Everyone, my name is Jan Liot, mayor and chair of this council meeting. Before
continuing, we will rise from close session. May I have councelor Roberts
read the motion in its entirety, please?
» Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by myself, seconded by councelor Ernshaw.
Recommendation that council rise from close session held August 25th to
reconvene in open session at 6:45 p.m. >> Okay, we will call for that vote.
» Opening voting.
» Closing voting
» that carries unanimously. So during close session, discussions
occurred with council and staff related to confidential negotiations,
development ch uh charges relief program application update, and a verbal update
regarding a planning matter. Please note that city of C 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 500 views on YouTube and two delegations. As
a reminder for speakers tonight, both 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 a remote at the podium you may use to advance
your slides. In the event of an emergency, please evacuate council
chambers using the nearest exit staircase. If you require assistance,
please see the clerk's 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 parking market parking lot and await further
instructions. I will now introduce council. Councelor Hamilton, councelor,
councelor Kimson, councelor Roberts, councelor Cooper, councelor Schwerry,
councelor Ernshaw, and councelor Divine. We will now sing the national anthem.
And if you are able, please rise and follow along.
» [music]
» Oh Canada, [singing and music]
our home and native land [music] true
love [singing] in [music] all of
With glowing [singing] hearts [music] we see
the true north strong and [singing] free from [music]
wide open wee [music and singing]
[music] [singing]
glory. [music] We are set and free.
Oh, [music] we stand [singing] on guard for
the
[singing] we stand on
[music] [singing] the
[clears throat]
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 as we've been given the duty together to live in
balance and harmony with all living things. We acknowledge and respect the
Inishab Chinctton also known as the neutrals and the Hodnoni 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 I begin, I would like to take a moment to
acknowledge and thank everyone for joining us at this meeting this evening.
We do appreciate your participation as we come together to serve the community.
I ask that we create a welcoming and positive environment for everyone that
includes respect, kindness, and inclusion. Together, we can make this
meeting space one where those three things 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. Again, as a reminder to council, please ensure you are speaking directly
into the microphone so members of the public, both in the audience and at
home, can hear you. I notice when some counselors are speaking, they tend to
turn their heads away from the mic towards the audience or towards this the
front. When you do that, your voice is not audible to everybody in the room.
This evening we have one external presentation for from Richard Kelly
Roots of GSP Group regarding the recommendation to approve an official
plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for 8 Scoffield Street. As is
our usual practice, we will first hear presentations from consultants and
applicants followed by delegations from members of the public before proceeding
to consider staff reports. Welcome, Mr. Roots. Are you here? Oh,
thank you for joining us. Please note you will have five minutes to address
council this evening.
» Thank you, Madame Mayor. If I could have the clerk pull up the presentation
slide.
Thank you. Uh good evening, Madame Mayor, members of council and and the
public. My name is Richard Kelly Ritz. I'm a planner at GSP Group and I'm here
representing the applicant for the zone change application and official plan
amendment at 8 Scoffield Street. As a highle reminder to council, uh the
application is for a 72 unit mid-rise building with five levels of residential
and two levels of structured parking.
As council may recall, this application was previously um before you at the June
council meeting uh recommended by staff for approval. Uh council deferred the
application to allow for additional discussions between um ourselves as the
applicant team and the adjacent property owners. Um those conversations have
since occurred uh in July and I can give a high level overview of the outcome of
those conversations in the following slides.
So the two key abuing property owners is O as auto repair garage on Queen Street
and then the Legion site immediately next door. Uh so we met with Heather the
owner of Auto Repair uh in July here at city hall. Uh discussed at a high level
some of the details of the application in terms of when construction might
start um outlining uh how much parking is provided and how this how this has
been increased from previous proposals. um how the storm water runoff design uh
for the site is meant to contain and direct runoff away from her site. And uh
through our conversations with Heather, it became clear that her primary concern
is really just around construction impacts to uh the building itself. Um as
Auto Repair Garage, as many in the community know, has been around a long
time. The building is, I believe, over 100 years old. And she was just
concerned around construction impacts to the building itself, the foundation from
any construction that would happen next door. Um so following our meeting here
at city hall um my client the developer for the eight scopfield site uh
committed to Heather that um he would coordinate documenting the existing
condition of her building before any construction would start on uh the eight
scal site. So this really seemed to provide some reassurances to Heather um
that there'd be a point in time reference for the condition of her
building um ahead of any construction starting for eight sc. So, um, following
those conversations, I'm reassured and I understand Heather's concerns have been
addressed as well. Um, for the zone change application,
we met with the Legion board in July as well um, next door uh, at the Legion
property, discussed again some details of the application in terms of when
construction might start, uh, specific construction methods that would be used
such as the underground parking structure being uh, constructed fairly
close to their property line. Uh my understanding of the key legions
concerns was just that they're um making sure for them they want to be involved
in the process and that in particular the zone change decision before council
this evening is not them um missing the boat or missing some key piece of
information. Um through our conversations u clarified that this is
really just the first step in the process. there's still a site plan
application, building uh permits to come. And uh we also made clear that the
Legion will be a partner, a key stakeholder in the project and that
construction really couldn't proceed without their sign off. Um if there's
any uh temporary construction works that would occur on their lands, um they
would need to sign off on that. um as well as if there's any uh trees that are
being taken off uh removed along the shared property line, uh they would need
um permission from the Legion for that as well. Um so they were reassured that
through those future negotiations, discussions with them that any concerns
that they might have going forward could be addressed and that this is still a
very early part of the process. So I'm confident that our discussions
with the Legion were productive and addressed their concerns uh for the
application before you this evening. I'll lastly mention just for council's
information um that any tenants moving into the new rental building at aid
Scoffield um would have a noise warning clause uh provided to them advising them
of any uh noise impacts that uh from abuing property. So the Legion and Auto
Repair. Uh so this would just make it clear to them up front that they would
be aware of any noise sources whether it's from Legion events or the horseshoe
pits. I'm just making it clear that um they would know this ahead of time
before moving in so that the Legion and Os Repair would could continue their
existing operations and wouldn't have to change because of a new building here at
a schoolfield. That concludes my remarks. I continue to
be in support of the staff recommendation of approval for the
application and I'm available for any further questions of council. Thank you.
Before we proceed with questions, um, a reminder to members of council that
the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires council members to declare any
director and direct uninary interest in relation to a matter under
consideration. Are there any declarations this evening?
Seeing none, councelor. >> So, councelor Dvine, you have a
conflict. >> I'm a member of the Hesper Legion. I'm
not on the executive, but I am a member of the Hesper Legion. Would that be
considered a conflict? >> No.
» Um, typically, councelor, Madame Mayor, we would advise that you uh reach out to
the integrity commissioner for specific advice.
» Do you want me to call him now?
» It's up to you, counselor.
» You're not. You're you're allowed to be a member of any organization. I would
think so. Not I'm not on the executive. >> No.
» Yeah. Probably everybody in this room is >> there are exemptions within the
municipal conflict of interest act as well that speak to that.
» Yeah. >> Councelor Roberts.
» Thanks Mayor Jan through you and thank you for your presentation and thanks for
meeting with the the adjacent property owners. That was great. I just have a
question. And I noticed in your drawing um for your parking, the the lower
parking level and the upper parking level um for some reason you have the
barrierfree spots the furthest away from the elevator. And I'm just a little
confused because that means that folks who potentially have mobility concerns
would have to navigate through parking where people could be backing out and
driving around to get to the elevator. Was there a specific reason why that was
done that way? I've never seen that before.
» Uh through the mayor to you, Councelor Roberts. Yes, we've received that
feedback um already and certainly something we'd address at site plan
approval. The interior layout of the um proposed development, it can always be
refined after the zone change stage. So, yeah, absolutely. We've heard that and
we'll we'll look to move it to the front of the building.
» Councelor Schwar. >> Thank you, Mayor Ligan.
[cough and clears throat] Um just my question which sorry my
throat um is I my just concern with this whole thing is going up the hill and
where people are exiting um it's just like a very dangerous section um
especially in the winter time. How would that be? Like, have you talked to
anybody? Like, how could you um mediate that? Because in the winter, if they're
coming out, you're, you know, somebody's going up the hill and if you know it
just it's you got freezing rain, like what safety measures are in place?
» Uh through humanity, counselor Shuri. Yes, great question. Um yeah, it is a
very steep hill on on Scoffield. Um there are two parking garage entrances
and exits for the site. One for the lower level and one for the upper level.
Um and yes, certainly I hear you on coming out onto Scoffield Street, how
that might work in terms of ice impacts, things like that. So naturally, the city
would would maintain the road from ICE perspective. But on the private side of
the development itself, um that's something that we could explore further
through the site plan approval process, like the more detailed design for the
building. Um, I've seen instances where you could have signage um, warning
vehicles exiting the new building um, you know, to be aware of oncoming
traffic. Um, I've seen mirrors used as well. Maybe you've seen those in parking
garages that could be concave to give a little bit of a wider view of the street
for oncoming vehicles. So, um, yeah, no commitments at this stage of the process
at the zone change stage, but absolutely I think that is something that should be
looked at going forward. Um, I imagine city transportation staff um would also
have some comments on just safety of entering and exiting the site through
the the site plan process to come. >> All right. Thank you,
» Councelor Kempson.
» Thank you very much, Mayor Jan, and through you. Um, thanks for your
presentation and for meeting with the neighboring property owners. Um I'll
note that in the presentation um there's mention about the right of way for
sidewalks and utilities and it indicates that the updated drawing submitted
include drawings to demonstrate that a sidewalk and utilities could be
accommodating within the existing right of way. Have there been any discussions
as to whether or not a sidewalk is going to be put in there? And I expect that um
if it could be that would help to address some of councelor Shwer's
concerns. >> Uh through the mayor, if I could have
the clerk pull up the slide deck again. Um and if you're able to go to slide 30,
I could navigate there as well.
I can uh start to answer uh the question. Um yes. So um and city staff
may wish to expand on this further. It's my understanding there are no plans in
the next 10 years at least to build sidewalks on Scoffield Street. Um that
being said, it was a priority of the city that we demonstrate that um there
is room for a sidewalk on the existing city land um here um if one is
constructed in the future. Um, and I can navigate to that slide here. It's a
little further on. Um, but some engineering drawings were prepared as
part of the submission package that demonstrated that on city land there
could be a sidewalk that's shown in blue here on the screen and that's fully on
the the city rightway. So, um, yeah, that was demonstrated that it could be
provided. City staff, engineering, and transportation were satisfied with that
through the resubmission. >> Thank you,
Councelor Hamilton.
Thank you, Mayor Li and through you and thanks very much for your presentation.
I know when the Legion presented to us, excuse me, um they were very uh they
stressed that horseshoes was a key element of the activity of the group. Um
can you just reaffirm that on page nine that the clause the type C clause saying
sound from these facilities may times be audible. Does that allow their horseshoe
um facility to continue as is or are there going to have to be any
alterations to it? >> Uh through the mayor to you, Councelor
Hamilton. Yeah, the Legion would be able to continue their horseshoe pits as is.
Uh all residents moving into this new building would be warned of all noise
sources from the Legion and uh the auto repair site including horseshoe pits,
events, things like that. So there should be no impact whatsoever to their
ability to continue that going forward. Thank you,
» Councelor Divine. >> Yes, thank you chair. Thank you for your
presentation and thank you for meeting with the uh uh the two property owners
in either side. I do have a concern. All right. As we know, things run downhill.
Gravity is a wonderful thing. What are you going to do
to stop water from running down ontos?
Because once that right now there's there's no there's no building there
obviously. Okay. And the ground will absorb a fair bit because it's it's a
treed property. Okay. What are we going to do from from uh water not going down
to us? Can you explain that to me please?
» Yep. Through the mayor you counselor Divine. Um yeah, [clears throat] one of
the benefits of being able to redesign a site um like this for new development is
that you can have a lot more control over where storm water goes. Yes, the
site is vegetated treed today. Um but there still would be some uncontrolled
runoff that would go from this property onto auto repair garage. Um with this
site, the rain water would be caught um on the roof of the building and then
funneled out onto the municipal um storm system onto Scoffield Street. So,
because the building is um you know a hard surface, it would be able to
capture most of the water that um falls onto the site since the building covers
most of the property and then funnel that right out onto Scoffield Street.
The um if we look on the top left of the screen here, the table and just in that
5-year column, [snorts] the top number is how much water is flowing currently
from Scoffield onto Odds Auto Repair and the number at the bottom is how much is
projected to flow there post development. So you can see it's a
pretty significant reduction and that's just because there's much more of an
ability to control where storm water is is running when you're building the site
like this. >> Okay. Thank you. Because if that if that
gets flooded that would just be disaster for them with the equipment in there.
All right. Thank you. >> Um Mr. Kelly Roots when you speak I
think it was slide eight um to do with your conversations with the Legion. Um
you spoke about uh future construction related agreements will be required. Is
there a paper trail on this currently? like are there, you know, you you're
standing up there saying it, but what what type of conversations on paper have
you had with the Legion that will assure them that you're going to do this and
that will assure staff and ourselves that you're going to
have these conversations and um with them and and that their concerns are
going to be addressed. >> Yeah. To you, Madame Mayor. So yes, all
of this um was communicated with them by email following our our conversation
with them in person in July. um in terms of committing to future construction
related agreements. Um the key thing as I mentioned during my presentation is
that um you know today whether there's a paper trail or not like the reality is
there will need to be like the legion will have to sign off on um future
construction for a Scoffield because the site needs the legion to proceed. Um
whether it's um temporary construction works on their site um they would have
to get the legion's permission for that. removing trees that are on the shared
property line. The Legion would have to sign off on that. So, in other words, um
this the construction for a lot of it will run through the Legion and they'll
have an opportunity um to make sure that all of their concerns are addressed. So,
the construction couldn't proceed without their sign off and their sign
off um they've reiterated, you know, they wouldn't naturally sign off unless
they're um assured that all their concerns have been addressed.
» Okay. Thank you. I see no more questions. Thank you.
Okay. So, next up we have some delegations. We have um Don Hoskins. Uh
are you in the room? >> Oh, sorry. She's virtual. Um she is
speaking on the same item.
» Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Can you speak louder
though? >> Yes. Sorry. Can you hear me now?
» Yes, we can. Welcome, Don. You'll have five minutes.
» Okay, thank you. >> Good evening, Mayor Liot, council, city
staff, and members of our community. My name is Don Hoskins, and I live directly
across from this proposed development on Courtney Street. I have stood before
council a few times prior. However, my concerns still remain. I strongly
disagree with city staff's recommendation to approve this
development and recommend council reject it. I want to focus on safety,
accessibility, parking, and lastly, the environment and placemaking. Milfield
Street is steep, narrow, and without sidewalks, presenting multiple hazards.
