point this is one of the
reasons why this is this job is not
really that practical for a lot of
people that have homes and families
because of relatively low relatively low
pay especially when you consider the
work and stress we go through. So I'm
wondering it it sounded like you've just
kept this at part-time despite what we
actually do.
>> Your how you fulfill your role is 100%
» Your how you fulfill your role is 100%
within your respon your area of
responsibility.
Some counselors may choose to spend more
hours than others.
So it would be from a compensation
perspective, from even thinking and
looking at that, it would be very
challenging to say and to apply and go
that route. It's very challenging to
apply what you want to hear. You want
somebody to say this is full-time. That
in my humble opinion is very challenging
to do because you are not in a
conventional job.
Okay. Well, my followup, I just want to
say um I'm not asking for someone to say
it's full-time um but to have
appropriate um consideration for the
hours that people do put in. Um that's
all and not to be judged on the ones
that do the least work.
>> That's a hard time. Is it purely density
» That's a hard time. Is it purely density
or is it the workloads? I'm just curious
and I'm not insinuating that we should
do that right now. That's a substantial
step in transformation in the way our
government would function. But out of
curiosity, what are those steps? because
other municipalities have crossed that
threshold for
>> through you mayor. Uh to my knowledge,
» through you mayor. Uh to my knowledge,
Toronto, Hamilton, and Ottawa are
full-time counselors.
They are substantially large. Um Toronto
operates under its own charter.
to my knowledge the
» Okay, we're going to have to pause
because our live stream has gone down.
>> Oh,
» Oh,
>> so
» so
we don't want to make it look like we're
doing a closed door meeting here. So, we
just if you want to take a seat till
it's gone back up. Thanks.
» We're back up. Um,
>> hey, we broke the internet.
» hey, we broke the internet.
>> Yeah. So, so is, so you're expecting
» Yeah. So, so is, so you're expecting
this methodology to start to go across
the province as more cities. You're
hoping I guess
>> I would be hopeful.
» I would be hopeful.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Your experience is quite
» Yeah. Yeah. Your experience is quite
extensive. Really appreciative of it of
it. Um,
so if we looking at this, this is as it
sits today,
but knowing that the region
is under review by the province now,
this could all be moot by the time
January 1st, 2027 comes around.
>> Are you mayor? Um, that is anybody's
» Are you mayor? Um, that is anybody's
>> guess
» guess
>> guess. Yeah. Okay. Um, are there any
» guess. Yeah. Okay. Um, are there any
other questions here by anybody? Now's
your chance. You've got the expert up
here at the mic.
Okay, I have one more. Um,
so let's just talk about me. It's all
about me here, guys. Um,
so can you explain because I it took me
a while to get through this and into my
brain here. Um, on page 14, it says that
the mayor's current 2026 base salary of
$135,000
positions the role below the market at
14 to 17%.
Um
so what is the market that you're
looking at? What what is that wage?
Right. So through you mayor if you are
referring to the table on page 12 which
is the role valuebased salary table. The
mayor's salary is the position that I
transpose the numbers on. So where it
says 130, it should actually be 103,000.
And when I'm referring to the market,
then that is within the um your P50,
your 50th percentile of your
comparators.
>> Okay? and that the mole the model's
» Okay? and that the mole the model's
recommended salary of 124 would increase
this discount moving it to approximately
21 to 24% below
>> below where you currently are.
» below where you currently are.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
>> Okay. Um
» Okay. Um
and I think Jen, you want Jen's going to
talk about some things that errors that
were made that you wouldn't have been
aware of.
Oh, councelor Kimson, sorry.
>> Thank you, Mayor Jan. I just thought of
» Thank you, Mayor Jan. I just thought of
something as well. Um, question. As
elected officials, um, at least here in
the city of Cambridge, we don't have an
aotment of holidays, per se. Is that
something that's consistent across other
municipalities where elected officials
sort of take them as they need them or
is it something where some
municipalities lay it out where there's
a minimum? I know the employment
standards doesn't apply to us, but is
that something that is um unique to us
or it is consistent?
Because that's another thing that um the
public may not be aware of is that this
is a as we choose to do our jobs and how
we serve the public that we do it
effectively and efficiently. So, I'm
just wondering if that's something that
um is unique to us or across the board.
>> Through you, mayor. Uh in my research
» Through you, mayor. Uh in my research
with the comparator municipalities and
looking at benefits allowances, vacation
was never mentioned.
I would say councelor Kimson that as
counselors in any community it's very
very difficult to take a bank of
holidays because we have meetings
constantly and I know even though I just
took four weeks holidays I attended
regional meetings closed dooror meetings
at both council levels other meetings
that were happening with administrative
staff as well as uh dealing with regular
emails from people and trying to get
things done behind the scenes. And I
know each and every one of you do the
same thing when you're on vacation. And
I don't think the public even
understands that we don't truly get a a
holiday and we can't just take a bank
all the time. So yeah, it's very
difficult and I think the public needs
to understand how much we give up with
our families as well. It's very very
hard and and I know you know that show
because you've been in our shoes before.
So, okay. Now, I'll have Jen speak to
this.
>> Um, just going back to page 15 of the
» Um, just going back to page 15 of the
agenda. Um, it is noted here that
councelor Roberts is vice chair of the
budget and audit committee and councelor
Hermeta is chair of that committee. We
also have the economic development
advisory committee which no longer
exists and uh budget and audit does
technically still exist within the
procedure bylaw. However, we have not
been using that body since uh strong
mayor legislation came into effect. So,
uh we will look uh with Sheila's uh
consent here to maybe make some of those
changes for the public u agenda or the
public report so that it's not
misleading.
» You wouldn't know any of that, Sheila.
So, our apologies for leading you astray
on that one.
>> Apology accepted.
» Apology accepted.
>> Okay. Okay, last call, guys.
» Okay. Okay, last call, guys.
Great report.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Great report. Thank you very much.
» Okay, councelor Ernshaw, you have this
motion.
I do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. It's u
moved by me and seconded by you, Mayor
Liot, that the base salary for
counselors increase to $59,827
effective January 1, 2027 with annual
increases based on the Ontario consumer
price index and that the mayor's salary
of $135,67
remain unchanged effective January 1,
2027
with annual increases based on the
Ontario Consumer Price Index
and that the current benefits remain the
same for mayor and counselors effective
January 1, 2027
and that the current allowances remain
the same for the mayor and counselors
effective January 1, 2027
and that guiding principles be developed
for council remuneration to deliver
clear benchmarks for assessing
compensation proposals, minimizing bias
while aligning choices with public needs
and budgetary discipline.
And that position mandates be developed
for the mayor and counselors to define
clear expectations around key
responsibilities including policy
development, constituent representation,
budget oversight, and committee
involvement.
and further that staff be directed to
include
a council member a council member
attendance in the annual council
remuneration report to enhance
accountability, transparency and public
trust.
» Does anybody have any questions about
the motion?
Councelor Divine,
>> is that on? Yeah. Okay. Thank you chair.
» is that on? Yeah. Okay. Thank you chair.
Um, I noticed
as we went through the attendance here,
um, there's a, you know, I was shown up
as being missing.
Those were times I took vacation.
Okay. And it's there was no there was
nothing there to indicate that I was on
vacation.
And everybody here knows that I'll tell
always take a week in May
and you can probably book the week now.
You know that. All right. Now, I I think
we have to have a look at that. Then
when somebody's absent, if they have an
excuse such as vacation,
then that needs to be put in. Not just
that they're absent, right? If
somebody's absent, somebody's absent.
Okay? So be it. You know, you fall,
break your leg, you break your toe,
whatever. But if somebody's on vacation,
that's that's not an absence. That's an
excused absence. So I think we need to
correct that. Thank you. Councelor
Meta.
>> Thank you, Mayor J. I thought councelor
» Thank you, Mayor J. I thought councelor
very quickly I thought councelor Devine
did raise a good point because uh one of
the meetings that I ended up missing I
had my car stolen and I wasn't able to
right. You remember that right? So um I
mean just for record sakes thanks
>> councelor Cooper.
» councelor Cooper.
>> Yes. Thank you Mig.
» Yes. Thank you Mig.
um just like to bring a comment forward
about this because I know over the years
um some of what I'm going to say now has
been said by pretty much all counselors.
Uh we know this um
regarding this topic. I think the most
important thing here is that our
residents get the best representation
possible.
Okay, that's what our job is and it's
about when it comes to this whole
remuneration thing.
Does it hold us back? Does it hold the
city hall back the councils back from uh
from doing the best job possible? One
thing I know, I've heard it from
everybody here from previous counselors.
It does deter strong people from coming
to this job when the job isn't respected
and treated the same way the way the way
that it should be.
Okay? This isn't just about the hours
that are put in um and and the stress
and all that stuff that we all know that
maybe people in the public don't all
know that we go through. It's not just
about the hours, whether it's full-time,
whether it's threequarters time, whether
it's part-time. It's about what this
could be and what's the best benefit to
the people of this community. If you
take someone works a regular job, let's
say they're working in a restaurant, you
tell them it's part-time, you give them
part-time pay, you're going to get
part-time,
if their job is respected
and treated the way it should be, and
they get the appropriate compensation,
which is not massive amounts, not asking
to be rich here, but if the job is
treated as full-time, and you're told
it's full-time, then maybe that's what
you're going to get.
Because right now we have people doing
all different hours all over the place
and there's not a heck of a lot of
motivation to do a lot more even though
many of us do. So this is not just about
money. It's about getting respect for
the job and having be able to bring in
people that not just retirees, people
that can raise a family on this. Smart
people out there instead of people that
you know are retired or have already got
they've already got retirement set up.
Um it's about what's best and what this
job could be. And I think um
results like this where I'm sorry but I
feel there's a lack of respect for the
work that's put in or somehow because we
are a different job. Yes we are but
somehow we shouldn't be compensated for
that. Um I do not agree with that. That
deters people. So yeah again um I'll
support this obviously um but I want
people to consider what this job could
be if we went full-time because that's
the best the best way to serve the
people that we we are intended to serve.
Thank you.
Are there any other comments,
questions?
So, to follow up on councelor Divines,
um I think it's good that you brought
that up because I don't think that I
think when the public or the media
reports out attendance records, it makes
it look like people have missed this.
And I know you take vacation to help
your daughter and son-in-law bring off
harvest.
You fly down to Wyoming and you help do
that. And you can't I mean we have
council meetings during that time. Um
for myself I was at a summit I was a
panelist in Alberta at a summit and one
I had emergency surgery one night uh
where I couldn't be here as well. So uh
the public doesn't understand that sort
of thing. Um but every single council
member of council around this horseshoe
is totally dedicated to their job.
That's so true. And for anybody to think
otherwise based on uh this attendance
um is uh that's a mistake. And this
attendance also does not talk about all
the closed dooror meetings that we have
that they're not counted in here. There
are nights where we have closed dooror
meetings without a regular council
meeting. And I think there's 146
meetings in the these um years here
without the closed door meetings. That's
a lot of meetings. It's a lot of
agendas, a lot of studying, a lot of
research, and this report speaks to
that, speaks to the amount of work that
goes behind being a counselor around
this horseshoe and being dedicated to
our community. So, I thank you for being
part of the team that I am on, the one
that I'm leading. I really appreciate
every one of you. And I think this
report can tell the public that if the
public actually reads it themselves and
it's going to take two or three times to
go through this and and comprehend that.
So, thank you to council. Thank you to
Sheila for such a great report um and
staff for your input into it as well.
So, now we will call that question.
Okay. Opening voting.
Closing voting
that carries unanimously.
» Okay. So, our next presentation is from
um some of our favorite people in the
city who are also very dedicated to
their jobs, the Cambridge Neighborhood
Associations concerning municipal
support to neighborhoods. And joining us
are Jamie Mcconi, Kim Fowler, Emily
Yarmsma, Amanda Horn, Taylor Bolstrod,
Dana KMA, Eliah Lashnig, and Sandra
Gamage. So, you've asked for you're
going to do a group one tonight. You're
going to each take a part and you're
going to do 10 minutes total.
Okay. How many of you?
>> Four.
» Four.
>> Four. Oh, I thought there was more.
» Four. Oh, I thought there was more.
>> They're all here. We're all here.
» They're all here. We're all here.
>> Okay. Are you going to remain in your
» Okay. Are you going to remain in your
seats or you going to stand up here and
take credit or do you want to wait till
at the very end and take credit at the
end?
>> I was gonna I was going to
» I was gonna I was going to
>> Okay, I saw that thumbs up there, Emily.
» Okay, I saw that thumbs up there, Emily.
>> Okay, go for it.
» Okay, go for it.
>> Good evening, Mayor Leot,
» Good evening, Mayor Leot,
council, and staff. Thank you very much
for your time. We really appreciate the
time that you're allowing us to have
here this evening. My name is Kim Fowler
and I'm the executive director of the
Fiddlesticks Community Center in
Northeast G. I'm here this evening with
my colleagues rep representing each of
your Cambridge Neighborhood
Associations. And I have to say as the
old person, I put this on my phone
thinking they would tease me if I came
with papers and they all came with
papers. So
I just can't win. So, I'd just like to
introduce uh from Allison Neighborhood
Community Center, Jamie Hatfield.
Myself from Fiddlesticks Community
Center, Emily Jarsma.
From the Greenway Chaplain Community
Center, from HVNA or Hespler Village,
Amanda Horn Davidson hiding behind me.
uh from the Kimbridge Community
Association, Taylor Bolstrad,
from Langs, Dana KMA,
from PHCG, Elliot Lischnik, and from
Silver Heights Neighborhood Association,
Sandra Gamage. And you will be relieved
to know that we are not here to ask for
a single thing
because that's normally not how this
works. Uh, but what we want to do is we
want to tell you about what we do and
how your financial support and just your
support in general coming out to our
events, what that means to us and how
that impacts our neighborhood work. And
I'll pass it over now.
» Good evening. Thank you, Kim. Uh this
evening's presentation highlights uh our
Cambridge neighborhood community
development model as adopted by the
Cambridge neighborhood organizations.
Our so social infrastructure that
comprises of our not forprofits and
charities. Our fiscal stewardship, a
demonstration of how the city's core
funding leverages the work we do,
people, place, and prosperity. Bringing
our CD model to life through
storytelling and conclusion and
questions. We look forward to hearing
from you as council.
What is the neighborhood community
development model? Collaborating with
community. We engage with community
members to assist them in recognizing
the needs within neighborhoods.
Residents play an active role in shaping
the programs and services available in
their area. Neighborhood associations
focus on building relationships
resident to resident, resident to their
neighborhood association and resident to
building leadership capacity. And this
model is distinct amongst the city of
Cambridge providing benefits to the
entire Cambridge community.
So our CD model as a network of the
Cambridge neighborhood organizations,
our impact and what we hope for is a
thriving connected neighborhood. We do
that by measuring increased
connectedness, an understanding of
residents needs, wants, and perspectives
and an increased neighborhood leadership
capacity.
We do this most commonly through
engaging and convening residents, most
commonly through recreational
activities, broadly asking and assessing
residents perspectives, and facilitating
residents in addressing their issues and
their goals.
So the Cambridge Neighborhood
Organization provides social
infrastructure by serving the members of
the community in spaces close to home
which enables so social connection. Uh
the Cambridge Neighborhood Association
is made up of eight or uh eight
neighborhood associations across 10
sites and we provide a decentralized
service delivery model meaning that we
serve within our boundaries. This allows
us to tailor programs to support each
neighborhood's unique needs. And while
we are eight separate organizations, we
overlap in the types of opportunities
that we provide across the city. All
eight organizations are either a charity
or a not for-profit organization with a
governing board of directors. We provide
similar programming such as before and
after school programs, recreational
drop-in programs for all ages, summer
camps, youth leadership development, as
well as our annual events such as our
neighborhood days, youth dances, sports
tournaments, and seasonal festivals. We
also serve as a hub to bring external
organizations into each neighborhood.
These partnerships include House of
Friendship, the Cambridge Food Bank,
Earlon, the YW.CA, and more.
So, in relation to Cambridge's vision of
people, place and prosperity, we want to
highlight how this comes to life across
our organizations and the work that we
do. So we see this through volunteerism,
our program and event stats as well as
um highlighting different stories from
the work that we do and our
organizations.
» Next
and I get to do this I get to do the
stats. So as Amanda here I have to get
my dog out of the way.
As Amanda had mentioned
that our primary purpose is to engage
those in our neighborhoods, build
relationships and connections among our
neighborhood our neighbors. And how do
we do that? We do it through
volunteerism and recreation. So, as you
can see on the screens, I'm sure you
have in front of you. Together, we
support 1,125
volunteers. And in 2024, which we have
all of the stats for, we had 37,357.5.
That.5 is important to an afterchool
program parent when a volunteer stays
because they're late. Those are the
hours that were spent. That's the
equivalent of 20 full-time jobs. So,
pretty pretty impressive. This kind of
um inind service calculated at a living
wage with uh the region of water's
living wage is representative of
$859,211.
So that is what it would cost us to do
the work if we did not have the
volunteers that we have. We are also all
proudly affiliated with volunteer
Canada.
Next, we'd like to talk about the visits
to our neighborhood centers. So, as you
can see, we have registered recreation
programs, drop-in recreation programs,
events, and summer camps. We had over
122,000 visits to our neighborhood
centers this year. So, across Cambridge,
we were able to have that many visits.
We also, as Amanda had mentioned, we
have or actually I think it was Jamie
had mentioned that we host um other
organizations that can provide services.
So among all of the neighborhoods, we
provided 3,915
hours of facility time that other
organizations were able to offer
services within our communities, within
our neighborhoods.
The annual funding from the city of
Cambridge is so important to the work
that we do.
What this does for us is it demonstrates
to other funding bodies that there is a
level of trust that our municipality has
in our organizations that we are
good stewards of our money, that we're
trustworthy, we're fiscally responsible,
and because of that we're considered
established organizations. And in many
many funding applications that we apply
to, it asks those questions. How do we
how can we tell that you are established
organizations? And how do we know that
you will be good stewards of our money?
So here are some great statistics. If
you can take a look at this, the city's
investment in the neighborhoods is
matched fourfold through grants, fees
for service, and community
contributions.
So our total budgets or sorry the city's
uh contribution annually or this uh for
2024 was 1,248,834.
The total budgets of our organizations
was over $5 million. 5,382,772.
So that we were able to leverage $4,133.
So for every dollar that the city of
Cambridge is investing
dollar-wise, we are bringing that back
four-fold.
On top of that, that doesn't count our
inind contributions. So that doesn't
count the volunteer time. That doesn't
count um you know, donations of food
from the food bank. That doesn't count
or to the food bank. Doesn't count
donations that come in that aren't
monetary donations from our communities.
All of this, the benefits extend through
the entire city. So, we would just like
to thank you for your confidence in us
as neighborhood organizations and the
trust that you have in us that we will
be good stewards of the funds. Oh my
goodness,
>> that's a good date.
» that's a good date.
>> Amazing. Um, just with the little bit of
» Amazing. Um, just with the little bit of
time that we do have left, we want to be
able to speak upon some stories with
that lens of people, place, and
prosperity. Um within our presentation
booklet there is all the stories from
each of the organizations that we do ask
that you read at some point. Um so our
first story highlights the theme of
people. Um and it's about a participant
from Langs who started as a participant
moved into volunteering and then ended
up becoming a staff. Um as well she was
awarded the city of Cambridge High Five
Champion Award uh which highlighted her
dedication to ensuring quality
programming. And then our next story is
the theme of place from Allison. If you
really
>> really quickly,
» really quickly,
>> I'll just speak quickly. We have a
» I'll just speak quickly. We have a
volunteer who's been a participant
basically since she was in elementary
school. Uh she was always very shy.
She's now very outgoing, very
enthusiastic, and she calls Ala
neighborhood her second home, which we
really love.
» Very good.
There we are.
>> Okay, we have Are you finished?
» Okay, we have Are you finished?
>> Yes,
» Yes,
>> we are.
» we are.
>> Okay, this perfect timing. The rest of
» Okay, this perfect timing. The rest of
you want to get up here in case there's
questions for you, too.
I see questions here.
Councelor Divine.
>> Yes. Thank you to the chair.
» Yes. Thank you to the chair.
I'd really like to
thank
you folks for what you do because you
have taken some kids that and given them
a home and looked after them after
school through the day. Um a few years
up there I know and please please keep
up the good work. I I I don't know how
you can take that nickel and stretch it
to a quarter, but by golly you do a
great job at it. Please keep up the good
work. and we in the city are proud of
each and every one of you and everyone
that works in the centers. Thank you
very much.
