[42:33] Everyone, my name is Jan Liot, mayor and
chair of this council meeting. Before
[42:38] continuing, we will rise from close
session. May I have councelor Roberts
[42:42] read the motion in its entirety, please?
[42:49] » Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by
myself, seconded by councelor Ernshaw.
[42:52] Recommendation that council rise from
close session held August 25th to
[42:56] reconvene in open session at 6:45 p.m.
>> Okay, we will call for that vote.
[43:04] » Opening voting.
[43:11] » Closing voting
[43:14] » that carries unanimously.
So during close session, discussions
[43:19] occurred with council and staff related
to confidential negotiations,
[43:22] development ch uh charges relief program
application update, and a verbal update
[43:26] regarding a planning matter. Please note
that city of C Cambridge Council
[43:30] meetings are broadcast on the city's
YouTube page and are archived on the
[43:34] city's website. It is imperative that we
as city council promote public
[43:38] participation using a variety of
methods, including YouTube. On that
[43:42] note, our last council meeting had 500
views on YouTube and two delegations. As
[43:47] a reminder for speakers tonight, both
staff and delegates alike, please be
[43:51] sure that you stand 6 to 8 in from the
microphone at the presenter's podium for
[43:55] optimal sound quality. There is a remote
at the podium you may use to advance
[44:00] your slides. In the event of an
emergency, please evacuate council
[44:04] chambers using the nearest exit
staircase. If you require assistance,
[44:09] please see the clerk's staff. They will
provide you with support to exit the
[44:13] facility. Once you have evacuated the
building, please gather outside of city
[44:17] hall in the farmers parking market
parking lot and await further
[44:21] instructions. I will now introduce
council. Councelor Hamilton, councelor,
[44:27] councelor Kimson, councelor Roberts,
councelor Cooper, councelor Schwerry,
[44:32] councelor Ernshaw, and councelor Divine.
We will now sing the national anthem.
[44:37] And if you are able, please rise and
follow along.
[45:04] » [music]
[45:08] » Oh Canada, [singing and music]
[45:12] our home and native land [music]
true
[45:20] love [singing]
in [music] all of
[45:27] With glowing [singing] hearts [music] we
see
[45:32] the true north strong and [singing] free
from [music]
[45:39] wide open
wee [music and singing]
[45:48] [music]
[singing]
[45:53] glory. [music]
We are set and free.
[45:58] Oh,
[music] we stand [singing] on guard for
[46:05] the
[46:09] [singing]
we stand on
[46:13] [music]
[singing] the
[46:21] [clears throat]
[46:28] We embrace our shared responsibility
with the First Nations people to take
[46:32] care of this earth and its creatures. We
can only do so by walking the path as
[46:37] partners stewarding this land as we've
been given the duty together to live in
[46:41] balance and harmony with all living
things. We acknowledge and respect the
[46:45] Inishab Chinctton also known as the
neutrals and the Hodnoni peoples who
[46:51] came before us and who we live amongst
by honoring this truth of past and
[46:55] present. May we come to true
reconciliation through listening,
[46:58] reflecting and learning. Before I begin,
I would like to take a moment to
[47:04] acknowledge and thank everyone for
joining us at this meeting this evening.
[47:07] We do appreciate your participation as
we come together to serve the community.
[47:12] I ask that we create a welcoming and
positive environment for everyone that
[47:16] includes respect, kindness, and
inclusion. Together, we can make this
[47:21] meeting space one where those three
things are at the heart of everything we
[47:24] do. That this is a safe space. Behavior
that is disrespectful, disruptive,
[47:30] aggressive, or intimidating will result
in those individuals being asked to
[47:34] leave. Again, as a reminder to council,
please ensure you are speaking directly
[47:38] into the microphone so members of the
public, both in the audience and at
[47:41] home, can hear you. I notice when some
counselors are speaking, they tend to
[47:46] turn their heads away from the mic
towards the audience or towards this the
[47:50] front. When you do that, your voice is
not audible to everybody in the room.
[47:56] This evening we have one external
presentation for from Richard Kelly
[48:00] Roots of GSP Group regarding the
recommendation to approve an official
[48:04] plan amendment and zoning bylaw
amendment for 8 Scoffield Street. As is
[48:09] our usual practice, we will first hear
presentations from consultants and
[48:12] applicants followed by delegations from
members of the public before proceeding
[48:17] to consider staff reports. Welcome, Mr.
Roots. Are you here? Oh,
[48:24] thank you for joining us. Please note
you will have five minutes to address
[48:27] council this evening.
[48:33] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. If I could have
the clerk pull up the presentation
[48:37] slide.
[48:41] Thank you. Uh good evening, Madame
Mayor, members of council and and the
[48:45] public. My name is Richard Kelly Ritz.
I'm a planner at GSP Group and I'm here
[48:49] representing the applicant for the zone
change application and official plan
[48:53] amendment at 8 Scoffield Street. As a
highle reminder to council, uh the
[48:58] application is for a 72 unit mid-rise
building with five levels of residential
[49:03] and two levels of structured parking.
[49:17] As council may recall, this application
was previously um before you at the June
[49:22] council meeting uh recommended by staff
for approval. Uh council deferred the
[49:26] application to allow for additional
discussions between um ourselves as the
[49:30] applicant team and the adjacent property
owners. Um those conversations have
[49:34] since occurred uh in July and I can give
a high level overview of the outcome of
[49:37] those conversations in the following
slides.
[49:43] So the two key abuing property owners is
O as auto repair garage on Queen Street
[49:47] and then the Legion site immediately
next door. Uh so we met with Heather the
[49:51] owner of Auto Repair uh in July here at
city hall. Uh discussed at a high level
[49:56] some of the details of the application
in terms of when construction might
[49:59] start um outlining uh how much parking
is provided and how this how this has
[50:04] been increased from previous proposals.
um how the storm water runoff design uh
[50:09] for the site is meant to contain and
direct runoff away from her site. And uh
[50:14] through our conversations with Heather,
it became clear that her primary concern
[50:18] is really just around construction
impacts to uh the building itself. Um as
[50:22] Auto Repair Garage, as many in the
community know, has been around a long
[50:25] time. The building is, I believe, over
100 years old. And she was just
[50:29] concerned around construction impacts to
the building itself, the foundation from
[50:32] any construction that would happen next
door. Um so following our meeting here
[50:35] at city hall um my client the developer
for the eight scopfield site uh
[50:40] committed to Heather that um he would
coordinate documenting the existing
[50:44] condition of her building before any
construction would start on uh the eight
[50:49] scal site. So this really seemed to
provide some reassurances to Heather um
[50:53] that there'd be a point in time
reference for the condition of her
[50:55] building um ahead of any construction
starting for eight sc. So, um, following
[51:01] those conversations, I'm reassured and I
understand Heather's concerns have been
[51:05] addressed as well. Um, for the zone
change application,
[51:09] we met with the Legion board in July as
well um, next door uh, at the Legion
[51:14] property, discussed again some details
of the application in terms of when
[51:18] construction might start, uh, specific
construction methods that would be used
[51:21] such as the underground parking
structure being uh, constructed fairly
[51:25] close to their property line. Uh my
understanding of the key legions
[51:28] concerns was just that they're um making
sure for them they want to be involved
[51:32] in the process and that in particular
the zone change decision before council
[51:36] this evening is not them um missing the
boat or missing some key piece of
[51:40] information. Um through our
conversations u clarified that this is
[51:44] really just the first step in the
process. there's still a site plan
[51:47] application, building uh permits to
come. And uh we also made clear that the
[51:52] Legion will be a partner, a key
stakeholder in the project and that
[51:55] construction really couldn't proceed
without their sign off. Um if there's
[51:59] any uh temporary construction works that
would occur on their lands, um they
[52:03] would need to sign off on that. um as
well as if there's any uh trees that are
[52:08] being taken off uh removed along the
shared property line, uh they would need
[52:13] um permission from the Legion for that
as well. Um so they were reassured that
[52:17] through those future negotiations,
discussions with them that any concerns
[52:20] that they might have going forward could
be addressed and that this is still a
[52:23] very early part of the process.