Traffic on Queen Street is already quite steady, and increasing population here
will significantly amplify that. We need to consider the additional challenges
for emergency crew, especially large fire trucks, a problem that we already
know is a current threat to operations. This May, our fire chief, Damon Jameson,
with 34 years of emergency experience, address concerns, citing, "We need to
work collectively and help mitigate the overlooked challenges that newer
subdivisions and narrow streets afford," highlighting a concerning trend and
issue with narrow streets and denser housing. While there are plans for
future sidewalks, those are a decade out and appear to encroach on the existing
roadway, causing further narrowing. Scoffield is a huge slip and fall risk
with or without sidewalks and keeping them clear with more road salt risks our
sensitive waterways via runoff and the sensitive ecosystem of the Speed River
just downhill. This slope presents a hazard to traffic moving both up and
down the hill, especially in slippery conditions. Parking is an ongoing issue
for residents in our city as a whole. On street parking has recently been limited
in the nearby neighborhood. This compounds further when we have events at
the Allegiance or film crew. At those times, our roads and surrounding
neighborhood often have bumper-to-bumper parking and an increase in traffic as
guests look for availability. This further narrows roadways, increases risk
to pedestrians, and decreases accessibility for emergency crew.
Lastly, but just as important, we must consider the environmental and
placemaking impacts that developing this land will have. Thanks to the site's
unique topography, the existing mature trees tower over Green Street. This
provides a sense of place for those entering the central corridor to our
Hesler core and business area. The mature trees also provide free ecosystem
services and aren't simply replaceable. Sure, trees can be planted elsewhere,
but there's a large gap in time for them to reach maturity and provide the same
level of service as the trees there now. This little slice of mature urban forest
offers a buffer zone for wildlife, one that is very active and that I have
directly seen and been a very small part of. Let me share a quick story about
that by introducing you to our resident groundhog Hogy. I promise that this is
relevant. 2025 was our first year with a little creature. And he was a
bittersweet guest. On the one part, he reminded me of my dear late grandmother,
as we would always go see groundhogs on groundhog day. On the other hand, he was
a ravenous feast who wasn't shy about making my vegetable garden his own
personal feast. Least to say, in the early days, after all the trouble that
comes with seed starting and tending a vegetable garden, I was not impressed.
After some troubleshooting, probably a bad choice of words, we figured out how
to coexist. I left a small patch of clovers for him to mow and put out some
fencing along the pride's vegetables, giving him some here and there when our
harvest was abundant. In the final days of summer, as weather started to cool,
our neighbors sent us a photo of Hogi on the loose. He was heading off our
property and into the great beyond. My partner and I were a little sad to see
him go and hoped to see him the following spring. We were relieved to
see him return. We now understand that our home is his summer den providing
food and safety while that forest slated for development is his winter den
providing shelter and cover during hibernation. I pride myself in taking
every opportunity I can to help make my backyard function as part of the
ecosystem. We leave a pile of leaves for winter critters, delay spring yard work
and the sort. Our yard is an active wildlife hub full of birds, bees,
fireflies, and even the odd toad. Part of that vivaceious activity has been in
part thanks to Hogi as his home that forest has housed a variety of other
creatures and his services play an undeniable role in our ecosystem. His
presence has now become a welcome part in our routine.
Our city needs safe, affordable housing, something this development does not seem
to provide. Second to that, this development threatens current and future
resident safety, road access, and will remove mature trees that provide free
ecosystem services, water control, including that from properties at higher
elevation and play a significant role in placemaking. I will kindly ask council
to review the writeups, photos, and videos submitted prior, highlighting
these issues and beyond. We have a surplus of land available beyond 2015.
This land is not needed as development, but rather to continue serving its
existing function and purpose. I thank you greatly for your time and
consideration. >> Thank you, Don. Are there any questions
for Don? >> I see none. Thank you.
» Thank you. >> Next up, Melissa Derell with BU Urban
regarding a motion reducing costs and delays in development approvals. You
have no presentation. Correct, Melissa? >> Thank you. Great. Okay, you have five
minutes. [clears throat]
» Excuse me. Well, good evening, Mayor Liot, members of council, staff, and
community members. My name is Melissa Durl, and I'm the executive officer of
Build Urban, a group representing nearly 20 urban, residential, and commercial
developers. I'm here today to urge council to support Council Schwar's
motion to reduce costs and delays in the planning process. First, I'd like to
thank councelor Sherry for bringing this motion forward. In the development
industry, time is money. Governments at every level have taken steps to address
the financial side of housing, from reducing development charges to cutting
HST for first-time home buyers, and the planning approvals process deserves the
same attention. Every month, a project sits in approvals process adds costs,
financing, property taxes, and consultant fees. City staff have a
responsibility to conduct thorough reviews and ensure applications meet the
city standards and we support that. What our members are asking for is greater
clarity. Why an additional study is required, what it's meant to address,
and what it adds in time and cost. That brings me to the issue that's become
increasingly challenging for our members and a key component of this motion,
which is thirdparty peer reviews. In simple terms, a developer submits an
application supported by professional studies prepared by qualified engineers,
consultants, and other experts. Those materials are then reviewed as part of
the city's development and approval process.
However, sometimes during that review, the city requires the developer to pay
for another consultant to independently review that work that a qualified
professional has already completed. There may be circumstances where an
additional review is warranted and we understand that. Our concern is when
peer review becomes an added layer without a clear explanation of why it's
necessary or what specific gap it's meant to close. We're increasingly
seeing these reviews requested across the region for heritage, engineering,
wind, sound, and environmental studies. And the cost can be significant.
Developers pay once to have the work done and again to have it reviewed. When
the resulting changes are minor or don't meaningfully change the outcome, it
raises a fair question. Is the added cost and delay justified by the value it
provides? The motion answers that question the right way. It asks staff to
track whether each peer review resulted in a material change to the proposed
development. And that's the right test. If a review changes the outcome, it did
its job. If it doesn't, council deserves to know that, too.
We also support the expanded quarterly reporting on development activity and
the service review of the planning process proposed for 2027. This work
will bring transparency to a process that's difficult to measure from the
outside. It will help council understand not just how long approvals are taking
but why and whether the time and money spent throughout the process are
delivering better outcomes. So from Bill Durban, we urge council to support this
motion and I thank you for your time. Are there any questions?
I see none. Thank you, Melissa.
So, that concludes this evening's de delegations. Before we proceed with the
remaining agenda items this evening, we will return to the unfinished business
from the June 23rd council meeting regarding report 26-040
PG, recommendation to approve an official plan amendment and zoning by
amendment for 8 Scoffield Street. Council has heard an external
presentation this evening from Richard Kelly Roots of GSP Group who provided
supplementary information regarding follow-up discussions with adjacent
property owners to 8 Scull Scoffield Street. You have also heard from the
delegates again tonight regarding this matter. We will now put the motion on
the floor to permit questions and comments and councelor Schwer. Oh, wait
a minute. And I asked council to be brief with comments and questions to
cons en ensure that we can get through all the business on tonight's agenda.
Council Schwer, you have that motion.
» No. Thank you, Mayor Leot. U moved by myself, seconded by councelor Kimson to
the recommendation is to approve the proposed official plan amendment for 8
Scoffield Street to redesate the lands from lowmedium density residential to
highdensity residential and approve the proposed zoning bylaw amendment for 8
Scullfield Street to reszone the property from institutional multiple
residential N1 RM3 to residential R3 with sight specific specific provisions
to permit an eight-story building with 72 residential units and direct the city
clerk to present the draft bylaws attached in appendix D and E to report
26-040-PG
to council for enactment. >> Are there any questions?
Any comments? Okay, we will go straight to the vote.
Opening voting.
» Closing voting that carries unanimously.
» We will be going to the consent agenda, but the two finance reports on that
» I can see. >> Oh, sorry.
» Yep. Sorry, Madame Mayor. Through you. I just wanted to clarify that um we're
pulling two items from the consent agenda listed as 11.6 and 11.7 and they
will be forwarded to a council meeting expected to take place on September
15th, 2026.
Are there any other items you'd wish to have pulled from the consent agenda
tonight? I see none. So, councelor Hamilton, can
you put the consent agenda on the floor?
» Thank you, Mayor Lan through you. It's moved by myself and seconded by
councelor Schwerry. Recommendation that all items listed under the heading of
consent agenda for August 25th, 2026 be adopted as recommended. Item 11.1,
council meeting workshop minutes, February 9th, 2026. 11.2, Planning
Statutory Public Meeting Minutes, July 14th, 2026. 11.3 Council Meeting Minutes
July 21st, 2026. 11.4 Council Information Package, August 7th, 2026.
11.5 Council Information Package, July 24th, 2026.
11.8 26-069-PG Remove development restriction 2011 and
217 Hesler Road holding removal application
11.9 26-071-PG. Enact heritage designation with property
owners consent. 11.1026-024-C
supplementary noise exemption approvals 11.1126-073-PG
20 Oldmill Road Heritage Permit application
11.12 26-075-PG create new lots on Sage Drive part
control exemption application. and item 11.13 special council meeting workshop
minutes August 13 2026. >> Okay, we will call for that vote.
» Opening voting.
» Closing voting
that carries unanimously. >> We will now move into consideration of
reports and this evening we have three reports before us. The first item is
26-072PG, fence variance application F126-
331 Salisbury Avenue. And uh our director of planning, Bren Neily, will
introduce this item. Welcome, Bren.
» Thank you, mayor and counselors. This report considers a fence variance
application as noted for 331 Salisbury Avenue to permit a 2.4 meter high fence
where a maximum height of 2.1 is permitted. Fence various variances are
typically approved under delegated authority. However, applications are
referred to council when objections are received through the circulation
process. The requested increase is intended to improve privacy due to the
property's higher elevation related to adjacent lots. And staff have reviewed
the application and determined that the proposal is appropriate and compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood and approval is recommended.
» Councelor Roberts. Thank you, Mayor Jan, and through you
and thank you, Bren, for your presentation. I have a couple questions,
but I'll I'll just start with the one. So, you mentioned that the elevation was
different. Um, one of the concerns from the neighboring property was that it
didn't seem to be necessary. Could you speak a little bit more to that? Is this
necessary to have this increased height of this fence here
» through you, mayor? Um, it was deemed warranted in that there is quite a
significant elevation change among the property owners um in the surrounding
vicinity.
» Councelor Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor Lean through you.
Thanks very much, Bren, for your presentation. I'm just curious why our
fence height is about 30 cmters lower than Kitcher and Wateroo. Is there an
historical reason why our fences aren't higher? See how the expression good
fences make good neighbors? So, what's to do with the discrepancy?
» Through you, Madame Mayor, the the matter of uh the zoning and height
provisions are a matter of local importance. I don't know the specific
history here in Cambridge. Um, but it's certainly worth something taking a look
at in terms of consistency with our surrounding area municipalities. And I
will note that there will be a phase two of the updated zoning bylaw undertaken
um in the not too distant future and a part of that will include consistency
with other area municipalities. Okay.
» Thank you, >> Councelor Roberts.
» Thanks, Mayor Jan. through you. Um, one of the other concerns was the safety of
the way that the fence has been built. Would you be able to speak to that? Is
it going to be made safe? I guess there's nails poking out or something
that might be unsafe there. >> Through you, Madame Mayor. As part of
the recommendation, staff have included conditions requiring that any exposed
nails be corrected for that safety provision. I'll also note there was
comment regarding damage to private property or utility lines, but staff
have not received any evidence to substantiate those concerns.
» Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Cooper.
» Yes. Thank you, Mayor. If you p see on page 194, you see the discrepancy
between the fences. I'm thinking from a visual perspective here. You've basic,
you know, you've got stepped fencing. If this were approved, um, would the
neighbors that have a shorter fence buted up against it, would they be also
permitted to raise their single fence up to the same height so it isn't stepped
like that should they choose to? >> Through you, Madame Mayor. Um, every
property owner is entitled to apply for a variance of the zoning provisions and
certainly it is common that um, individual property owners have their
distinctive preferred fence style. So inconsistency among surrounding property
owners is fairly common in urban environments such as this.
Okay, I see no more questions. Councelor Roberts, could you put the motion on the
floor, please?
Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by myself, seconded by councelor Kimson.
Recommendation to approve the proposed fence variance for 331 Salisbury Avenue
to permit a fence height of 2.4 meters between the established building line
and rear lot line of the property as shown in appendix A subject to the
condition noted in this report.
» Thank you. Are there any comments or further questions?
Seeing none, we'll put the motion on the floor.
» Sorry, we'll go to the vote. >> Opening voting.
» Closing voting. That carries unanimously.
The next report for consideration tonight is 26-066
PG Hesper Road Corridor Secondary Plan, OPA 102 recommendation.
and our director of planning, Bren Neely, will also introduce this item.
Thank you, mayor. This report presents the Hesper Road Corridor Secondary Plan,
which is a transformative vision for one of Cambridge's most important urban
corridors. Building on extensive public consultation and council's consideration
most recently at the statutory public meeting held May 12th, 2026, the plan
establishes a long-term framework to guide the growth, transit investment,
housing, employment, parks, and public realm improvements. It charts a path for
Hespler Road to evolve into a vibrant mixeduse transit supportive corridor
where people can live, work, shop, and connect, supporting a more complete,
sustainable, and prosperous Cambridge. As the plan largely reflects the
presentation given on May 12th, there's no formal presentation to be presented
by staff today. However, staff are here and happy to answer any questions that
council may have regarding this plan.
Okay. Uh, councelor Divine. >> Yes. Thank you through the chair. Uh, I
wasn't here May 12th. I was I was fishing.
Okay. Uh, well done document. But there's a supplementary document that's
been handed out here that I don't I don't quite understand.
Okay. Okay. It refers to um 112, 122, and 128 Pine Bush Road.
Can you tell me what that's about?
through uh through the mayor. Staff are aware that um a developer within that
vicinity has um reached out and engaged on consideration of a motion to amend
properties along Pine Bush Road there in that location.
» Okay. But Pine Bush Road is not considered part of this plan. Am I
correct in saying that? through the mayor. There is a portion of
Pine Bush Road that covers the um northeastern portion of the secondary
plan area. Yes. >> Okay. But it wouldn't be on these three
addresses. Is that correct? This is an addition
» through the mayor. Those lands are within the secondary plan. My
understanding is that there's a desire to have council consider a different
designation than the one that staff have recommended.
» Okay. I think I'm going to need an explanation on this from someone. Thank
you for that because that's a word too. Thank Thank you.
» Councelor Divine, you want the explanation now? We have the staff here.
That should be the one
» through the mayor. I understand that there may be a motion that council is
considering and um that would be I think instructive to the discussion to provide
that explanation.
» Thank you to you, Madame Mayor. Um, what I might recommend is that we put the
staff recommended motion on the floor [snorts] and then I understand that we
have a potential amendment from councelor Shiry so we could then add
that amendment to the floor and then that would be the appropriate time to
have that discussion.