>> Councelor Sher,
» Councelor Sher,
thank you Mayor Lean. I don't have a
question but have a comment as Mike
Divine um said. So I got more to know
Preston Heights Community Group um
neighborhood association and I as well
am very impressed and proud of you. Uh,
I've met with Parkway um public school
and basically you're a lifeline to a lot
of those families. There's a lot of
those families are very needy and and
they just count on their kids being able
to be looked after you. I didn't realize
that the quickie store in I guess all of
Ontario or maybe more sells the most
ramen those noodles um because they're
cheap and they feed people and it's and
it was so sad to hear that. But just
thank you and I I know I followed Justin
through with one of his trips to Ottawa
and wish I could have been there. It
sounded so much fun and just all the
cool things that you do and just to make
those families, the kids so much their
lives so much better. So, thank you.
Haven't gotten involved with the Silver
Heis, but I'd like to be more involved
with them because you're in my war, too.
But yeah, I'm just so impressed with
you,
>> councelor Meta.
» councelor Meta.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Strictly kudos here to
» Strictly kudos here to
>> We'll take them.
» We'll take them.
>> Thank you, Mayor Jan, through you. I
» Thank you, Mayor Jan, through you. I
also would like to extend my kudos as
well. I am absolutely amazed at what you
do with the resources that we give you
and uh it's incredible just to see how
far you stretch the dollars and how you
make a difference in people's lives. And
I know of people today who would not be
alive if they didn't get involved in the
neighborhood. So, um I want to commend
um Fiddlesticks and Northview Heights
and all of you really um for touching
those lives. I think there's a lot of
stories that we don't know about and
those people are here today because of
you. So, I commend you for that. And um
in Northeast G in particular, because I
inter interact with my constituents the
most, I'm always hearing about the fun
that they have at the events and um you
know, your hospitality. So, keep up the
great work.
>> Councelor Kimson,
» Councelor Kimson,
>> thank you very much, Maryanne, and
» thank you very much, Maryanne, and
through you. Um thank you.
It it's incredible when I look out at
everyone here representing the different
neighborhood associations that we have
within our community and and you provide
the programming where it is needed most
and that's right where people are and
it's specific to what is needed and you
adapt it based on what comes through
your door. Whether you're adopting a
program on the fly that day or whether
you're seeing a need in the community
and you're figuring out how do we
address it, um the value you bring goes
well beyond dollars. Um you change lives
and I'm just very grateful for
everything that you do and I know our
community is as well. So give yourselves
all a pat on the back for not allowed to
clap in council, but please um consider
this a non-clap and pat yourselves on
the back. Thank you,
>> Councelor Hamilton.
» Councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you, Mayor Leon through you. I do
» Thank you, Mayor Leon through you. I do
have a question if that's okay.
>> Absolutely.
» Absolutely.
>> I echo the congratulatory praise of all
» I echo the congratulatory praise of all
of my colleagues because you all do
tremendous work across every
association. Um, but across the eight
associations and the 10 locations, we
know there's kind of the there's the
triple threat of a decline in donor
funds, challenges with HR and staffing,
and escalating social crises, right? And
then the neighborhood association is
right in the middle of that widening
gap. I know every association is
different and there are different
pockets of Cambridge with specific
needs, but are there any general trends
across the city that you as neighborhood
associations on the ground are
identifying and are there ways that the
city can help you with those because you
are on the front lines seeing them as
they emerge?
>> Yeah, I would say youth mental health
» Yeah, I would say youth mental health
would be something else.
>> Sorry. Don't cry.
» Sorry. Don't cry.
>> I won't cry. Uh, I would say youth
» I won't cry. Uh, I would say youth
mental health would be something that
would be um across all of our
organizations. I actually was uh so
you're saying don't cry. Um I was
actually speaking with a parent today
who's very concerned about their young
person. Um, I don't know what council
can do about that, but supporting us the
way that you do certainly helps us to be
there when that parent sends an email
and uh, you know, knows that we're
local, knows that we know this kid
because he's come to our programs and
he's he's very connected with um, you
know, the staff and uh, and young
volunteers who are local as well. So,
you know, continued support is
wonderful. Um, but yeah, youth mental
health.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Uh, thank you to all of you. Um, I think
» Uh, thank you to all of you. Um, I think
that you probably do more for the
children's mental health, all of you
combined, than we could ever do around
this council table. The sense of purpose
that you give kids is very big. a place
for them to go when they uh home is not
a good place to be is excellent. What we
do around this horseshoe is we provide
funding for uh programs within the city.
We pro we provide facilities where kids
can go. I'm really impressed with how
many of your kids come back and
volunteer later on. It's just it it just
shows the value of what you do and what
what you bring to them. Um we ask uh
every um August at AMO we ask for more
funding to be put into mental health and
addictions and thank you for your
upstream work to stop that and being
partners with us on that. I will tell
you that uh we just um on the 31st we
just submitted our
31st was the deadline uh submitted it to
Minister Bethnafaly for his budget and
children's mental health hospital
funding for that for programs there. Um,
that was something that I asked for in
my my letter to him to put more money
into that along with the infrastructure
and everything else which goes without
saying, but
it's extremely important that we partner
with you on that. And um I I I I can't
say enough about how much I love all of
you guys. The work that you do is just
incredible. So, thank you so much for
that. and thank you for just coming and
patting yourselves on the back and
promoting all the work that you do
because it's it's uh it's just amazing
and I hope the media has picked up a lot
of good stuff from you here tonight. I'm
sure they have. Right. You have, right?
Yes. I got a nod from the back of the
room. So, thank you so much. Thank you.
» Um, so we finished that part of the
program tonight and we're going to move
into the delegation portion portion of
the agenda where all registered
delegates may speak to matters on
tonight's council agenda. To be
respectful and mindful of everyone's
time, we will hear from all
pre-registered delegates first. Then we
will continue to discuss and vote on
each item in order of the published
agenda. We have eight pre-registered
delegation requests this evening and I
will call each one in the order that we
received their delegation requests. So
Larry Mo on behalf of the Waterlue
Region Home Builders Association
uh read the comprehensive zoning bylaw
review. Welcome Larry.
>> I'm going to disappear for 10 minutes.
» I'm going to disappear for 10 minutes.
Go exercise.
Excuse me. My name is Larry Masio and I
serve as an adviser to the Waterlue
Region Home Builders Association.
The WHBA previously delegated to city
council at the public meeting for this
matter held on December 15th last year.
And while we concur with most of the
staff recommendations which are before
you this evening as well as the majority
of changes summarized in the staff
report, our primary concern remains.
This concern relates to the proposed
regulations for private driveways as
highlighted on pages 12 and 13 of the
staff report and included within tables
7.3A
and 7.3B
of the draft bylaw before you tonight.
Quite simply, the proposed increase in
the minimum front yard to a garage,
commonly known as the driveway length,
from 6 m to 8 m, is problematic, does
not reflect good planning, is
inconsistent with other regulations of
the zoning bylaw, and is contrary to
provincial directions around making
housing more affordable.
We note that this that a six meter
standard is widely used across Ontario
and already forms the basis of much of
Cambridge's existing residential
development.
The proposed increase would have
significant and unintended impacts.
These are legal nonconformity for
existing homeowners. Many homes would
instantly become legal non-conforming,
creating the need for minor variances
for common property improvements,
including the provision of ARUS and
adding unnecessary cost and complexity
for homeowners.
Disruption to approved subdivisions.
Numerous currently built out draft
approved subdivisions were designed
around the 6 m standard. Changing the
requirement midstream would en would
undermine established product lines,
constrain lot design and increase costs
thereby affecting housing affordability.
Thirdly, design and affordability
impacts on new development and resulting
financial impact to end users. To
accommodate an 8 m driveway, future lots
would need to be deeper or rear or rear
yards smaller, driving up lot costs or
diminishing private outdoor space. This
creates a competitive disadvantage
compared to nearby municipalities that
do not impose these requirements,
resulting again in higher cost of
housing and for the end user within the
city of Cambridge.
Fourthly, lack of alignment with
provincial norms. A proposed mandatory 8
meter driveway is not consistent with
standards across the region or the
province where 6 m remains the accepted
norm in urban contexts.
We remind council that the driveway
length requirement is a minimum. There
is nothing preventing a homeowner who
needs a longer driveway from incurring
the cost themselves or working with a
builder to develop a lot with a longer
driveway.
And finally,
inconsistency within the new zoning
bylaw. Whereas driveways in front of new
garages of new dwellings will now be
required to be 8 meters in length, the
garages themselves, as well as parking
spaces within parking lots and parking
garages will still only need to be 6 m
in length. We're not sure this makes
sense, and it suggests that people
driving oversized vehicles only park in
residential driveways.
In summary, the combined effect of these
requirements is substantial and will
result in higher development costs, less
efficient site design, a greater
proportion of land area dedicated to
parking, and increased pressures on
housing affordability.
These outcomes run counter to broader
municipal and provincial objectives to
encourage product compact development
and reduce reliance on automobiles.
More importantly, they are contrary to
the objective of housing affordability
and raise serious concerns within the
home building industry.
To ensure alignment with best practices
and support efficient, affordable
development within Cambridge, we
respectfully request that council
maintain the minimum driveway length at
6 m consistent with regional norms and
original staff recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide
feedback on this important matter and I
would be happy to answer any questions
should there be any.
Are there any questions?
>> Councelor Meta
» Councelor Meta
and
>> thank you for your presentation. What
» thank you for your presentation. What
would you say the average depth is of
the lots throughout Cambridge like in
the newer subdivisions? Is it about 100
ft deep or
>> 100 to 110 typically would be in feet
» 100 to 110 typically would be in feet
would be the I think the norm.
>> Okay. Thank you for that.
» Okay. Thank you for that.
>> You're welcome.
» You're welcome.
Larry, do you recognize the fact that
there are municipalities besides ours
across the province who are starting to
look at the lack of parking? For
instance, I look at London. The deputy
mayor there is bringing forward a motion
to roll back their decision, previous
decision of one one parking unit for
every two units and to requiring two.
That's coming forward at the city of
London because of the problems with on
street parking. No, we're we're aware of
uh parking requirements generally
throughout the province and and the
direction in that regard. The issue here
is that a 6 m parking space is
sufficient for virtually every vehicle
vehicle that would normally and
reasonably be parked in a residential
neighborhood. So increasing that length
to 8 mters for
like almost nobody uh you know somebody
who essentially is driving a commercial
vehicle that really has no place in a
residential uh neighborhood.
uh that that's where we are concerned
because that just adds unnecessary cost
to the new homeowners which is contrary
to just about every objective this
council and this provincial government
has with respect to housing.
>> So you're saying that commercial
» So you're saying that commercial
vehicles don't belong in neighborhood
driveways? So, so the small business
owner that may have a commercial
vehicle, they can't they shouldn't be
parking it in their driveway.
>> Again, um most commercial vehicles that
» Again, um most commercial vehicles that
are uh reasonably used in a uh and
needed to be parked in a residential
plan of subdivision can be accommodated
within a 6 m driveway. you're only into
the larger, you know, what you would
call superduty
uh type commercial vehicles that
typically in our experience those
vehicles remain in the business yards
and employees don't take them home. uh
where they do again uh in situations
like that, those very few individuals
can negotiate with their individual
builder a a larger driveway length to
accommodate their need. But to impose
this across every new dwelling in
Cambridge, as I uh outlined in my pro in
my presentation, not only does it impact
the housing affordability on those lots,
new lots going forward, it puts just
about every existing single detached
dwelling in Cambridge in a situation
where those residents to do anything
with their property need to come before
a committee of adjustment and plead to
do something and pay hundreds of dollars
in fees and perhaps consulting fees to
assist them to do that. And we think
that's quite frankly wrong and we don't
think it's the right direction to go.
>> Councelor Schwar,
» Councelor Schwar,
thank you Mayor Ligan and and thank you
for your presentation. So, I just want
to get be clear. Your concern is not the
amount of parking spots because uh a
home can choose to have a double car
garage and double parking. It's just the
length.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> All right. Thank you.
» All right. Thank you.
>> The the length in front of the garage.
» The the length in front of the garage.
So, in in the vast majority of cases
that we're talking about here, there
would be a garage, which is the legal
parking space, and then there would be
the driveway, which also can accommodate
the parking of a vehicle. So, there's
your two vehicles. If you have a double
car garage, you have perhaps up to four
vehicle parking.
>> So, it's just the the
» So, it's just the the
>> it's the length of the driveway in front
» it's the length of the driveway in front
of the garage,
>> right? Thank you.
» right? Thank you.
>> You're welcome,
» You're welcome,
>> Councelor Hamilton.
» Councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you, Mayor. That getting through
» Thank you, Mayor. That getting through
you. Thank you very much, Larry, for
presentation. Um, if I'm understanding
you correctly, you're saying this is
basically a trade-off between more space
for the housing or more space for the
parking. Are you familiar with or can
you give us any other municipalities
that have made the parking length
standard at 8 m?
>> We're not aware of any to be honest uh
» We're not aware of any to be honest uh
that require an 8 m driveway. Uh as I
said in my presentation, just about
every uh situ municipal situation that
we're aware of is a six standard 6 m
driveway and it's also the norm in every
municipality in Waterl region.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> You will.
» You will.
>> I see no more questions. Thank you.
» I see no more questions. Thank you.
>> Uh we're going to take just a quick
» Uh we're going to take just a quick
pause here to take uh they're waiting
for me out here in the rotunda for just
a second and I'll be right back.
So, next up is Valerie Cameron. Read
25-034PG
comprehensive zoning bylaw review.
Welcome once again, Valerie.
You have five minutes. Hello. Welcome
back. And I do hope that you all have
had some chance to have some recharge
time after what I heard from the first
part of this meeting. But I would also
like to point out that I know that a lot
of counselors
behind the scenes have been working to
look at this formbbased
model
more closely. And there's going to be
pictures on the screen, but I'm really
not going to refer to them when I'm
speaking. And the copy that you have
been given is a longer format of what I
am going to read because I'm just
reading highlights because I know I'll
never get through the the whole thing.
So, welcome back.
We shouldn't meet like this all the
time. Okay. And we're into my time, are
we?
Okay. During the December meeting,
councelor Adam Cooper suggested a
compromise be developed. a hybrid model
utilizing components of the current at
15085 zoning bylaw with a formbbased
model blending the both best parts of
both zoning bylaws together. The
formbbased model in its current form
relinquishes controls of council to act
and the rights of residents to
participate. Council needs to bring
forward a motion to instruct planning
staff how to proceed and what safeguard
clauses need to be incorporated as both
models are inadequate and require
extensive extensive language revisions.
With these revisions, the powers to act
by our elected city officials would not
be undermined, nor the rights of
residents to engage in the process. We
all know that developers, investors in
the past and today
continue to abuse our current
regulations by applying to the OOLT.
This is due to the loopholes in both of
these zoning bylaws in the language and
clauses used. These very loopholes bring
about the bureaucracy that developers
constantly criticize the city for. This
is what impacts their bottom line. The
OOLT has indicated this fact to the city
on numerous occasions. while allowing
developers, investors to bypass council
decisions with these loopholes. This
needs to stop. The inefficiencies that
are present in formbbased zoning include
but are not limited to council decision
powers controls shifted to non-elected
staff. Eliminates community residents
the right to consult and engage within
the housing process. Affordability,
displacement of residents without equity
and inclusion policies, lack of
architectural design diversity,
gentrification, transforms
neighborhoods, allowing displacement of
workingclass or economically challenged
individuals.
Ignores land use impacts. Inflexible
limited create limitations created when
community needs change. Skilled
specialized staff are essential,
requiring expensive training, expensive
to enforce, subjective and ineffective,
allowing developers to dispute. These
examples are only a fraction of the
irregularities in the formbbased model.
Note that I refer to formbbased zoning
as a model, a framework, a template to
be revised and updated reflecting the
character, heritage, and vision of the
residential neighborhoods. With the
emerging of the hybrid model and the
inclusion
of firm concrete clauses, the loopholes
that exist now will no longer be viable.
Without these zoning clauses, our big
lots will continue to be exploited. Some
of these clauses need to be embedded in
the laws included but are not limited to
purpose and intent clause, permitted
uses only clause, strict definition
clause, absolute density and unit caps.
um height, variance and exception
limits, prohibition, no delegation of
zoning authority, anti-precy,
enforcement and penalties.
With these clauses incorporated into the
hybrid model, adequate separation of
powers will be established while
supporting resident engagement in the
process. Even with these preventive
measures in place, our community can
continue to develop and prosper while
working within restrictive boundaries
that current legislation has created. As
our elected city leaders, a motion to
approve this hybrid zoning model with
supporting safeguard clauses embedded as
is required. In doing so, planning staff
will be able to continue to refine our
residential established zoning bylaws as
an evolving document for the future.
This will produce the beginning of a
solid visionary residential zoning by
the law unique to our vibrant community.
Others gravitate to clearly more work
needs to be done.
And that's it. Thank you. We're going to
have to stop meeting like this.
>> Yes, we should.
» Yes, we should.
>> Um, does anybody have any questions for
» Um, does anybody have any questions for
Valerie this evening?
>> So, you got all your points across
» So, you got all your points across
there, Valerie. Thank you.
>> That it.
» That it.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Next up is Martin Wis on the same uh
» Next up is Martin Wis on the same uh
topic, comprehensive zoning bylaw
review. Welcome again, Martin.
» Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor Leot counselors and
all in attendance tonight. Thank you for
hearing me. My sympathies go out to
counselors Cooper and Kimson tonight.
My name is Martin Wis. I live at 135
West Cliff Way in Cambridge and our
family has property on Shaun Hill. When
the adjacent property was proposed for
development, we were invited to a public
hearing to have our say. This was only
fair and we don't want to see that
opportunity taken away from our fellow
citizens through the blanket reszoning
that's proposed here. Rather, our
experience says that neighbors should be
informed and given their say much
earlier than we were. The Shaun Hill
proposal was discussed between the
developer and planning staff for four
years before we were invited to
participate. We think that had we been
consulted from the beginning,
that project might already have been
built or might have been aborted in
favor of a better plan and location. So
the proposal before you would do away
with neighbors input altogether
supposedly because public input slows
down development. We say no, that's not
the tr that's not true. Keep the the
keep the opportunity for public input.
It will lead to better outcomes.
On this slide, I want to emphasize my
recommendation for a more gradual
transition. I think there are some good
things you're trying to do, but it's
being done too fast and in the wrong
way.
And on this slide, I want to emphasize
that um adjacent property owners should
be notified much earlier in the process.
Now, I want to address the concern some
of you expressed back in December over
possible loss of federal funding through
the housing accelerator fund if this
proposal does not pass.
Also, some of you expressed concern that
the province might come in with a heavy
hand or the OOLT would override your
decision.
So, first of all, um, senior planner
Brian Cooper told me that only 250,000
of the 13.3 million relates to this
particular initiative.
Uh, you'll need to ask him or somebody
for clarification. I would say if that's
the case, it's a drop in the bucket.
Now, in the worst case scenario, you're
looking at 13.3 million could be lost.
And I say it probably would not be
forfeited if you can show that you did
due diligence and exercised your powers
in the best interests of your residents
and came up with a better solution.
As for the OOLT, your defense your
defense would be similar. a robust
discussion here with with your your
strong opinions on the record and then
placed into the notice of decision in a
written form is a strong defense. You
have not always had that when you went
to the OOLT
in regard to knowing the will of the
people.
I suggest an even stronger case could be
made by holding a referendum. That would
strengthen your case in both situations
and it shouldn't cost too much to do
that this year with the upcoming
election.
In regard to the housing accelerator
fund money, I did a quick calculation. I
could be wrong. Somebody should check
that number, but I think you have more
than 120 million at risk. Forget about
the 13 million.
So I say to you in regard to housing
accelerator fund, don't be afraid of the
clawback.
Fear the unreimbured costs.
To further put things into perspective,
and it's just a wild guess as to how
much the uplift could be, but you could
be talking a $6 billion market uplift
if you pass this zoning. And I think
that deserves a lot more consideration
before it happens.
What if you reject this proposal?
You have the right. You're the elected
council of Cambridge.
Even Doug Ford is backpedaling
on some things that he thought were
important. He thought was important.
And I actually think the money being
thrown at the pro at the problem is part
of the problem, but we'll talk about
that another day.
Um, the OOLT
did not give deference to your decision
on Preston Springs and they should have.
You can hold them. You should make them
do that.
Um, I have more things to say.
>> I'll give you I'll give you just a
» I'll give you I'll give you just a
couple more minutes. I know this is
extremely important. You've been
delegating in front of us repeatedly on
this issue. So, I'd like to give you
like if you could sum up though, I'd
appreciate it.
>> Thank you. I appreciate it.
» Thank you. I appreciate it.