So I'm confident that our discussions
[52:29] with the Legion were productive and
addressed their concerns uh for the
[52:31] application before you this evening.
I'll lastly mention just for council's
[52:37] information um that any tenants moving
into the new rental building at aid
[52:42] Scoffield um would have a noise warning
clause uh provided to them advising them
[52:46] of any uh noise impacts that uh from
abuing property. So the Legion and Auto
[52:51] Repair. Uh so this would just make it
clear to them up front that they would
[52:54] be aware of any noise sources whether
it's from Legion events or the horseshoe
[52:58] pits. I'm just making it clear that um
they would know this ahead of time
[53:02] before moving in so that the Legion and
Os Repair would could continue their
[53:07] existing operations and wouldn't have to
change because of a new building here at
[53:09] a schoolfield.
That concludes my remarks. I continue to
[53:14] be in support of the staff
recommendation of approval for the
[53:17] application and I'm available for any
further questions of council. Thank you.
[53:21] Before we proceed with questions, um,
a reminder to members of council that
[53:29] the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
requires council members to declare any
[53:33] director and direct uninary interest in
relation to a matter under
[53:36] consideration. Are there any
declarations this evening?
[53:41] Seeing none, councelor.
>> So, councelor Dvine, you have a
[53:46] conflict.
>> I'm a member of the Hesper Legion. I'm
[53:51] not on the executive, but I am a member
of the Hesper Legion. Would that be
[53:54] considered a conflict?
>> No.
[54:00] » Um, typically, councelor, Madame Mayor,
we would advise that you uh reach out to
[54:04] the integrity commissioner for specific
advice.
[54:07] » Do you want me to call him now?
[54:11] » It's up to you, counselor.
[54:16] » You're not. You're you're allowed to be
a member of any organization. I would
[54:20] think so. Not I'm not on the executive.
>> No.
[54:23] » Yeah. Probably everybody in this room is
>> there are exemptions within the
[54:28] municipal conflict of interest act as
well that speak to that.
[54:30] » Yeah.
>> Councelor Roberts.
[54:35] » Thanks Mayor Jan through you and thank
you for your presentation and thanks for
[54:38] meeting with the the adjacent property
owners. That was great. I just have a
[54:41] question. And I noticed in your drawing
um for your parking, the the lower
[54:46] parking level and the upper parking
level um for some reason you have the
[54:49] barrierfree spots the furthest away from
the elevator. And I'm just a little
[54:53] confused because that means that folks
who potentially have mobility concerns
[54:57] would have to navigate through parking
where people could be backing out and
[55:01] driving around to get to the elevator.
Was there a specific reason why that was
[55:04] done that way? I've never seen that
before.
[55:07] » Uh through the mayor to you, Councelor
Roberts. Yes, we've received that
[55:10] feedback um already and certainly
something we'd address at site plan
[55:13] approval. The interior layout of the um
proposed development, it can always be
[55:18] refined after the zone change stage. So,
yeah, absolutely. We've heard that and
[55:22] we'll we'll look to move it to the front
of the building.
[55:26] » Councelor Schwar.
>> Thank you, Mayor Ligan.
[55:31] [cough and clears throat]
Um just my question which sorry my
[55:35] throat um is I my just concern with this
whole thing is going up the hill and
[55:42] where people are exiting um it's just
like a very dangerous section um
[55:47] especially in the winter time. How would
that be? Like, have you talked to
[55:52] anybody? Like, how could you um mediate
that? Because in the winter, if they're
[55:58] coming out, you're, you know, somebody's
going up the hill and if you know it
[56:02] just it's you got freezing rain,
like what safety measures are in place?
[56:09] » Uh through humanity, counselor Shuri.
Yes, great question. Um yeah, it is a
[56:15] very steep hill on on Scoffield. Um
there are two parking garage entrances
[56:20] and exits for the site. One for the
lower level and one for the upper level.
[56:23] Um and yes, certainly I hear you on
coming out onto Scoffield Street, how
[56:26] that might work in terms of ice impacts,
things like that. So naturally, the city
[56:30] would would maintain the road from ICE
perspective. But on the private side of
[56:34] the development itself, um that's
something that we could explore further
[56:37] through the site plan approval process,
like the more detailed design for the
[56:40] building. Um, I've seen instances where
you could have signage um, warning
[56:44] vehicles exiting the new building um,
you know, to be aware of oncoming
[56:47] traffic. Um, I've seen mirrors used as
well. Maybe you've seen those in parking
[56:51] garages that could be concave to give a
little bit of a wider view of the street
[56:54] for oncoming vehicles. So, um, yeah, no
commitments at this stage of the process
[57:00] at the zone change stage, but absolutely
I think that is something that should be
[57:03] looked at going forward. Um, I imagine
city transportation staff um would also
[57:07] have some comments on just safety of
entering and exiting the site through
[57:10] the the site plan process to come.
>> All right. Thank you,
[57:14] » Councelor Kempson.
[57:20] » Thank you very much, Mayor Jan, and
through you. Um, thanks for your
[57:23] presentation and for meeting with the
neighboring property owners. Um I'll
[57:27] note that in the presentation um there's
mention about the right of way for
[57:32] sidewalks and utilities and it indicates
that the updated drawing submitted
[57:37] include drawings to demonstrate that a
sidewalk and utilities could be
[57:41] accommodating within the existing right
of way. Have there been any discussions
[57:45] as to whether or not a sidewalk is going
to be put in there? And I expect that um
[57:50] if it could be that would help to
address some of councelor Shwer's
[57:53] concerns.
>> Uh through the mayor, if I could have
[57:57] the clerk pull up the slide deck again.
Um and if you're able to go to slide 30,
[58:03] I could navigate there as well.
[58:16] I can uh start to answer uh the
question. Um yes. So um and city staff
[58:21] may wish to expand on this further. It's
my understanding there are no plans in
[58:25] the next 10 years at least to build
sidewalks on Scoffield Street. Um that
[58:29] being said, it was a priority of the
city that we demonstrate that um there
[58:33] is room for a sidewalk on the existing
city land um here um if one is
[58:38] constructed in the future. Um, and I can
navigate to that slide here. It's a
[58:43] little further on. Um, but some
engineering drawings were prepared as
[58:48] part of the submission package that
demonstrated that on city land there
[58:52] could be a sidewalk that's shown in blue
here on the screen and that's fully on
[58:56] the the city rightway. So, um, yeah,
that was demonstrated that it could be
[59:01] provided. City staff, engineering, and
transportation were satisfied with that
[59:05] through the resubmission.
>> Thank you,
[59:08] Councelor Hamilton.
[59:13] Thank you, Mayor Li and through you and
thanks very much for your presentation.
[59:16] I know when the Legion presented to us,
excuse me, um they were very uh they
[59:21] stressed that horseshoes was a key
element of the activity of the group. Um
[59:25] can you just reaffirm that on page nine
that the clause the type C clause saying
[59:31] sound from these facilities may times be
audible. Does that allow their horseshoe
[59:35] um facility to continue as is or are
there going to have to be any
[59:38] alterations to it?
>> Uh through the mayor to you, Councelor
[59:42] Hamilton. Yeah, the Legion would be able
to continue their horseshoe pits as is.
[59:45] Uh all residents moving into this new
building would be warned of all noise
[59:48] sources from the Legion and uh the auto
repair site including horseshoe pits,
[59:53] events, things like that. So there
should be no impact whatsoever to their
[59:56] ability to continue that going forward.
Thank you,
[59:59] » Councelor Divine.
>> Yes, thank you chair. Thank you for your
[1:00:02] presentation and thank you for meeting
with the uh uh the two property owners
[1:00:07] in either side. I do have a concern. All
right. As we know, things run downhill.
[1:00:14] Gravity is a wonderful thing. What are
you going to do
[1:00:20] to
stop water from running down ontos?
[1:00:27] Because once that right now there's
there's no there's no building there
[1:00:31] obviously. Okay. And the ground will
absorb a fair bit because it's it's a
[1:00:35] treed property. Okay. What are we going
to do from from uh water not going down
[1:00:41] to us? Can you explain that to me
please?