» Councelor Roberts, >> thank you Mayor Jan um and through you
and thank you Bin and all your staff for all your hard work on this. I know it's
been a long time coming. Um I just have a question about sort of the rigidity or
flexibility of this plan. So is this one of these sort of fluid documents that um
you know we can have a look at current economic climate or changes in um you
know land use needs. So, for example, if there's an area that's being used for
industrial that maybe that changes and we can have a look at that later down
the road depending on the, you know, where we're at because as we know things
change rapidly um when it comes to political stuff. Um is that you know is
that an opportunity that we will have down the road or once we pass this it's
kind of set until I believe it's 201 I believe it goes still something like
that. What how does this document work >> through the mayor? The the secondary
plan is going to be a document of council. Should council approve the
recommended secondary plan today, it continues to be a living document with
council. If council feels there's a need to re-evaluate any aspect of the plan,
staff would welcome a motion from council directing staff to do further
work or reconsider what is proposed. So while this visions envisions a long-term
um um setting for the Hesper road corridor is not locked in stone. It is
open to amendment over time as council sees fit.
» Perfect. Thank you.
Councelor Shwary. Uh thank you, Mayor. And actually, uh councelor
uh Roberts just asked my question, uh that I wanted it to be public so people
know that things can change. It's it's not set in stone. And um you know, we
can change the drive-thrus uh specific use designations
and maybe density changes uh to be able to listen to the market demand.
» Councelor Hamilton. >> Thank you, Mayor through you and thanks
again, Bren, for your presentation. Um I know in part of the the aspiration for
transportation down HPA road um stage 2 ion light rail transit LRT is part of
the plan and it forms a substantial component of transportation and I know
that's out of the city's hands. Uh it's regional and they're moving on to the
the business case. What happens if that doesn't occur? How flexible is the
planning for transportation and the plan if LRT doesn't end up going down HP road
» through the mayor um accepting that there's some uncertainty built around
the ION I think it's critical that the city recognizes that regardless of the
future or the timing of the ion HP road corridor is a major public
transportation route and we really want to make sure that we're creating a
development pattern that sure potentially um will
support higher order transit down the road, but also today the development
patterns that are supportive of Grand River Transit, supporting their
ridership, helping them build justification to further make
improvements of that important bus route that currently is traveling up and down
Hespler Road Corridor. >> And one quick followup may thank you. So
would I be correct in saying that the LRT would help to facilitate the goals
of the plan in bringing those people the greater density to that central corridor
» through the mayor the the ion and transit oriented development focused on
that certainly kind of puts um a higher level of interest in investment as a
result of that infrastructure coming in. Regardless, we know that investment in
transit oriented development is great for existing transit systems as they are
in place today and becomes that sort of mutually beneficial system of improving
ridership and in doing so improving service that's offered in doing so
supporting a greater intensity of housing. It's all sort of
self-fulfilling. >> Thank you. There are a lot of pieces to
the puzzle. Just trying to see how they fit. Thank you. [snorts]
» Councelor Shwer, can you put the revised staff motion on the floor, please?
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Leget. Um moved by myself, seconded by councelor
Ernshaw, uh to approve the official plan amendment 102 for the Hesler Road
Corridor Secondary Plan attached to report 26-066-PG
as appendix A and B with the following modifications to policy 21.54.1.5
uh and five demonstrations may be required. ired when major developments
such as commercial path sites exceeding 1,860
square meters or mixeduse buildings including residential or freestanding
residential development is proposed. Demonstration plans are not required for
renovations, expansion, replacement or reconfiguration of existing buildings on
site, including the mall building. Demonstration plans may be prepared for
sub areas of the site and will generally display the following where applicable.
A locations, uses and mass massing of buildings and development blocks. B
location size and configuration of public spaces, parkland and open spaces.
C. Location and layout of public and or private streets. D. build form
transition to adjacent development and or e location and layout of parking
areas and I have an amendment.
» Is this when I say it or >> Yes, if you could put the amendment on
the floor and then we'll do the questions and comments and uh st if
council can keep their that to the uh amendment please.
Do I need a speaker? >> Okay. So, my amendment is that the um
official plan amendment 102 and the Hespler Road Corridor secondary plan
contain contained in appendix B to report 26-066-PG
be modified prior to adoption as follows. that schedule B land use plan
be amended to redesate the lands municipally known as 112
and 128 Pine Bush Road together with block 7 to midrise residential
consistent with the proposed midrise residential designation of adjacent
block 8 and that a sightsp specific policy be added to section 21
uh 5.1 154
sight specific policies for 1122 and 128 Pine Bush Road block 7 and block
8 to provide that notwithstanding table 21-1 and section 21
5.6.3 6.3. Residential development on these lands shall be subject to a
minimum density of 40 units per hectare rather than 60 units per hectare. And
that the final density, height, and build form of development on these lands
be determined through the applicable development approval process having
regard to sight specific conditions, compatibility, servicing,
transportation, infrastructure, urban design, public realm, and other
applicable requirements. and that schedule B and any other applicable
schedules, figures, tables, and policies be modified accordingly.
Do you have a secondary councelor Meta?
Are there
uh Bren, do you want to speak to this before we go to questions?
uh through the mayor through you mayor. The uh motion that's on the floor now
relates to a series of properties with mixed ownership. We know that some of
the parcels are presently owned by the same developer who has already developed
the residential properties immediately to the north of the properties that
councelor Shweri has referred to. We also know that within those blocks there
are two parcels that are currently owned by other private land owners and those
properties are being operated as um um commercial other private operations that
are not residentialbased. And so, uh, just to be aware that the
motion that councelor Shere has put on the floor will affect the land use
opportunities both of the residential developer who owns those lands as well
as those other um, commercial property owner operators.
» Councelor Divine. >> Yes. Thank you through the chair. these
three properties in question.
Can we withdraw these from the motion till we actually figure out what they
are? Okay. All they are to me all they are is
addresses in ward two. Okay. Um I don't know if one of these is the car club or
what it is. Um, if somebody could give me some clarity on what 112, 122, and
128 are, but I don't. All they are is numbers
through the mayor. The properties that are owned by other private owners who
are not the residential development um, owner of the surrounding properties,
those are 122 and 128 Pine Bush. So, just to restate that 122 and 128 Pine
Bush are properties owned not by residential development.
» They're business. >> So, councelor Divine, you're still
wanting to know what those >> Yes, I'd like to know there.
» So, is there anybody in the room who can tell us what those properties are,
please? >> Through you, Mayor. Uh Melissa Castellan
Alden can answer that question. >> Thank you.
» Good evening. through you, Madame Mayor. The um letter from Brandt Haven Homes um
their consultant, Selinka Priamo, is included in the council package and has
a um map showing the subject lands. 128 um
Pine Bush is the car club. >> Okay. [clears throat]
» And 122 is immediately to the west. >> I would suggest we take these out until
we get some clarification on it. That's what I would suggest.
» Um, so to be clear, councelor Divine, are you proposing an amendment to the
amendment? >> Yes.
» Okay. >> Second,
» we can always put this in later. >> Do you have a seconder?
» Council specificity for how he speaks.
» We're going to have to get the wording on your amendment. Councelor Divine. Are
you prepared to do that now or? >> Sure. Okay. Do you want to take two
minutes? >> Two minutes and we'll Yeah. Thank you.
I don't have the wording yet. >> Oh, you don't have the wording yet?
Okay. Forget I just did that.
Okay. So, that was all very confusing, but we have come up with a solution and
the clerk, deputy clerk will explain what's going to happen.
» Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you. Uh so after conferring with staff and
councelor Divine um he's not going to introduce a secondary amendment to
councelor Shuy's amendment. He's just going to speak now um to [snorts] his
opinion on the amendment which will accomplish what he was trying to
accomplish.
» Councelor Schwear, you want to speak to your amendment? Not councelor Divine's
amendment but your own because the councelor Divine has
withdrawn his amendment. Yes. I just want to explain my
amendment. >> Okay. Could we go to qu the rest of the
questions first? >> Oh, of course. Councelor uh councelor
Ameda, you have a question to do with the
» Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Jan. I don't. I just want to quickly say I have
an amendment, but it's an entirely new amendment. I'm just letting you know.
» Okay. This is the problem when when counselors bring amendments at the last
minute or the last day. All of this could have been avoided if this had been
done days ago. This is why staff is constantly saying, "Please come to us
when you have amendments." So, now we've got a big shimazle on the
floor. Councelor Divine.
» Thank you. Is the mic on? >> Mhm.
» Okay. What I'm asking for is
of councel to turn down this amendment. That's what
I'm asking to turn down the amendment. This is in word two. All right. And
after a proper investigation, okay, and I I will check into it. If I
have to bring this back in this form, I will do that. I will do
that. Ask I'm asking council
to turn this down because it's not appropriate at this time. This word too
um a couple couple of these buildings I know. So I'm asking council to turn it
down. Thank you. >> Councelor Hamilton speaking to the
amendment. >> Uh yes, mayor. They get through. I have
a question about the amendment. It might be an answer from staff, but what
exactly would be the difference between density of 40 units per hectare and 60
units per hectare that the amendment is asking for? And would that conflict
significantly with the plan? >> Through the mayor to councelor Hamilton,
the um proposed densities in the secondary plan, our recommended density
of 60 helps us to achieve um the required density requirements for a
major transit station area. They're also representative of the stacked townhouse.
The houses form that are on the residential portion of the that property
currently. So, it's really just an extension of the existing development.
If you go down to 40 um units per hectare, you're at a low density um
development form in a twostory um townhouse. Um, and what the motion is
asking for is to allow for twostory town houses to front onto Pine Bush.
» Okay. Thank you. >> I have a question. I have a question.
[clears throat] So, why does it not say a maximum of 40?
Why does it say a minimum? Because a minimum would still allow for 60.
» The plan is for a minimum density of of 60. So we want to see that um achieved.
» So there's no maximum. >> There's no maximum.
» Thank you. Councelor Schwear, you wanted to speak
to your amendment.
Thank you, Mayor. Um and this particular um development is ready to go. But they
don't build 60 units, they do 40 units. And for them to continue and and be
ready to build, they would need that change. And that just also speaks to to
the market. Um a lot of developers are now trying to develop that supports the
market today. And that to me is important. And in regards to this whole
lot like 2 122 and 28, those are little lots and the developer has spoken to the
other owners and they feel that they're supported because you can't build um the
two lots separately are too small to be developed. So it only makes sense to put
them together because they are planning to buy to buy it all. So that was the
purpose of this motion is to because they're ready to go and if we don't it's
going to delay development even more and we're all about trying to build more
houses and if we say no then this will delay this development.
» So councelor Schwary if the other property owners were not in opposition
to this motion or amendment why are they not here? Why have we not heard from
them saying they want to be part of this development? Because we we only have you
saying that that the other developer has spoken to you and they've said that
they have spoken to the other people, the other property owners saying they
are in agreement, but we have no proof. >> So I I understand what you're saying. If
I can respond to you, these other properties cannot be developed. Um like
if we just approve the 112, the other two are too small even for development.
So if we want to develop, they they would need that whole area. So that was
the purpose of my amendment.
» Okay. So I go back. So we don't have any proof that any of those conversations
have happened. That's just my concern. We're going by what Brand Haven is
saying that they've had the conversations and they intend on buying
those properties from the other property owners and we're supposed to base our
decisions on that conversation. Councelor Meta.
» Well, um, thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And for me, it's kind of a struggle
and I'll explain why. I see what we're trying to achieve with the high density,
but also I personally want a mix of housing and I hear from residents
there's not enough of the kind of housing that they want. So I'm wondering
if this might be an opportunity for some family size housing because on Husper
Road itself, I don't think we're going to get it. So that's just my two cents.
» Cassery. >> Um thank you, Mayor. I just want to make
another comment which um I have talked to staff with. This is my concern with
this Hler corridor secondary plan. It's too prescriptive and it doesn't support
I think market demand and putting in specific rules in place will detract
some developers and businesses. So we have to be um we have I I feel that we
have to allow um to be more uh flexible in in the in the densities and with the
stuff right now it's too prescriptive it's not flexible and I know the the
plan is saying that we can pass amendments in the future but I feel this
still should still it still might detract people and I feel I still feel
that we should make the uh densities more um more flexible than they are now.
» So, I have a question of staff here. I'm not opposed to to what you're talking
about um councelor Sher. I I actually think it's pretty good thought process.
Um but I want I have a question from staff. So if we pass it, if we vote down
the amendment and pass the secondary plan without that,
we can bring back that parcel of land and those amend that the amendments that
councelor Shery is talking about bring that forward at next coun like
next term which will still be just as quick
» to you madame mayor. um the appropriate avenue would be through a sightsp
specific development application from the land owner and they would require a
zoning amendment regardless. So um that would be the appropriate process. It it
seems like they're trying to do a sight specific development through a secondary
plan. >> Okay. So the right process in my mind
Okay. Thank you. It would be to vote down the amendment and have them go
through the process that would assure that this is all done properly. That's
just my my my um thinking on this. Council, did you want to speak again?
» Yeah, ju just one last comment. If we do that um if we don't uh reduce the the
the minimum this this development is ready to go like tomorrow, they're
ready. And if we do and we wait till our next council, that's a huge delay for
for planning. And then we talk about it's going to add more costs and um so
I'm just saying we need to be more flexible with the density.
» Well, I'm wondering if this would be able to come back on the 15th
potentially. Could you speak to this? >> Yeah, that would be great.
» Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh for council's awareness, the secondary plan
will bring into effect a policy regime. So that will alleviate potentially
should should the motion be passed by council that will alleviate the need for
the applicant to undertake an official plan amendment. However, there is still
the underlying zoning in place. So regardless, there is still a planning
act application process where these um respective parcels of land will steing
bylaw amendment process in order to establish the zoning in order to proceed
with the next phase of development. >> Councelor Roberts.
» Thank you, Mayor Jan and through I'm sorry. I think I'm just confused. Um cuz
if the if the development is ready to go, like shovels in the ground, but they
don't own the other two properties. I'm just confused how that's possible. Like
I'm happy to support if there's a development that's like, "Yeah, let's
build tomorrow." But how are they ready to go if they don't own the properties?
Do they need those other little pieces in order to build this out or can we
just approve the reduced density on the piece they do own if it is like they're
going to build tomorrow and leave those other two alone? I'm just a little
confused. through you. Madame Mayor, it is
possible for development to proceed under multiple land ownership. In that
case, the application just needs to include support of documentation that
all land owners are um in agreement with the applications.
» Councelor Divine, >> we're beating this up pretty good. Um
can you just read the motion back so I we all understand where we're at?
Kria amendment >> the amendment can read it back.
» Uh so we'll display it for you as well. >> Thank you.