Um,
I'm quoting Councelor Hamilton on the
screen. I don't really want to single
him out, but he said some things on on
the news that I that concerned me and I
I really think it's important that this
council remember they work for residents
uh not the province, not the feds, not
the region, and not for staff. And also
the zoning bylaws are your strongest
document. They are the most critical
local document that that expresses the
will of the people and how we want
things done. The official plan is up
there somewhere. Not the same priority.
And briefly, I found a good quote from
somebody you may know, Robert Layman, an
urban planner. He reminds us that we
need to plan with people, not for
people. And I think some work is needed
in that area.
Finally, um, a referendum is a great
idea. Thank you.
» Thank you, Martin. Are there any
questions?
>> I see none. Thank you for delegating
» I see none. Thank you for delegating
again.
Next up is Debbie Fee, another regular
delegated uh delegate on this particular
item. Welcome, Debbie. You'll have five
minutes. Um, mayor and members of
council, um, I'm going to focus a little
more on process versus a lot of changes
to the bylaw because that they've
already been mentioned to you.
Notifications to residents.
>> Can you pull your mic down, Debbie,
» Can you pull your mic down, Debbie,
please?
Notific. Is that okay? Okay.
Notification to residents regarding a
new build under this bylaw by posting a
sign on the subject property and
circulation of a noticed area. residents
within a defined area is not part of
this uh bylaw and or the process.
Taxpayers and your constituents will not
have the ability to express our concerns
on issues or issues to council members
on construction of a property beside us,
across the street, or down the road. The
only way residents will know that a
property will be slated for some type of
construction is when a bulldozer pulls
up in front of the property. This is not
satisfactory.
This new practice has stripped your
constituents of their ability to have a
voice and undermines their judicial
rights through a public process.
Under the new bylaw, council has
delegated its authority over to the
chief planner to approve routine
applications. This is supposed to
accelerate the site plan and building
permit approvals. As a result of this
change, council will not receive reports
to approve builds. This bylaw is a major
change and the mis municipality does not
know if it is even going to work.
Benchmark reports need to be put into
place and sent to council perhaps every
6 months. These reports are crucial as
council will be informed and if any
amendments need to be made to the bylaw
if it is approved, they can be made in a
timely manner. Since this um this bylaw
affects construction of residential uses
residential us units using water supply.
Since the signing of the CHCA half
agreement on January 31st, 2024, the
region of Waterlue has announced a water
a water supply crisis. As a draft zoning
bylaw relates to residential
construction which will impact water
usage. And since we are also requesting
certain amendments to the bylaw and the
processes, it would seem appropriate to
send a letter to CHC and request an
extension of the deadline or andor until
the city receives the reports from the
region on our water supply. This would
be a reasonable ask of CHC under the
current circumstances. Water is life and
this region is in a crisis.
The following recommendations are
respectfully proposed. Amend the bylaw
and/or appropriate documents to include
notification to residents by posting
signs on an affected property slated for
construction and circulation by notice
to area residents within a circ within a
circulation area of 200 meters through a
public process. and that taxpayers and
constituents have the ability to contact
their war counselor and or come to
council as a whole concerning any type
of build through public process.
Benchmark reports prepared every six
months by staff on residential builds
units in the city. The report to include
builds by ward, street name, type of
build, any issues and concerns
encountered by staff, and pictures and
images of the build.
and a letter be sent to CHC requesting
an extension of the half deadline date
by perhaps six months and or until the
city receives all necessary reports from
the region of water on our current water
supply crisis. The recommendations
suggested are to improve the bylaw and
the process as a whole. This bylaw
affects our existing properties and
homes and the investment we have made in
our established residential
neighborhoods over many years. The
character and landscape of our
neighborhoods will change forever.
We are part of the process too and we
are going to be the most impacted. But
we are being ignored, shoved aside and
we feel betrayed and we deserve better
as taxpayers and your constituents. This
should not be an exercise solely to
improve staff time to expedite building
permits or completing the required
number of units by specified dates and
deadlines so they can be reflected on a
chart. The bylaw gives more liberty and
control to developers and builders. It
also removes council's control on
application approvals as proposed. It
removes taxpayers ability to have a
voice and come before council regarding
our issues and concerns. And for the
most part, all of these changes are
being done so the municipality can
receive money from CHC.
Your constituents should never come
before money.
Thank you. If there's any questions, I'd
be happy to.
» Are there any questions of Debbie?
I see none. Thanks, Debbie.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Next up is Crystal Mura on behalf of
» Next up is Crystal Mura on behalf of
Cornerstone Association of Realtors. And
this is on the same item, comprehensive
zoning bylaw review, formbbased zoning
bylaw. I don't think you've been before
us before. Have you?
>> I haven't spoken before you. No.
» I haven't spoken before you. No.
>> No, I didn't think so. Welcome.
» No, I didn't think so. Welcome.
>> It's my pleasure.
» It's my pleasure.
>> Welcome.
» Welcome.
>> Good evening, Mayor Leget and esteemed
» Good evening, Mayor Leget and esteemed
members of city council. My name is
Crystal Moira and I'm here on behalf of
Cornerstone Association of Realtors
representing over 2500 dedicated
professionals across the region.
Firstly, I would like to commend the
council's leadership in advancing
Cambridge's new form-based zoning bylaw.
Your commitment to modernizing the
city's outdated zoning framework is a
crucial and commendable step towards
addressing the housing crisis that
continues to challenge our community. We
fully support your efforts to increase
housing options across the city,
particularly the inclusion of more
missing middle housing such as duplexes,
triplexes, and the missing middle.
These gentle density solutions are
essential for providing attainable
family oriented housing options that
benefit first time benefit firsttime
home buyers, downsizing seniors, and
working families alike. Missing Middle
Housing helps bridge the significant gap
between single family homes and
high-rise apartments, offering the
diverse housing choices our our growing
community needs. A diverse and flexible
housing market is crucial for
stabilizing prices and promoting home
ownership opportunities. By focusing on
the physical form, scale, and design of
buildings rather than the restrictive
housing types, Cambridge is poised to
effectively support the creation of the
missing middle housing, fostering a more
lucrative, inclusive, and vibrant
community. While we broadly support the
new bylaw, we do have concerns regarding
the changes to parking space
requirements. According to the staff
report, the current driveway length of 6
mters is adequate for most truck models
and mod modifying this could necessitate
minor variance applications when adding
additional dwelling units. Furthermore,
our members have not received feedback
from clients indicating that driveway
lengths are a pressing issue. Buyers
prioritize affordability and change that
complicate home design may hinder
efforts to provide affordable housing
options. In conclusion, we affirm our
strong support for your continued
efforts to modernize Cambridge's housing
policies. Together, we can ensure that
every family dreaming to call Cambridge
home finds a place to belong. Thank you
so much.
>> Are there any questions of Crystal?
» Are there any questions of Crystal?
>> Councelor Schwar
and thank you Crystal. I just have a
question because you're in real estate.
How many um of the home homeowners that
have purchased homes in single
residential areas? Because currently
right now you're allowed according to
the planning act single home, semi-
detached, triplex, three units. So this
form bay zoning is is changing the three
units to three stories unlimited base
units. You can have a sixplex, 9plex and
in a beautiful subdivision. How many of
your clients would really like that?
Have you is this something from the real
estate or is this something feedback
from the general public that buy the
homes?
» It's a double-edged sword to some
degree. However, we believe that housing
is a necessity and everybody should have
access to it and to put barriers in that
in way of it um is unfortunately
something that we need to address.
>> Okay. So, it's your the opinion, not
» Okay. So, it's your the opinion, not
residents. Basically,
>> I can't speak for all right
» I can't speak for all right
>> the community at large in that respect.
» the community at large in that respect.
No, I'm sorry.
>> Thank you.
» Um Crystal, I have a question because
you talked about the 6 meter versus the
the um
8 meter. Are you aware that the parking
situation and these new neighborhoods
where all these new housing is is the
bane of our existence? It is the biggest
problem we have currently
>> and I think it we really came to the
» and I think it we really came to the
forefront during all the snow that we're
having.
>> We have multiple people living in houses
» We have multiple people living in houses
now with not enough parking in their
driveways, not enough parking on the
streets, people getting tickets. We get
constant emails. You're not aware of
that?
>> Oh, I'm aware of these issues that have
» Oh, I'm aware of these issues that have
happened. However, I don't believe
adding 2 meters is going to resolve the
issue at large. I think there's more
considerations that need to be uh
investigated to find a reasonable
solution.
So, would you be able to tell us what
some of those solution I mean you're
saying we need to find solutions. So,
one of our solutions was to do that.
Have you thought about any solutions for
us that would be helpful to us?
» I suppose there are
situations where people widen their
driveway via paving stones, which is
something they can't cut curbs, but they
find ways to ex uh widen their
driveways. um this is something that
they can choose to do after the fact if
the ne if the need is necess is a
necessity. Um
lengthening the driveways as Larry had
um shared really does impact the the
building process and as well impacts the
budget via the variance um requests that
would be need to be made.
Okay, just to follow and then I'm going
to go to councelor Divine. So, you're
saying to widen the driveway. So, you're
saying we should require the minimum
width of the of of a of a lot to be
widened in order to accommodate that
versus lengthening the driveway.
>> I not necessarily not necessarily the
» I not necessarily not necessarily the
lot in a as a whole, the driveway.
>> Okay. Thank you, councelor Dubine.
» Okay. Thank you, councelor Dubine.
>> Yes. Thank you to the chair. Um,
» Yes. Thank you to the chair. Um,
what's the length of an extended cab
pickup?
>> Do we know?
» Do we know?
>> Off hand, I don't recall, but I believe
» Off hand, I don't recall, but I believe
it's 18 to 20 ft.
>> 20 ft.
» 20 ft.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
>> We have a lot of people out there that
» We have a lot of people out there that
are starting businesses.
All right. Um, young couples that
and that's their mode of transportation.
All right.
And be honest with you, uh, we don't
want to detract those people from
starting those businesses. Um, and I
think it's I just heard it's 20 ft. I
think it's over 20 ft. It's about 21 and
a half, I think. All right. So, I have
no problem with the the driveways at 8 m
to be honest with you. I really don't.
Um, and the homes can be designed around
that.
And you know, we got to we got to get in
the the real world where there's a lot
of homebased businesses now. There's a
lot of people, whether it be
electricians, plumbers, whatever, that
uh work out of their home and
consequently work out of their truck. So
I don't I don't think by going back to
six meters is an answer. Be honest with
>> Do you have a secondary question,
» Do you have a secondary question,
counselor?
>> No, that was it. That was just a
» No, that was it. That was just a
comment.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Crystal.
Next up is Melissa Dele regarding the
ion stage one reimbursement.
Melissa, I don't think you've appeared
before us either.
>> No, I have not. This is my first time
» No, I have not. This is my first time
being in front of council.
>> Well, welcome. And you'll have five
» Well, welcome. And you'll have five
minutes.
>> Thank you. So, mayor, members of
» Thank you. So, mayor, members of
council, staff, good evening. Before I
begin, I did want to acknowledge the
earlier discussion on council
compensation. The time, complexity, and
responsibility involved in municipal
governance is substantial,
and I appreciate the work council
members do in service of our community.
I'll proceed. I'm speaking as a
concerned Cambridge resident. I'm here
to speak in opposition to the
proposition or to the proposed motion of
IO on stage 1 reimbursement. I oppose
the motion because it undermines
democratic decision-making. In effect,
it's anti-democratic.
The ION project has gone through years
of regional planning, multiple business
cases, environmental assessment, funding
strategies, and public consultation and
surveys.
These decisions were made democratically
in public by elected representatives
across the region, including
representatives from Cambridge.
Disagreeing with the pace or the cost
does not undo those decisions. What
concerns me about the motion is not that
it raises questions. Questions are
healthy and a part of democratic
society, but that it takes up public
time and attention by attempting to
relitigate settled regional policy is a
grievance.
Regional transit is by definition
regional. Cambridge residents contribute
to infrastructure we not may not
personally use every day. that is the
social contract and municip of municipal
and regional government in Canada. We do
not ask for our taxes back because we
don't have children in public school or
because we don't use specific regional
health services or because a road
upgrade happens on a street we never
drive on. Treating regional taxation as
a peruse system sets a troubling
precedent. What frustrates me the most
is the opportunity cost of this motion.
When motions suggest residents can get
their money back, quote, they risk
misleading the public and losing trust.
There is no authority for the
retroactive reimbursement of regional
taxes. This council and our community is
facing real urgent issues.
Housing affordability, infrastructure
maintenance, climate resilience, transit
reliability within Cambridge, and the
cost of living pressures residents are
feeling every day.
Instead of focusing limited time and
energy
on those challenges, we're debating a
reimbursement proposal that staff and
the region cannot realistically or
legally implement. Finally, I want to
say this respectfully. Every member of
this council is privileged enough to
have stable housing and a platform. Many
Cambridge residents do not. They need
leadership that looks forward, not
backwards. leadership that works within
decisions already democratically made
regardless of personal positions to
achieve the best possible outcome for
our region, our city, and the people who
live here. I urge council to reject the
motion and refocus on advocating
constructively for Cambridge. Thank you.
Um I ask for questions. Uh I'm not
seeing anywhere in this motion where
it's saying to stop the LRT make a
decision to go backwards or anything.
This
>> it was about the taxation reimbursing
» it was about the taxation reimbursing
citizens for taxation.
>> I hadn't finished. Hang on a second.
» I hadn't finished. Hang on a second.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Um but there's nothing in this motion
» Um but there's nothing in this motion
that talks about um stopping the LRT to
Cambridge.
>> Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
» Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Okay. Any questions?
I see none. Thank you.
Okay, I lost my place. Sorry, I've just
lost my place here for a second.
N found it again. Uh, next up is Ibraham
Tahir on the uh comprehensive zoning
bylaw review formbbased zoning.
Welcome. You'll have five minutes.
>> Okay.
» Hi there. Good evening, council. My name
is Ibrahim. I'm 29 years old and I'm a
lifelong resident of Cambridge in the
South G area. I'm here today to give my
support to a change in our zoning
bylaws. I became interested in this
issue the same way many Canadians my age
have. They're looking for solutions to
the housing crisis. It's been top of
mind for for us in the last few
elections in the country. Every
publication and politician across the
board has had to reckon with the fact
that for decades our population has been
going up and we have simply not been
building enough homes to keep up that
we're beginning to try now. Um the
government of Ontario for its part has
set up an online tracker for housing
supply progress. So I took a look at it
and I found that Cambridge isn't even
close to its targets. This problem is
less evenly distributed for people who
own land and homes. If you're a
homeowner, you have seen rising property
values and insulation from housing
instability. Yes, homelessness is
increasing with fewer homes to go
around, but a home a homeowner may not
feel the effects of that quite as
acutely. My generation, however, will
have to bear the costs the brunt of the
cost of the shortage. In my personal
experience reading about housing, pretty
much any expert or serious study affirms
that current exclusionary zoning laws
are far too restrictive. Some kind of
missing middle needs to be built. I
personally think a form-based zoning
framework is a reasonable and measured
solution to allowing more types of
housing while still not letting
developers build whatever they want. It
it still has clear and defined
guidelines, but it's just a little more
permissive than before. Far from a
radical departure, this is exactly the
approach to take if one wants to
increase density while preserving
neighborhood character. I can sympathize
with some reluctance to change. For
someone who owns a house to be primarily
concerned about things like aesthetics
and neighborhood character is
understandable. These are important and
worthy considerations. I just ask is
this a crisis or not? And if it is, will
Cambridge be part of the solution?
Perhaps that isn't a priority for some
residents. Perhaps that is something for
other cities like Kitchener and Waterl
to handle, both of which have met their
uh their housing targets. But the answer
cannot be to just keep the 40-year-old
standards. I do think concerns over any
house in any neighborhood being knocked
down to build a multiplex are valid, but
those are things that can be addressed
in the implementation of new bylaws
rather than rejecting the idea of any
change to the status quo wholesale.
Controlling things like that are what
zoning is for, and this is still zoning.
I don't want to approach this as an
ideologue of any kind. It's just what
I've read. If we can at least agree on
the need to build housing, it's fine to
disagree on the process. If there's a
workable, economically sound, and
evidence evidence-based alternative, I'm
absolutely eager to hear it. My concern
with the current system, though, is the
asymmetry. If an existing property owner
wants to say no, it gives them greater
power and incentive to try to do that
than prospective residents to say yes.
This feels like a pretty unproductive
mechanism to me. I do understand the
inclination towards localized consent. I
just want to assert that it is a
substantive policy choice that you make.
It allows a smaller group like a single
neighborhood to make decisions that
affect the entire city's housing supply,
shifting the costs onto those with fewer
resources and the next generation. It
gives veto power essentially to those
who arrived first. All public policy
comes with trade-offs. We usually accept
that decisions with uneven impacts are
made at the societal level rather than
just by those immediately affected. We
wouldn't, for example, give a particular
income group a veto before adjusting tax
policy for their bracket. With housing
scarcity, the benefits acrew locally,
but the costs affect the whole city. If
that is your priority, I would want to
know what other plans council has put
forth for delivering the required
housing. I think a more democratic
solution is for council to set clear and
updated guidelines. After all, it's the
residents of Cambridge who voted council
in to make these decisions. I found out
about this proposed bylaw change when
researching why more housing is not
being built. I found a local news item
that explicitly cited local builders and
developers saying that they want to
build housing in Cambridge, but they
can't because of current laws. They
attempt to build housing, bylaws halt
them, and then they go to the Ontario
Land Tribunal to try to plead their
case. This doesn't seem like a system
that is working for housing or even for
local protection. But with public
participation in a new framework, people
might at least know what to expect, and
it may reduce the incentive for
developers to appeal in the first place.
I think it would be a mistake to let
surmountable obstacles prevent action on
an issue every municipality needs to
play its part in. We can retain our
identity while building enough to
accommodate those who want to live here.
I just ultimately ask council to give
those without a seat at the table a
chance. uh thanks for engaging with me
on this issue and for considering the
long-term future of the city.
>> Ibrahim, I I want to thank you for
» Ibrahim, I I want to thank you for
coming and uh delegating. You're
extremely well spoken, very
knowledgeable. I just want to I just
want to fix some misconception that you
seem to have. You say we haven't met our
targets because developers are saying
that that's too difficult and whatever.
There are over 5,000
units that we have approved that would
we would be meeting our targets if the
developers would put the shovel in the
grounds. So with the building faster
fund, it's not based on how many permits
we give, but how many units the
developers have shovels in the ground
on. So it's not on us. It's not us.
We're doing our job, but our staff is
doing an amazing job. So I just need to
change that. what you said that that's
that's not correct. The statement that
you had said it's not us. Developers
will say things all the time, but they
have uh reasons for why they don't um
build houses, but it's not because we're
not giving them the right to build. We
are uh any questions?
I see none. Thank you.
>> I'd like to see you back again.
» I'd like to see you back again.
>> Sure. Sure thing.
So, next we have no more people in the
audience to speak. Uh, but we do have
somebody online waiting to come in.
Alyssa Hernick.
>> She's in
» She's in
>> Oh, sorry. She's in the waiting room.
» Oh, sorry. She's in the waiting room.
>> Oh, there you are, Melissa.
» Oh, there you are, Melissa.
Welcome. And you are speaking on behalf
of the Northwest Community Builders,
Inc. on that's the same thing as
comprehensive zoning bylaw review.
That is correct.
>> Go ahead. You'll have five minutes.
» Go ahead. You'll have five minutes.
>> Good evening. Thank you, mayor, members
» Good evening. Thank you, mayor, members
of council. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak tonight um on this
popular topic, the comprehensive zoning
bylaw. Um yes, my name is Alyssa
Herrenic. I am a registered professional
planner with the firm Malone Given
Parsons. Uh we are the planners and the
urban designers for the Northwest
Heslers Community Builders. Um and
that's who I'm speaking on behalf
tonight. Uh the Northwest Hesplers
Community Builders Group is composed of
established community and homebuilders
um that represent about 80% of the lands
in an area we call the northwest Hespler
secondary plan area. This area is
generally north of Maple Grove Road uh
north west of Hespa Road and east of
Beaverdale Road. So, back in December,
we submitted an official plan amendment
application to bring these lands into
the city's urban area um consistent with
the region's uh community area and to
establish um a detailed land use
framework to guide development through a
secondary plan. Um that application is
currently under review with the city. Um
in this context, I'm offering comments
on tonight's zoning bylaw. I think
you've heard a lot of great comments. Um
and we generally want to um express our
support for the deferral of the land
subject to um the Northwest Hesler
secondary plan area. Um I think that's a
great first um approach, but we do offer
some comments I think for your
consideration and cons and concerns. Um
so we are overall supportive of a
formbbased zoning approach. We think
that's the right u next step um in
moving towards as others have mentioned
um a more conducive environment for um
flexibility and supportive housing and
increasing our housing supply. Um, I
have so I think my details um and our
concerns are outlined in our letter and
I'm not going to go into each of one of
those, but I think generally what we are
finding and maybe what you're hearing
tonight is that
you have three zones before you and
maybe they're trying to pigeon hole um a
multitude of issues. some that you would
experience in more contemporary new
communities and some that you would
experience in um traditional
neighborhoods that are experiencing
infill and intensification.