[1:00:46] » Yep. Through the mayor you counselor
Divine. Um yeah, [clears throat] one of
[1:00:51] the benefits of being able to redesign a
site um like this for new development is
[1:00:56] that you can have a lot more control
over where storm water goes. Yes, the
[1:00:59] site is vegetated treed today. Um but
there still would be some uncontrolled
[1:01:04] runoff that would go from this property
onto auto repair garage. Um with this
[1:01:09] site, the rain water would be caught um
on the roof of the building and then
[1:01:12] funneled out onto the municipal um storm
system onto Scoffield Street. So,
[1:01:17] because the building is um you know a
hard surface, it would be able to
[1:01:22] capture most of the water that um falls
onto the site since the building covers
[1:01:25] most of the property and then funnel
that right out onto Scoffield Street.
[1:01:29] The um if we look on the top left of the
screen here, the table and just in that
[1:01:34] 5-year column, [snorts] the top number
is how much water is flowing currently
[1:01:39] from Scoffield onto Odds Auto Repair and
the number at the bottom is how much is
[1:01:44] projected to flow there post
development. So you can see it's a
[1:01:48] pretty significant reduction and that's
just because there's much more of an
[1:01:50] ability to control where storm water is
is running when you're building the site
[1:01:54] like this.
>> Okay. Thank you. Because if that if that
[1:01:58] gets flooded that would just be disaster
for them with the equipment in there.
[1:02:02] All right. Thank you.
>> Um Mr. Kelly Roots when you speak I
[1:02:07] think it was slide eight um to do with
your conversations with the Legion. Um
[1:02:13] you spoke about uh future construction
related agreements will be required. Is
[1:02:18] there a paper trail on this currently?
like are there, you know, you you're
[1:02:23] standing up there saying it, but what
what type of conversations on paper have
[1:02:30] you had with the Legion that will assure
them that you're going to do this and
[1:02:34] that will assure staff and ourselves
that you're going to
[1:02:39] have these conversations and um with
them and and that their concerns are
[1:02:43] going to be addressed.
>> Yeah. To you, Madame Mayor. So yes, all
[1:02:47] of this um was communicated with them by
email following our our conversation
[1:02:50] with them in person in July. um in terms
of committing to future construction
[1:02:54] related agreements. Um the key thing as
I mentioned during my presentation is
[1:02:58] that um you know today whether there's a
paper trail or not like the reality is
[1:03:03] there will need to be like the legion
will have to sign off on um future
[1:03:08] construction for a Scoffield because the
site needs the legion to proceed. Um
[1:03:13] whether it's um temporary construction
works on their site um they would have
[1:03:17] to get the legion's permission for that.
removing trees that are on the shared
[1:03:21] property line. The Legion would have to
sign off on that. So, in other words, um
[1:03:26] this the construction for a lot of it
will run through the Legion and they'll
[1:03:30] have an opportunity um to make sure that
all of their concerns are addressed. So,
[1:03:34] the construction couldn't proceed
without their sign off and their sign
[1:03:37] off um they've reiterated, you know,
they wouldn't naturally sign off unless
[1:03:41] they're um assured that all their
concerns have been addressed.
[1:03:45] » Okay. Thank you. I see no more
questions. Thank you.
[1:03:52] Okay. So, next up we have some
delegations. We have um Don Hoskins. Uh
[1:04:00] are you in the room?
>> Oh, sorry. She's virtual. Um she is
[1:04:08] speaking on the same item.
[1:04:15] » Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can. Can you speak louder
[1:04:19] though?
>> Yes. Sorry. Can you hear me now?
[1:04:22] » Yes, we can. Welcome, Don. You'll have
five minutes.
[1:04:26] » Okay, thank you.
>> Good evening, Mayor Liot, council, city
[1:04:30] staff, and members of our community. My
name is Don Hoskins, and I live directly
[1:04:34] across from this proposed development on
Courtney Street. I have stood before
[1:04:37] council a few times prior. However, my
concerns still remain. I strongly
[1:04:41] disagree with city staff's
recommendation to approve this
[1:04:43] development and recommend council reject
it. I want to focus on safety,
[1:04:47] accessibility, parking, and lastly, the
environment and placemaking. Milfield
[1:04:51] Street is steep, narrow, and without
sidewalks, presenting multiple hazards.
[1:04:55] Traffic on Queen Street is already quite
steady, and increasing population here
[1:04:58] will significantly amplify that. We need
to consider the additional challenges
[1:05:02] for emergency crew, especially large
fire trucks, a problem that we already
[1:05:06] know is a current threat to operations.
This May, our fire chief, Damon Jameson,
[1:05:11] with 34 years of emergency experience,
address concerns, citing, "We need to
[1:05:16] work collectively and help mitigate the
overlooked challenges that newer
[1:05:19] subdivisions and narrow streets afford,"
highlighting a concerning trend and
[1:05:23] issue with narrow streets and denser
housing. While there are plans for
[1:05:27] future sidewalks, those are a decade out
and appear to encroach on the existing
[1:05:30] roadway, causing further narrowing.
Scoffield is a huge slip and fall risk
[1:05:35] with or without sidewalks and keeping
them clear with more road salt risks our
[1:05:38] sensitive waterways via runoff and the
sensitive ecosystem of the Speed River
[1:05:42] just downhill. This slope presents a
hazard to traffic moving both up and
[1:05:47] down the hill, especially in slippery
conditions. Parking is an ongoing issue
[1:05:51] for residents in our city as a whole. On
street parking has recently been limited
[1:05:54] in the nearby neighborhood. This
compounds further when we have events at
[1:05:58] the Allegiance or film crew. At those
times, our roads and surrounding
[1:06:02] neighborhood often have bumper-to-bumper
parking and an increase in traffic as
[1:06:05] guests look for availability. This
further narrows roadways, increases risk
[1:06:10] to pedestrians, and decreases
accessibility for emergency crew.
[1:06:14] Lastly, but just as important, we must
consider the environmental and
[1:06:17] placemaking impacts that developing this
land will have. Thanks to the site's
[1:06:21] unique topography, the existing mature
trees tower over Green Street. This
[1:06:25] provides a sense of place for those
entering the central corridor to our
[1:06:28] Hesler core and business area. The
mature trees also provide free ecosystem
[1:06:33] services and aren't simply replaceable.
Sure, trees can be planted elsewhere,
[1:06:37] but there's a large gap in time for them
to reach maturity and provide the same
[1:06:41] level of service as the trees there now.
This little slice of mature urban forest
[1:06:45] offers a buffer zone for wildlife, one
that is very active and that I have
[1:06:49] directly seen and been a very small part
of. Let me share a quick story about
[1:06:53] that by introducing you to our resident
groundhog Hogy. I promise that this is
[1:06:58] relevant. 2025 was our first year with a
little creature. And he was a
[1:07:01] bittersweet guest. On the one part, he
reminded me of my dear late grandmother,
[1:07:05] as we would always go see groundhogs on
groundhog day. On the other hand, he was
[1:07:09] a ravenous feast who wasn't shy about
making my vegetable garden his own
[1:07:13] personal feast. Least to say, in the
early days, after all the trouble that
[1:07:16] comes with seed starting and tending a
vegetable garden, I was not impressed.
[1:07:20] After some troubleshooting, probably a
bad choice of words, we figured out how
[1:07:24] to coexist. I left a small patch of
clovers for him to mow and put out some
[1:07:28] fencing along the pride's vegetables,
giving him some here and there when our
[1:07:32] harvest was abundant. In the final days
of summer, as weather started to cool,
[1:07:36] our neighbors sent us a photo of Hogi on
the loose. He was heading off our
[1:07:40] property and into the great beyond. My
partner and I were a little sad to see
[1:07:44] him go and hoped to see him the
following spring. We were relieved to
[1:07:47] see him return. We now understand that
our home is his summer den providing
[1:07:51] food and safety while that forest slated
for development is his winter den
[1:07:56] providing shelter and cover during
hibernation. I pride myself in taking
[1:08:00] every opportunity I can to help make my
backyard function as part of the
[1:08:04] ecosystem. We leave a pile of leaves for
winter critters, delay spring yard work
[1:08:08] and the sort. Our yard is an active
wildlife hub full of birds, bees,
[1:08:12] fireflies, and even the odd toad. Part
of that vivaceious activity has been in
[1:08:17] part thanks to Hogi as his home that
forest has housed a variety of other
[1:08:21] creatures and his services play an
undeniable role in our ecosystem. His
[1:08:25] presence has now become a welcome part
in our routine.