» Um so the amendment on the floor is that official plan amendment number 102 and
the Hesville Road corridor secondary plan contained in appendix B to report
26-066-PG be modified prior to adoption as
follows. uh that schedule B land use plan be amended to redesate the lands
municipally known as 112, 122, and 128 Pine Bush Road together with block 7 to
mid-rise residential consistent with the proposed mid-rise residential
designation of adjacent block 8. and that a sight specific policy be added to
section 21.5.14 sight specific policies for 1122 and 128
Pine Bush Road block 7 and block 8 to provide that notwithstanding table 21-1
and section 21-5.6.3 6.3 residential development on these lands shall be
subject to a minimum density of 40 units per hectare rather than 60 units per
hectare and that the final density height and built form of development on
these lands be determined through the applicable development approval process
having regard to sight specific conditions compatibility servicing
transportation infrastructure urban design public realm and other applicable
requirements and that schedule B and any other applicable schedule figures tables
and policies be modified accordingly >> thank you and I'm asking and I'm asking
council to turn that down so we get clarification on it down the road and I
think that's very important. Thank you >> councelor Cooper.
» Yes, thank you. Yeah, we really are beating this one up here. Um what's I
think what councelor Sh is trying to do here. I mean there may be some uh
validity to this and what what's trying to be done here and if we you know we're
trying to believe that there's someone here literally with the hard hat on and
boots ready to go. Um I I do have a little bit of an issue with the fact
that if this is so they're so eager, so ready to go, then there's nobody here.
Um so I'd be more than happy if we could if we're able to bring this up soon,
very soon. And hopefully have some people standing here that could back
this up. If you can, if there's people involved in this that can back this up,
then then let's go. But right now, we're kind of everything's being thrown at us
without any kind of hard evidence for us to be able to back this up and say,
"Let's do this." But if we can back it up, hey, let's go. But let's uh let's
bring this back soon. >> But not today. But not today.
This is really problematic because this is already, as the city manager is
saying to me, it's already gone through extensive public engagement
and we've got amendments on the floor last minute that we are all struggling
with. First off, we don't even understand it now that we're starting to
understand it. We're still struggling with that decision-making process.
to Hardy to make a couple comments. >> Hardy, can you make a couple of comments
on this, please?
» Thank you, Mayor Leot through through you to the rest of council. I think it's
it's um well known that Hesper Road is really a canvas ripe for redevelopment.
When you go down Hesper Road, it's a large, very wide almost highway and all
you see is parking lots and you see very um
cars. You see a field of parking lots and you see many one and twostory
buildings set very far back. Oftentimes it's referred to as one of
the worst planned road networks in southwestern Ontario.
What we have done here tonight and presented to council, as Mayor Liot
indicated, has been years of public engagement. It's been feedback from this
council and the previous council. It's been feedback from thousands of our
residents around what can Hester Road look like over the next 10 years, 20,
30, and up to 50 years. And what we've presented here tonight is
a is really a community that's based on some public spaces,
some dense buildings, some tall buildings up to 25 stories. We have
concerns when we we hear about 25-story buildings going in neighborhoods. Esper
Road is prime and ripe to welcome this kind of development and this kind of
investment into our community. We're talking about policies and we're asking
council to help us shape the policies of how this community is going to grow over
the decades to come. It's a very important decision, but it's one that we
I think are very prepared for. We provided information to council. We've
been providing information for council over the last number of years. We came
this spring and presented the draft proposal. We've done additional
modifications based on a few additional comments and we're very pleased with the
direction and vision that council has told us to go forth and set policies for
the growth of our community.
If there is a property that you feel might not quite meet that vision, there
are different mechanisms to address. But what council is asking you to do
tonight is to approve the vision for this community so that investors,
builders, property owners know how we're going to
grow and where we're going to grow. Thank you,
» Councelor Schwar. >> Thank you, Mayor Leot. Um just one
question but before I do uh these developers were
they told me that they were told by staff that you know we could do an
amendment to this to our to this plan which is why I brought it. Um I wouldn't
have known otherwise. So they were directed and that's what what I did. But
my question is can you were talking about a September 13 meeting. Are we
able to pause this till then so I can get you better information to to support
this? And then and and like had uh Bin had said um Miss Neely um Miss Neie that
even um that this is a fluid document and you
know amendments or changes are welcome um from how I'm understanding this. So,
I'm just wondering, can we wait on until September 13 and and bring it back?
Because if we wait too long, um this will affect this development.
» So, it's September 15th. We have a planning and development meeting and
we're considering well, we have to bring something else back to council anyway,
but we're we can't guarantee that that could be done by the September 15th. I
personally am not willing to stop the Hebler secondary plan from going
forward. We need to vote on that. Get that done currently. Hardy, did you want
to speak on councelor Schwar's question, please?
» Thank you. Staff are looking for a decision from council this evening. The
work that we've done on our secondary plan for Hesler Road currently is funded
through our half. half is the um housing accelerator fund money sponsored from
the federal government. If we don't have a decision by council this evening, we
may be in jeopardy of losing that funding for this project which would
then be borne by our taxpayers. So, I just wanted to ensure that council was
was aware of that. Thank you. >> And you had said that there is another
way of this being brought forward. I think it was you or or Miss Neely that
there's another way of bringing this forward for this piece of property the
future. Okay.
» Mayor through you madame mayor. There are really
two options. Should council not make this um revision today. The there are
two options that this specific site could move forward. The normal course of
action is that the developer would make an application for an official plan
amendment. I remind council that they are going to need to make an application
for a zoning bylaw amendment regardless. So, um those planning applications could
come forward through the development application process. Alternatively, um
should council desire, it's council's, um authority to direct staff to go back
and have a look at this parcel, and that would not be a development application.
That would be a city initiated amendment to the policy.
» Councelor Kimson.
» So, this is just speaking to the amendment.
» Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Sorry, I tried to turn on my mic and turn it off.
Anyhow, um thank you. Um I guess I'm just following along what you had
mentioned and what councelor Cooper had mentioned about whether or not there was
the opportunity to revisit this on September the 15th, recognizing we do
realize it's in the report right here that we need to have this approved by
October 31st. And obviously we're running out of time. So, I'm not sure if
that if that's something that I'm unclear as to whether or not we we
can potentially do that or if we can't do that.
» So, I believe that's just for the Hespler Road secondary plan that we need
to get that part done. Correct. Yes. It's just for that, not for the
amendment.
» May I follow up? >> Mr. Bronberg will follow your followup.
Go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. Thank you. Um, can we have
just a quick recess for something?
» How about we have Mr. Brownberg respond to your original to see if I'm correct
in what I just said. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Thank you. So it's really important to note that the secondary plan will also
form the basis of our official plan work which is currently scheduled to start at
the end of this year. That work um will also look at policies and asking council
to adopt pal policies for how the entire city of Cambridge will grow. There is an
opportunity there to revisit some of the um or this specific property through
that process. In the meantime, if that doesn't work for a particular property
owner, they still have, as Miss Neie indicated, they still have the mechanism
to go through a a sightspecific revision, a sightspecific what we call
an official plan amendment or um in this case that would also be required to
still go through the zoning bylaw amendment. Remember, a secondary plan
and an official plan are only the policies of how council envisions this
community to grow. The zoning bylaw is what actually provides the rules. And so
the rules don't align currently if council approves this official plan and
the policies with the policies. So, what Miss Neie was trying to explain is even
if council were to approve this policy tonight for a specific property, they
still have to go through a planning process.
Thank you. >> Okay, we're going to go straight to the
vote on the amendment rather than take a recess here. We've been going on for way
too long and [clears throat] it becomes non-transparent to the public. I have
I'm I'm very concerned that the public is wondering what we're doing when we
take these recesses and I don't think it's fair. So, um the amendment is on
the floor and we will do that vote. >> Opening voting.
» Closing voting that is defeated by uh 7 to2 vote.
And now the original main motion is back on the floor, madam.
» Okay. So, the original motion is on the floor now. We will go to that vote.
» The original motion. >> Yes.
» Oh, you had an amendment to the original motion?
» Okay. Go ahead.
» Okay. So, I do have an amendment that is moved by myself.
» Can I ask you a question first? Has staff seen this at all?
» They have. Yes. I've emailed it and it's right here. Um, I've moved it's moved by
myself, seconded by councelor Schwary. Whereas Northview Heights Lookout Park
provides a valued public vantage point and visual connection to the surrounding
landscape and city skyline and future high-rise and midrise developments
within the Hesper Road and Canamera Parkway major transit station area MTSA
have the potential to impact sight lines and public view corridors from this
public vantage point. Now therefore, be it resolved that the draft Hasper Road
corridor secondary plan be amended by adding the following provision. one
sight line and view protection from Northview Heights Lookout Park that all
future development applications including zoning bylaw amendments and
site plan approvals located within the Hesper Road and Canamera Parkway major
transit station area MTSA be strongly encouraged to include a visual impact in
sight line assessment evaluating the proposed building height massing and
placement relative to established public vehicle corridors from Northview Heights
Lookout Park and that the development design be strongly encouraged to
incorporate consideration of these public views utilizing architectural
stepping strategic tower orientation and appropriate setbacks to preserve visual
permeability and maintain the scenic integrity of the lookout experience
where feasible. And I would like to speak to this.
Can I ask staff to put that back up on the floor and go back to the beginning
part of it, please? So I can absorb that again.
[snorts]
Okay. Normally we go to questions. Uh, so I'm going to go to questions that
counselors may have for staff at this point or of counselor and then we will
go to comments and I'm going to ask staff to comment on this and and uh the
impact that this may have. Any questions?
I see none. So go ahead councelor Amanda with your comment.
The reason I'm bringing this forward and I do realize there were a lot of
opportunities throughout the process to have this discussion and I have already
mentioned this as part of my feedback to date. Um the reason I'm bringing this
forward is to get this early in the process. I believe that the secondary
plan kind of sets the blueprint for the future and I know we're going to be
looking at the official plan and the zoning bylaw. I totally get all that,
but I I want to start on this right away because this is a very important view in
our city. Not just to the North View Heights neighborhood, but to the
province of Ontario. I see people visit that lookout from the GTA who are amazed
at the view. You know, how buildings are not blocking the view like they are in
Missaga. I'm amazed. I've uh you know even met people from places like
Northern Ontario who say that it kind of reminds them of that with the rolling
hills around the city. You know the beautiful landscape that we have. People
from Lake Huron who say the sunsets are very competitive because of how far you
can see across the city. So it really is a beautiful space and I want to protect
it and um I'm not asking to stop development. I'm not, you know, I'm
development is coming to the Hesper road. It makes a lot more sense on
Hesper Road than in our heritage core areas, for example, like, you know, like
towers and so forth. However, it needs to be done right because there are still
things in this area of the city that we do want to preserve and the view from
that lookout is one of them. And I realize the challenges with the MTSA. I
understand the limitations of what we can do. However, I do believe if we have
the right policies in place, we can position the buildings in such a way to
preserve those views. And I want to have that discussion now before we have an
application before us and then we're scrambling how to preserve those views.
So, this is just being proactive and I want to just get this out for council's
consideration and um I'll leave my comments at that. Thank you. So, if I
could ask you a question on your amendment, you're just saying to be
encouraged. You're not trying to restrict anything here because I notice
your wording is very soft and saying encouraging.
» Thank you, Mayor Dan. That is a great question. My what I would really prefer
to put in is shall, but I do understand the legal implications of that, right?
especially with the limitations of the MTSA and how council has very little say
over that kind of density. So I wanted to make the motion as strongly as
possible while you know being legally compliant. I'll strongly encourage. I
think gets the point across and in the future if we can tighten it up, we can
see what we can do. But I wanted to get this out in the open so that we can be
proactive right away and and have something in place as you know we change
the zoning in the future and the official plan and all that.
» Okay. Councelor, your comments. >> Actually, I had a question. I wonder if
there's a seconder for the motion. I didn't hear that.
Councelor Schwar. >> Okay, councelor Kimson, you have
comments. >> Um, is it too late for me to ask a
question? >> Thank you very Thank you very much,
Mayor Jan. Just wondering if staff could comment on what sort of precedent
something like this might set for um other areas because I I think of you we
we talk about we we have so many incredible views and vistas throughout
Cambridge and I'm wondering if that's something that could really prohibit
some of the work that we've been trying to do.
» That's why I said staff will comment after every counselors have have done
their comments and will I wanted to see if there is any any blow back from any
of this. >> Thank you.
» So, councelor Hamilton, you have a comment
» or a question?
» Okay. So, Bin or um sorry, who's going to get up and comment
on the impact of potential impact of this amendment? and also to if you could
u respond to councelor Kempson's question.
» Certainly through you madame mayor. Maybe I'll start big picture first. Um
certainly uh it's not uncommon for municipalities to undertake viewshed
studies and to identify very special views that they wish to protect for the
long term. And in the process of doing that, a view shed study would undertake
work such as establishing the boundaries. How what is the specific
point from which we're taking this view? What are the specific things we're
trying to see through this view? What's the window that we're looking through
like that angle? How high or low and how far does it go into the distance? All of
those things on a case-byase basis would be established through a viewshed. So, I
wouldn't say it would have sort of an all-encompassing impact. It would be um
the responsibility of council through community consultation to identify those
very special areas that warrant that level of analysis in in order to then
implement the protective measures to preserve those views.
In terms of the specific motion, our suggestion would be not that it be
identified at this point because we're not able in this moment to identify
those factors, the very specific point we're viewing from the very specific
points we're trying to see. instead to undertake that work through the capital
project that will be going on um commencing soon and going through 2026
of the official plan work where we can undertake that analysis and then
subsequent to that we would implement those mechanisms through the zoning
bylaw um phase 2 comprehensive review. So
based on what you've said, um, is there any danger in not
voting for this tonight? I know you're saying for future, but what would be the
danger? You've given us a different side of this
» through you, mayor. Back to the previous discussion. This is
a policy document. So any major development that will in fact come
forward to implement this policy should council approve the secondary plan is
not going to have an immediate effect. We're not going to see cranes popping up
all over Hespler. There are planning applications that will be necessary to
amend the zoning bylaw as uh general manager Bronberg said. Uh so nothing is
going to catastrophically impact the important viewshed in the immediate
short-term future. That's why my recommendation would be
that council take the time to do the study through the official plan work.
So how rather than losing this thought here,
what would you suggest that councelor Matt is waiting to speak now, but what
would you suggest be done so that we can accommodate this
in future so it doesn't get lost through you madame mayor? My
recommendation would be to separate this out from the secondary plan decision
that you're making and to um return it immediately following perhaps to your
discretion as a staff direction to undertake a fuse shed study relative to
this point through the official plan work.
» Councelor Medic, did you want to speak? And is that
» Thank you, Mayor Dan. I did have a couple of questions which I'll just ask
all at one and thank you very much Bren this has been very informative. Um my
question is in terms of a timeline like um like how long will a lot of that work
take? And my other question with all due respect is if an application is filed,
you know, like this week or next week, what kind of mechanisms are there to
have this be part of that process? And I'm asking that question for the
residents, right? Because they're already aware of Ridgeo Forward, how
we're moving ahead with that, right? And um you know if we see the corner
developed at some point it still might be a long way off but if something if an
application comes sooner than later what kind of mechanisms are there in place
because I don't want this thought to be lost right
» through you madame mayor I certainly appreciate that concern what I will say
is the language as it's been presented itself presents a concept but not an
instruction. So it doesn't give us sufficient teeth to enforce anything
anyways even if we are to implement it as a modification to the official plan.