So there might need to be um a
consideration and a few more zones to
consider sort of the differences and
issues that come up with these quite
different forms. um you'll actually find
newer neighborhoods are generally much
more dense um have different housing
types and development forms than some of
the more traditional neighborhoods. And
so I think that's where you're having
some of these inconsistencies and some
of these concerns with three blanket
zone standards. I think the zone
standards are great and that they
provide flexibility and type, but I
think we need to look um maybe more
particularly at some of the particular
um standards in each of those. So, we
our letter just outlines some of those
concerns. Um, we're just asking council
to consider that, maybe have staff come
back and take a look at ways we could
tweak the bylaw. I think the bylaw is
really close. We really commend staff's
efforts to date. Um, it's a lot of work.
It's in the going in the right
direction. Um, maybe there's a
subsequent phase that looks at uh zones
more appropriate for new communities.
you know, these communities are quite
different from the uh issues and the
forums and the design principles that we
experience in traditional communities.
So, I thank you for your time tonight.
Um, if you have questions or any other
comments that you would like to make,
I'm available to answer those.
>> Does anyone have any questions?
» Does anyone have any questions?
>> I I have a question, Alyssa. This is all
» I I have a question, Alyssa. This is all
the land that was just added in through
ROP 6 currently, correct? So this this
would expand outwards versus upwards
>> in our density.
» in our density.
>> Um our application would be I'm but I'm
» Um our application would be I'm but I'm
speaking tonight on the terms of the
comprehensive zoning bylaw. Correct.
Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure
» Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that I've got the right group of
builders. So this was land that was
added in for down the road, not for
currently.
>> Right. But I I guess we're commenting
» Right. But I I guess we're commenting
tonight um through you uh mayor in the
fact that hopefully this is a
comprehensive bylaw. um that sets
standards, you know, that we don't have
to come every single time and and ask
you for um a tweak here, a tweak there,
right? So, I see this as a really um
important project to participate in now
to make sure that when we are or when
these home builders are building homes
in 5 10 15 years, you you've got
standards that are um appropriate and in
place for those those new communities.
>> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Roberts.
There we go. Thank you, Mayor Jan,
through you. Um, and thank you, Alyssa,
for your presentation. I just have a
question. When you say a tweak here and
a tweak there, are you saying that the
the formbbased zoning doesn't allow for
enough density or it's too much density?
I'm just having trouble following your
>> train of thought there.
» train of thought there.
>> Sorry. Um, I was trying to be brief in
» Sorry. Um, I was trying to be brief in
my comments. I know you guys have a long
night ahead of you. Um, and so those
those tweaks and those comments are
detailed in our submission and
correspondence that were sent out. I
have no problem with the density. It's
things like is it the right lot lot
frontage um on an R3 zone which permits
a variety of building types from um uh
town houses in condo blocks up to
apartments. So they're minor things,
right? Maybe should we be considering um
a different provision? there's some
inconsistencies on the width of the
driveways. So, um, and and there's some
conflicts there and you you're hearing
tonight some comments on the length of
the driveways. So, when I talk about
tweaks, it's not fundamental big tweaks.
It's it's sort of minor things in and
making sure that um the the zones
consider um new communities that are
very much different in character and
design and parameters than maybe
traditional communities that are
experiencing more infill.
Okay, thank you.
>> I see no more questions. Alyssa, thank
» I see no more questions. Alyssa, thank
you. And this is your first time
presenting to us, wasn't it?
>> It was. Yes. Thanks for having me.
» It was. Yes. Thanks for having me.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you.
» Thank you very much. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, we're going to go through uh
» Okay. Um, we're going to go through uh
consent agenda and then consideration
reports. Then I'm just going to take a
quick bio break if everybody doesn't
mind.
consent before we get into
>> Yeah, I'm going to do consent. Yeah. Um
» Yeah, I'm going to do consent. Yeah. Um
so the next item is the consent agenda
and um councelor Hamilton, you have that
one.
» Thank you, Mayor Liot. Through you. It's
moved by myself and seconded by
councelor Kempson. The recommendation
that all items listed under the heading
of consent agenda for February 3rd, 2026
be adopted as recommended. Item 8.1,
council meeting minutes, December 15,
2025. 8.2, Special Council Meeting
Minutes, January 13, 2026. 8.3, Council
Information Package, January 9th, 2026.
And item 8.4, Council Information
Package, January 23rd, 2026.
So we'll call for that vote now
and opening voting.
Closing voting
that carries unanimously.
Sorry, not the consideration of reports
because that's going to get into
presentation on the comprehensive zoning
bylaw which is going to take a while. So
we're just going to take a quick bio
break here.
So, this bio break has taken a lot
longer than what was expected to be. So,
we're we're going to switch some things
around because there's staff working
with counselors on some different
things. Could you please sit down,
Helen?
Um, we're going to start with uh 55
Kerr.
Um, because we have a presenter here, I
believe.
Um, we have Elden Theodore from MHBC
planning to speak on behalf of the
applicant on 26-001PG
zoning bylaw amendment.
Welcome, Elden. Nice to see you back.
It's been a number of years.
Go ahead. You'll have five minutes.
Um, yes, it it has been a while. I think
um I've got some more gray hairs than
when I was first before you. Um, when
this application was um adopted by
council in uh 2021. Um, I have a lengthy
presentation, but I'm not going to do
that. Instead, I'm going to focus on
what is before you. I'm going just going
to take you to the actual proposal
itself.
There we go.
Um so as a reminder to council um this
current proposal before you in the staff
report um was what was adopted by
council in 2021 for two 18story tall
buildings with 445 units and uh 445
parking spaces. And uh the
recommendation went to um regional staff
uh planning for consideration uh which
has since been dissolved. So it has now
come back to city staff for as the
approval authority on the matter. Um a
couple of things that I just want to
point out. First and foremost is that
I'm supportive of staff's
recommendation.
Um as it relates to the bylaw and
particularly the secondary bylaw that's
been added. Um I just wanted to clarify
a number of items. Uh the first being
that um item number excuse me just
making sure I have the right in front of
me. Um
uh provision number five which speaks to
the um uh the amount of private common
amenity space. That was an item that was
actually missed from the bylaw, but was
uh discussed and recommended in the
staff report back in um 2021. And so
that's really just an error that's been
addressed. The other items number six,
seven, and eight, um they all deal with
uh source water protection and ensuring
that this development does everything it
can as it relates to restrictions on
geothermal wells and as it relates to
restrictions on infiltration and passive
active dewatering, ensuring that that
does not occur. And last but not least,
um the addition, which is section five,
which deals with the holding provisions.
These were all items that were ongoing
and and in the works uh being resolved
with the region but had not been
resolved and through the recommendation
that they be placed as holding
provisions so that they once uh should
this development proceed to the next
stage through site plan um they would be
addressed uh to the satisfaction of
council. So that age would need to be
lifted prior to site plan approval
occurring. And so I wanted to just uh
clarify those items. Um, I reviewed
staff's report. I support the
recommendations. Happy to answer any
questions.
>> So, you've met all of the conditions of
» So, you've met all of the conditions of
the holding provision.
>> We have not yet. Um, we were in the
» We have not yet. Um, we were in the
midst of meeting those items and then
the partners on the project changed and
then the economy fell out and so they
are yet to be fully satisfied. So,
that's why they are holding provisions
in the bylaw.
>> Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
» Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Okay. I I love the changes that you know
the listening to council, listening to
the residents, dropping the number of
units, dropping the height, everything.
I realize some of that's financial, but
I really appreciate it. Are there any
questions from council here?
And you still the commercial on the
bottom? Like
>> there is still commercial on the ground
» there is still commercial on the ground
floor. Yes.
>> Okay. It's been a lot of long long time
» Okay. It's been a lot of long long time
coming.
>> Yes. and a lot of collaboration went
» Yes. and a lot of collaboration went
into bringing this forward back then and
um just happy to
>> uh finally bring this to closure at
» uh finally bring this to closure at
least this chapter of this application
>> and Mr. Whitel still the architect I saw
» and Mr. Whitel still the architect I saw
on your
>> uh that's correct madame mayor.
» uh that's correct madame mayor.
>> All right I see no oh councelor meta
» All right I see no oh councelor meta
>> thank you mayor
» thank you mayor
>> and through you and thank you for the
» and through you and thank you for the
presentation and all your work on the
file and to everyone working on this um
the question that I have and I may have
missed it. Um what would be the time
frame for construction and how long will
it take to build the whole thing like
when does the developer feel they can
break ground and all that? Thank you.
>> Um that is a great question. right now
» Um that is a great question. right now
that's a little bit in limbo. Um, this
project had originally been looking at a
potential as it related to a condo
development. Um, condo is not in vogue
at the moment. Um, and so um the right
now the developer is looking at how they
can pivot to a potential rental um and
partnering with a partner. Obviously,
when doing rental, there's a lot more
financial
um obligation that has to come in the
forefront of that project. So, um
whether there's an ability to get Cac
funding or other funding sources or
having a JV partner to help assist with
that, those are part of the back
discussions that are happening. So, I
couldn't give you a firm timeline. And
what I could tell you is that if it did
um if it did go ahead, we'd still have
to go through site plan um with working
with your staff um which you know
probably you know 6 to 8 month process
and then this construction with um with
the underground parking you're looking
at probably a 2 to three year
construction period.
» Thank you. I see no more questions.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
» Thank you very much.
Uh Melissa Moore, senior planner, is
here to present on this project.
Welcome, Alyssa.
Thank you, Mayor Wicket and Council, all
in attendance this evening. I don't see
the presentation up on the board, but
Okay, there we are. Um, so I am
presenting staff's recommendation on a
staff initiated amending zoning bylaw
for 55 Kurr Street in the east part of
G.
So again, the site uh norththeast corner
of Kerr and Shade Street
and uh I can take you through a bit of
the history. So in 2021, council adopted
the official plan amendment and zoning
bylaw amendment uh for a 18story
building or sorry to permit two 18story
buildings with a total of 445 dwelling
units as well as aggra commercial space
in one of the buildings on site. The
official plan amendment was sent to the
region for a decision. The region did
not make a decision on the official plan
amendment as additional studies were
required relating to archaeology, noise,
source water protection and uh also
prohibitions.
On January 1st, 2025, the city became
the approval authority
for uh sight specific official plans
through the passing of bill 23. And as
the application predated the transfer of
approval authority from the region to
the city, the official plan amendment is
with the ministry of municipal affairs
and housing for a decision. Currently,
the ministry has consulted with with the
city uh and regional staff regarding the
application and city staff agreed to
incorporate these outstanding issues
into an amending bylaw. uh and it's
related to source protection as well as
holding provisions to obtain the
outstanding studies as well as to
recognize as uh Alden had previously
stated a previously approved uh
provision relating to amenity area that
was identified in the purpose and intent
of the bylaw but not actually in the
provision itself of the bylaw. So it's
really just a cleanup of the existing
bylaw.
And I apologize the uh clicker is not
working here. But again, prohibitions
include uh prohibition on geothermal
wells, prohibition on engineered
infiltration infrastructure, and a
prohibition on permanent passive or
active dewatering infrastructure. Now,
those all relate to source water
protection measures. And uh the further
uh the amendment is to implement a
holding provision to obtain the
following studies. An archaeological
assessment and corresponding ministry
acknowledgement letter. a stationary
noise study, a hydrogeeological study
that includes a vulnerability assessment
and sensitivity analysis and source
water protection potential contamination
study.
Uh so once a decision has been made on
the amending zoning bylaw by council,
the Ministry of Missile Affairs and
Housing will then follow through with
the making a decision on the official
plan amendment um after after a decision
this evening. In providing staff's
recommendation to council, I have
considered consistency and conformity
with provincial, regional, and city
policies and consideration of comments
received through the Ontario Ministry's
Environmental Registry public review.
Staff is recommending approval of the
proposed amending zoning bylaw amendment
as it is consistent with the provincial
planning statement and conforms to the
regional official plan and city official
plan. Furthermore, these additional
prohibitions and holding provisions
ensure source water protection is imp is
uh protected and reports that are
required uh are obtained through the
continued review at the detailed design
stage. So I want to thank you all for
your time and I'm available for
questions on this matter.
Does anybody have any questions?
I don't see any, Melissa. Some of us,
there's three of us who've been here
since day one on this project and we
missed our targets. This was one of the
properties where we missed our targets.
So, I'm thrilled to see this going
forward. I know it's going to be a while
yet, but at least it's going forward. It
provides some rental housing, which is
exciting for all of us here. So, thank
you.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. So on this one here, councelor
» Okay. So on this one here, councelor
Ernshaw, you have the motion.
I do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. It's
moved by me and seconded by councelor
Cooper that council approves the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment with
additional sight specific and holding
provisions for the property located at
55 Kurr Street for a mixeduse
development with 445 dwelling units and
approximately 113.9
square meters of retail at grade and
that council deems that adequate notice
was provided for the public meeting held
December 10th, 2019. 19 and that a
further public meeting is not considered
necessary and that the corresponding
official plan amendment has been posted
and comments closed on the Environmental
Registry of Ontario ERO number 025-0194
website and further that the bylaw
attached to report 26-y
PG in appendix D be presented to council
for enactment.
Are there any questions from council on
this? Any comments?
Seeing none, we'll ask the clerk for
that vote.
Opening voting.
Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
There you go, Elden.
So, we're going to uh skip to Cherry
Blossom Road one uh next. So, that
report is 26-002PG
recommendation report for official plan,
amendment, and zoning bylaw amendment
165 Cherry Blossom Road. And we have
Kate Wills from HS MHC's uh planning
speaking on behalf of the applicant.
Welcome again, Kate. You will have five
minutes.
And we have Eric Devos is also in
attendance in person to answer any
questions that we may have. Is that
correct?
» Sorry.
>> Is Eric here to answer questions? It
» Is Eric here to answer questions? It
says in my script. Is he here?
>> No. Okay.
» No. Okay.
>> I don't know if he's in here.
» I don't know if he's in here.
>> I don't believe he's involved. Eric's
» I don't believe he's involved. Eric's
not involved in the application.
>> Oh, okay.
» Oh, okay.
>> He He's Okay. He was a co-op student at
» He He's Okay. He was a co-op student at
our office. He's not with us anymore. Is
he here? Okay. We have a strong woman at
the mic who's going to carry the whole
thing. That's
>> You got it. You got it.
» You got it. You got it.
>> Um, good evening, mayor, members of
» Um, good evening, mayor, members of
council, and public. Um, thank you for
taking the time for this application
this evening. Um, this application has
been presented to you previously for 165
Cherry Blossom Road. There haven't been
any changes since our last um,
presentation. U, I'll just do a quick
recap. Uh there's an existing dwelling
unit uh fronting onto Cherry Blossom
Road. Um there's also frontage onto
Boxwood Drive. The applicant is looking
to sever three lots from the property
and they would be serviced privately for
water and septic.
Um the sight specific um applications
relate to the official plan. Uh the
first being that this the site is
designated future urban reserve. We're
amending the or the site designation to
low/medium
density residential with sight specific
policy to allow for the private services
and um this will allow for gentle in int
sorry gentle intensification
um with similar lot sizes to what exists
in the neighborhood today.
In terms of the zoning bylaw amendment,
the current zoning is agricultural A1
and the proposed zoning would be
residential one. Uh we're asking for a
sight specific which would be a minor
reduction in the minimum lot area from
3,000 square meters to 2700 square
meters which again aligns with the uh
lots in the nearby uh neighborhood as
well. Um I'm just here to say that we've
had a chance to review uh the staff
report and recommendation and we support
um everything that is being proposed by
staff uh for approval. I'm here to
answer any questions that uh members of
council um or the mayor may have and
thank you for your time.
>> Does anyone have any questions for Kate?
» Does anyone have any questions for Kate?
>> I see none. You got off easy tonight.
» I see none. You got off easy tonight.
That's great.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Um and Melissa, you're back up again on
» Um and Melissa, you're back up again on
this one.
Go ahead.
>> Afternoon or good evening I should say.
» Afternoon or good evening I should say.
Yes, I'm presenting on uh the
recommendation of staffs.
So I'll be presenting staff's
recommendation on the official plan
amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for
165 Cherry Blossom Road and it's related
to O1 1125.
See it there, but it's not popping up on
the screen here. There we go. Wonderful.
Thank you.
So again uh the um site is located at
165 Jerry Blossom Road and the official
plan current official plan designation
is future urban reserve and the existing
zoning of the land is agricultural A1.
So I have some depictions of the
proposed zoning and proposed official
plan designation. So they're proposing
to take it from Future Urban Reserve to
the low medium density residential with
sight specific policy 129 to permit a
maximum of four residential lots for
single detached dwelling on private
services.
The proposed zoning bylaw amendment
before council is to amend the zoning
bylaw from the existing agricultural A1
to proposed residential one zone with a
sight specific provision to permit lot
areas of 2,700 square meters.
In considering uh the recommendation and
uh my recommendation to council, the
following has been considered.
Consistency and conformity with
provincial, regional, and city policies,
good planning, and comments received
through the circulation of the
application.
Through the circulation of the
application and the public meeting held
in November, no comments were received
from members of the public. In addition,
no members of the public requested
additional information or requested to
be added to the notification list. All
comments that were received were
addressed through the official plan
amendment and zoning bylaw amendment or
will be addressed through future consent
applications should council approve this
uh official plan amendment and zoning
bylaw amendment. This evening, staff is
recommending approval of the proposed
official plan amen amendment and zoning
bylaw amendment as they are consistent
with the provincial planning statement
and they conform to the regional
official plan and city official city of
Cambridge official plan. Thank you for
your time and I'm available for
questions.
Does anyone have any questions for
Melissa?
>> I see none. Great. Thank you.
» I see none. Great. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your time.
» Thank you for your time.
>> Okay. And councelor Shre, you have this
» Okay. And councelor Shre, you have this
motion.
» Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Moved by myself,
seconded by councelor Divine. Um that uh
recommend uh 26-002PG
recommendation report for official plan
amendment and zoning bylaw amendment 165
Cherry Blossom Road. The council
approves the proposed official plan
amendment 98 for the property located at
165 Cherry Blossom Road to permit a new
residential development on private
services and that council approve the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment with
sightsp specific provisions for the
property located at 165 Cherry Blossom
Road and that the bylaws attached to
report 25-041-PG
be presented to council for enactment.
Does council have any questions?
Any comments?
Okay, we'll go for that vote.
Opening voting.
Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
Okay, there you go, Kate. Good night.
So, next we're going to do um the
professional fire services fire station
4 expansion.
And do we have somebody here to speak to
this? If I'm sure council's going to
have some questions.
Um and councelor Roberts, you have that
motion. We could put that on the floor
in the meantime.
Yep. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Through you,
u moved by myself, seconded by councelor
Cooper. Recommendation that request for
quotation number Q25-85,
Professional Services Fire Station 4
expansion be awarded to DP AI
Architecture, Inc. in the amount of
$328,440
excluding applicable taxes. and that the
budget in capital project A/00621-30
be increased by a total of 105,421
funded from development charges related
to fire services.
» Okay, I'm sure we have questions on this
one. Do we not? Councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you, Mayor Getting through you.
» Thank you, Mayor Getting through you.
Hello to you both. Thank you for staying
this long. Um, my question obviously has
to do with the adjustments to the
project. So, elevating the cost by
$15,421
because a review of the elements of the
project's original scope identified the
needs for this adjustment to be made.
So, what exactly were those needs? What
was omitted or missed in the first
assessment that caused that fluctuation?
Or why do we have an additional $105,000
that's being added on now?
U through your your worship. Uh the
original scope, the original project
itself was designed for fire station 5.
Um part of the fire services m
>> sorry could you bring the mic up? I
» sorry could you bring the mic up? I
can't hear you.
>> Sorry.
» Sorry.
>> Thanks Olu.
» Thanks Olu.
>> Sorry threeear worship. Um so the
» Sorry threeear worship. Um so the
original scope of the project was for
fire station 5. The intent was to
renovate or expand fire station 5. Um
following uh the fire uh master plan and
further assessments by the department,
it was determined that that location
wasn't the appropriate um location for
expansion.
Fire fire station 4 was recommended for
the revision and the project itself the
construction project itself was re was
uh corrected um was expanded to to
include um the actual costing
um the professional services
has increased the professional services
cost has increased to correlate with the
actual cost to reflect the cost of the
construction that's needed. Fire station
5 is a newer facility than fire station
4. If we're moving sites based on the
needs of the community, um the costs uh
increased based on that.