[1:08:30] Our city needs safe, affordable housing,
something this development does not seem
[1:08:34] to provide. Second to that, this
development threatens current and future
[1:08:38] resident safety, road access, and will
remove mature trees that provide free
[1:08:42] ecosystem services, water control,
including that from properties at higher
[1:08:47] elevation and play a significant role in
placemaking. I will kindly ask council
[1:08:51] to review the writeups, photos, and
videos submitted prior, highlighting
[1:08:55] these issues and beyond. We have a
surplus of land available beyond 2015.
[1:09:00] This land is not needed as development,
but rather to continue serving its
[1:09:04] existing function and purpose. I thank
you greatly for your time and
[1:09:08] consideration.
>> Thank you, Don. Are there any questions
[1:09:12] for Don?
>> I see none. Thank you.
[1:09:17] » Thank you.
>> Next up, Melissa Derell with BU Urban
[1:09:22] regarding a motion reducing costs and
delays in development approvals. You
[1:09:27] have no presentation. Correct, Melissa?
>> Thank you. Great. Okay, you have five
[1:09:31] minutes.
[clears throat]
[1:09:33] » Excuse me. Well, good evening, Mayor
Liot, members of council, staff, and
[1:09:38] community members. My name is Melissa
Durl, and I'm the executive officer of
[1:09:42] Build Urban, a group representing nearly
20 urban, residential, and commercial
[1:09:47] developers. I'm here today to urge
council to support Council Schwar's
[1:09:52] motion to reduce costs and delays in the
planning process. First, I'd like to
[1:09:56] thank councelor Sherry for bringing this
motion forward. In the development
[1:10:00] industry, time is money. Governments at
every level have taken steps to address
[1:10:04] the financial side of housing, from
reducing development charges to cutting
[1:10:09] HST for first-time home buyers, and the
planning approvals process deserves the
[1:10:14] same attention. Every month, a project
sits in approvals process adds costs,
[1:10:20] financing, property taxes, and
consultant fees. City staff have a
[1:10:25] responsibility to conduct thorough
reviews and ensure applications meet the
[1:10:29] city standards and we support that. What
our members are asking for is greater
[1:10:33] clarity. Why an additional study is
required, what it's meant to address,
[1:10:39] and what it adds in time and cost. That
brings me to the issue that's become
[1:10:44] increasingly challenging for our members
and a key component of this motion,
[1:10:48] which is thirdparty peer reviews. In
simple terms, a developer submits an
[1:10:54] application supported by professional
studies prepared by qualified engineers,
[1:10:59] consultants, and other experts. Those
materials are then reviewed as part of
[1:11:03] the city's development and approval
process.
[1:11:07] However, sometimes during that review,
the city requires the developer to pay
[1:11:10] for another consultant to independently
review that work that a qualified
[1:11:15] professional has already completed.
There may be circumstances where an
[1:11:20] additional review is warranted and we
understand that. Our concern is when
[1:11:24] peer review becomes an added layer
without a clear explanation of why it's
[1:11:28] necessary or what specific gap it's
meant to close. We're increasingly
[1:11:33] seeing these reviews requested across
the region for heritage, engineering,
[1:11:38] wind, sound, and environmental studies.
And the cost can be significant.
[1:11:42] Developers pay once to have the work
done and again to have it reviewed. When
[1:11:47] the resulting changes are minor or don't
meaningfully change the outcome, it
[1:11:51] raises a fair question. Is the added
cost and delay justified by the value it
[1:11:56] provides? The motion answers that
question the right way. It asks staff to
[1:12:01] track whether each peer review resulted
in a material change to the proposed
[1:12:05] development. And that's the right test.
If a review changes the outcome, it did
[1:12:10] its job. If it doesn't, council deserves
to know that, too.
[1:12:14] We also support the expanded quarterly
reporting on development activity and
[1:12:18] the service review of the planning
process proposed for 2027. This work
[1:12:23] will bring transparency to a process
that's difficult to measure from the
[1:12:26] outside. It will help council understand
not just how long approvals are taking
[1:12:31] but why and whether the time and money
spent throughout the process are
[1:12:34] delivering better outcomes. So from Bill
Durban, we urge council to support this
[1:12:39] motion and I thank you for your time.
Are there any questions?
[1:12:44] I see none. Thank you, Melissa.
[1:12:48] So, that concludes this evening's de
delegations. Before we proceed with the
[1:12:53] remaining agenda items this evening, we
will return to the unfinished business
[1:12:57] from the June 23rd council meeting
regarding report 26-040
[1:13:03] PG, recommendation to approve an
official plan amendment and zoning by
[1:13:07] amendment for 8 Scoffield Street.
Council has heard an external
[1:13:11] presentation this evening from Richard
Kelly Roots of GSP Group who provided
[1:13:15] supplementary information regarding
follow-up discussions with adjacent
[1:13:19] property owners to 8 Scull Scoffield
Street. You have also heard from the
[1:13:23] delegates again tonight regarding this
matter. We will now put the motion on
[1:13:27] the floor to permit questions and
comments and councelor Schwer. Oh, wait
[1:13:34] a minute. And I asked council to be
brief with comments and questions to
[1:13:38] cons en ensure that we can get through
all the business on tonight's agenda.
[1:13:42] Council Schwer, you have that motion.
[1:13:56] » No. Thank you, Mayor Leot. U moved by
myself, seconded by councelor Kimson to
[1:14:02] the recommendation is to approve the
proposed official plan amendment for 8
[1:14:07] Scoffield Street to redesate the lands
from lowmedium density residential to
[1:14:13] highdensity residential and approve the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment for 8
[1:14:18] Scullfield Street to reszone the
property from institutional multiple
[1:14:23] residential N1 RM3 to residential R3
with sight specific specific provisions
[1:14:29] to permit an eight-story building with
72 residential units and direct the city
[1:14:35] clerk to present the draft bylaws
attached in appendix D and E to report
[1:14:42] 26-040-PG
[1:14:45] to council for enactment.
>> Are there any questions?
[1:14:51] Any comments?
Okay, we will go straight to the vote.
[1:14:57] Opening voting.
[1:15:04] » Closing voting
that carries unanimously.
[1:15:14] » We will be going to the consent agenda,
but the two finance reports on that
[1:15:18] » I can see.
>> Oh, sorry.
[1:15:21] » Yep. Sorry, Madame Mayor. Through you. I
just wanted to clarify that um we're
[1:15:24] pulling two items from the consent
agenda listed as 11.6 and 11.7 and they
[1:15:30] will be forwarded to a council meeting
expected to take place on September
[1:15:33] 15th, 2026.
[1:15:43] Are there any other items you'd wish to
have pulled from the consent agenda
[1:15:46] tonight?
I see none. So, councelor Hamilton, can
[1:15:50] you put the consent agenda on the floor?
[1:15:55] » Thank you, Mayor Lan through you. It's
moved by myself and seconded by
[1:15:57] councelor Schwerry. Recommendation that
all items listed under the heading of
[1:16:01] consent agenda for August 25th, 2026 be
adopted as recommended. Item 11.1,
[1:16:07] council meeting workshop minutes,
February 9th, 2026. 11.2, Planning
[1:16:12] Statutory Public Meeting Minutes, July
14th, 2026. 11.3 Council Meeting Minutes
[1:16:18] July 21st, 2026. 11.4 Council
Information Package, August 7th, 2026.
[1:16:25] 11.5 Council Information Package, July
24th, 2026.