In order to secure that viewshed that detailed work needs to have occurred. So
between now and that detailed work occurring there there is that
incremental risk. Again though, I'll say I'm not expecting
the entire corridor to be covered in cranes uh the moment this policy becomes
implemented. And so I think perhaps there's a risk that one or maybe two
tall buildings get put in place, but not that the entire important viewshed be
compromised.
So, councelor meter, are you all right if we take all of this and make this as
a staff direction tonight to go forward and then we can pass the Hler road thing
tonight? >> Thank you, Mayor Daniel. I am generally
supportive of the Hesper Road secondary plan and I do want it to continue.
However, I want some kind of a public record in place that the developers
understand as well that if somebody tries to develop that corner, they know
the intention. So, I don't know if we could maybe refer this part of it and
wait till a certain date in the future or whatever we have to do, but um I
think developers need to know that this is an important view of the community. I
don't want to be scrambling afterwards because I've seen that happen quite a
few times like over the years. Right. But that's what I'm saying. If we can
direct staff tonight >> um
» to take this away and work on that and then we can go forward with the
secondary plan tonight >> because that's how it could be done.
Accommodate what you're asking for >> because you may lose this. I'm just
saying you may lose this tonight. >> Well, I I'm willing to vote for it and I
can always bring it back. So maybe I'll leave it on the table if it gets voted
down then it can come back again at a future. Sagada Parkway didn't pass
overnight. So, um, we'll see. >> Okay. Councelor Hamilton.
» Thank you, Mayor Le. May I just make a comment on the amendment? Quick comment.
» Yes, you can. And then I'm calling for the vote.
» Sure. Um, I want to thank councelor Meta for bringing it forward, but ultimately
I can't accept it. I think what we're hearing from staff is that the Hesplur
Road um plan is quite thorough. it's quite detailed and if we start choosing
our own unique elements or perspectives to carve out of that general framework
um we risk shattering the underlying unity of what seems to be a very
thorough and detailed plan. uh otherwise it's death by a thousand paper cuts. And
so I appreciate your sentiment, but it seems like staff already have what
councelor Hermeta wants in this motion covered that it would come to council.
And so rather than breaking it up into every single one of our unique
viewpoints and perspectives, I think the general standpoint that we start of
start with as a city and move forward with I think it's quite strong as it is.
So I can't support the amendment. Thanks. [clears throat]
» Thank you. Um, I'm I am going to call the vote, but I am concerned about all
of these amendments coming forward and how disruptive this is to the secondary
plan. Um, this is very easily done with the direction to council. Um, we need to
get on with the secondary plan. There's there's a lot of work that still has to
be done. there's people who own properties who are waiting for us to
make this decision and going forward we're losing um every day we're losing
the time to build more housing in it. So I'm calling a vote now on the amendment.
» Opening voting on the amendment.
Closing voting that's defeated by a vote of 6 to three.
The original main motion, Madame Mayor, is now on the floor and it um is
unaltered from its original form. >> Okay, we will call for that vote now.
Opening voting.
Closing voting.
That carries by a vote of 8 to one.
We're going to take a a recess for people to have a bi bio break
about 10 That's
They're ready.
The final report for consideration before we move on to other business is
26-01 IFS Bernett Avenue sanitary sewer and
manhole reconfiguration. uh Yoga Shaw the general manager of
infrastructure services will introduce this report to us.
» Um this project and the report in front of you today is uh seeking additional
funding amount um of 35,15 as outlined within this report from the
wastewater capital reserve fund. The primary driver for this project is due
to ongoing sewer backups into residents home which requires weekly sewer
monitoring by the operations team. The project will redirect wastewater flows
to prevent wastewater backups within the system and eliminate ongoing operational
maintenance and mitigate risk.
» Okay. Does council have any questions be of Mr. Y Mr. Shaw before the motion goes
on the floor. Okay. So, councelor Meta, you have the
motion.
» Mayor Jen, will may the clerk read the motion? Thank you.
» So, the motion is moved by councelor Hermeta and seconded by councelor
Ernshaw. Um the recommendation is to award the work under A/01748-40
Bernett Avenue sanitary sewer and manhole reconfiguration contract to SUSA
concrete in the amount of uh $150,000 300 $150,322.50
and 50 cents plus HST and approve additional project funding for capital
project A/01748-40
Bett Avenue sanitary sewer and manhole reconfiguration project in the amount of
$35,15 as outlined within this report from the
Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund. >> Now that it's on the floor, does council
have any questions, any comments?
Okay, we'll put that motion uh to the vote.
Opening voting.
Closing voting. That carries by vote of nine to zero.
» We will now proceed to other business. Does any member have any items to bring
forward? Councelor Roberts.
There we go. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Um, and through you. Yeah. I just want to
mention the fact that the Willard Park um playground reconstruction is done and
it's a fantastic new playground space in uh Ward 5. Um, and it's just so
beautiful. I've spent a lot of time there in the last few weeks and it's
full of kids, full of energy. I've heard from so many residents reaching out that
they're just so happy and the inclusive nature of it means that kids of all
abilities um and moms too can get on, dads can get on and off um and play with
their children and um yeah, it's just a really welcome improvement to Willard
Park. So, I want to thank staff for their really hard work on it. It's uh
it's a fantastic space. So, I welcome everyone to come over to Ward 5 and
check out the Willard Park playground. Thank you.
» Thanks for that. That's a great update to a capital project. Thanks for that
information. Somebody else just took Councelor Meta, did you have another
business as well? >> Thank you, Mayor Jen. Yes, I do.
Construction is complete at the Lion's Caname Park on the new forest themed
spray pad featuring accessible waterplay pathways, shade, seating, and hillside.
There are also some specifically sorry specific furniture places sorry pieces
arriving over the next two months but we are excited to have this brand new spray
pad open for the public to enjoy and I just want to commend staff thank them
for their hard work. I often wonder how we um you know have such fantastic fac
sorry such fantastic facilities for the amount of money that we spend on them. I
think they do a phenomenal job and you know quite often I often think how are
we going to keep the neighborhood happy but I've had a lot of great feedback
with what happened there and I want staff to be aware of that.
» Thank you both of you. Um so this evening we will be considering five
motions. Four of which had notice provided at the July 21st council
meeting. And we have one motion tonight from councelor Shwer and three from
councelor Meta. And there will be a final motion presented for myself which
will require that we first pass the motion to suspend the rules. So as a
reminder again [clears throat] I ask council to be brief with comments and
questions to ensure that we can get through all of the business on tonight's
agenda. Council Schwear, you have the first motion regarding reducing costs
and delays in development approvals to support housing affordability. Can you
please read your motion?
» Thank you, U. Mayor Leot. And if I could share the reading with Councelor
Kempson. It's a pretty long motion.
Thank you. uh moved by myself, seconded by
councelor Kimson. Whereas residents are facing financial pressure as the cost of
living continues to rise, including housing, food, utilities, fuel, and
other essential expenses. And whereas municipal budgets must prioritize
efficiency, accountability, and the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. And
whereas development applications require extensive technical studies and reports
prepared, certified and stamped by qualified licensed professionals who are
subject to professional standards, ethical obligations, liability
requirements, and regulatory oversight. And whereas delay delays multiple review
cycles, additional studies, consultant reviews, and prolonged approval
timelines can increase development costs that may ultimately be reflected
[clears throat] in housing prices and affordability
challenges. And whereas council has a responsibility
to ensure development approval processes are transparent, efficient, accountable,
and evidence-based while maintaining appropriate safeguards for public
safety, public health safety, environmental protection, and compliance
with applicable legislation. And whereas objective performance measures and
benchmarking are necessary to identify opportunities for continuous improvement
in the development approvals process. Therefore, be it resolved um that staff
direct the council direct staff to expand quarterly current quarterly
report on development activity to include development approval performance
metrics including development approval timelines. The average review and
approval timelines for the official plan amendments, zoning bylaw amendments, job
plans of subdivision site plan applications and consent applications.
the res views cycles and completeness and report on the frequency and nature
of requests for additional information after applications have been deemed
complete. The average number of resubmissions required per application
and the principal causes of delays identifying delays attributable to
applicants, municipal departments, external agency agencies, council
decision on other factors where reasonably available and be of further
resolve that staff prepare a report in Q4 on of 2026 on continuous improvement
initiatives outlining Complete continuous
improvement initiatives undertaken to improve the planning application
process. Measurable outcomes achieved to date.
Current initiatives underway and future initiatives to improve efficiency,
transparency, and delivery costs. Operating costs outlining the total
annual cost of development review functions including internal staffing,
external consulting services, peer reviews, legal review costs and
recoveries obtained through development application fees. the extent and cost of
additional studies, peer reviews, and independent consultant reviews
commissioned by the city. An estimated financial impacts
associated with extended approval times, including the effect of carrying costs
and financial costs on residential development properties where such
estimates can be reasonably made.
And be it further resolved that staff prepare a capital project as part of the
draft 2027 budget to complete a service review of the planning process that
would include a review of the previous five years outlining the number of city
commissioned peer reviews. The total cost of such peer reviews, the subject
matter of each peer review, whether each peer review resulted in a material
change to the proposed development. Material change shall mean a
modification to a proposed development, engineering design, environmental
mitigation measure, infrastructure requirement, or planning rationale
resulting directly from peerreview findings and the rationale for requiring
additional studies, peer reviews or independent consultant reports.
opportunities to further enhance efficiency while maintaining appropriate
safeguards for public health safety, environmental protection, and
legislation compliance, including reliance on certified and sealed reports
prepared by appropriately licensed professionals eliminating internal
review, opportunities to improve interdep departmental coordination, and
cost impacts to differing service standards and performance targets. And
be it further resolved that the service review establish measurable performance
benchmarks and that staff report annually on development approval
timelines, review cycle performance, peer review utilization, surface
standard compliance and continuous improvement outcomes. benchmark
Cambridge's development approval performance against comparable Ontario
municipalities where this information is publicly available including Kitchener,
Waterlue, Woolwitch, G, Milton, Burlington, Oakville, Georgetown, Bmpton
and any other municipality staff deem appropriate and be it further resolved
that staff undertake a project specific review of major growth areas and
development projects including Rivermill, Cambridge West, Moffett
Creek, North Cambridge East Side Lands north of Middleock Road, Northwest
Hespler Area Community, Main Street East, corridor developments, and such
review shall include where available, date of initial application submission,
date the application was deemed complete, number of review cycles and
resubmissions, number, purpose and cost of peer reviews, external consultant and
thirdparty review costs, total elapse time from application submission to
approval, significant sources of delay and comparison with similar developments
in comparable municipalities. And finally, be it resolved that staff
report back to council in Q2 of 2027 on the outcome of the service review. The
end.
Wow, that's a mouthful. Um,
does anybody have any questions before I bring staff into this? Councelor
Roberts. >> Yeah, thanks, Mayor Jen. I guess I'm
going to need staff to answer it anyways. Is this this is I mean, it took
us 10 minutes to read it. Is this possible for staff to do this work,
especially some of the tight timelines I see in there? Um, in addition to the the
workload they already have. >> So, Brenn, can I just say something
to just No, stay stay up there. I guess my concern is the Q4 for 2026 when we've
got the election in there and everybody's working on the budget at
this point in time. Uh to so to add to councelor Robert's question, I don't see
that as viable to be able to be done. So can you speak to that when you speak to
hers
through you madam mayor? A number of the mechanisms within this can be folded
into our regular quarterly reporting as is with information that is readily
available and we'll do a little bit of different configuring within our regular
quarterly reporting and then the matters that require additional work I believe
are are addressed through the capital project planning aspects.
» So sorry just to follow up. So it is feasible. Staff can handle this as it's
written. >> I'm confident through you, mayor, that
we can address those quarterly pieces and and certainly if we find that there
are barriers, I'll report back on that to council and express when we will be
able to address that going forward. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you.
» So, I'm going to have Mr. Axia clarify that.
» Thank you. And through you, mayor. Um and just because we are going into this
election period and think about it through the timing process when when we
go into elections end of October the first month of November there's a ton of
work that happens in that period of time uh significant amount of work in terms
of council orientation we head quickly into the budget process to report
something back in Q4 uh in terms of an actual report will be a difficult task
to the degree that it's been outlined in this particular report. So yes, we do
quarterly reports. We can do our best to try to weave a few things into that.
Will we be able to accomplish all that's set out in this particular motion?
Absolutely not. Uh in the in the fourth quarter of 2026 because again we're
going into the election then quickly into budget.
» Councelor Ernaw. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. do have a
question uh uh with respect to the portion of the motion under the heading
opportunities to further enhance efficiency while maintaining appropriate
safeguards. The first bullet point there says reliance on certified and sealed
reports prepared by appropriately licensed professionals eliminating
internal review. That sounds to me like there would be no opportunity for our
staff uh to under any circumstances seek a
peer review. Uh we would be forced to rely on the uh reports that had been
provided by the developer only. And while in many many many cases that would
be fine, there are going to be some cases where those reports are of
questionable validity. And I don't see a discretion here to permit um in
extraordinary circumstances the uh request for a peer review. And I'm just
wondering if that was intentional, if I've understood it correctly, or if
there's an explanation. Thanks.
» So, Mr. Axia, >> that's the council to answer.
» Oh, okay. Counselors, do you want to respond to that, please?
Councelor Schwar, can you respond to that, please?
» Yes, thank you. So, in this it's it does say um while maintaining appropriate
safeguards for public safety, uh public health safety, environmental protection,
and legislative compliance.
» I don't with respect that doesn't answer my question.
I'm I'm not sure. So, can you see your question again, councelor?
» Yes, thank you. The bullet point says that there will be reliance on certified
and sealed reports prepared by appropriately licensed professionals and
I understand that to mean professionals that are uh engaged by the developer
who's making the application. And then it says eliminating internal review,
which to me says that we our staff has no opportunity to question the veracity
of the report with which they're presented. It has to be accepted at face
value, even if it's inadequate in some way. That's my question.
Um thank you Mayor Le and thanks for your question. So for me what I mean
about that um when there is for example there's uh there's consultants that we
get and the uh developer has has prepaid for a consultant and has given the
information to the staff. um the staff instead of having duplicate reviews or
or duplicate um duplicate studies they should be relying on the study that is
before them and and that was the whole point even the Melissa Derell was saying
is you know we shouldn't be having duplicate studies if a study was done by
a licensed professional
do you want Want to follow up with that? Councelor Ernshaw?
» It wouldn't be a question so much as a comment. I think that's dangerous.