>> Thank you. I wasn't aware that it was
» Thank you. I wasn't aware that it was
moving from five to four. So that's
that's very helpful. Thank you.
>> But can I just ask you something on that
» But can I just ask you something on that
olu? We put it the budget was for
station four though.
>> That's that's correct your worship. Um
» That's that's correct your worship. Um
so original the original project was a
2025 project for fire station five sorry
2024 for fire station 5. Um but during
the assessment when the fire station um
master fire master plan was being
carried out it was determined it was
four. So the project was revised at
capital budget working group to fire
station five uh four. So in 2025 it was
for fire station four.
So you are correct.
>> So when this budget was done for this
» So when this budget was done for this
year though, we were thinking it was for
station four.
>> That's correct.
» That's correct.
>> So you're asking for an increase based
» So you're asking for an increase based
on the budget that we just passed.
» That's that's through your That's
>> It just wasn't caught that it was the
» It just wasn't caught that it was the
wrong amount for the one we were just
>> approved. So this project is a 2025
» approved. So this project is a 2025
project. So it was for the last budget
cycle. Um at the start of the project
was already ongoing when we when the
fire station the fire mass plan got
approved when the assessments were done
and it was at that point that we
realized that we the growth or the work
was needed for four not five. So this
was an ongoing project in 2025 would
have been part of the 2024 budget
process. The construction work is it
reflects 2024 sorry the construction
project reflects fire station 4 and it's
been budget budgeted for accordingly.
So from the construction side of things
we're fine from from a budget
perspective but from the professional
services to design this is the design
project so to design the renovations
um it was a 2025 project so it was two
two cycles ago. Okay, I'm going to go to
counselors now and then I'll come back
to this because I'm taking up too much
time here. Councelor Roberts,
>> thanks Mayor Jan and through you. Thank
» thanks Mayor Jan and through you. Thank
you so much. Um, so are we going to
eventually get to station five or have
we determined that station five is okay?
This one was just in worse shape. Can
you just give us a little bit of context
there why it changed?
>> So the project So through your worship.
» So the project So through your worship.
So the project came in through the fire
department based on the needs of the of
of the department. The intent was to
expand the services at fire station 5.
Then an assessment was done where it was
determined that the actual need was in
fire station 4 and not fire station 5.
Hence why the project was changed from
fire station 5 to fire station 4. Um and
the construction reflects it.
professional service didn't because it
had started when that assessment was
completed by the fire department.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Councelor Shwary, Mayor Leot, um for the
sake of public, not everybody knows the
address of station four or five or like
I I had to look it up because I can't
remember. But it's it's good to let them
know where it's located, the address
because it's nowhere on here.
>> Okay. Off the top of my head, I would
» Okay. Off the top of my head, I would
not know that
>> St. Andrew
» St. Andrew
>> through you, Mayor Leot. Excuse me.
» through you, Mayor Leot. Excuse me.
Station five is on Main Street and uh
station 4 is on St. Andrew Street at the
top of the hill. Um just to go back to
your question, councelor Roberts, the
reason why um uh Chief Arnold had
switched, our data showed us that the
call volume had switched from station 5
to station 4. So the call volume went up
on station 4. The other piece that uh we
were looking at is geography. So if we
need to get uh two stations or eight
firefighters to a fire scene in 8
minutes, it's a lot harder uh
geographically in station four's area.
So by doubling that up now, we can
almost guarantee that we're going to hit
that benchmark. Five is a little bit
easier because you have station one in
that area that can come down and assist
them. So that was kind of the the data
behind why we we we switched. Councelor
Kempson.
>> Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And I
» Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And I
may be following along with your thought
process. So when we approved
the renovations to station five
first, but then the decision was made to
change or to reallocate those funds to
station four.
Other than council approving the fire
master plan, which I guess indicated the
necessity for this change,
did who made the decision to alter what
council had already approved or did we
do that by approving the fire master
plan
>> through your worship? So
» through your worship? So
fire station so council approved the
budget process the capital projects in
2025. So that change was done in through
the capital budget and process in 2024
and we received council's approval to do
that. So it was passed along with the
budget. So in 2025 fire station 4 was
was design was approved.
» Okay. Thank you. That makes sense.
>> Okay, now you've got me again. So I
» Okay, now you've got me again. So I
understand it and I and and I remember
the presentations talking about the
switch over to station four because of
the need there. It had been mistakenly
thought it should be station five, but
it turned out to be station four that
needed and council went along with that
and agreed with that. Um, and I realize
you didn't make the budget decisions. I
I understand that you you're up here
though speaking to something that you
had no play in. Um so you're asking for
47% more than what was actually budgeted
for. Um I got that amount from
>> That's correct.
» That's correct.
>> Yes. Um,
» Yes. Um,
so it when we decided during the budget
cycle for 2026 to go with station 4,
then you were caught at the end of the
year with nobody to do that change in
the budget, right? So that's that's not
that was that's not on you. You're now
coming to say
this wasn't done, should have been done,
wasn't done. It's not bad on you, but
you're telling us you cannot do what we
voted to have done without this
increase. Correct.
>> That is correct. We worship.
» That is correct. We worship.
>> Okay, I got it.
» Okay, I got it.
Okay. Does anybody else have any
questions?
Oh. Oh, councelor,
go ahead.
>> Yes. Thank you, uh, Mayor Liot. Um, I
» Yes. Thank you, uh, Mayor Liot. Um, I
have questions about the reserve fund.
Um, on page 476 of our materials,
uh, it, uh, speaks of the development
charges fire services reserve fund. I'm
wondering, uh, what is the status of
that fund and after this additional draw
down of it, how much will be left? I
wonder if I could have answers to those
questions.
>> Sheena, can you speak to that please?
» Thank you. through you, Mayor Leget. I
do not have that information on hand at
the moment. I would need a moment to um
pull up that figure for you. However, I
can say with certainty that I have
connected with staff prior to the
issuance of this report and there was
adequate reserve dollars in the
development charge reserve for this
expenditure.
Okay. Um, and you're assuring us that
it's going to be $105,000 and you're not
going to be asking for for more money in
like a couple of months from us. Just
just
I shouldn't hold you to that, should I?
Don't answer. Yeah. Don't Oh, fine.
Fine. Help. You are. He's saying don't
answer. Uh, councelor Roberts.
>> Yes. Sorry. Just one quick question.
» Yes. Sorry. Just one quick question.
Thanks, Mayor Jan. And while this
construction is happening, this this um
fire station is in my ward. Um what's
going to happen in terms of fire
response? Are they still going to be
actively working out of that building or
are they going to have to be relocated?
How is that going to work logistically
>> through your worship? Um when um we have
» through your worship? Um when um we have
fire stations under renovations, there's
temporary accommodation that's usually
placed at or near the the site um while
the works is ongoing. And we tend to at
times relocate certain staff to other
fire stations that has capacity.
But the goal is to ensure that response
time. We work with the fire department,
make sure they have their adequate and
appropriate response times if for any
emergencies.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, I think we're ready uh to
» Okay. So, I think we're ready uh to
Did we put the motion on the floor? Did
somebody read that? Okay. I'm starting
to lose track here. Okay. So, we're
ready for the vote.
timing is just bad here. Okay, opening.
» Closing voting.
And that carries unanimously.
Okay, that was approved.
Um,
so what do I need to get? There's some
things we may not get to tonight. So,
I'm trying to skip around do the must
dos tonight. So the next would be the
comprehensive
um
10
» 11. Sorry.
>> No.
» No.
Yeah,
>> I'll stop presentation first.
» I'll stop presentation first.
>> Okay. So, now we're going to move into
» Okay. So, now we're going to move into
consideration of reports and the first
report is 25-034PG
comprehensive zoning bylaw review phase
one of based residential zones. And we
have Brian Cooper, senior planner here
to present. Welcome, Brian again. Well,
you've been here all night. So,
um, can you also in your presentation
address I think it was Mr. Re who spoke
about the $250,000?
Could you tell us if that's the correct
amount?
>> Did you catch that when he said that?
» Did you catch that when he said that?
>> Yes, I did. Thank Thank you, Madam
» Yes, I did. Thank Thank you, Madam
Mayor. I can I can speak to that. Maybe
I'll start with that uh before I forget.
Um so uh under the half program yes
there's a $250,000 aotment for
professional services for this
particular project itself but but you
know the entirety of the half program is
is far greater than that. So that that a
lotment was for professional services in
support of the zoning bylaw review. So
that helped pay for things like the
consultants that we retained that did
some of the engagement and some of the
visualizations and actually working on
the bylaw itself. So that's where that
came from.
Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
>> Thank you and good evening, Mayor Liot,
» Thank you and good evening, Mayor Liot,
council, and the public. Tonight, I am
here to reintroduce the city zoning
review project, which was deferred in
December of last year. And the purpose
of this presentation is to provide
council with information and context to
make a decision on this important
project.
So briefly on where we've been and what
we've done on this project uh which is
which as you know is a half uh project.
Um it started with introducing it to
council formally um back in October of
2024 through a direction report and
following that we proceeded to update
the bylaw where it was received at a
statuto public meeting in May of 2025.
We completed a comprehensive engagement
program at the direction of council
through spring and summer of last year
and reported back on the results of that
engagement in October of 2025. This led
to the staff recommended bylaw in
December which was deferred to tonight's
meeting.
So a zoning bylaw is an important
regulatory tool that sets out what
people can do on their property. things
like permitted uses, building heights,
parking requirements, and setbacks,
among other rules and regulations.
Um, a zoning bylaw is especially
important because it's the legal tool
that implements a city's official plan,
which is the long range vision created
by the community of how a city is to is
planned to grow over time. And so, the
new zoning bylaw that we recommend is an
opportunity for council to set the rules
and the communitywide standards that new
housing must meet. And the last time
Cambridge Council had an opportunity to
set out the rules and new zoning bylaws
was back in 1986.
And the world and housing sector has
fundamentally changed since that point
in time. And this is evident in the in
with the increasing frequency of
exceptions to the bylaw that we
routinely approve. To date, the city has
processed over 500 exceptions to the
bylaw.
A functioning zoning ball should be one
in which the city is not regularly
amending it. Council should set the
rules in place and projects should
conform to those rules. And this is what
the recommended bylaw is intended to do.
It will reduce the time, cost, and
complexity of the rules for property
owners to support homes of all types by
all housing providers with regulations
established by council.
Now, the types of homes we're primarily
talking about are shown on the screen.
These are designs from CHC who created
uh building permit ready drawings that
can be used across Canada to expedite
housing. So these are homes like single
and twotory additional residential
units, stacked town houses and other
low-rise housing types.
And these are some real world examples
that have been built in Cambridge that
are similar to that and which this bylaw
supports. So on the top left is an
example of an ARU above a garage, often
referred to as a coach house dwelling.
The top right is an example of a
townhouse project that was built onto an
existing heritage home that was retained
and integrated into the project.
Infilled town houses are shown in the
bottom left. And finally, an example of
a purpose-built low-rise apartment. And
this recommended bylaw really supports
all these housing types provided that
all the rules can be met on for for the
project.
Now, a lot of the conversation on zoning
and housing focuses on the private for
and for-profit sector, which makes sense
since this is the sector that builds
most housing in Canada. However, this
bio supports all housing providers. So,
on the screen is an example of a recent
co-ousing project that was built in
Ottawa. So, these four individuals came
together. They previously lived live
lived independently and came together to
build a co-ousing project where they
each have their own unit as well as
shared spaces. And this by supports
these types of grassroot innovative
housing options. In Cambridge, you
typically can't do this this type of
project without going through extensive
planning applications like zoning and
official plan amendments which are cost
and time prohibitive to everyday people.
The bottom example are townos uh built
by the nonforprofit sector as another
example of the types of homes that this
bylaw supports.
So this chart summarizes some of the key
standards of the existing and
recommended bylaw. The new bylaw updates
the main rules that the city is
routinely amending housing type and
density limits. So in the current bylaw,
most residential zones only permit
singles with up to two arus. And this
new bylaw will permit all housing types
provided they meet requirements like
height setbacks, parking, landscaping,
and among other rules. The current bylaw
also limits the number of units through
density controls. And so the new bylaw,
instead of having a density limit, uh
the number of units is really limited
based on how a development fits on the
property. So those those requirements
like parking and setbacks, that's what
constrains how many units can be built
on a property.
Many other regulations are the same or
where there are gaps, the new bylaw
includes improvements. So building
heights, currently the bylaw has no
height limit for most residential areas
and the new bylaw introduces some
context appropriate uh building heights.
uh front yards. Uh we're introducing a
standard that requires the averaging of
front yards for new infill so that it
meets existing streetscapes. Side, rear
yard, and parking and parking
requirements are all similar between the
two bylaws.
And so I I mentioned averaging of
sideyards. So this is what this image
illustrates this concept. Uh so this
this is a street where homes are built
quite far away from the the street. It's
a really defining attribute of that
street. And uh normally um you could
build all the way up to 6 mters from
this front lot line. And that's what
that blue line shows. That's where
currently you could build a house uh in
this area of the city. The red line is
what the new bylaw would require and
that's an averaging of the abuing
properties. That's the new setback for
this particular area. So that setback
shifts based on the context of the
street. And the gray area is an area
where no development can happen or it
cannot be severed. It could not be built
on based on this the street condition.
So this is a new regulation that's
designed to ensure new housing fits in
with existing street streetscapes which
is a defining character of
neighborhoods.
So the zoning review is one project of
many that provide an opportunity for the
public to shape how the city grows. And
upcoming projects include the city's
official plan review which is uh to
start this year through 2028. Secondary
planning. We have ongoing secondary plan
reviews like the Preston secondary plan
study that'll result in updated uh
policies for that area of the city and
ultimately updated zoning regulations
for that specific area of the city. Uh
future zoning bylaw reviews. So every 5
years we'll be reviewing our bylaw where
it works where it can be improved. as
well as there will be opportunities for
public input through future sight
specific development applications like
subdivisions cases where zoning
amendments are still required as well as
minor variance in land division
applications.
And tonight's recommendation is that
council adopt the updated zoning bylaw
which reflects provincial and city
official plan policies to help reduce
barriers in creating different types of
housing. Thank you.
are there any questions?
Councelor Roberts.
Thank you, Mayor Jan, and thanks so
much, Brian, for all your work on this
and for your presentation today. I have
a number of questions, but I'll just
start with one. Um, so one thing that
folks are are quite concerned about is
the having a single family home being
demolished and like a large scale
development going into some of our
existing residential neighborhoods. So
for example, on that one image that you
showed with the four different um one
that might be more jarring for folks
would be like the stack townhouse, like
something like that happening in a in a
residential neighborhood. Um would most
of our typical um properties in
Cambridge allow for something like that
to happen or is I'll just leave it at
that. You madam mayor. So so no a
typical standard uh residential lot is
not going to allow a stack townhouse
development which is usually 12 units or
more right because 12 units requires uh
you know 1.25 spaces for parking per
unit. So that's quite a bit of parking.
you just physically can't accommodate
all the requirements of the bylaw,
setbacks, landscaping, parking, uh for
for that type of development. So
certainly larger lots, yes, there could
be opportunity for that style of
housing, but but most lots would be
known.
>> Okay. Thank you,
» Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Hamilton.
» Councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you, Mayor Lean through you. Thank
» Thank you, Mayor Lean through you. Thank
you very much, Brian, for your
presentation. Um like council Roberts, I
have a few questions, but I'll start
with one. Um, I think a concern we've
heard consistently from the public is
that if we went with something like
foreignbased zoning that suddenly the
floodgates would open and we'd see this
unpredictable variety of housing emerge
that previously wouldn't have been
allowed. So, can I ask you would there
have been any projects that council may
have previously rejected that would now
be approved if we would have had the
form formbbased zoning in place?
>> Yeah, you madame mayor. So, from from my
» Yeah, you madame mayor. So, from from my
experience, uh, I would say no. There
there haven't been applications that
council has rejected that this bylaw
would would then enable. Uh the the
rules and regulations in this bylaw
really are in keeping with the type of
approvals that you're already giving
this council past councils have given.
So density housing types those sorts of
things and again the setbacks are very
much similar to what we already have in
place now.
>> Right. Thank you
» Right. Thank you
>> councelor Roberts.
» councelor Roberts.
>> Thank you Mayor Jan. Um, so Brian, I
» Thank you Mayor Jan. Um, so Brian, I
know that um, in our agenda package on
page 347, you talk about transition um,
regulations and so how those are going
to apply to some of the existing
applications or projects that we already
have on the go. So I know um, in our our
correspondence package, which we had
that extra bit like little book, there
was a number of people reaching out with
concerns about specific projects. Are
all of those transition regulations
going to, and I know you can't speak to
each and every one, but how are we going
to address all of those issues with
ongoing projects that aren't maybe going
to
work with this perfectly? How's that
going to work in the transition?
>> Yeah. So, um, in terms of transition
» Yeah. So, um, in terms of transition
regulations, um, this is a phase bylaw.
So, any project that has already gone
through council and received a sight
specific approval, those remain in
place. those those projects will remain
under the existing bylaw that we have in
effect now. Ultimately, they would be
brought into the new bylaw through
review and we'd be reviewing those sight
specific amendments to make sure they
align and we're not creating undue
hardship. And and the other factor of
the uh transition regulations is
anything that's actually actively under
review right now will continue again
under the old bylaw. So if someone's
made an amendment now and in the
process, the rules aren't suddenly
changing midstream for them.
>> Okay. Thank you,
» Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Kimson. Thank you very much,
» Councelor Kimson. Thank you very much,
Mayor Jan. and through you. Um,
on
page 48 of our agenda, which I'm not
sure what page it is of your report, it
talks about the minimum rear yard
setback
um, for a detached ARU to a laneway or a
street. Um, I'm thinking specifically
for properties that perhaps back onto a
collector or an arterial arterial road.
Um, and with that setback, the minimum
rear yard setback being reduced, is that
going to cause difficulties with any
future road widening or is that
something where um we might take that
into consideration
um as far as
we're reducing the setback from the
property line, but there's already going
to be enough space to allow for road
widening. I'm just thinking of um some
of the subdivisions that back onto
um roads such as McQueen Shaver or
something like that where it sort of is
the the end of the city. Right now it's
a new road, but might that at some point
be widened and is that something that's
going to cause difficulty in the future?
>> Yeah, it's a it's a good question. Um I
» Yeah, it's a it's a good question. Um I
would say most of the time um you know
through the subdivision review process
road widings are taken the ultimate road
requirement. So I wouldn't anticipate uh
that being an issue. Um
yeah, the the main the kind of the main
focus of that reduced setback is is uh
when it's adjacent to a lane really a
laneway condition is is what we envision
where that would would occur uh most
often. Um you know reg regional roads
and things like that they're not going
to give an access permit for an ARU off
can parkway for example. So I wouldn't
imagine that would it would come into
too much of an issue myself.
>> Thank you. Councelor
» Thank you. Councelor
Shbury. Thank
>> you, Mayor Liot. Um I just I can bring
» you, Mayor Liot. Um I just I can bring
up a point and then I have a question.
Um when you were saying a Brian that
you know in the like a question was
asked in the past um if something came
up to council we would we would not
approve it. I think it was actually
Scott Hamilton. did something ever like
this say come up to council and we um
didn't approve it or approve it. So I
think that was kind of your question.
So, what happened? Um, the reason I'm
concerned about the R1, for example,
Ethel Street with the new zoning bylaw,
when it came to us, we said, "No, it's
single homes." You know, that, you know,
people paid a lot of money. It to put in
in that particular lot that was empty,
something other than single would not
fit. But that lot would have fit more
homes. it could have fit, you know, a
six blacker. Um, so now though with the
new zoning, that won't even come to
council, that wouldn't even come to to
the the people, the residents, it would
just go through.
» Yeah. If if a project meets the the
rules in in the bylaw that we've
recommended to you, correct? Uh it
wouldn't trigger a zoning amendment. Um
I'm not sure that particular example
that you're speaking to of
>> Yeah. I mean that's that would be an
» Yeah. I mean that's that would be an
example that in the past we would say no
but now people wouldn't even know.
>> Um
» Um
I'll come back. I have another question
but I'll wait for councelor Hamilton.
>> Do you want to sorry Bren if maybe miss
» Do you want to sorry Bren if maybe miss
Neie wanted to clarify or
» through the mayor. Could I ask you to
please repeat the question? And I was
troubleshooting another matter.
» Uh yes.