[1:16:30] 11.8 26-069-PG
Remove development restriction 2011 and
[1:16:37] 217 Hesler Road holding removal
application
[1:16:41] 11.9 26-071-PG.
Enact heritage designation with property
[1:16:46] owners consent.
11.1026-024-C
[1:16:53] supplementary noise exemption approvals
11.1126-073-PG
[1:17:00] 20 Oldmill Road Heritage Permit
application
[1:17:04] 11.12 26-075-PG
create new lots on Sage Drive part
[1:17:10] control exemption application. and item
11.13 special council meeting workshop
[1:17:16] minutes August 13 2026.
>> Okay, we will call for that vote.
[1:17:25] » Opening voting.
[1:17:30] » Closing voting
[1:17:34] that carries unanimously.
>> We will now move into consideration of
[1:17:39] reports and this evening we have three
reports before us. The first item is
[1:17:43] 26-072PG,
fence variance application F126-
[1:17:49] 331 Salisbury Avenue. And uh our
director of planning, Bren Neily, will
[1:17:55] introduce this item.
Welcome, Bren.
[1:18:04] » Thank you, mayor and counselors. This
report considers a fence variance
[1:18:08] application as noted for 331 Salisbury
Avenue to permit a 2.4 meter high fence
[1:18:14] where a maximum height of 2.1 is
permitted. Fence various variances are
[1:18:18] typically approved under delegated
authority. However, applications are
[1:18:22] referred to council when objections are
received through the circulation
[1:18:26] process. The requested increase is
intended to improve privacy due to the
[1:18:30] property's higher elevation related to
adjacent lots. And staff have reviewed
[1:18:35] the application and determined that the
proposal is appropriate and compatible
[1:18:39] with the surrounding neighborhood and
approval is recommended.
[1:18:49] » Councelor Roberts.
Thank you, Mayor Jan, and through you
[1:18:53] and thank you, Bren, for your
presentation. I have a couple questions,
[1:18:56] but I'll I'll just start with the one.
So, you mentioned that the elevation was
[1:18:59] different. Um, one of the concerns from
the neighboring property was that it
[1:19:02] didn't seem to be necessary. Could you
speak a little bit more to that? Is this
[1:19:06] necessary to have this increased height
of this fence here
[1:19:11] » through you, mayor? Um, it was deemed
warranted in that there is quite a
[1:19:16] significant elevation change among the
property owners um in the surrounding
[1:19:20] vicinity.
[1:19:23] » Councelor Hamilton.
Thank you, Mayor Lean through you.
[1:19:27] Thanks very much, Bren, for your
presentation. I'm just curious why our
[1:19:30] fence height is about 30 cmters lower
than Kitcher and Wateroo. Is there an
[1:19:35] historical reason why our fences aren't
higher? See how the expression good
[1:19:38] fences make good neighbors? So, what's
to do with the discrepancy?
[1:19:43] » Through you, Madame Mayor, the the
matter of uh the zoning and height
[1:19:48] provisions are a matter of local
importance. I don't know the specific
[1:19:52] history here in Cambridge. Um, but it's
certainly worth something taking a look
[1:19:57] at in terms of consistency with our
surrounding area municipalities. And I
[1:20:02] will note that there will be a phase two
of the updated zoning bylaw undertaken
[1:20:08] um in the not too distant future and a
part of that will include consistency
[1:20:13] with other area municipalities.
Okay.
[1:20:15] » Thank you,
>> Councelor Roberts.
[1:20:19] » Thanks, Mayor Jan. through you. Um, one
of the other concerns was the safety of
[1:20:23] the way that the fence has been built.
Would you be able to speak to that? Is
[1:20:27] it going to be made safe? I guess
there's nails poking out or something
[1:20:30] that might be unsafe there.
>> Through you, Madame Mayor. As part of
[1:20:35] the recommendation, staff have included
conditions requiring that any exposed
[1:20:40] nails be corrected for that safety
provision. I'll also note there was
[1:20:44] comment regarding damage to private
property or utility lines, but staff
[1:20:49] have not received any evidence to
substantiate those concerns.
[1:20:53] » Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Cooper.
[1:20:57] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor. If you p see on
page 194, you see the discrepancy
[1:21:01] between the fences. I'm thinking from a
visual perspective here. You've basic,
[1:21:06] you know, you've got stepped fencing. If
this were approved, um, would the
[1:21:10] neighbors that have a shorter fence
buted up against it, would they be also
[1:21:16] permitted to raise their single fence up
to the same height so it isn't stepped
[1:21:21] like that should they choose to?
>> Through you, Madame Mayor. Um, every
[1:21:27] property owner is entitled to apply for
a variance of the zoning provisions and
[1:21:33] certainly it is common that um,
individual property owners have their
[1:21:38] distinctive preferred fence style. So
inconsistency among surrounding property
[1:21:43] owners is fairly common in urban
environments such as this.
[1:21:51] Okay, I see no more questions. Councelor
Roberts, could you put the motion on the
[1:21:55] floor, please?
[1:21:59] Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by
myself, seconded by councelor Kimson.
[1:22:03] Recommendation to approve the proposed
fence variance for 331 Salisbury Avenue
[1:22:08] to permit a fence height of 2.4 meters
between the established building line
[1:22:12] and rear lot line of the property as
shown in appendix A subject to the
[1:22:17] condition noted in this report.
[1:22:21] » Thank you. Are there any comments or
further questions?
[1:22:25] Seeing none, we'll put the motion on the
floor.
[1:22:28] » Sorry, we'll go to the vote.
>> Opening voting.
[1:22:37] » Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
[1:22:44] The next report for consideration
tonight is 26-066
[1:22:48] PG Hesper Road Corridor Secondary Plan,
OPA 102 recommendation.
[1:22:53] and our director of planning, Bren
Neely, will also introduce this item.
[1:23:02] Thank you, mayor. This report presents
the Hesper Road Corridor Secondary Plan,
[1:23:07] which is a transformative vision for one
of Cambridge's most important urban
[1:23:11] corridors. Building on extensive public
consultation and council's consideration
[1:23:16] most recently at the statutory public
meeting held May 12th, 2026, the plan
[1:23:22] establishes a long-term framework to
guide the growth, transit investment,
[1:23:26] housing, employment, parks, and public
realm improvements. It charts a path for
[1:23:32] Hespler Road to evolve into a vibrant
mixeduse transit supportive corridor
[1:23:36] where people can live, work, shop, and
connect, supporting a more complete,
[1:23:41] sustainable, and prosperous Cambridge.
As the plan largely reflects the
[1:23:46] presentation given on May 12th, there's
no formal presentation to be presented
[1:23:50] by staff today. However, staff are here
and happy to answer any questions that
[1:23:55] council may have regarding this plan.
[1:24:08] Okay. Uh, councelor Divine.
>> Yes. Thank you through the chair. Uh, I
[1:24:15] wasn't here May 12th. I was I was
fishing.
[1:24:18] Okay. Uh, well done document. But
there's a supplementary document that's
[1:24:23] been handed out here that I don't I
don't quite understand.
[1:24:27] Okay. Okay. It refers to um 112, 122,
and 128 Pine Bush Road.
[1:24:34] Can you tell me what that's about?
[1:24:40] through uh through the mayor. Staff are
aware that um a developer within that
[1:24:48] vicinity has um reached out and engaged
on consideration of a motion to amend
[1:24:55] properties along Pine Bush Road there in
that location.
[1:24:58] » Okay. But Pine Bush Road is not
considered part of this plan. Am I
[1:25:02] correct in saying that?
through the mayor. There is a portion of
[1:25:06] Pine Bush Road that covers the um
northeastern portion of the secondary
[1:25:12] plan area. Yes.
>> Okay. But it wouldn't be on these three
[1:25:14] addresses. Is that correct? This is an
addition
[1:25:18] » through the mayor. Those lands are
within the secondary plan. My
[1:25:22] understanding is that there's a desire
to have council consider a different
[1:25:26] designation than the one that staff have
recommended.