» Yes, I do too. Councelor Cooper, >> I'm I'm going to wait for comments. Mind
to comment if we're done with questions. >> Councelor Kimson
» already approved this.
Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And for you, um I'm wondering if perhaps um
there would be there would be um the opportunity to perhaps um
to ch change the specific wording, for example. Um because I certainly think
that the intent was that not that it was an all or nothing, but in many in many
cases when something when something comes through and it has a an engineer
stamp for example, it has an architecture stamp, an architect stamp
for example, um in in those situations where you have the appropriately
licensed individual using their their seal, their technical report, um
we shouldn't necessarily automatically default default to the requirement for
review, but whether or not there is a way that we can
decrease the amount of time I guess would be there. So, I don't know if
eliminating is necessarily the word and perhaps that's a little too strong, but
I'm wondering if that's something where we could um rework the intent if that
would make um councelor Ernshaw feel better.
Um, following up on that same thing, when I
see Reliance and certified and sealed reports, what do you mean by sealed?
Like so that nobody gets to see them, the public doesn't get to see them. What
do you mean by that? >> So the idea is when someone would use
their seal or their stamp. >> Okay. Because the wording sounds like
it's an NDA or something here, >> right? So I I Yes. I guess the idea
would be like the certified like the stamped or so that it's it's by an
individual who has the appropriate license through their through their
college, their trade, um their their professional designation. So essentially
by putting it forward under their name, they're they're putting their their
livelihood, they're putting their stamp on it, per se. and you you would you
would like to think that that um that is coming forward in such in such a way
that it has a um a level of validity to it.
» Are there any other questions before we go to comments? Councelor Roberts.
» Yeah, thank you, Mayor Jan. And I I guess this question is for maybe
councelor, but would the the two councilors that are bringing this
forward be willing to adjust that Q4 timeline to
next year potentially just given what's going on with the election and what um
city manager Axia had spoken about in terms of the impact on staff over the
next few months with budget and everything.
Well, in addition to that, there may be new counselors around this horseshoe
» who will have no idea what this is about. They've had no onboarding, no no
workshops, nothing in order to comprehend what this is even about. And
I think that's very unfair to be bringing forward to a new council as
well. That would be my comment here. Council Schwar.
» Um, thank you. Yeah, I'd like to respond to that. Um I did um speak with staff
like we've been instructed prior to bringing this motion forward and the
dates were provided by them with that they felt comfortable. Um I don't work
in that department obviously I don't know their workload but the dates were
because of what was felt and I I believe Miss Neely said that for them it's just
a matter of this ad adjusting um some figures or um so it would be something
that they could easily do and that's why this those dates were brought.
However, if u Mr. Bramberg um disagrees. It's his department. So,
» well, as the city manager said, those dates are not not can't be accommodated.
Councelor Cooper, >> are we on comments now?
» Okay. Thank you. Um I'm I'm I'm very I'm very concerned
about this. I understand the spirit of this. Um it's nice. Obviously, we want
to find um we want to find efficiencies. We want to speed things up, but I'm I'm
very concerned about the actual the depth, the volume of this. Um when our
frankly our staff are already incredibly busy. If I was staff right now, I'd be
cringing at looking at at what is being asked right now. I feel there's
definitely an element of um unfairly questioning staff to an excessive level.
And obviously they need accountability. Um, but I feel I I just feel this is
this is an overreach. Um, to the point it's almost offensive to staff when we
we hire quality staff and we trust them to do a good job and I feel like they're
not going to be spending their time doing their job. They're going to be
spending defending spending time writing a pause defending what they've done for
the past four years. Um, and that's why I'm very con I'm very concerned about
that. It's um I feel this is just too much. Um, again, nothing wrong with
finding efficiencies. I think this goes way too far to the point of being
offensive to staff. That's just my opinion. Thank you,
» Councelor Kimson. >> Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And um I
guess I just would like to get some clarification on a comment that you made
about um bringing this motion in today and how um as as this is towards the end
of this term, how the next council there may be different people here and they
may not wish to follow it. Um however, we're here today and we have this motion
and others before us. So does that I'm not sure how that what you mean by that
because we are the sitting council of the day and we are in the position where
if we choose we can approve or not approve a motion before us and that is
something where um you know come November December if there's others they
wish to change it they can but for now we have we have the ability to do that
am I correct >> no that's not what I said what I said is
new counselors would not be able to understand any reports coming forward,
accept them or re rework them or anything because they won't have any
comprehension of what they're even about. That's what I'm saying. I'm not
I'm not saying what you had said. So, I I realize this council has this
option here tonight. I'm saying that you've put dates in here
that are unachievable according to to um first off by the city manager, but also
I don't I don't think that that next coun the timing is here for the next
council to be able to work with whatever information comes forward. That's all.
Uh if I may follow up, I certainly I I wouldn't be opposed to um adjusting the
dates per um city manager Axia um given given that he is familiar with the
workflow and that what staff are working on at this time and if that's something
that we need to do and that would also allow for additional time for um
whatever whoever is here as far as council goes to become more familiar
with it. I think that's a reasonable compromise.
Thank you and through through you chair. Um the dates is one aspect of this and I
will build a bit on what councelor Cooper had had mentioned as well is that
this is really diving deep into the operations and the technical
requirements that staff professional staff um are required to do. and it is
beginning to have uh elected officials at the policy and governance level come
directly into the operation to a very uh deep extent. So that is that is a
concerning line uh that it's not that we don't want to have efficiencies. I do
think we we all need to have efficiencies um but it is inviting too
much uh technical expertise that staff have that council is now diving too far
into the operation. So I do caution that as well. Uh and do encourage council to
uh consider staying at the policy and governance level.
» Councelor Hamilton. >> Thank you, Mayor Le and through you. Um
and I think council's probably unified when we say we all want to reduce costs
and delays in development approvals to support housing affordability. I think
we're all on the same boat there. Um, but I think if the goal is, of course,
we want to reduce costs and delays in planning. We know the time is money, we
all want more clarity, done. I think we're all in agreement there. But I
think my challenge is with this, and I think we're all dancing around it, is
that this does dive pretty deep into city processes um asking for quarterly
reports, another report in Q4, a new capital project. Um, and of course, as
councelor um, uh, Ernshaw pointed out the question around peer review. um not
necessarily do we need peer reviews all the time but what safety mechanism would
we have should we decide hey the veracity of this report should be
questioned should we get a peer review um so I think we all agree the spirit is
strong but the flesh on this one might be a little weak so might I suggest to
the two movers to maybe bring this back possibly at the September 15th meeting
maybe diving a little less deep skimming a little bit more on the surface working
a bit more with staff in terms of the timelines not diving into the
operational components of the the city. Um, and that might make this a little
bit more tangible and digestible for this council or whomever sits around
this horseshoe uh during the first term of 2027 cuz I'm not sure if I can
support it in this form because it is it is pretty intense. Um, but I understand
the impetus behind it and I understand the need for this clarity like that much
is not lost on me. So, I'm just wondering if if the mover and the
secondary would consider that, bring it back with a little bit less oomph that's
more digestible. >> Are you asking for a deferral?
» Uh, if in the deferral some work on this could be done, sure. But if if there's
if the mover and the second aren't willing to alter the motion, then there
would be no point of the deferral. >> You know what I mean?
» No. No. They they have that opportunity to work. You're asking to work on it.
So, you're asking for a deferral till then? I would ask for a deferral in that
case. Yes. >> Okay. Do you have a seconder?
Councelor Earshaw. >> Okay. We will vote on the deferral.
» Opening voting.
Closing voting. That carries unanimously.
Councelor Meta now has the second motion to present tonight regarding Greenfisted
Drive and Essex Point Drive. I understand you have res revised wording
for this motion that was published on the addendum.
Um we will ask if there are any objections from council to put forward
the motion as revised. And is there a seconder for this motion?
» Thank you, Mayor Jen. Yes, there is. It is moved by myself, seconded by
councelor Sherryi. And you are right. The word has changed. The recommendation
is whereas the residential area near Green Vista Drive.
» Can you start over please? >> Yeah. Um the motion is moved by myself,
seconded by councelor Sheri and the recommendation is whereas the
residential area near Green Vista Drive and Essex Point Drive has experienced
significant growth and is home to a large and growing number of young
families. And whereas the recently approved city of Cambridge parks master
plan identifies a specific area north of Green Vista Drive as having a lower
parkland provision service level and prioritizes it for future park
amenities. And whereas there is a pressing need for local accessible and
active recreational facilities for children, youth, and families in this
specific neighborhood. And whereas design work on capital projects
A01463-40
park development sagena subdivision has commenced that city staff be directed to
explore the potential for installing park features that may include a
playground shade structure seating andor outdoor courts and the Essex Point and
Green Vista Drive trail head parks. and that staff conduct consultation with the
community residents both online and in person. And I would like to speak to the
motion, please.
So, you jumped in before we got the approval of council for the revised mo
motion. So, can I just have a hands up? Is everybody okay with the revised
motion?
Hands up if you're approved. Okay. Okay. Guess council have any questions on this
council. Is that for this?
Council Roberts. Thank you, Mayor Jan, and through you.
Um, I just have a question for staff. So, it says here that design work has
commenced. Um, so would this be the appropriate time for this motion to come
forward? It kind of reminds me of one that we saw around budget time. So, I
wasn't sure if it was something that should be would be more appropriately
brought up at budget time or since the project is underway, does it make sense
for this to be discussed and brought forward now?
» So, it's important for council to note at this point in time that this is an
approved 2024 capital project in place for Green Vista and Essex Point Drive
and it is scheduled to start in 2027. Motion in front of council direct staff
to explore certain park amenities during the project and it directs staff to
conduct consultation with community residents as part of the project's
scope. And Alex, I see you're trying to get up here to speak to this. No.
Yes, you are. I want to hear from you. I want to hear from you.
» True you, Madam Mayor. You answered that question, so I don't I didn't need to.
Thanks. >> Sorry. Just to follow up. So, the answer
is this is already happening. we don't need to be bringing this motion forward.
Is that what the answer is? >> Correct. This is an approved capital
project from 2024 and we are assuming the lands and so the project is
scheduled to start in 2027 >> including public consultation.
» That's right. >> Thank you.
» Yep. >> Thank you.
» Do you want to withdraw this motion? >> Thank you.
» Want to proceed to keep the ball rolling and to to symbolize to the community
that it is happening. I've been having a lot of questions from people just asking
about the delays of that corner and this just lets them know that the momentum is
carrying on and also the public will have some feedback that they want to be
able to you know to raise the issues that they want to see like for example
whether they want to have basketball instead of a shade structure or if
they're fine with a shade structure and certainly they want to have a playground
as well. So this is in my view it's just more routine just to um signal to the
community that things are happening and to continue to consult with the
residents.
I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this, Nick, because this this
motion is like it's already being done. It's like we're redoing the same work
all over again and you're asking staff to redo the same work. So, just trying
to figure out how to deal with this. >> Thank you for letting me
» Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. We heard you. Councelor Kimson, while we're trying to
figure this out, did you have a question?
» Um, I'll I'll wait for you to try and figure things out.
» I don't know if I'm going to get to that point.
» Councelor Divine, do you have a question?
» Like two minutes. >> Well, question or comment. Um, I don't
understand why it's here. I think we I would ask councelor M to withdraw it if
this is being done and it's already being done. I we're flogging a dead
horse. I I and be quite honest with you, if it
comes to a vote, I'll vote against it because it doesn't need to be here.
» Do you want to call a point of order on this?
» I can. Sure. Call point of order. Sure. >> Okay.
» You happy to do that? Okay. I I I don't think it should be here or it's being
done. The city staff have worked on this. They've consulted and
I I don't think it should be. I really don't. Sorry.
» Okay. I approve your point of order. Motion's off the floor.
» Thank you.
Councelor
Meta, your next motion is on park amenities for Green Vista Drive and
Essex Point Drive. Can you please put your motion on the floor? And who is
your seconder? >> Thank you, Mayor Jane. We just dealt
with that. This is the next one's on the density transfer.
» Okay, so it's two different motions. So you both of them are
» Oh, I didn't know that was to this one.
» Oops, sorry. That's that was me. Sorry. Apologize for that. The investigation of
the density transfer. So, who's your seconder?
» Thank you, Mayor Jan. Councelor Cooper would be the seconder.
» Okay. So the the whereas the city of Cambridge continually needs to review
additional proactive planning tools to manage sorry significant growth while
protecting its very unique character. And whereas transfer of development
rights TDRs can preserve sensitive lands and heritage areas while directing
density to more appropriate corridors. And whereas such frameworks can balance
intensification with [snorts] neighborhood character. And whereas the
2026 the 2030 council will require additional planning options to guide
future growth. Now therefore be it resolved that council direct staff to
research transfer of development right TDR policies across Canada and report
back to the new council by the end of 2027 with options and best practices for
consideration. Now I would like to speak to it.
» Okay. Okay. Are there any questions? Councilor Roberts.
» Thank you, Mayor Jan. And through you, um, isn't this pretty much the like what
we just did, the Hustler road secondary plan, like we were already ensuring that
intens like the density is going in the places where it needs to go. And this
sounds like it might just be moving things around in places or am I
understanding it incorrectly? Um
» to me like a secondary plan is >> the tool around this right
» I think he's talking about through the whole city so right yes correct um
» thank you mayor J comment now
» this would be comprehensive across the entire city and it's also a separate
policy as well
» do you want to speak more to that or do you want to do you have a followup
councelor Roberts >> I do yeah thank you Sorry. Go ahead. No,
go ahead. >> Um,
» I just really don't understand how this would work. So, if someone owns a piece
of land and they apply for a development application, um, we can
just say no, you have to move and buy land somewhere else like I don't really
understand logistically. Is someone able to speak to the logistics of how TDRs
work? And before we look at digging deeper into
it, Um I think think councelor meta can
speak to that but I think he's just asking for us to research the policies
that are out there not to do do anything with them just come back with a report
on all what policies are available councelor am I correct
» council may this is just to research the policy but I think I would like to speak
to it and that might answer some of the questions and if council has more
questions then we could dive into that then
» if you're okay with that or I can >> I And we're going to go to the questions
just for procedural reasons and then maybe if you if you want to hold if they
have questions that relate to you can answer them all at the same time. Is
that okay? >> Okay.
» Okay. Councelor Hamilton. >> Uh thank you Mayor Leon for you. Um this
is new to me like the idea of dividing up density of let's say something like a
farmland and selling off pieces like credits to try to earn density in other
areas. Uh, I don't want to be that guy always deferring motions tonight, but
maybe a deferral on the floor so council can actually understand what TDs are,
where they've been used, the pros and cons, whether or not we need them in
this type of a municipality, whether or not they're more suited for rural or
urban. I just don't know what they are. So, I don't know if I should tell staff
to, hey, go research these if ultimately it won't be worth their best interest.
Or maybe staff can comment on if this will be ownorous or not.