» Thank Thank you. So my question was
because this is a concerning because
councelor Hamilton asked a question he I
can't repeat it verbatim but in the p in
the past if something would come to us
and like we had a situation on Ethel
Street and Husper where there was a
bigger lot and you could fit more than
single homes in and right now there's
just you know lovely single homes there
but with this new bylaw now um you could
very easily
put in uh fourplex 6 plex and it
wouldn't even come to council and the
residents wouldn't even know or have a
say. So that is my that's what the
concern is right now because you were
saying I just wanted to clarify what you
said to um councelor Hamilton because
with this one now it would never come
before council with your new zoning
bylaw
>> through the mayor um based on you know
» through the mayor um based on you know
kind of a rough history of applications.
We did do a review and um council has
been supportive of uh residential
applications that uh exceed the average
development that would occur as a result
of this zoning bylaw, this new zoning
bylaw. And in terms of the maximum
number of units that could conceivably
fit on any given lot with this proposed
new zoning bylaw that the maximum number
of units becomes governed by the size of
the site as um in terms of the maximum
volume of structure that could fit
within. And so I I think that we are
saying the same thing in different ways.
Uh but I wouldn't I wouldn't suggest
that the vast vast majority of lots
within the city of Cambridge would allow
for uh you know a 9 flex for example.
Simply the available lot size would
constrain the number of units that could
conceivably fit on a lot. No, I I
understand that you're saying that, but
we have like a I just gave an example
where in a single family street, like
single family homes, um beautiful homes,
you could very easily somebody could put
in um a request to build like a sixplex
because that is a big lot. And in those
cases, it would never the residents
could not complain about it or talk
about it and it would not become come
before council like it did before.
Excuse me. And we rejected it. I'm just
I just want to bring that up and that is
that's what the case that's what you
said would happen
right
through the chair through the mayor. Um
I guess I would need to see some example
of what you're referring to. Um the
provisions of the formbbased zoning
really mean that the overall structure
of the house of the new structure would
match
sort of provisions such as setback
height of what uh people might expect to
see today on such lots. and but as
you're saying the actual number of lots
within that structure that would not be
a mechanism that would um lead to an
application that would come before
council.
>> Okay. Thank you
» councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you Mayor Li and through you. Um
» Thank you Mayor Li and through you. Um
hi
welcome. Um my question has to do with
driveway length and parking. Uh on page
350, it basically says that staff don't
recommend the 8 m minimum driveway
requirement. Uh that 6 m is a typical
standard. Um why do staff not recommend
the 8 m driveway length and would
changing it to 6 m have any knock-on
effects?
» Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh so
essentially 6 m is the standard. Uh it
accommodates virtually all vehicles. Um
most virtually all trucks. Some are are
slightly over that, but you know, as a
as a as a minimum standard, uh 6 m is
staff's position, you know, makes sense.
Um there's impacts on building design,
uh impacts on lot depth, uh something
has to give. Basically, it's either rear
yard setback reduces, uh living area
reduces, uh to accommodate that. So, so
in staff's position, it would be to
maintain the six. It's it's in it is in
the bylaw at at the direction of
council. However,
>> thank you,
» thank you,
>> councelor Meta,
» councelor Meta,
>> Mayor Jan through you and uh thank you
» Mayor Jan through you and uh thank you
to you both and the team for all the
work that you put into this. My question
is about um the land assemblies. Um
would that automatically trigger a
zoning change? I know it would it would
depend on the number of units and stuff,
but if I bought two houses on Biscane
and wanted to knock them down and put in
a row of town houses, would I be able to
do that without council approval within
um like within certain parameters? Of
course, would that be possible or do you
think that would be radical enough to
attract um to create the need for like a
zone change and go through the process?
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Through you, madame mayor. So in terms
» Through you, madame mayor. So in terms
of land assembly, typically that's going
to require um still some public input
through a a consent application can be
of adjustment. So assembling land,
right, through a lot addition would
trigger that. So there's opportunity for
input. Um but yes, in theory, yeah, you
could acquire one or two properties and
that would expand your buildable area
and potentially allow for something
greater than what would only be allowed
on one.
» Correct. And so through if if they did
assemble it goes through through uh
committ adjustment that is a
notification process public meeting
conditions can be attached uh through
through um consent applications. So
there's uh this is just one zoning is
one piece of
the multiple uh planning uh you know
applications and processes that go into
land development. This is one part of
it.
Councelor Kinson.
>> Thank you very much. Mayor Jan, um could
» Thank you very much. Mayor Jan, um could
you provide some information to us on
the process if somebody purchased a
property? Um for example, wanted to
demolish the existing single family
house that was on it to build something
else that would fit within the envelope.
Is there a process to go through to
allow someone to demolish an existing
property? And how does that work?
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, we have uh
you know, permits are required to
demolish uh correct me if I'm wrong,
demolition control bylaw we have in
effect of the city now, which is
something relatively new. Um so there is
a process involved with demolition. Um
we also have an online portal for all
permit applications, so you can find out
what's happening uh by by looking up a
property and things like that.
>> May I follow up? Thank you. Um for the
» May I follow up? Thank you. Um for the
demolition process, is that something
that is made public? Like would um
neighboring residents be aware that an
application has gone in to demolish
something or that process is someone
would apply, fill out an application,
and unless someone knew to look, they
wouldn't know until it was done.
>> I'm not familiar myself with uh the
» I'm not familiar myself with uh the
demolition control bylaw. So perhaps I
could refer that to Mr. Bombberg or or
is that a matter?
Thank you. Through you, your worship to
to answer councelor Kimson's question.
Um, if someone's looking for a
demolition building permit or frankly a
building permit, if it complies with the
Ontario building code, there is no
notification to the public. It's a
decision by the chief building official.
um provided that the applicant conforms
to the Ontario building code um the
chief building official has to issue the
permit. So there is no public process,
there's no notification.
Um so I I hope that answers your
question.
>> If I may follow up on that. So, is that
» If I may follow up on that. So, is that
that there's no notification of the
application for demolition or there's no
notification of the application to build
or both? Just to make sure we're clear.
» That's for both.
>> Thank you.
» Are there any other questions?
I see none. And um
what we're going to do is put the main
motion on the floor before amendments.
Um
to make it easier for those following
the meeting, we'll do that first and
then we'll proceed to amendments once um
or have we done that part? We've done
that part, right?
>> We just did.
» We just did.
>> All right. Okay. So now we'll put the
» All right. Okay. So now we'll put the
main motion on the floor. Councelor
Ernshaw.
» Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. moved by me
and seconded by councelor Hamilton that
appendix B of report 25-034-
PG phase 1 comprehensive zoning bylaw be
presented to council for enactment
and that appendix C of report 25-034-
PG official plan amendment number 91 be
presented to council for adoption
and further that in accordance with
subsection 17 of section 34 of the
planning act. City council has
determined that no further public notice
is required related to the changes to
the proposed zoning bylaw and official
plan amendment.
Do we have any more questions on the
main motion?
Okay. So, the first amendment is uh
councelor Schwer, you have um an
amendment on home occupations.
» Thank Thank you, Mayor Le. So my first
amendment um would be
for the um formbbased residential zone
phase one that moved by myself seconded
by councelor Divine that subsection 4.8
bracket D of the home occupations bylaw
be removed for further review.
Can you tell us what page of the agenda
that's on?
Sorry.
>> Appendix B page 50.
» Appendix B page 50.
>> Page 50
» Page 50
>> of the agenda.
» of the agenda.
>> The big agenda
» The big agenda
>> or
in the zoning by
» just so we're all on the literally on
the same page here.
Could you speak to that now then?
>> Um yeah, yes I guess yes I can. Uh
» Um yeah, yes I guess yes I can. Uh
currently currently this bylaw um
prohibits home businesses from having
more than three clients and it's um I
think it's more review needs into that
into this because I mean there's
babysitters it could there's multiple
home businesses and to limit them all to
three doesn't seem right and I feel that
we should really uh look at it deeper.
So, I have a question from staff. So,
when you have a daycare,
you're allowed
five children
according to the bylaws, right?
The provincial bylaw, provincial
regulations, you're allowed to have
five. And we don't we don't um regulate
that because the province already has
allowed it. Correct. I I'm saying that
because you said you're thinking two is
a babysitter, but it's regulated on the
provincial.
>> So So the two for babysitting wouldn't
» So So the two for babysitting wouldn't
even come into this.
>> Um if so child care, home home daycare
» Um if so child care, home home daycare
is it's a separate use. You're correct.
It's regulated by the province. Uh home
occupations are things like home
businesses, an accountant or something
like that. So, um it wouldn't get uh a
home daycare wouldn't get caught up in
that that that um limit of of three
clients. Um yeah.
>> Okay. So, can you use some other
» Okay. So, can you use some other
examples then coun?
>> Yeah. Yeah, sure. So, the one that came
» Yeah. Yeah, sure. So, the one that came
to my attention, what made me think
about it was that um that home um the
art teacher um where she, you know, she
wanted she's only allowed three, but you
know, could be four people or five
people that she could accommodate and
teach um kids, for example, to color or
to paint or to do art. That's just one
example. Um could be other types of
businesses. So before we do this blanket
only three clients are permitted. I just
feel that we need a bit more review in
that area and look at different
scenarios.
So that would be my my uh motion to
amend at this time.
>> Councelor Divine.
» Councelor Divine.
>> Yes. Thank you the chair.
» Yes. Thank you the chair.
>> It's no secret that co changed the
» It's no secret that co changed the
world.
Okay. Um, we have a lot of uh very high
price real estate in Toronto that
doesn't have too many people in any
longer. There's a lot of homebased
businesses that weren't there before.
And I have absolutely no problem just
pulling that particular section out
going through it and ju just having a
look because the world's changed since
co folks. All right. The world's changed
since co and I think we need to have a
deeper dive into this for the benefit of
the city and our community and I I would
support councelor Shury on this for
sure. Thanks
>> councelor Hamilton.
» councelor Hamilton.
>> Uh thank you Mayor Lean for you and I
» Uh thank you Mayor Lean for you and I
have a question uh for councelor Sherry
or maybe for staff. Uh if this was as
the amendment is proposing removed for
further review, how long would that
review last? And would it be easy to
reinsert this into the bylaw should it
pass? Or does this prevent a problem if
if it is removed in some way?
» Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. Uh
so this is a phase bylaw. So phase two,
we could look at uh reviewing that
regulation specifically. That's
expected. Uh we're looking to continue
on with the bylaw uh should council
adopt it.
>> Great. Thank you.
» Great. Thank you.
>> So I guess what we're asking it's okay
» So I guess what we're asking it's okay
to pass this amendment.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Yep. Okay.
» Yep. Okay.
>> I have no concern with that.
» I have no concern with that.
>> Okay. Okay.
» Okay. Okay.
All right. I see no more questions or
comments. So we'll take a vote on that
amendment.
» Opening voting.
and closing voting.
And that carries unanimously.
So, the next part of this is going to be
a mess. I really wish counselors had
gotten together and really
done some work and um come to an
agreement before we got into this part
of it because it's going to be really
really messy.
Um
Councelor Kimson, I understand you have
an amendment as well.
I don't mean yours in particular. I mean
there's more coming.
Yeah. Okay. Um, so amendment two, u
moved by myself, seconded by councelor
Roberts, amendment that table 7.2
permitted uses in residential zones be
amended to add the following new special
provision number five. quote, "Except as
provided in section 4.19, where a lot
contains a single detached dwelling or a
semi- detached dwelling with a maximum
permitted height of 11 m on the date of
enactment of this bylaw. The maximum
permitted number of dwelling units shall
be four and that table 7.2 2 be amended
to apply special provision number five
to rows 3 4 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 for the
R1 and R2 zones. And for anyone who is
wondering where to find table 7.2,
it's in appendix B on page 85.
What is my head?
What happened?
Can you repeat that please? Thank you.
>> Moved by myself and seconded by
» Moved by myself and seconded by
councelor Roberts. Amendment that table
7.2 2 permitted uses in residential
zones be amended to add the following
new special provision number five except
as provided in section 4.19
where a lot contains a single detached
dwelling or a semi- detached dwelling
with a maximum permitted height of 11 m
on the date of enactment of this bylaw.
The maximum permitted number of dwelling
units shall be four and that table 7.2 2
be amended to apply special provision
number five to rows 3, 4, 12, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, and 19 for the R1 and R2
zones.
Currently, all low density properties
are allowed three units as of right.
>> Sorry. Is that part of your motion?
» Sorry. Is that part of your motion?
>> No, sorry.
» No, sorry.
>> Okay. So, let's hold off on this because
» Okay. So, let's hold off on this because
>> your motion is going to affect the next
» your motion is going to affect the next
motion and Bin hasn't had a chance to
look at the new the other revised one
>> in order to advise us on it because
» in order to advise us on it because
councelor Schwerry has revised hers now
based on yours. So, rather than us
getting a big giant mess here, Brenn
needs to look at this to see how this
affects the other. and I don't want to
be making mistakes tonight. So, if you
don't mind, we're just going to take
>> few minutes cuz the whole thing is messy
» few minutes cuz the whole thing is messy
and I'm as confused as councelor Divine
is on all the numbers on this.
» Extend
>> Oh, hang on, guys. We're going to extend
» Oh, hang on, guys. We're going to extend
before We're going to extend um we need
to take a vote now on extending the
meeting if it goes past 11. We need to
do that by 10:30
>> to extend it past 11. And we need to
» to extend it past 11. And we need to
have this done before midnight tonight.
>> Why?
» Why?
>> Because we have a deadline with the
» Because we have a deadline with the
federal government. They've already been
kind enough to extend it when they
didn't have to. So,
>> okay.
» okay.
And opening voting,
closing voting
that carries unanimously.
Councelor Shwary, could you please take
your seat?
Counselor Shwary.
So, I'm going to ask the mover and the
seconder of that last amendment to
withdraw or just put it after councelor
Schwares because we've discovered she
was first off the bat with hers and it
got hers got put later when it should
have been hers first.
Are you okay with that throwing that?
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
» You ready, Councelor Sherry? I don't
even know which one you're putting
forward anymore.
» Thank you, mayor. Um so uh it's um for
the formbbas zoning moved by myself
seconded by councelor Cooper that the
formbbased zoning proposal be amended to
retain the R1 residential zone as
currently defined under the planning act
and that the proposed R2 zoning areas be
capped to a maximum of four units
uh per lot and that table 7.3A is
revised to add the maximum number of
units to be three unit per lot in zone
R1 and a maximum of four units per lot
in zone R2.
Okay, I have a question Bren. How does
it how does this how does this work
according to can you please educate us
all because I am so lost
uh through you mayor um there's I think
a few possible questions in there but um
Is this on? Yes. Okay. Uh through you,
mayor.
If council makes a decision on this
motion to amend
in favor of the motion, then that
should not be replaced by subsequent
motions to amend. So um if if this
motion to amend is approved by council
then that would be the amendment that we
will implement.
» So is this all legal according to the
planning act and like we're not like can
you just talk about that part of it
please?
uh through you, Madame Mayor. This will
for the R1 zone, it will conform with
the planning act. So, the provincial uh
minimum is three units as of right on a
lot
for the R2
um zone. My understanding is that this
motion will cap at four units
um per lot and um so that exceeds uh the
planning act. So there's no issue from a
planning act standpoint there.
» Okay. And the the the amendment that the
others were so kind to remove so this
could go on the floor. How will it
affect that amendment
>> if council
» if council
>> you said it would become moot but so how
» you said it would become moot but so how
>> so through you madame mayor if council
» so through you madame mayor if council
approves this motion to amend then that
would be the um the motion that we would
implement through the zoning bylaw. If
council
refuses this motion to amend, then the
next motion related to the same topic
could move forward for council decision.
» Councelor Kimson, thank you for asking
the question.
>> Can I speak?
» Can I speak?
>> Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And
» Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And
through you to the chief planner. Um
question for you about the amendment put
on the floor by councelor Schwari. Um
with R1 with a maximum of three units,
R2 a maximum of four units.
Can you clarify or verify the maximum
building height and the setbacks?
um just because it's not as clear in
council's motion as it was in the
previous amendment. Sorry, councilwar's
amendment as the previous amendment.
Please
>> through you, Madame Mayor. As it's
» through you, Madame Mayor. As it's
written currently, it would be an
additional line added to uh table 7.3A
that in addition to setbacks, the same
setbacks, height restrictions, etc. that
are those um criteria an additional
criteria would be added to cap the
number of units.
» So just to clarify so it would still
have the
um it would still have the maximum
building height of 11 m and the setbacks
I don't see in 73A
the setback as being the average
through Mayor. I may look to Brian to
make sure I'm referring to the correct
table.
» Yes. So 7.3A is the standard for
detached dwellings. So yes, that has a
maximum height of 11 m. Uh a front yard
a standard front yard of six for the R1
zone and three for the R2. The averaging
is actually in another section of the
bylaw, a general provision regulation
that applies to all zones where you have
that averaging requirement.
>> Does that make sense?
» Does that make sense?
>> That would be consistent.
» That would be consistent.
>> Thank you.
» Bren, when I asked if it was legal, how
is this going to affect the half
funding?
>> We would be still consistent for that.
» We would be still consistent for that.
My expectation um to you, Madame Mayor,
is that the um CHC will not accept this
as uh meeting our our contribution
agreement for the half funding.
» In what way?
We have committed through that agreement
to provide form-based zoning um for all
residential
u uses. So
notwithstanding that, we also know that
throughout Canada, the federal
government has set four units as an
absolute baseline and we have uh seen
other municipalities
try to deviate from that and uh the CHC
has indicated that they are not meeting
their agreements for the half funding.
Councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you, Mayor. They getting through
» Thank you, Mayor. They getting through
you. I think my question actually
touches on that. and and chief planner.
It's my understanding that with this
despite if it's a very large lot and
someone has a single detached dwelling
or a semi- detached, they couldn't put
in let's say a forplex
as they could through the proposed
formbbased zoning that um or sorry that
the following amendment was going, you
know what I mean? This limits a
particular
owner of a property to three units max.
Despite the size of the property,
despite the setbacks, despite the space
for parking, it's just three tops.
There's no fourplexes. There's nothing
beyond that.
>> Through you, Madame Mayor
» Through you, Madame Mayor
>> with half.
» with half.
>> That would be the effect of this motion.
» That would be the effect of this motion.
>> Okay. Thank you,
» Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Cooper.
There we go. Thank you.
Um, thank you very much. I know you've
got you on the spot here. Um, to follow
up with Council Hamilton's uh point
there, um, that is correct that they
wouldn't they wouldn't be able to do it
as of right, but they would still be
able to come here and request something
larger. Am I right? They would still be
able to request a zoning amendment in
which case we would be able to have a
say and the public would be able to have
a say in that and it wouldn't
necessarily stop them. It would just
bring it in front of us in the public
>> through you madame mayor. That's
» through you madame mayor. That's
correct. A zoning bylaw amendment
continues to be an option.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. I see no more questions. Thanks
Bren. Um did you want to comment on your
motion? Go ahead.
Thank thank you so much mayor. So the
the reason I this is very important to
me is to keep our one residential zone
as is single like the planning act semi-
detached or triplex.
Um because if we change it for people
with large lots, it could in a nice uh
residential area, you could have up to
six or nine plex and that would change
significantly
alter the character of the R1
neighborhoods and also negatively impact
their property values and limit
opportunities for public and council
input on these higher densely density
development. And I just want to say
because about this um the funding I feel
strongly that zoning decision should not
be driven by potential housing
accelerator
uh f funding as zone policy and funding
considerations are separate matters and
should be kept separate. Using the
possibility of reduced funding to
influence the council's vote is to me
inappropriate and sets out a very
troubling precedent. Council must be
free to vote in the best interests of
the residents. Funding should never be
used as a leverage to influence a
counselor's vote or on something that so
significantly undermines democracy and
the right for residents to speak out
against.
» Trying to figure out councelor Cooper
where to take your question next or get
Binn back up here. Maybe we'll go with
Bren if you don't mind. I'm sorry. I
just uh
or Brian, one one of you because I I
wanna
I understand I have the exact same
concerns.
Um I'm trying to play both both sides of
this. um
the what the rules and regulations that
we're going to be put in place are going
to be restrictive to what councelor
Schwer is trying to propose like like
she's what she's trying to ask for is
what we're going to be putting in to
make sure that this can't happen. Is
that correct?
>> Did you understand
» Did you understand
all over the map? What I maybe
understood through you mayor is that so
what councelor Schwir has brought
forward is that the R1 zone be limited
at the planning act um as of right three
units per lot and for R the R2 zone it
be um capped at a limit of four units
per lot both of which comply with the
planning act
>> but I'm saying So, with our new our new
» but I'm saying So, with our new our new
um zoning bylaws that what the
restrictions we're going to be putting
in place though will achieve
it'll still achieve the kind of
neighborhood that we're trying to
achieve here as
council
>> through you mayor. The other criteria
» through you mayor. The other criteria
within the new zoning bylaw
really uh puts forward that the
aesthetic of a neighborhood is
protected. So in terms of that average
setback of a structure, a height that
roughly aligns with traditional height
patterns within those areas, the other
setbacks. So that's really what the
form-based zoning criteria achieves and
those provisions are not being amended
through this. Only the maximum number of
units is being amended through this.