[1:25:31] » Okay. I think I'm going to need an
explanation on this from someone. Thank
[1:25:35] you for that because that's a word too.
Thank Thank you.
[1:25:41] » Councelor Divine, you want the
explanation now? We have the staff here.
[1:25:46] That should be the one
[1:25:53] » through the mayor. I understand that
there may be a motion that council is
[1:25:56] considering and um that would be I think
instructive to the discussion to provide
[1:26:03] that explanation.
[1:26:20] » Thank you to you, Madame Mayor. Um, what
I might recommend is that we put the
[1:26:24] staff recommended motion on the floor
[snorts] and then I understand that we
[1:26:27] have a potential amendment from
councelor Shiry so we could then add
[1:26:30] that amendment to the floor and then
that would be the appropriate time to
[1:26:33] have that discussion.
[1:26:37] » Councelor Roberts,
>> thank you Mayor Jan um and through you
[1:26:42] and thank you Bin and all your staff for
all your hard work on this. I know it's
[1:26:46] been a long time coming. Um I just have
a question about sort of the rigidity or
[1:26:51] flexibility of this plan. So is this one
of these sort of fluid documents that um
[1:26:57] you know we can have a look at current
economic climate or changes in um you
[1:27:03] know land use needs. So, for example, if
there's an area that's being used for
[1:27:07] industrial that maybe that changes and
we can have a look at that later down
[1:27:10] the road depending on the, you know,
where we're at because as we know things
[1:27:14] change rapidly um when it comes to
political stuff. Um is that you know is
[1:27:20] that an opportunity that we will have
down the road or once we pass this it's
[1:27:23] kind of set until I believe it's 201 I
believe it goes still something like
[1:27:27] that. What how does this document work
>> through the mayor? The the secondary
[1:27:34] plan is going to be a document of
council. Should council approve the
[1:27:40] recommended secondary plan today, it
continues to be a living document with
[1:27:46] council. If council feels there's a need
to re-evaluate any aspect of the plan,
[1:27:52] staff would welcome a motion from
council directing staff to do further
[1:27:57] work or reconsider what is proposed. So
while this visions envisions a long-term
[1:28:04] um um setting for the Hesper road
corridor is not locked in stone. It is
[1:28:10] open to amendment over time as council
sees fit.
[1:28:14] » Perfect. Thank you.
[1:28:17] Councelor Shwary. Uh thank you, Mayor.
And actually, uh councelor
[1:28:23] uh Roberts just asked my question, uh
that I wanted it to be public so people
[1:28:29] know that things can change. It's it's
not set in stone. And um you know, we
[1:28:35] can change the drive-thrus
uh specific use designations
[1:28:41] and maybe density changes uh to be able
to listen to the market demand.
[1:28:48] » Councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you, Mayor through you and thanks
[1:28:53] again, Bren, for your presentation. Um I
know in part of the the aspiration for
[1:28:58] transportation down HPA road um stage 2
ion light rail transit LRT is part of
[1:29:03] the plan and it forms a substantial
component of transportation and I know
[1:29:07] that's out of the city's hands. Uh it's
regional and they're moving on to the
[1:29:11] the business case. What happens if that
doesn't occur? How flexible is the
[1:29:17] planning for transportation and the plan
if LRT doesn't end up going down HP road
[1:29:24] » through the mayor um accepting that
there's some uncertainty built around
[1:29:29] the ION I think it's critical that the
city recognizes that regardless of the
[1:29:34] future or the timing of the ion HP road
corridor is a major public
[1:29:39] transportation route and we really want
to make sure that we're creating a
[1:29:45] development
pattern that sure potentially um will
[1:29:49] support higher order transit down the
road, but also today the development
[1:29:55] patterns that are supportive of Grand
River Transit, supporting their
[1:29:59] ridership, helping them build
justification to further make
[1:30:02] improvements of that important bus route
that currently is traveling up and down
[1:30:07] Hespler Road Corridor.
>> And one quick followup may thank you. So
[1:30:12] would I be correct in saying that the
LRT would help to facilitate the goals
[1:30:15] of the plan in bringing those people the
greater density to that central corridor
[1:30:22] » through the mayor the the ion and
transit oriented development focused on
[1:30:27] that certainly kind of puts um a higher
level of interest in investment as a
[1:30:33] result of that infrastructure coming in.
Regardless, we know that investment in
[1:30:39] transit oriented development is great
for existing transit systems as they are
[1:30:45] in place today and becomes that sort of
mutually beneficial system of improving
[1:30:51] ridership and in doing so improving
service that's offered in doing so
[1:30:57] supporting a greater intensity of
housing. It's all sort of
[1:31:01] self-fulfilling.
>> Thank you. There are a lot of pieces to
[1:31:04] the puzzle. Just trying to see how they
fit. Thank you. [snorts]
[1:31:08] » Councelor Shwer, can you put the revised
staff motion on the floor, please?
[1:31:34] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Leget. Um
moved by myself, seconded by councelor
[1:31:41] Ernshaw, uh to approve the official plan
amendment 102 for the Hesler Road
[1:31:46] Corridor Secondary Plan attached to
report 26-066-PG
[1:31:54] as appendix A and B with the following
modifications to policy 21.54.1.5
[1:32:04] uh and five demonstrations may be
required. ired when major developments
[1:32:09] such as commercial path sites exceeding
1,860
[1:32:13] square meters or mixeduse buildings
including residential or freestanding
[1:32:19] residential development is proposed.
Demonstration plans are not required for
[1:32:24] renovations, expansion, replacement or
reconfiguration of existing buildings on
[1:32:30] site, including the mall building.
Demonstration plans may be prepared for
[1:32:35] sub areas of the site and will generally
display the following where applicable.
[1:32:41] A locations, uses and mass massing of
buildings and development blocks. B
[1:32:48] location size and configuration of
public spaces, parkland and open spaces.
[1:32:54] C. Location and layout of public and or
private streets. D. build form
[1:33:00] transition to adjacent development and
or e location and layout of parking
[1:33:05] areas
and I have an amendment.
[1:33:10] » Is this when I say it or
>> Yes, if you could put the amendment on
[1:33:13] the floor and then we'll do the
questions and comments and uh st if
[1:33:18] council can keep their that to the uh
amendment please.
[1:33:23] Do I need a speaker?
>> Okay. So, my amendment is that the um
[1:33:29] official plan amendment 102 and the
Hespler Road Corridor secondary plan
[1:33:35] contain contained in appendix B to
report 26-066-PG
[1:33:42] be modified prior to adoption as
follows. that schedule B land use plan
[1:33:48] be amended to redesate the lands
municipally known as 112
[1:33:55] and 128 Pine Bush Road together with
block 7 to midrise residential
[1:34:01] consistent with the proposed midrise
residential designation of adjacent
[1:34:06] block 8 and that a sightsp specific
policy be added to section 21
[1:34:13] uh 5.1
154
[1:34:17] sight specific policies for 1122
and 128 Pine Bush Road block 7 and block
[1:34:24] 8 to provide that notwithstanding table
21-1 and section 21
[1:34:32] 5.6.3 6.3. Residential development on
these lands shall be subject to a
[1:34:37] minimum density of 40 units per hectare
rather than 60 units per hectare. And
[1:34:43] that the final density, height, and
build form of development on these lands
[1:34:48] be determined through the applicable
development approval process having
[1:34:53] regard to sight specific conditions,
compatibility, servicing,
[1:34:58] transportation, infrastructure, urban
design, public realm, and other
[1:35:03] applicable requirements. and that
schedule B and any other applicable
[1:35:08] schedules, figures, tables, and policies
be modified accordingly.
[1:35:15] Do you have a secondary
councelor Meta?
[1:35:21] Are there
[1:35:31] uh Bren, do you want to speak to this
before we go to questions?
[1:35:37] uh through the mayor through you mayor.