» Okay. So I should have gone to him for the comment if you're putting a deferral
on the fair because the floor because that's not fair to the council withdraw
your deferral while we go I am happy to withdraw the
» Okay. So let's go to councelor meta and let him talk about this.
» Thank you mayor Jan very quickly before I say my um speech or can I just answer
the question briefly since councelor Hamilton did ask a question. So there
are different ways to do this for different reasons. Some municipalities
do it to save heritage. So Vancouver would be one such municipality. It is a
tool to save heritage because you know the high land values for example that's
a deterrent to heritage preservation. So it's a market orientated solution to try
to address that. Other cities do it so that you don't get a cannon effect down
one road that you get a like a variety of heights so that maybe one building is
four stories, the next one over might be 15 story. But it's done in a way of
course where it all fits but it doesn't have that wall down the street and
reduce street in Ottawa would be you know an an example of of that approach.
So um I will get into my remarks um if that's good with you mayor Jen. So we
are facing a defining moment in our city's history. Growth pressures are
accelerating across Ontario and like many municipalities, we are grappling
with how to accommodate new housing and density without losing the very unique
character, heritage and identity of our neighborhoods. I first encountered the
mechanics of transfer of development rights or density transfers at a
conference. I saw it not just as a theoretical academic co concept but also
a pragmatic marketdriven planning tool that actively empower cities to manage
growth rather than merely react to it. As reported in the water region record,
this tool allows density to be traded or sold between property owners. It enables
a prop a project to exceed base density limits in designated appropriate areas
while actively safeguarding vulnerable heritage or lowdensity neighborhoods
from outofscale development. Put simply, it is a smart mechanism to lift unwanted
inappropriate density off a site that cannot handle it whether due to
infrastructure limits, environmental sensitivities, heritage sensitivity, or
neighborhood fabric. and it safely transfers it to a location that is
optimized and zoned for that level of growth. We need modern tools to match
modern challenges. Relying on a rigid one-sizefits-all approach to infill
development creates unnecessary friction between residents, council, and
developers. And by directing staff to research how other Canadian
municipalities have successfully implemented transfer of development
right policies, we are doing our due diligence. We are asking staff to study
options and best practices so that when the new term of council arrives, it will
have a fully vetted homegrown toolkit ready for deployment. And this is just
another approach in the tool box or another tool in the toolbox. I know
we've already got great policies and we're working on secondary plans and
things like that, but this is another tool that we can have in addition to
that. And I think the more the more tools that we have, so to speak, you
know, the more we can respond to community concerns. So, I encourage you
as my colleagues and friends to vote in favor of this motion. Let's give our
city the foresight that it deserves, or I should say, let's continue to give our
city the foresight it deserves. We can't use 20th century zoning to solve 21st
century growth challenges. Density transfers give us a market-driven way to
steer the growth to the right locations. while protecting the unique identity of
our established neighborhoods. And this isn't about stopping growth. It's about
putting density where it actually belongs. Let's make sure our city grows
smart, not just fast. And I encourage you as my colleagues and friends to vote
in favor of this motion. Let's continue to give our city the foresight it
deserves. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Met. I actually
think it's a great motion, but I'm going to ask Mr. Axia to speak to this from
the perspective of staff and as a planning tool.
» Thank you and through through you mayor. So uh I I'll refer to the motion and and
thank you councelor for putting this one on the floor. Um the the last part of it
in terms of now therefore be it resolved council directs staff to research TDR
policies across Canada and report back to to the new council by the end of 2027
with options and be best practices for consideration. So that's a that's a very
open-ended that's provides some research to go do off go off staff and do some
research come back with information for council to consider. So it's a very
open-ended it gives us a lot of time to do that information and then I still
think it allows council to have some good dialogue and debate over the
information that they receive. So from a staff perspective uh we're more than
happy to proceed should council wish to move forward.
» Councelor Cooper. Uh yes, as a second I don't necessarily have a a question or a
comment just more something I suppose it is a comment about why this why we're
doing this. Am I okay with that? >> Yes. I'm not asking any question. I just
like to comment on why we Okay, thank you. Um yes, this is um I've this is
actually quite new to me. I've been looking into this though and it's it's
um it's very interesting. It's this is a a tool as council meta said that can um
that can actually avoid um potentially avoid us going to the OOLT. Um we get we
get a we get a development um that's proposed somewhere. This is just a
scenario. A development is proposed somewhere and for whatever reason you
know with her heritage or you know the neighbors not into it. We want to bring
it down from 20 to 10 stories. Um it's either yes or no. It goes off to the
OOLT. Well, in this case, um the developer, we can have another option to
go the developer with where they're basically taking um their density as
credits and they can sell it to somebody else, say over in the Hesper secondary
plan on Hesper Road for a much more appropriate area. So, the initial um the
initial uh development that we want to keep low for whatever reason stays low.
The developers happy because they still get the they still get money. They've
sold the value that was inherent in that height. it goes elsewhere to a more
appropriate area and it becomes it's a situation that really um fosters a
win-win situation very potentially keep us away from the OOLT um when you
actually look into this this makes a lot of sense and I don't see any negatives
to it doesn't mean we have to use it anybody has to use it but it's there as
an option and I I urge all of you to look into and I know staff will um will
come back with a good report on this but it's I found it very interesting very
very Few negatives. Thank you. >> For someone who said he didn't know much
about it, you seem to know more than you could write the report yourself. I think
I Yeah. When I look at this, I think of Grand A, you know, the the W five one
with the uh where we were looking for the height reduction there. That that
probably would have solved that problem. Councelor Meta,
» you may jan through and I do appreciate all the feedback and the questions. I
also want to emphasize that should this policy pass at some point in the future
it is a public process and if there are those kind of tradeoffs that is a public
process and um some municipalities actually have what they call a density
register and or a density bank and I mean it it's kind of strange it's it
could be complicated but it's very practical it has been done and I don't
claim to know all the answers that's why I'm saying we need to get staff to
review this and come back with some options. Thank you.
» Okay, I think it's a great motion. Um, we're going to call for that vote now.
» Opening voting.
» Closing voting. That carries unanimously.
So, moving on to councelor Meta's third motion regarding community engagement
expansion planning for Fiddlesticks Community Center and Parks and the
Fiddlesticks catchment area. I understand you'd like to withdraw your
originally worded motion regarding the Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association to
replace it with the newly worded motion as published on revised agenda today.
Are there any objections before I have the clerk respond to anything here
to the um revised motion? I see none. Okay. Um can I have the
deputy? Sorry. Oh. Oh, councelor Roberts.
» Yeah, sorry. I don't see revisions like would they be highlighted in this
version or >> Please.
» Thank you and thank you, Madam Mayor. Um due to the changes being a bit more
substantial than just minor like wording revisions, we replaced it um entirely
with what the um new version looked like on the revised agenda.
» And sorry, was this given to us or this was just what was on our desk like when
we came in? >> No, I could speak to that as well. Um
but the revised agenda was published um either today or yesterday with that
revised wording. That one was the one from today.
» Okay. But it wasn't it wasn't clear that it was revised. Correct. Like
» I didn't know it was revised till just the second.
» Okay. So the deputy clerk is going to speak to this.
» Okay. >> Thank you madame mayor and through you.
Um so the on the revised agenda it is indicated that is it is a revised motion
um from councelor and that came from discussions with staff and that was
revised accordingly. Um I also the document that was in front of you is uh
late correspondence that was received from the Fiddle 6 Community Center board
of directors. Um this will be included in the minutes so that it is public
record and just wanted to indicate that it was distributed to council but it'll
be included on the minutes. So that was a document that you received um in front
of you. And then like I mentioned um on the publication of the revised agenda
today was the revised wording um from councelor Meta based on discussions with
staff and he's presumably going to read the revised wording.
» So councelor Mendo, do you have a seconder for your revised motion?
» Thank you, Mayor J. >> Yes, I do. Council Sheri,
thank you. So I am going to read this motion and I would like to speak to it.
Um okay so where whereas residents of the Fiddlesticks neighborhood have
expressed a strong desire for an expansion of the Fiddlesticks Community
Center to address growing programmatic recreational and community needs. And
whereas the local neighborhood association board has identified
operational design and or fiscal considerations that require further
analysis and collaborative review before a capital funding commitment is
considered. And whereas it is the policy of this council to ensure that major
neighborhood infrastructure investments are guided by robust public input, staff
expertise, and consensus among community stakeholders. Whereas planning for
future capital budget cycles require timely data-driven reports to properly
evaluate and prioritize municipal infrastructure funding requests.
Therefore, be it resolved that city council direct staff to initiate a
comprehensive community consultation and stakeholder engagement process regarding
the potential expansion and facility needs of the Fiddlesticks Community
Center as well as general park recreational needs for the entire
Fiddlesticks catchment area and [snorts] that staff be directed to invite
representatives from both the general resident population of the Fiddlesticks
Catchman Area, the Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association
Executive Director, and the Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association Board to
participate actively in this review process. And that staff submit a final
report to council outlining the community feedback, facility options,
other recreational opportunities, and estimated financial impacts. no later
than the summer of 2028 to inform deliberations for the 2029 capital
budget. That was a typo at the very end and I would like to speak to it and I
did make a promise to bring something forward and that's that's the reason why
I'm doing it to keep my promise. >> Councelor Hamilton.
» Uh thank you mayor get through you. I just have a question if that's okay. Um
okay, excellent. Um, I don't know if now is the time, but I noticed the board and
the executive director of Fiddlesticks is here. Would they be able to come up
and comment on this motion? I know they have a dele they submitted
correspondence. Um, I'm just curious to hear their thoughts on it because their
correspondence doesn't seem to match with council meta's account and
obviously if we're dealing with issues pertaining to Fiddlesticks, it'd be good
to hear from Fiddlesticks. Um, >> I asked them at the beginning of the
evening if they wanted to and they said no.
» So, okay. Yeah, I think they thought that their letter was sufficient. Did
you want to speak? >> Okay. Okay.
» So, I stood before council in 2002 and >> please identify yourself.
» Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Kim Fowler. I am the executive director of the Fiddlesticks
Community Center. Uh so back in 2002 I stood before council and uh was granted
or this community center was granted the uh a trust fund and that trust the
purpose of that trust fund partially was to save for this addition to the
community center. So there is nobody in this room that wants to see an addition
to this building more than myself and the board chair and other board members.
However, this is not the time. There is a lot going on in the community that is
not generally public knowledge around neighborhoods and there is concern that
this money will not be used. The money that has been saved to the tune of $1.3
million by the neighborhood would not potentially be used in the way it is
intended. And until there are some things that are sorted among the
neighborhood associations as well as the fact that we are working with city staff
currently to look at space for all neighborhoods.
This is just not the appropriate time in our view. This is something that I have
expressed and that was not taken into consideration and this is something that
my board had a healthy conversation about as well.
» So Kim, I recognize you weren't prepared to speak tonight. No,
» you did say you hadn't didn't want to get up and speak when I first came in
the room. So, but I have some questions. Are you willing to take the question?
» Absolutely. >> Okay. Councelor Kimson, is this directed
to Kim? >> No. Okay. Councelor Schwar, is this
directed to Kim? No. You're off the hot seat. Thank Thank you for this. Thank
you. >> Okay. Um, Councelor Kimson, do you want
to put your question on the floor? >> Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. I
guess this is a question perhaps for staff. Um, and as I'm as I'm reading
this revised motion and looking at it, um, understanding the work that's
currently being done with the neighborhood associations in general,
and of course, W three, the Preston area does not have a neighborhood
association. Um, for for many years, it's something we've discussed. We
either have Preston Heights um neighborhood association ward 1 or
there's Langs which I guess I should say is in Ward 3 but central Preston does
not have a neighborhood association. So I guess when I look at this and with
this request looking at future planning for Fiddlesticks I'm wondering is this
something that I should be doing for Central Preston or is that going to be
covered in the work that's already ongoing?
» [snorts] >> Um, thanks for the question. And there
is a feasibility study planned for 2027 that includes all of the neighborhood
associations. So, we've had a lot of requests from multiple associations
around the need for space. And so, we've drafted a statement of work with with
the neighborhood groups to kind of work on a project. And so, that's supposed to
happen in 2027. and it's all-encompassing of all neighborhood
groups. >> May I follow up? Um, so in that
situation, is that going to include some sort of consultation with the
non-organized group representing Central Preston that
doesn't actually have a neighborhood association? Is there going to be a way
for community consultation as part of that?
So the feasibility study is specifically around the current requests
[clears throat] coming in and creating a process that the city can uh apply to
anyone coming in. There's a there's other work I think that we need to do
around neighborhood groups and emerging groups and uh groups that are changing
categories. So that's not a part of this scope, but that is in our future.
Thank you,
» Councelor Armeda. Um, if you want to make a comment, um, and then I'll follow
up from there. >> Thank you, Mayor J. I certainly would. I
would like to make some remarks. So, I I rise today to table this motion to
address a critical gap in our city's recreational infrastructure. Every
member on this council knows a city is not just a collection of roads and
pipes. It is a tapestry of neighborhoods. And right now the fabric
of the Fiddlesticks catchment area is stretching to its absolute limit.
Fiddlesticks is a rightfully proud thriving community of over 17,500
residents. But the demographics have fundamentally shifted since its
community infrastructure was first drawn up. Over 60% of Fiddlesticks households
are families with children living at home. And that is a massively higher
than the citywide average of roughly 47%.
At the exact same time, we are experiencing a massive demographic
crest. Our city's over 50 population is projected to double in the coming
decades. Fiddlesticks is facing a unique generational squeeze. We have strollers
and aging seniors competing for the exact same community square footage. And
the current infrastructure simply cannot hold them both anymore. And with over um
60% of Fiddlesticks homes raising kids, public spaces are not sorry, they're not
a luxury. They are an essential extension of the family living room. We
need this expansion or uh or either that or having more recreational facilities
in our parks in that area. And I'm quite flexible either way on that. As a
critical reminder, this request is for the entire Fiddlesticks Catchman area.
We are not just I I'm not just talking about the brick andmortar facility at 71
Catwin Boulevard, even though it is very important to me. But this review must
capture our shared community parks right across the neighborhood stretching from
Duncan Ferguson Park to Lions Canamera Park over to a Wayne Taylor Park and
even all the way up to Whitmer Park. And let me be absolutely clear about what
this motion does and what it does not do. I'm not standing here today asking
for a bling check. And I I'm not standing asking for a capital funding
either, even though I did kind of want to get the ball rolling on that and I
left it open to future budget deliberations. But anyways, I've heard
the neighborhood. I've heard the board and I feel that this at least keeps the
ball rolling and I applaud staff for the the work that they are doing and the
studies across all of the neighborhood associations.
But I represent this area. I'm held accountable by the residents. I did make
a promise to bring something forward. I did and I'm keeping that promise by
doing this and that is why I wanted to bring something forward to keep my
promise because I did make a promise to the residents I would bring something
forward. In the magic of this process lies in its
collaboration and passing the motion. We are directing staff to bring the
community to the table by actively consulting with the general resident
population alongside the Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association executive
director and board. And we achieve three critical things. We tap into the decades
of grassroots operational expertise from the people who run the programs daily.