>> Okay. So I'm trying to have the best of
» Okay. So I'm trying to have the best of
both worlds here. Okay. Councelor
Cooper, did you have a question for Bren
or you just want to comment?
>> No, this was comment. I'm gonna comment
» No, this was comment. I'm gonna comment
on
>> Okay. Thanks, Bren.
» Okay. Thanks, Bren.
>> Thank you. Yeah,
» Thank you. Yeah,
>> Hardy. Sorry Hardy, you wanted to speak
» Hardy. Sorry Hardy, you wanted to speak
here. Sorry. Yeah, I think um through
you your worship to to the rest of
council I think one of the things that
you were trying to get at were around
the conditions. So we talk about capping
the number of units but there are all
sorts of other conditions that um we're
proposing based on your feedback that
that we've heard previously and and
we've talked about parking requirements.
Um we've talked about setbacks. So, um,
we saw some photos earlier from from a
member of the public where they where
they showed a a single what looked like
a single family dwelling set back on the
lot and then on either side there were
these monstrous buildings going right to
the front. That can't happen. That's not
what we're proposing here in the zoning
bylaw. There are minimum setbacks. So,
so the building that anyone would
propose to build if they choose to
purchase a a lot, demolish the existing
building and and decide to to build more
units, um they still have to meet those
setback requirements. There's also
landscaping requirements. There's
additional walkways and spacing and
maximum lot coverage. So, there are all
sorts of conditions there that uh would
need to be met. Um, so what we're trying
to do is is provide a revised bylaw um
that meets the provincial policy
statements of today as opposed to 1986,
but also gives council and hopefully the
public some level of comfort that um
anything that does get built in the
future if someone wishes to to do so
that it still meets and and fits into
the neighborhoods.
Thank you,
>> Councelor Cooper.
» Councelor Cooper.
>> Yes, thank you, Mayor Leot. Uh, we got
» Yes, thank you, Mayor Leot. Uh, we got
some stuff here. I'll briefly touch on
the funding issue. I'm hearing various
talk about whether we we this will, you
know, whether we get the have funding.
Not too many complaints about the spec,
put that aside, the specifics of what
we're suggesting here. Um, which tells
me this is maybe something that would be
okay if it wasn't for the issue with the
funding. And I agree with councelor
Sherry that we should not be making
decisions based on, you know, a carrot
being dangled in front of our face. Um,
these are zoning bylaws that are going
to affect us for decades. And I think
that's what we need to consider. We need
to consider the um the established
neighborhoods and uh the people that
we're representing. Um, when it comes to
form based zoning, I I actually looked
up exactly what it is, the history of
it. This was primarily for large cities
in the US with common block patterns
that you see over there. Um, this is not
a big US city. This is Cambridge. Um,
we've got a wide range of residential
layouts that can be appropriately
serviced by a one-sizefits-all zoning
policy that also happens to further
limit the the chance for local residents
to have their say in the community
immediately surrounding their home. Um,
and this this is very important to me
and we've heard from many people over
the past months, this is incredibly
important to the people of this city to
maintain that democratic control. Um,
that's that's their right. I don't think
it's something that should be sacrificed
uh for frankly convenience.
Um council and public are not somebody
are not elements that should be pushed
aside to speed things up. Um the
province has already assured we have
very limited control over local
development. So while this there's many
great new rules in here which is why I
was after the hybrid model. Um, I cannot
in good faith as a council with
responsibilities that residents of
Cambridge to support the motion as is.
It would further erode my ability and
your ability to represent Cambridge when
it comes to what happens on our resident
streets. Um,
so that's why I support this this motion
that we this amendment they've been
working on that can preserve our
neighborhoods. It does matter how they
look.
the the established neighborhoods. I got
an email from someone a while ago that
got had a how home that they got uh got
stuck next stood next to a big I can't
remember was three or four three or four
towers next levels next to them. People
looking down their backyards. They lost
they got it appraised. They got lost
$200,000 on their um on their appraisal
because of it. I mean these are the real
world um consequences of this. And we're
not stopping um development. This is not
about an argument against growth or
zoning reform. Finding efficiencies is
good and there's some in here and I hope
staff continue to bring some. Um but our
residents do expect representation. They
have a right to have a real opportunity
to affect the outcomes in the immediate
surroundings around their home. And as
counselors, we have a duty to remain
accountable to our constituents at the
neighborhood level. I feel like what we
are doing here, what we are trying to do
um achieves that. It's it's a hybrid
model that works and I feel it would be
accepted by uh many people in the
community. Uh many people that have been
very very concerned about it and it's
definitely a beginning to something I
feel can be polished and made better. Um
there you go. I hope you support this.
Thank you.
>> So Councelor Cooper, you don't when when
» So Councelor Cooper, you don't when when
um
Mr. Bramberg and Bin were talking about
how somebody would have you don't agree
with them that the the what we're be
putting in in in the bylaws will be
protecting what you're talking about
protecting.
>> Uh well, I'll go back to what I stated
» Uh well, I'll go back to what I stated
in there. I think the the you know,
we're elected to represent the community
and and also we we're you know we should
the people in this community should
always have a say and what goes on
immediately outside their front door.
Um, we have beautiful established
neighborhoods all over the city and they
are beautiful neighborhoods because of
our established bylaws. Now, of course,
they're old and they need polishing, but
we don't want to throw out into the
garbage some of the main elements that
have kept it that way and made them
beautiful and made people kind of get up
in arms about this because they're
scared of losing what they've had. So,
look at how did we get that? We got that
by having uh people come here and talk
to us. And when somebody comes along
with a development that's a little bit
out of the norm, then it comes to us and
we decide and it doesn't necessarily
stop them, we look at it and sometimes
we have stuff we all go hell no and
others we go that's great. But the
second you take away that representation
you know that's that's what happens when
you erode public representation that
happens in little chunks like that.
>> You know it happens with the happens
» You know it happens with the happens
with this and it'll go further and I
just don't think that public
representation their ability to speak
here and have a say is something that
should ever be sacrificed. That's all.
>> So Mr. Bramberg said the public would
» So Mr. Bramberg said the public would
still have to come to get those
amendments done. Like would they still
have to come before council if they need
an amendment to what
staff are proposing for setbacks and
everything else. So we still will have
that say. The public will still be able
to come and speak to us about that.
>> But less opportunity. There's more as of
» But less opportunity. There's more as of
right.
>> Yeah. But my question
» Yeah. But my question
>> for more as of right. And how far does
» for more as of right. And how far does
that go?
>> Good good debate. Thank you. So,
» Good good debate. Thank you. So,
um, but that's why I asked you that
first part. So, you're not okay with
staff saying, "We're going to protect it
anyway. This is the only way we can
protect it and still get our half
funding by having the setbacks, having
the heights, doing all those things and
the landscaping and everything."
>> Yeah. Yeah, that's good. I said, like I
» Yeah. Yeah, that's good. I said, like I
said, that's what I was talking about
the hybrid model. There's plenty of
aspects in here. I love there's great
stuff in here. It's just But there are
some critical ones I can't go along
with.
>> That's all. Okay, Councelor Hamilton,
» That's all. Okay, Councelor Hamilton,
sorry I preempted you there. I'm sorry.
>> That's okay. No worries, Mayor. Thank
» That's okay. No worries, Mayor. Thank
you. Through you. Just for my own
clarification, if we have comments,
should we make them now because this
amendment takes the form based zoning
and Okay. Thank you. Um, so I can't
support the amendment, although I do
appreciate that councelor Cooper and
councelor Sherry care greatly about the
city. Um, so I I appreciate the heart
they're putting into it, but I can't
ultimately support it. If we pay
attention what staff are saying, the
last time these
zoning bylaws were altered, I was 2
years old. It was 1986. Now we have 500
exceptions that have been put into place
since then. So staff actually write in
the report that our current system is a
barrier to housing at a time when one of
the biggest crises affecting our
population is exactly that. it is
housing. So I ask myself, is this
somehow anti-democratic? Does it erode
public representation?
And I think the reality is there's a lot
of things that happen in a city that
doesn't come through council. We don't
approve a lot of things and we shouldn't
because we're not experts in it. It'll
clog up the process. It's not a
requirement. So examples, engineering
standards and develop manual standards.
They detail right of way for
infrastructure, new development,
reconstruction. These are needs based on
asset management perspectives. We have
things like cycling master plans, the
transportation master plans. Some of
these components get approved through
things like capital forecasts, others
through the operating budget. So here
are examples clear-cut where there are
major changes in the city. Council makes
a decision about the overarching plans
that sets a particular standard and then
those are enacted by staff. It allows
for a reduction in costs, an increase in
efficiency, and ultimately a better
delivery of services and amenities for
our residents. And that's something I
see is very synchronous with what we're
proposing here. We're not experts in
planning.
We have staff that do that. And right
now these staff,
they're basically telling us that again
that question is there anything that
we've rejected that form-based zoning if
it were implemented would allow? And the
answer is no. So, what that tells me is
we can have our staff work a lot more
efficiently, save a lot more time and
money, have a lot more housing for our
residents. And here's where the
Democratic thing kicks in for me. The
Democratic power is returning agency
back to local residents because it can
actually participate in the process of
creating housing where right now it's
stacked in favor of wealthy developers.
it can afford the time that it can
afford the money to create the
blueprints, create the plans, hire
people to come to council to argue for
amendments. This undoes all of that. So,
the average homeowner might actually
have a shot of creating more units on
their property that if they had the
money and the time would have gone and
been approved anyway by working through
500 complicated exceptions that haven't
changed since 1986.
So, I have no problem with trusting our
staff,
altering the way that our city functions
to allow more housing to be built better
and faster, allowing our residents to
participate to gain that agency. And
ultimately, I think what this boils down
to is a change in neighborhoods. Now,
we're realizing the change won't be
substantial. There are rules in place.
There's setbacks. There's height. We
have no height restrictions right now.
This would put in height restrictions.
There's parking. There's landscaping. So
there are rules in place to prevent a
lot of the could say the the disaster
scenarios that have been prevented or
presented to us. There are rules put in
place to prevent that from happening.
>> Councelor Hamilton, you are now at over
» Councelor Hamilton, you are now at over
3 and a half minutes speaking on a
comment. We're already at quarter after
11. We extended the time.
>> I'll finish up. Mayor Leot, I think with
» I'll finish up. Mayor Leot, I think with
all due respect to Councelor Cooper, he
was on for about eight minutes and so I
did ask is now the time for comments. So
I'll finish up my comment though. It
was, but it's getting so long now. We've
still got other things to get through
here. So, I will wrap up.
>> Thanks. I appreciate it.
» Thanks. I appreciate it.
>> Uh, I don't think that our neighborhoods
» Uh, I don't think that our neighborhoods
will be sworn by boxes. This will create
variation in housing that's reasonable,
and that's what cities are. They're
dynamic forms of housing change,
architectural styles change. The point
is, does it help residents in a time of
need? And the answer is yes. So I think
forbay zoning is an effective way to
give power and agency back to Cambridge
residents while increasing our housing
stock especially the missing middle
housing that we so desperately need.
Thanks and thank you for the time.
>> Councelor Meta, please everyone please
» Councelor Meta, please everyone please
remember what time it is. We're all
tired. We want to go home and we need to
make making intelligent decisions. Thank
you. Well, thank you uh Mayor Jan
through you and I will pretty much
summarize my comments so you all know
that I'm not a fan of foreignbased
zoning. Um and not all planning planners
agree with it. There's different
opinions and I appreciate that. Um but I
do want to say that um I mean obviously
I'm concerned about having less
opportunities to come to council to just
you know be heard about why they don't
want um a reasonzoning in their
neighborhood at least to be heard. Um,
I've already said I'm concerned about
that. I'm also concerned about land
values rising, that if you make it too
easy to redevelop land, the land values
will go up because of the development
potential. And um, people are looking
for starter homes very well could be
competing against speculators like land
speculators. That's a concern of mine.
And the land speculators have more money
to buy the homes than the firsttime home
buyers do. So, that's one of my
concerns. Um, I am going to support the
amendment. I may or may not turn the
whole thing down depending on how it
goes at the end of the night. But, um, I
think the amendment does bring in some
more restrictions.
And, um, although my residents still
won't be thrilled, I think it does get
them a better deal. And I am accountable
to them. I answer to them and I'm trying
to get a better deal for them, but I
still might vote against the whole thing
after. We'll see. Thank you.
Okay, councelor Shwer and please keep it
short.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Liant. I
» Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Liant. I
just wanted to
>> This is This is the last speaker.
» This is This is the last speaker.
>> Sure. I just want to respond to respond
» Sure. I just want to respond to respond
to councelor Hamilton. Um yes, I did
give an example uh councelor Hamilton
where um in the past we wouldn't approve
approved a zone base uh wouldn't
approved an application and with this
one uh we would and I do know in the
past you haven't always accepted all the
planners and all the the staff's
recommendation. None of us have uh
because we have different opinion and
we're not throwing out the whole form
based zoning with the bathwater. We're
just making some improvements because
we've listened to some amendment. We've
listened to our residents. That's what I
wanted to say. Thanks.
Okay. Now, we'll call for the vote on
that amendment.
An opening voting.
Closing voting.
And that is defeated. 5 to four.
Okay.
» Councelor Kimson, would you like to put
your motion back on the floor, please?
Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by myself,
seconded by councelor Roberts. The
amendment reads that table 7.2 2
permitted uses in residential zones be
amended amended to add the following new
special provision number five except as
provided in section 4.19
where a lot contains a single detached
dwelling or a semi- detached dwelling
with a maximum permitted height of 11 m
on the date of enactment of this bylaw.
The maximum permitted number of dwelling
units shall be four and that table 7.2 2
be amended to apply special provision
number five to rows 3 4 12 14 15 16 17
18 and 19 for the R1 and R2 zones.
>> May I speak to the amendment?
» May I speak to the amendment?
>> Let me ask if there's questions here
» Let me ask if there's questions here
first. Okay. And please everybody, we've
gone through this over and over and over
tonight. Staff spent a lot of time. So,
if we could just get as quickly as we
can to the vote so we can get on with
because there's a couple more things we
need to get through or else they're
going to have to wait for another night.
Any questions?
Oh, there you're up comments.
Thank you, Mayor Jan. I'll keep this
brief. Um, Councelor Roberts and I
worked on this amendment. Currently, all
low density properties are allowed three
units as of right. that's currently part
of the provincial legislation.
Basically, this is going to increase the
allowable units by one for non-collector
residential roads and only when all of
the other requirements are met such as
setbacks, parking, landscaping.
If anyone wishes to do more than that,
then the normal public process would
apply. However, this would be enough to
satisfy the requirements for the half
funding and would be a much more subtle
change to protect our residential
communities.
And this caps R1 and R2 at four units
maximum. It's already in place in other
municipalities within our region. It
puts setbacks in place, height
restrictions in place, and contributes
to consistency.
So today I was looking around my
neighborhood where I've lived for over
half a century and there's a mix of
low-rise apartments, a three-level condo
building, large over homes subdivided
into flats, a semi along with single
family homes. And when I looked around,
I could see how they all worked and
blended together because the setbacks
were there, because there was
consideration given to parking. All of
things that with this amendment would be
taken into consideration that would
allow the gentle intensification but
still allow us to benefit from the half
funding. Thank you.
Okay, we'll call for that vote. I see no
other comments or questions.
and opening voting.
Closing voting
and that uh carries 6 to3.
>> Okay. Councelor Cooper, you have an
» Okay. Councelor Cooper, you have an
amendment.
Anyway,
» sorry I was confused.
You have an amendment coming up. Yes.
» Councelor Kimson, you have another
amendment.
>> I know it.
» Hello again. It's me. Um moved by
myself, seconded by councelor Roberts.
Recommendation
that table 7.3A
row 4 of columns 3 4 and 5 RR zone R1
zone and R2 zone be amended by replacing
8 m with 6 m.
Recommendation two that table 7.3B
row three of columns three four and five
R1 zone R2 zone and R3 zone be amended
by replacing 8 m with 6 m.
Recommendation three that the following
sentence of section 4.18
subsection B and C be deleted. Quote,
"Notwithstanding the above, in no case
shall the front yard for the attached
private garage facing the street or
highway be less than 8 m."
» And this is where you have the
amendment, correct?
>> Okay, now I got it.
» And this will be surprisingly quick.
um
the 8 meter nice generous doesn't quite
have to be that um what the only amend
the amendment I would like to make to
this is basically a compromise that you
take this motion it's exact wording
where it says where it says six replace
with seven
and the last line to be removed does not
get removed but where it says eight it
says seven so basically they're going
down to six um I think that's a bit much
to cut off from reasons we heard before
about people's needs. Um, I think an
appropriate compromise would be seven
meters.
>> Okay, we're going to call for that vote.
» Okay, we're going to call for that vote.
>> Oh, you need a seconder. Sorry.
» Oh, you need a seconder. Sorry.
>> Okay,
» opening voting.
» Sorry.
>> Oh, yeah. I just wanted to get through
» Oh, yeah. I just wanted to get through
everything. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry.
All right. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Um,
this question is probably for Hardy, I
would imagine, or one of our planners
potentially. Um, what sort of
implications will there be? We heard
about significant implications of going
to 8 mters. Will there still be
significant implications um for some of
those properties that we had talked
about, if we go to seven as opposed to
six?
» Sorry, I can't turn my head around.
>> To you, Madame Mayor. Uh, thank you for
» To you, Madame Mayor. Uh, thank you for
the question. Um so I I would imagine uh
the feedback we would receive from the
building industry is very similar uh
that uh anything beyond six really would
have an impact on on home design in in
some way. So um I guess I'd leave it at
that that I I I think it probably would
have an impact and that's why staff is
recommending uh you maintain the six
would be our our recommendation.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Okay, here we go. Councelor Cooper.
Great.
>> Just to that point, yeah, I mean,
» Just to that point, yeah, I mean,
there's pros and cons to everything we
do. I mean, if you listen to developers,
I mean, they'd love it if we went down
to one meter. Um, but we, you know, I
know who we're representing, and the
pros to this is this is going to be a
heck of a lot more useful to many people
um that are going to be using these
homes. Um, especially with the reasons
that um, councelor Divine gave. Um, of
course they're going to complain. That's
what developers do. Um, but we're repres
representing residents. I think 7 m is
uh is perfectly fine and I I do support
it.
>> Councelor Kimson,
» Councelor Kimson,
>> thank you very much and through you,
» thank you very much and through you,
Madame Mayor. Um
I guess I I just want to clarify that
this isn't something that we're going
from 8 and changing it to six. We are
already at six. And the difference
between 8 m and 6 m isn't going to have
any impact on solving our parking issues
because we're not going to be able to
fit another vehicle in that additional 2
m at the foot of the driveway. So, I
just want to be clear about that. I'm
concerned about the impact that it's
going to have on plans that are already
in the queue that have perhaps started
the process, but maybe it's at the
pre-conultation and the developers have
gone away and started drawing up their
plans based on what they've learned at
that time and they haven't yet submitted
it to us for approval or site plan and
and that's going to take more time and
that's going to add cost. So, I guess
I'm wondering if staff um how many
potential
people or units or developers, however
we want to say it, are going to be
affected by this change at this stage
» through you, mayor. Thanks for the
question. Um there's a number of ways
that this change will have implications.
So, as Brian mentioned, um it will and
as you're referring to impact the number
of potential units, but it also will
likely be difficult to navigate through
the OOLT if it gets challenged because
it is a common standard. And I would say
the last thing to keep in mind is uh if
a renovation comes in in an existing
dwelling built on the previous 6 meter
standard, they'll have to go through a
process of recogni being recognized as
legal non-conforming because they will
no longer have a driveway that meets the
enforce zoning bylaw.
Councelor Divine.
I
>> mean, this has been a hot topic for
» mean, this has been a hot topic for
sure. Uh 6 mters, it's awfully tight for
very very tight for an extended cab
F-150.
And if you put a uh crew cab, it's not
going to fit. Extended cab F-150 with an
8ft box is
250 in.
That's what it is. Now, the world's
changed. We have a lot of young people
today that are working out of their
homes that whether electricians,
plumbers, carpenters, or whatever, and
they're working out of their vehicles.
I would ask I would ask U council to
look at this 7 m because I think I think
it's logical. I think it's logical. All
right. So, I mean, I will support the 7
m because it makes sense to me. 6 m is
just it's off. It's too tight. It's just
far too tight for that type of vehicle.