The uh motion that's on the floor now
[1:35:43] relates to a series of properties with
mixed ownership. We know that some of
[1:35:49] the parcels are presently owned by the
same developer who has already developed
[1:35:55] the residential properties immediately
to the north of the properties that
[1:35:59] councelor Shweri has referred to. We
also know that within those blocks there
[1:36:06] are two parcels that are currently owned
by other private land owners and those
[1:36:11] properties are being operated as um um
commercial other private operations that
[1:36:19] are not residentialbased.
And so, uh, just to be aware that the
[1:36:24] motion that councelor Shere has put on
the floor will affect the land use
[1:36:29] opportunities both of the residential
developer who owns those lands as well
[1:36:34] as those other um, commercial property
owner operators.
[1:36:42] » Councelor Divine.
>> Yes. Thank you through the chair. these
[1:36:45] three properties in question.
[1:36:50] Can we withdraw these from the motion
till we actually figure out what they
[1:36:55] are?
Okay. All they are to me all they are is
[1:36:59] addresses in ward two. Okay. Um I don't
know if one of these is the car club or
[1:37:06] what it is. Um, if somebody could give
me some clarity on what 112, 122, and
[1:37:13] 128 are,
but I don't. All they are is numbers
[1:37:19] through the mayor. The properties that
are owned by other private owners who
[1:37:23] are not the residential development um,
owner of the surrounding properties,
[1:37:29] those are 122 and 128 Pine Bush. So,
just to restate that 122 and 128 Pine
[1:37:37] Bush are properties owned not by
residential development.
[1:37:45] » They're business.
>> So, councelor Divine, you're still
[1:37:48] wanting to know what those
>> Yes, I'd like to know there.
[1:37:50] » So, is there anybody in the room who can
tell us what those properties are,
[1:37:54] please?
>> Through you, Mayor. Uh Melissa Castellan
[1:37:57] Alden can answer that question.
>> Thank you.
[1:38:01] » Good evening. through you, Madame Mayor.
The um letter from Brandt Haven Homes um
[1:38:07] their consultant, Selinka Priamo, is
included in the council package and has
[1:38:10] a um
map showing the subject lands. 128 um
[1:38:16] Pine Bush is the car club.
>> Okay. [clears throat]
[1:38:21] » And 122 is immediately to the west.
>> I would suggest we take these out until
[1:38:28] we get some clarification on it.
That's what I would suggest.
[1:38:34] » Um, so to be clear, councelor Divine,
are you proposing an amendment to the
[1:38:37] amendment?
>> Yes.
[1:38:39] » Okay.
>> Second,
[1:38:42] » we can always put this in later.
>> Do you have a seconder?
[1:38:46] » Council specificity for how he
speaks.
[1:38:52] » We're going to have to get the wording
on your amendment. Councelor Divine. Are
[1:38:56] you prepared to do that now or?
>> Sure. Okay. Do you want to take two
[1:39:00] minutes?
>> Two minutes and we'll Yeah. Thank you.
[1:41:15] I don't have the wording yet.
>> Oh, you don't have the wording yet?
[1:41:20] Okay. Forget I just did that.
[1:46:56] Okay. So, that was all very confusing,
but we have come up with a solution and
[1:47:00] the clerk, deputy clerk will explain
what's going to happen.
[1:47:06] » Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you.
Uh so after conferring with staff and
[1:47:10] councelor Divine um he's not going to
introduce a secondary amendment to
[1:47:14] councelor Shuy's amendment. He's just
going to speak now um to [snorts] his
[1:47:18] opinion on the amendment which will
accomplish what he was trying to
[1:47:20] accomplish.
[1:47:26] » Councelor Schwear, you want to speak to
your amendment? Not councelor Divine's
[1:47:30] amendment but your own
because the councelor Divine has
[1:47:35] withdrawn his amendment.
Yes. I just want to explain my
[1:47:40] amendment.
>> Okay. Could we go to qu the rest of the
[1:47:44] questions first?
>> Oh, of course. Councelor uh councelor
[1:47:47] Ameda, you have a question to do with
the
[1:47:50] » Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Jan. I
don't. I just want to quickly say I have
[1:47:54] an amendment, but it's an entirely new
amendment. I'm just letting you know.
[1:48:00] » Okay. This is the problem when when
counselors bring amendments at the last
[1:48:04] minute or the last day. All of this
could have been avoided if this had been
[1:48:08] done days ago. This is why staff is
constantly saying, "Please come to us
[1:48:14] when you have amendments."
So, now we've got a big shimazle on the
[1:48:19] floor. Councelor Divine.
[1:48:24] » Thank you. Is the mic on?
>> Mhm.
[1:48:27] » Okay.
What I'm asking for is
[1:48:32] of councel
to turn down this amendment. That's what
[1:48:37] I'm asking to turn down the amendment.
This is in word two. All right. And
[1:48:44] after a proper investigation,
okay, and I I will check into it. If I
[1:48:49] have to bring this back
in this form, I will do that. I will do
[1:48:55] that. Ask I'm asking
council
[1:49:01] to turn this down because it's not
appropriate at this time. This word too
[1:49:08] um a couple couple of these buildings I
know. So I'm asking council to turn it
[1:49:13] down. Thank you.
>> Councelor Hamilton speaking to the
[1:49:17] amendment.
>> Uh yes, mayor. They get through. I have
[1:49:20] a question about the amendment. It might
be an answer from staff, but what
[1:49:24] exactly would be the difference between
density of 40 units per hectare and 60
[1:49:28] units per hectare that the amendment is
asking for? And would that conflict
[1:49:33] significantly with the plan?
>> Through the mayor to councelor Hamilton,
[1:49:37] the um proposed densities in the
secondary plan, our recommended density
[1:49:42] of 60 helps us to achieve um the
required density requirements for a
[1:49:48] major transit station area. They're also
representative of the stacked townhouse.
[1:49:53] The houses form that are on the
residential portion of the that property
[1:49:58] currently. So, it's really just an
extension of the existing development.
[1:50:03] If you go down to 40 um units per
hectare, you're at a low density um
[1:50:08] development form in a twostory um
townhouse. Um, and what the motion is
[1:50:15] asking for is to allow for twostory town
houses to front onto Pine Bush.
[1:50:20] » Okay. Thank you.
>> I have a question. I have a question.
[1:50:26] [clears throat]
So, why does it not say a maximum of 40?
[1:50:30] Why does it say a minimum? Because a
minimum would still allow for 60.
[1:50:37] » The plan is for a minimum density of of
60. So we want to see that um achieved.
[1:50:46] » So there's no maximum.
>> There's no maximum.
[1:50:52] » Thank you.
Councelor Schwear, you wanted to speak
[1:50:56] to your amendment.
[1:51:00] Thank you, Mayor. Um and this particular
um development is ready to go. But they
[1:51:09] don't build 60 units, they do 40 units.
And for them to continue and and be
[1:51:16] ready to build, they would need that
change. And that just also speaks to to
[1:51:21] the market. Um a lot of developers are
now trying to develop that supports the
[1:51:28] market today. And that to me is
important. And in regards to this whole
[1:51:34] lot like 2 122 and 28, those are little
lots and the developer has spoken to the
[1:51:40] other owners and they feel that they're
supported because you can't build um the
[1:51:46] two lots separately are too small to be
developed. So it only makes sense to put
[1:51:51] them together because they are planning
to buy to buy it all. So that was the
[1:51:56] purpose of this motion is to because
they're ready to go and if we don't it's
[1:52:01] going to delay development even more and
we're all about trying to build more
[1:52:06] houses and if we say no then this will
delay this development.
[1:52:13] » So councelor Schwary if the other
property owners were not in opposition
[1:52:19] to this motion or amendment why are they
not here? Why have we not heard from
[1:52:25] them saying they want to be part of this
development? Because we we only have you
[1:52:32] saying that that the other developer
has spoken to you and they've said that
[1:52:39] they have spoken to the other people,
the other property owners saying they
[1:52:44] are in agreement, but we have no proof.
>> So I I understand what you're saying. If
[1:52:51] I can respond to you, these other
properties cannot be developed. Um like
[1:52:57] if we just approve the 112, the other
two are too small even for development.
[1:53:03] So if we want to develop, they they
would need that whole area. So that was
[1:53:08] the purpose of my amendment.