We build an unshakable community consensus on exactly what facilities and
park spaces are actually needed. And we destress the project by identifying
operational design or any fiscal hurdles before they ever cost the taxpayer a
dime. And you know to a collective relief of
staff. I'm not asking for a report tomorrow. And I am flexible on the
timeline. And if we want to roll this into the review that's already, you
know, underway with all of the neighborhood associations, I'm perfectly
fine with that. But I want to advocate strongly for this area of the city and I
want to make sure Fiddlesticks continues to be at the forefront. It is my job to
advocate for them and for the neighborhood as a whole. So that's why
I'm bringing this forward and I do have flexibility on how to proceed. I just
don't want it to get lost in the shuffle. I want to be strong and
advocate for the area. So thank you. >> Councelor Schwer, you have a comment?
» Yes. Uh, thank you, Mayor Leot. I just want to echo uh Councelor Kimson's
comments. Um, because if this is something that would involve all the
neighborhood associations, uh, review, I would support. Um, but we
are slowly lacking also in the Preston area for a neighborhood association. So,
I'd rather um, this be part of a big review rather than specific.
» Councelor Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor Le and through you. Um,
and although I appreciate councilor Meadow's fortitude in sticking to his
promise and uh the spirit of the motion is certainly a good one that's steeped
in bringing the community together, ultimately the motion pertains heavily
to Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association. And we've just heard from
the executive director and the board of Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association
that's waited three hours to essentially say that they oppose the motion. Um, and
when it comes to Fiddlesticks neighborhood, I trust uh I trust Kim and
I trust the board and I think they've done an amazing job uh in bringing that
neighborhood to life over decades. So, uh I hear where you're coming from,
councelor Meta, but I'm afraid I can't support the motion unless u fiddle
fiddlesticks neighborhood association is behind it. Thanks.
Um, so my comments, um, even if the board was for it, I wouldn't be able to
support this because this is a big city with a lot of, uh, neighborhood
associations, some of them that are very, very lacking. I think of Greenway
Chaplain, for instance, they have no space. They have no room to do anything
with. They don't even have green space. Um,
I think that we need to listen to the board here. it's not the right time for
them. There is a fe there is consultation coming. There is
feasibility coming. Um and I I've got to say you are an amazing representative
for your residents, councelor Meta. You always have been. And to try to keep to
a promise that's commendable, very very commendable. Um
I I think you're a great representative. Uh I just want to put that out there. U
but I cannot support this motion. Sorry, councelor Divine.
» Yes, thank you to the chair. Um, sometimes the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. I think um I understand what you're
doing, but we have multiple multiple um groups in the city that um multiple
neighborhood associations. Some have homes, some don't. Um, and I think we
have to be very careful what we do because the model that's used in this
city for neighborhood associations is a great model. It's an absolute great
model. However, however, you know, some we have the halves and
halves not. So, we have to in the end make sure we we everybody's equal,
right? Hal has like for example the [snorts] um HSPA operated at the arena
they technically don't have a home right and I I appreciate you bringing this
forward but I I certainly can't support it because everybody's got to be treated
equal with the neighborhood associations. Thank you. [snorts]
» Okay, we're going to put the motion the motion's on the floor. We're going to
call for that vote. Opening voting,
closing voting. Uh, that's defeated by vote of 1 to
eight.
Now, I'd like to present a motion regarding a provincial data center
framework and community benefits, which has been revised to correct an error in
publishing today on the revised agenda. and I'll ask the deputy clerk Chris
Fereso to provide some background on the publishing of this motion.
» Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you. Um, so I just wanted to provide some
background. This evening's addendum includes a motion from uh Mayor Liot
related to data centers. Uh, the one that was published yesterday that um is
pages 20 to 24. Um, Mayor Liot's motion specifically was
pages 21 to 22. Um, this motion was included on the public agenda. Uh
however, along with the motion, staff inadvertently published draft wording
that had been prepared by staff while reviewing different options that may
arise from this conversation. Um and that could be found on uh the latter two
pages of that motion for the addendum that was published yesterday. I just
wanted to be clear that the additional draft wording was not part of the
mayor's motion and was included in error. Uh it was prepared as a draft
working document only. uh based on a lot of the discussions and things that we
were seeing around the province and based on some of AMO's guidance and it
was not intended for publication or consideration of council. So the motion
itself uh was corrected on the revised agenda that was published today and it
speaks to the data centers only. The strike out portion is not uh what was to
be included. Thank you.
» Yeah, I have a seconder. Yes, that's councelor Ernshaw. But we need to have
uh suspend the rules um which requires a two-th3 majority
which we need six members of council to bring this forward tonight. So we're
going to put the motion on the floor for sorry seconder to suspend the rules.
Council you the sorry coun. Yes.
» Now voting. >> Now we're voting on it. Yeah.
Opening voting on the motion to suspend the rules.
» Closing voting. That carries unanimously.
» Okay. Thank you. So [snorts] the motion,
let me just turn to that page.
Whereas the province of Ontario has released a proposed data center playbook
and is undertaking work to establish a framework for the review and approval of
data center developments. And whereas the government of Canada has launched
Canada's national artificial intelligence strategy AI for all to
ensure sovereignty and control over our data enabled data for innovation and
economic growth and protect Canadians from the risks and harms of AI. And
whereas the municipalities are increasingly receiving inquiries and
proposals related to data center development and require greater
certainty regarding provincial direction, infrastructure planning,
community benefits, and land use considerations. And whereas council
recognizes the economic opportunities associated with digital infrastructure
while recognizing the need for a comprehensive municipal framework before
permitting additional large-scale facilities. Therefore, be it resolved
that the city of Cambridge request that the province of Ontario expedite the
completion and implementation of its data center playbook and associated
approval framework in order to provide clarity and certainty to municipalities,
utilities, and the development community and that the province be requested to
work in partnership with municipalities, local distribution companies, including
Granbridge Energy and industry stakeholders to establish a public good
framework for data centers, including options for community benefit agree.
agreements, local infrastructure investments, affordability initiatives,
energy partnerships, and other measures that provide direct and lasting
community be benefits to host communities. and that as part of the
upcoming review of the city of Cambridge official plan, council directs staff to
evaluate and identify appropriate locations and policy considerations for
potentially but not necessarily future data center development to ensure land
use compatibility, infrastructure readiness and alignment with community
objectives. And that the review include official plan policies and designations
hypers scale or otherwise zoning bylaw permissions, site plan standards,
infrastructure, servicing, environmental, economic employment,
taxation, public health, climate and national security considerations. that a
copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier Doug Ford, Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing Robert Flack, Minister of Energy and Mines
Steven Leche, Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and
Procurement Steven Crawford, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure of Canada,
Gregor Robertson, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation,
Evan Solomon, Ontario's Big City Mayors, OBCM, the Association of Municipalities
of Ontario, AM O and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities FCM and all
Ontario municipalities. >> A second council.
» Yes. >> Uh are there any questions
councelor Shwary? >> Thank you. Are we able to add to that
like request to the province to delegate more stuff or
Sorry. You want to add to this? Amend the motion?
» No. Like I want to be able to talk about this not
to change your motion, but like to consider other things that perhaps the
the province can look at. Um >> so can you give me an idea because it
might be already included in the wording because the wording is pretty broad,
right? >> Okay. Okay. Like for example, um if a if
a data center like the one on on 17 Bondro for example, they were given $450
million to expand the data center and to boost it up to 60 megawatts. Would there
be something in in that motion that before a data center does that, they
have to come back um to a staff to bring it back to council uh and also to let us
know what extra for example water load or or hydro um things like that and also
other things of concern that a lot of people are having. Um I don't know if
it's a city thing we have to do or or it's a province. A lot of people are
complaining about the noise the data center emits and it's harmful to some
people's health. I was just wondering if that would include something like that
or is that something we do at a city level?
» Well, as far as far as the energy grid that's out of our hands anyway, that's
part of Grand Bridge. That's why we've asked for the consultation with those
entities. Um, and as far as the water, that would be the region that would be
able to handle that. Um, and the noise, I think that's what we're
looking at here when we send it back to staff. Correct. Am I a little bit
» through you, mayor? So, part of the motion reads to uh provide some feedback
to uh the pro to the province of Ontario related to their playbook. So what you
had just mentioned councelor Shweri would be some of that feedback that we
could provide. >> Okay. So that's what I wanted to do.
» Yes. So the point of my motion was you know every so so many municipalities in
North America and around the world are getting caught because we don't have any
guidelines in place. There's nothing out there to protect the residents. And one
of my big concerns when we hear that there's jobs provided, those are
temporary jobs. The the construction jobs come and go, right? They're they
they move on from one community to the next. They're not permanent jobs. Um and
uh you know, the jobs that are provided within the these buildings, there's few
of them, but there is a spin-off effect that happens. And that's the same with
any industry. All industries have spin-off supply companies that come into
being, but because we don't have there won't be a lot of people um working
here, we lose the impact of having people buy houses and pay municipal
taxes that provide for the benefits. So that's why I put in here about community
benefits that will provide for parks, would provide for social issues that we
may not know that we're going to encounter. So that's that's why I put
that in here. So, it's an it's a not a tax. I I'm not sure what we would call
it, but I want staff to look at it and I want it taken to the province so that
they can look at their playbook, what sort of tools that we can have in order
to collect money, not not development charges, but charges that could have a
different name that we can utilize for things like that. So this has been um
you know I worked with the city manager on this and OBCM had also put forward a
motion as well which was passed unanimously. There's a big concern with
all the cities all the cities on what's coming forward. But I don't we don't
want to restrict businesses that come from these data centers. They they're
good. We need them. We can't be left behind in technology. We have to have
these or we'll be on the losing end of them. They're very, very important to
have. We need growth in this, but they need to be regulated. And that's what
the federal government's doing. That's what the province is doing. And that's
why we're in this motion, we're asking staff to bring forward the the um
official plan amendments, zoning amendments, that sort of thing, or
zoning, sorry, new ones, not amendments. Councelor Kimson.
» Um, thank you very much, Mayor Jan, through you. Um, I'm wondering if there
might be an opportunity, not necessarily as part of this motion, but an
opportunity for staff to put together a workshop for the next term of council on
data centers. Um, because if we think back to the beginning of the term, um,
you had your trip to Europe and then we had the data center come um, and get set
up and and no one really thought much of it. And now we're hearing so much more
and and we don't know and we're hearing a lot of hearsay and fodder. So I think
it's something that would be really helpful to whoever it is around the
table as well as members of the community to learn more about data
centers, different types of them, how they work um just for we we know we're
going to be dealing with them in the future and that would be certainly
helpful information. >> That's actually something that is on the
horizon. U the city manager had plans for that already. So certainly your
point is well taken and that will be something that comes forward.
» Thank you. >> Oh he wants to speak to it.
» Thank you and through through you mayor. Uh we have also recently updated our
website to include a page specifically regarding data centers to make sure that
the correct information was all out there and as new information starts to
come in we'll make sure that also gets gets uh collected and posted on our
website.
I also didn't want the public to sit out there and think that we're not doing
anything about this because we're all getting emails about this. Every elected
official in this province is getting emails about this and we all have
concerns. We are listening to the public um about their concerns, but there is
some wrong information out there. So, this will clarify that um coming forward
to the new council. Um, so yeah, enough said. We'll put the motion on the
floor.
» Opening voting.
Closing voting.
That carries by vote of 90. >> So there are no notices of motion. Uh,
our next order of business is motion to receive. Councelor Roberts, you have
that motion. >> I'm going to put you before
consideration calls. >> I do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved
by myself, seconded by councelor Ernshaw. Recommendation that all
presentations and correspondence from the August 25th, 2026 council meeting be
received. >> Okay, we'll take that vote.
» Opening voting. Closing
voting that carries unanimously.
» Okay. So, um, our city manager, Rob Axia, asked to make some closing remarks
here. So, um, Mr. Axia, if you want to make those.
» Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to point out or highlight, uh, just a couple
items. Uh first off, uh Cambridge uh senior staff and participating elected
officials had a successful and productive week of advocacy at this
year's Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference with delegations that
focused on key priorities including health and community care supports,
critical infrastructure, and modernizing municipal government. Uh the city was
able to highlight local expertise, strengthen provincial uh and municipal
partnerships and position Cambridge as a solution focused municipal leader. A
sincere thank you is extended to council, the corporate leadership team
and staff across the organization whose briefing materials, technical expertise,
and day-to-day work help to support these important conversations and
advance Cambridge's priorities proincially. I would also like to
highlight a recent appointment. Effective September 8th, Keith Clark
will be appointed as a successful applicant into the role of deputy fire
chief. Keith has dedicated more than 22 years of service to the Cambridge Fire
Department, demonstrating strong leadership, a commitment to operational
excellence, and a passion for firefighter development and public
safety. We welcome Deputy Chief Clark into his new leadership role. Thank you.
Okay, the next order of business is the consideration of bylaws. And before you
ask that question, councelor Ernshaw, they're all good to go.
» Thank you, Mayor Liot. It's moved by me and seconded by Councelor Hamilton that
bylaws as listed [clears throat] on the agenda dated August 25, 2026 be adopted
as follows. 18.1 Bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge
official plan 2012 18.2
bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge zoning bylaw 26-00007
18.3 bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge
zoning bylaw 150-85 18.4 4 bylaw to designate the property
known as 3,250 Beaverdale Road. 18.5 bylaw to designate the property known as
197 West River Road. 18.6
bylaw to designate the property known as 61 Cambridge Street. 18.7
bylaw to exempt part lot control part of block 1158M
hy-en 720 hyphen Sage Drive 18.8 bylaw to amend the city of Cambridge
official plan 2012. >> Thank you councelor Ernshaw. We will do
that vote now. Opening voting.
Closing voting. That carries unanimously.
» Next order of business is the confirmatory bylaw. Councelor Kimson,
you have that one.
» Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. Moved by myself and seconded by councelora.
recommendation that the bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the council of the
corporation of the city of Cambridge be passed.
» Thank you. And the clerk will take that vote.
» Opening voting.
» Closing voting. That carries unanimously.
» Councelor Cooper, you have the motion of the night.
» Thank you very much. the adjournment moved by me, seconded by
council Hamilton, that the council meeting does now adjourn at 10:05 p.m.
» Thank you everyone for a very energetic debate tonight. There was some good work
done here tonight. Good discussion around the horseshoe. And we'll see you
on September 15th for the next Oh, I'm sorry. I did it again, didn't I? I
haven't done that in a long time. We're going to vote on that. We're not going
to sleep here tonight. Opening voting,
closing voting. Um, that carries a vote of 7 to2. Thank
you. >> Oh, okay. Somebody wants to sleep here
tonight. Okay. Anyway, we'll see you on the 15th.