All right. Unless, you know, we we're
going to tell people that uh you know
what vehicles they should be driving,
which I don't think they should, but um
you're you're 250 in. You're 250 in on a
extended cab pickup. That's not even a
crew cab. extended cab pickup with an 8
foot box and that's what most people in
construction use. Thank you.
>> Okay, councelor Kimson, then I'm calling
» Okay, councelor Kimson, then I'm calling
the question.
» So, we'll call the question now.
>> Opening voting.
» Opening voting.
>> We're voting on seven meters.
closing voting
and that is carried five to four.
Okay. So, we're voting on the main
motion with all of the amendments.
Sorry, sorry. The main amendment. So,
Council Kimson and Roberts for this
amendment. Councelor Cooper amended
their amendment. So, now you're back to
the original amendment. Council came.
Oh, wow. I don't think I've ever seen
this in all my years on council. So, now
we're going to vote on the amendment.
Your amendment with the changes for the
seven. That's the word. It's like having
a main motion and then having an
amendment on we voted for the amendment.
And now we're voting for the main motion
with the amendment only. It's your
amendment with the amendment. Got it.
» Yes.
>> It's seven meters no matter which way
» It's seven meters no matter which way
you look at it. So you can vote against
it again if you want, but then you've
lost the rest of your stuff, too.
>> Good.
» Good.
>> Yeah, I'm good. So, we're voting for
» Yeah, I'm good. So, we're voting for
seven meters again
and opening voting.
Closing voting
and that carries 6 to three.
Okay. So, now we're voting for the main
motion with all of the amendments on it.
Does everybody understand what Nick?
>> Thank you, Mayor J.
» Thank you, Mayor J.
A thought came to my head.
>> I would like to take some streets out of
» I would like to take some streets out of
the R2 zone and put them in the R1 zone
if we could at least have a vote on it.
>> No.
» No.
>> No, you won't allow that.
» No, you won't allow that.
>> No.
» No.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> We're on the main motion like
» We're on the main motion like
>> Well, don't I have a right to put
» Well, don't I have a right to put
forward another amendment?
>> It's up to you. You're the chair. I'll
» It's up to you. You're the chair. I'll
just tell the residents that I made an
effort, but I would like to take Canon
Crescent.
>> Okay. Tell me the streets.
» Okay. Tell me the streets.
>> Tell me the streets. Okay.
» Tell me the streets. Okay.
>> So, I can vote against you.
» So, I can vote against you.
>> Well, it's your choice, but I'm
» Well, it's your choice, but I'm
accountable to
>> Just tell me the streets. Just tell me
» Just tell me the streets. Just tell me
the streets.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Okay. There's only seven of them. So,
» Okay. There's only seven of them. So,
can Canning Crescent,
um, MC Tag Drive, Pearl Butt Place, Ben
Drive, Be Canon Lane, Tallow Tree Place,
and um, yeah, that's all of them. So
basically to change the R2 to the R1,
that's what I want to have a vote on and
I'll leave at that.
>> Okay. Can I have a input from staff on
» Okay. Can I have a input from staff on
this please?
» You have a seconder for this.
>> It's up to the council. Otherwise,
» It's up to the council. Otherwise,
have tried and
» that's what I'm I'm That's what I'm just
asking staff all about.
» I think we're I think we're hurting
their brains over there.
» It's not about that. It's about what we
can do and what we can't do. Uh through
you, mayor. Um the consequence of this
would be the map that needs to get
approved with the main motion would have
to be taken back and amended. So staff
would request that this motion be
deferred to the phase two of the zoning
bylaw review.
>> Can we do that
» Can we do that
with the half funding? Hang on. Hang on.
Hang on. Hang on. Can we do that?
just uh we're just uh recommending that
the motion be deferred so that the main
recommendation with the current mapping
can proceed
today.
>> I don't think we are. Isn't the main
» I don't think we are. Isn't the main
motion to do with the whole
I know you're supposed to be the
experts, but I don't want to make a
mistake here because
through you, mayor, staff could take a
staff direction
with so revise this motion to amend to a
staff direction to explore removing the
list of streets
um from R2 to R1 uh through phase two of
the zoning bylaw. We could take that as
a staff direction. That'll have us do
that work at that time.
>> So then we run the risk too of other
» So then we run the risk too of other
streets residents coming forward wanting
other streets put on that list again.
>> Yes. Okay.
» You didn't have a seconder, did you,
Nick? council,
but otherwise I just
» you have no seconders. So your motion
your thing fails.
>> It'll be in the minute.
» It'll be in the minute.
>> Okay. Okay. I I know where you're going.
» Okay. Okay. I I know where you're going.
That's good. Okay.
>> Now,
» Now,
>> main motion.
» main motion.
>> Main motion with the amendments.
» Main motion with the amendments.
>> Please ask me to try and read that.
» Please ask me to try and read that.
>> Yeah, she's not going to read it.
» Yeah, she's not going to read it.
Everybody knows what the amendments
were, right? It's really messy up here.
Okay.
So,
call the question.
Opening voting.
Closing voting.
That carries six to three.
Okay. So, I think we only have one more
to go and
that's Council Schwar's motion to do
with the LRT funding. And you're
amending
or am I amending? I'm amending your
motion or do you want to just change
your original motion?
>> Sorry. You're going to take that last
» Sorry. You're going to take that last
sentence out. Okay.
Okay. Can you read your motion, please?
Where is it? Ah, where are we? Okay.
Thank you, Mayor Liot. Uh moved by
myself, seconded by councelor Cooper.
Whereas the city of Cambridge has
contributed approximately over $60
million towards the Kitchener Waterl ion
stage 1 capital costs since the
inception of the regional transportation
master plan funding strategy in 2011.
while Kitner Waterlue will not be
contributed to Cambridge's ion stage 2
capital cost. Whereas the city of
Cambridge has been funding the
operations of the Kiter Water ion stage
1 since approximately 2019 and has
received none of the financial benefits
from the stated $5 billion and economic
investment that both Kitner and Waterlue
have received. Now, therefore, be it
resolved that the Cambridge Council
requests that the region of Waterlue
provide a funding breakdown detailing
the total capital and maintenance costs
levied on the Cambridge residents
relating to ion stage 1. That Cambridge
residents be reimbursed for the money
they have contributed to ion stage 1.
and that the region be requested to
communicate a plan on how reimbursement
will be achieved within the first
quarter of 2026. And if I may speak to
it.
>> Okay. There's no questions to staff up
» Okay. There's no questions to staff up
here, so go for it.
>> Councelor Kimson, you have a question to
» Councelor Kimson, you have a question to
staff?
>> I do. Okay.
» I do. Okay.
Um, thank you, Mayor Jan, for you. Um, I
guess my question to staff is, is this
even possible for a lower tier
municipality to ask an upper tier
to do this?
>> We can request anybody to do anything.
» We can request anybody to do anything.
Do you want to speak to this?
>> Through you, mayor. So, a council can
» Through you, mayor. So, a council can
make a request on it. uh the uh upper
level government can do what they want
with that request uh to their
prerogative.
» Can I ask everybody I mean we all know
like let's not go on and on and on for
the
» Go ahead councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you Mayor Leot and I'll make it
» Thank you Mayor Leot and I'll make it
quick. I think this question is for Rob.
Um but the the second therefore be it
resolved there's no mention of a
request. It just says that Cambridge
residents be reimbursed for the money
they contributed for stage one. Is that
enforceable
through you? So the way the way it is
worded the first bullet somewhat
references into the second bullet on
this particular motion the way I'm kind
of reading it. Um but but that said uh
it it it should be saying request it it
all it's all a request because can that
actually happen like we you as council
can't make a decision for regional
council regional council has to make
their own decision. So you have to
follow that uh train of logic in order
for them to to to change their mind on
something. I appreciate the
clarification because the others said
request and that one didn't. So thank
you
>> councelor Cooper.
» councelor Cooper.
>> Thank you Mig. Uh this is a very
» Thank you Mig. Uh this is a very
contentious issue. Um a lot of people
are making comments on it. Um I know
what time it is. Uh I'd like to be
quick. There's a lot that has to be said
about exactly what this is we're doing.
Okay. And why this is coming about
because I'm
>> hang on. I know everybody wants to talk
» hang on. I know everybody wants to talk
on this for a long time, but can you
really keep it short?
>> What I'm going to say is very important
» What I'm going to say is very important
here regarding the last time. Councelor
Hamilton was right. You did go on eight
minutes.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, I'm going 8 minutes
» Okay. Okay. Well, I'm going 8 minutes
>> because it's
» because it's
>> I can say this
» I can say this
>> quart to 12 and I don't want to get into
» quart to 12 and I don't want to get into
tomorrow.
>> Do what I can, but I just want to
» Do what I can, but I just want to
explain exactly what this is and why
we're doing it. Okay. A lot of BS going
out around about this. Um, this is not
about supporting the LRT. Got nothing to
do with that or opposing it. This is
about honoring our fiscal responsibility
to those that we represent and writing a
very expensive wrong. Uh, I'll be blunt
here. I believe financially we got
screwed here and I'm going to tell you
why. Just a few points.
unequal treatment. Cambridge has does
not currently receive LRT service, yet
we have been required to contribute
financially. Surrounding townships also
do not receive service, but have not
been required to pay toward its capital
costs and operations. Municipalities
that receive equal levels of service
should be treated equally. We are not.
There's also economic equality as the uh
region likes to likes to boast about the
LRTdriven development and assessment
growth is about 5.2 billion. Apparently,
townships were never expected to receive
the benefits from these assessments. So,
they didn't have to pay. Cambridge was
asked to pay but has received nothing in
return. Some of these assessments went
directly to Kitchener. They went
directly to Waterloo. Nothing came to
us. If financial benefit is being reaped
by others but not by us, then our
financial responsibility should end and
our past contributions should be
addressed.
Saying that we will eventually benefit
from the LRT is not an excuse to ignore
the fiscal responsibility we have to
expose and correct what many see as a
shocking misuse of Cambridge taxpayer
money, as well as a shocking lack of
action from those that should have
prevented this from happening in the
first place.
Cambridge Cambridge's contribution was
made with the understanding that LRT
would expand to Cambridge, expand to
Cambridge within a reasonable time. That
has change. That assumption has changed.
It will take many years before this
comes. It'll take many of years before
it even starts, if it ever comes. When
the situation has changed, financial
arrangements need to be revised.
Reimbursement would not give Cambridge
special treatment. It would simply place
Cambridge in the same financial position
as other non-served municipalities until
LRT is actually delivered. If that
happens, this could be achieved through
rebate, credit against future transit
contributions, suspension of capital
costs until service begins. This
reimbursement would equalize treatment
across the region. Almost done here. Our
relationship with the region depends on
cooperation and trust. If we are
expected to continue paying while
receiving no service alongside seeing
other non-served municipalities exempt
from paying, then our relationship with
the region is compromised. Fairness and
equity is essential to a good
relationship.
Revisiting Cambridge's contribution now
restores fairness, builds goodwill,
andre increases support for future
expansion. Last bit here. We are not
asking for preferential treatment. We
are asking to be treated the same as
other municipalities that have not
received service until that day the
service actually reaches our city.
Okay, I see you're all loading up to
speak on this.
I'm not going to let you go on for five
minutes. It's just not going to happen
here. Um, councelor Kimson,
>> thank you very much, Mayor Janu.
» thank you very much, Mayor Janu.
I'm not saying that I'm pleased that
Cambridge has been paying for the LRT
all of this time. However, we need to
respect the decisions that were made by
the previous council.
>> This was a decision that was made by the
» This was a decision that was made by the
elected council of the day following the
due process and that yes, the surrounded
townships are not paying into it, but
that was the decision that was made
democratically by the elected officials
at the time. And when we talk about
cooperation and trust, we have to
respect the decisions that are made by
the different levels of government who
hold the appropriate jurisdiction. And
this is something where while I
appreciate that yes, the other areas
have benefited from the LRT and we have
not yet. But following phase 2, it is
now in place. It is now going forward.
Should things change, then we can
re-evaluate at the time. But I again
want to reiterate that the democratic
process was followed and we need to
respect the decision that was decided at
the time. Thank you,
» Councelor Meta.
>> Well, thank you, Mayor Jan. I won't go
» Well, thank you, Mayor Jan. I won't go
on and on or I'll try not to, but um
from my perspective, I disagreed with
the decision then and I disagree with it
now. And um from my perspective, I have
to stand up for what I think is right.
And I think a lot of money has left this
city and I think we're at a disadvantage
for that reason. And this does level the
playing field. It does put the city on a
more equal level than what we have than
where we are right now. And uh 60
million is a lot of money. That's 300
playgrounds, maybe more if we can get
better pricing. So, you know, there's a
lot of good we could do with that money.
and um there's services that the
residents would like us to to spend on
rather than the LRT. So from my
perspective, I'm fully supportive of
this motion. Thank you,
» Councelor Robertson. That's the last
speaker because we've still got all the
rest of it to do and we have to have
this done by midnight. We have to have
>> all the confir No, no confirmatory bylaw
» all the confir No, no confirmatory bylaw
has to be done.
>> No, I'm going to allow you. I'm just
» No, I'm going to allow you. I'm just
saying
>> I'll let Scott go. It's fine. Yeah, it's
» I'll let Scott go. It's fine. Yeah, it's
okay. I'm going to let you go. He's
already spoken on this once. So, you go.
>> I I don't think that he has spoken on
» I I don't think that he has spoken on
this issue.
>> He did. He's I thought you spoke after
» He did. He's I thought you spoke after
Scott did.
>> Oh, god.
» Oh, god.
>> Okay. So, everybody, we've got to get
» Okay. So, everybody, we've got to get
through this. Everything tonight.
>> I'll be quick.
» I'll be quick.
>> Can't go through
» Can't go through
>> and succinct. I promise.
» and succinct. I promise.
>> I'm sorry. What? I can't hear you all.
» Oh my god. Go ahead, Councelor Hamilton.
Go ahead.
>> Okay.
» Oh, that's me. So,
>> that's okay. Sorry, Council Roberts,
» that's okay. Sorry, Council Roberts,
please go afterwards. I'll limit this
and be quick. Uh I appreciate the urge
of fellow counselors to try and recoup
taxes during a very tough economic time,
but I feel the motion does send the
wrong message at a time where we need
unity in the region in terms of funding
to move on to stage two, which is the
business case and also regional unity in
what is a very fractured national and
geopolitical world. Um Cambridge has
received benefits. Assessment growth
from the region is not divided into
areas. Assessment growth is general. So,
we don't want the region coming back to
us and saying, "Give me my portion for
paying for McQueen Shaver or the East
Boundary Road." Um, I don't feel like
the motion is legal. I don't feel like
it's enforceable. I don't feel like it
paints a proper picture to our residents
to say that we can go and solicit funds
from other levels of government. Um
it's in our strategic plan that the LRT
is in the future vision of the city and
I think we should abide by the decisions
of previous councils uh regional
councils and other levels of government
to support this project at the benefit
to our future of the city and of all of
our residents. Thank you.
>> Okay, councelor Roris quick.
» I will be super quick. I just want to
say that I do understand the frustration
many residents feel about the delivery
of transit infrastructure here in
Cambridge, but it simply does not make
sense to demand reimbursement of funds
that were collected through a regional
tax system to support a regional
project. As a part of the region of
waterlue, we contribute collectively to
regionwide infrastructure whether it's
waste management, public health,
policing, etc. And because these systems
are designed to serve the broader
community, not just individual municipal
boundaries, that's how we are taxed on
them. Um, I'm going to skip a bunch of
stuff. I just want to say our focus
should really be on advocating
constructively for timely delivery,
fiscal responsibility, and fair service
for our residents, not on trying to
unwind a regional funding model that all
lower tier municipalities operate
within. And I agree with Councelor
Hamilton that I don't even think that
this is a realistic ask. And I think
that it's misleading to our residents.
Thank you.
>> Okay. First off, it is legal.
» Okay. First off, it is legal.
Definitely legal.
And I don't think we should be saying
something's illegal when it's we
wouldn't be putting it through as a
motion if it was illegal. Um I'm going
to support the motion. I think it tells
the public that they have been paying
for a number of years for something they
we have not been getting. And by the
time that next phase of the LRT comes
in, we will have been paying still for
another 10 15 years for something we are
not getting. So, with that, I'm going to
call for the vote.
Oh.
Oh my god.
>> I don't have time. I don't have time.
» I don't have time. I don't have time.
We've got to get We've got to get the
confirmatory battle and stuff done by
midnight.
» I'm not going to let you because we need
to get this done. We You're
» Can you be quick, please?
>> Sure. First of all, it was not
» Sure. First of all, it was not
democratic because the basis of us
paying um Kitchener Waterlue the promise
was they would pay ours and they're not
paying ours. So that's not democratic
and that's I'm not undoing a decision
because that decision they've undone
themselves and this motion is not about
anti-transit. It asks just a basic
question. Cambridge residents have paid
and continue to pay for transit system
that does not serve Cambridge. Townships
have not. Have we been treated fairly in
the allocation and the benefit of major
regional transit investments relative to
its fin our financial contribute
contributions? Did we get out what we
put in? No. Cambridge contributions to
Einstage One came from regional funding
model not from planning choices.
Kitchener Waterl received direct
benefits. Cambridge did not. With the
provincial funding, with the province
funding Cambridge ion, it's only
reasonable to ask for counting and
refund. Asking for fairness and
transparency strengthens Cambridge's
credibility. Continuing to pay for
something we do not use does not. This
is what my motion is about and why I'm
asking um you my fellow counselors for
this support. Thank you.
>> Okay. Call the question.
» Okay. Call the question.
>> Opening voting.
» Opening voting.
Closing
voting
that is defeated 5 to four.
Okay. So the next is the introduction
consideration of bylaws and councelor
Sherry you have that motion.
Oh sorry motion to receive.
>> Councelor Divine you have that motion.
microphone on.
>> Okay. Sorry. Uh where are we? That all
» Okay. Sorry. Uh where are we? That all
presentations and correspondence from
February 3rd, 2026 council meeting be
received. Seconded by Corey Kimson.
>> Okay, we'll call for that vote.
» Okay, we'll call for that vote.
>> Opening voting.
» Closing voting.
carries unanimously.
>> Consideration of bylaws. Councelor Sher,
» Consideration of bylaws. Councelor Sher,
you have that motion.
» Thank you. Move. Uh, mayor u moved by
myself, seconded by councelor Roberts
that the following by law listed under
the heading of introduction and
consideration of bylaws be enacted and
passed. 26-002
being a bylaw to adopt amendment 98 of
the city of Cambridge official plan tw
2012 re 165 Cherry Blossom Road 26-003
being a bylaw to amend zoning bylaw
150-85
as amended with respect to Len
municipality known as 165 Cherry Blossom
Road 26-004
being a bylaw to amend zoning ing bylaw
150-85
as amended with respect to land
municipality
land municipally known as 55 care street
being a bylaw to adopt amendment number
91 of the city of Cambridge official
plan 20 2012
being a bylaw to repeal the residential
zone and regulation zoning bylaw as
amended and replace them with new
residential zones and regulation except
for certain lands subject to transition
transition regulations and deferral.
Okay, we'll call that question.
>> Just a quick note on bylaw 267.
» Just a quick note on bylaw 267.
The N should also say as amended because
there were multiple amendments made
tonight.
>> Okay, opening voting.
as amended.
» As amended,
>> are you talking to me?
» are you talking to me?
>> We're voting right now.
» What?
>> And closing voting
» And closing voting
carries 8 to one.
Okay. Next is confirmatory bylaw.
Councelor Med, you have that
Jesus getting
>> hurry up.
» Okay. So, moved by myself, seconded by
councelor Roberts that bylaw 26-008
being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings
of the council of the corporation of the
city of Cambridge be passed.
>> All in favor?
» All in favor?
>> Opening voting.
» Opening voting.
Closing
voting that carries nine and
unanimously.
>> Okay, we reached the end of our agenda.
» Okay, we reached the end of our agenda.
Councelor Devine, you have the close of
the meeting.
» Yes. Um, the council meeting does now
adjourn at 11:59
p.m.
>> No, it's it's 12 midnight on our
» No, it's it's 12 midnight on our
>> Well, that's that's a clock up there.
» Well, that's that's a clock up there.
But we have 12 midnight.
>> Okay. 12:00 a.m. Then if you want 12
» Okay. 12:00 a.m. Then if you want 12
a.m., have it at 12:00 a.m.
>> Whatever you want. Don't matter me
» Whatever you want. Don't matter me
12:01. That's fine. You want to do that?
>> Opening voting.
opposing
voting to me. It
>> carries unanimously. Give me a number.
» I should have left it. It'll be 11:59.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Now tomorrow at 12 a.m., right?