[1:53:14] » Okay. So I go back. So we don't have any
proof that any of those conversations
[1:53:19] have happened. That's just my concern.
We're going by what Brand Haven is
[1:53:24] saying that they've had the
conversations and they intend on buying
[1:53:27] those properties from the other property
owners and we're supposed to base our
[1:53:30] decisions on that conversation.
Councelor Meta.
[1:53:35] » Well, um, thank you very much, Mayor
Jan. And for me, it's kind of a struggle
[1:53:39] and I'll explain why. I see what we're
trying to achieve with the high density,
[1:53:44] but also I personally want a mix of
housing and I hear from residents
[1:53:48] there's not enough of the kind of
housing that they want. So I'm wondering
[1:53:52] if this might be an opportunity for some
family size housing because on Husper
[1:53:56] Road itself, I don't think we're going
to get it. So that's just my two cents.
[1:54:03] » Cassery.
>> Um thank you, Mayor. I just want to make
[1:54:07] another comment which um I have talked
to staff with. This is my concern with
[1:54:12] this Hler corridor secondary plan. It's
too prescriptive and it doesn't support
[1:54:19] I think market demand and putting in
specific rules in place will detract
[1:54:24] some developers and businesses. So we
have to be um we have I I feel that we
[1:54:31] have to allow um to be more uh flexible
in in the in the densities and with the
[1:54:40] stuff right now it's too prescriptive
it's not flexible and I know the the
[1:54:45] plan is saying that we can pass
amendments in the future but I feel this
[1:54:50] still should still it still might
detract people and I feel I still feel
[1:54:55] that we should make the uh densities
more um more flexible than they are now.
[1:55:04] » So, I have a question of staff here. I'm
not opposed to to what you're talking
[1:55:08] about um councelor Sher. I I actually
think it's pretty good thought process.
[1:55:13] Um but I want I have a question from
staff. So if we pass it, if we vote down
[1:55:18] the amendment and pass the secondary
plan without that,
[1:55:25] we can bring back that parcel of land
and those amend that the amendments that
[1:55:32] councelor Shery is talking about bring
that forward at next coun like
[1:55:37] next term
which will still be just as quick
[1:55:44] » to you madame mayor. um the appropriate
avenue would be through a sightsp
[1:55:48] specific development application from
the land owner and they would require a
[1:55:52] zoning amendment regardless. So um that
would be the appropriate process. It it
[1:55:58] seems like they're trying to do a sight
specific development through a secondary
[1:56:01] plan.
>> Okay. So the right process in my mind
[1:56:05] Okay. Thank you. It would be to vote
down the amendment and have them go
[1:56:08] through the process that would assure
that this is all done properly. That's
[1:56:12] just my my my um thinking on this.
Council, did you want to speak again?
[1:56:18] » Yeah, ju just one last comment. If we do
that um if we don't uh reduce the the
[1:56:24] the minimum this this development is
ready to go like tomorrow, they're
[1:56:30] ready. And if we do and we wait till our
next council, that's a huge delay for
[1:56:35] for planning. And then we talk about
it's going to add more costs and um so
[1:56:40] I'm just saying we need to be more
flexible with the density.
[1:56:44] » Well, I'm wondering if this would be
able to come back on the 15th
[1:56:48] potentially. Could you speak to this?
>> Yeah, that would be great.
[1:56:52] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh for
council's awareness, the secondary plan
[1:56:57] will bring into effect a policy regime.
So that will alleviate potentially
[1:57:04] should should the motion be passed by
council that will alleviate the need for
[1:57:10] the applicant to undertake an official
plan amendment. However, there is still
[1:57:15] the underlying zoning in place. So
regardless, there is still a planning
[1:57:19] act application process where these um
respective parcels of land will steing
[1:57:27] bylaw amendment process in order to
establish the zoning in order to proceed
[1:57:33] with the next phase of development.
>> Councelor Roberts.
[1:57:39] » Thank you, Mayor Jan and through I'm
sorry. I think I'm just confused. Um cuz
[1:57:43] if the if the development is ready to
go, like shovels in the ground, but they
[1:57:47] don't own the other two properties. I'm
just confused how that's possible. Like
[1:57:51] I'm happy to support if there's a
development that's like, "Yeah, let's
[1:57:54] build tomorrow." But how are they ready
to go if they don't own the properties?
[1:57:58] Do they need those other little pieces
in order to build this out or can we
[1:58:02] just approve the reduced density on the
piece they do own if it is like they're
[1:58:06] going to build tomorrow and leave those
other two alone? I'm just a little
[1:58:10] confused.
through you. Madame Mayor, it is
[1:58:15] possible for development to proceed
under multiple land ownership. In that
[1:58:19] case, the application just needs to
include support of documentation that
[1:58:23] all land owners are um in agreement with
the applications.
[1:58:31] » Councelor Divine,
>> we're beating this up pretty good. Um
[1:58:36] can you just read the motion back so I
we all understand where we're at?
[1:58:41] Kria amendment
>> the amendment can read it back.
[1:58:47] » Uh so we'll display it for you as well.
>> Thank you.
[1:58:56] » Um so the amendment on the floor is that
official plan amendment number 102 and
[1:59:01] the Hesville Road corridor secondary
plan contained in appendix B to report
[1:59:04] 26-066-PG
be modified prior to adoption as
[1:59:08] follows. uh that schedule B land use
plan be amended to redesate the lands
[1:59:12] municipally known as 112, 122, and 128
Pine Bush Road together with block 7 to
[1:59:17] mid-rise residential consistent with the
proposed mid-rise residential
[1:59:21] designation of adjacent block 8. and
that a sight specific policy be added to
[1:59:25] section 21.5.14
sight specific policies for 1122 and 128
[1:59:31] Pine Bush Road block 7 and block 8 to
provide that notwithstanding table 21-1
[1:59:37] and section 21-5.6.3 6.3 residential
development on these lands shall be
[1:59:42] subject to a minimum density of 40 units
per hectare rather than 60 units per
[1:59:46] hectare and that the final density
height and built form of development on
[1:59:50] these lands be determined through the
applicable development approval process
[1:59:53] having regard to sight specific
conditions compatibility servicing
[1:59:56] transportation infrastructure urban
design public realm and other applicable
[2:00:01] requirements and that schedule B and any
other applicable schedule figures tables
[2:00:05] and policies be modified accordingly
>> thank you and I'm asking and I'm asking
[2:00:10] council to turn that down so we get
clarification on it down the road and I
[2:00:14] think that's very important. Thank you
>> councelor Cooper.
[2:00:18] » Yes, thank you. Yeah, we really are
beating this one up here. Um what's I
[2:00:21] think what councelor Sh is trying to do
here. I mean there may be some uh
[2:00:24] validity to this and what what's trying
to be done here and if we you know we're
[2:00:29] trying to believe that there's someone
here literally with the hard hat on and
[2:00:31] boots ready to go. Um I I do have a
little bit of an issue with the fact
[2:00:35] that if this is so they're so eager, so
ready to go, then there's nobody here.
[2:00:39] Um so I'd be more than happy if we could
if we're able to bring this up soon,
[2:00:46] very soon. And hopefully have some
people standing here that could back
[2:00:50] this up. If you can, if there's people
involved in this that can back this up,
[2:00:55] then then let's go. But right now, we're
kind of everything's being thrown at us
[2:00:59] without any kind of hard evidence for us
to be able to back this up and say,
[2:01:03] "Let's do this." But if we can back it
up, hey, let's go. But let's uh let's
[2:01:07] bring this back soon.
>> But not today. But not today.
[2:01:20] This is really problematic because this
is already, as the city manager is
[2:01:24] saying to me, it's already gone through
extensive public engagement
[2:01:29] and we've got amendments on the floor
last minute that we are all struggling
[2:01:33] with. First off, we don't even
understand it now that we're starting to
[2:01:36] understand it. We're still struggling
with that decision-making process.
[2:01:43] to Hardy to make a couple comments.
>> Hardy, can you make a couple of comments
[2:01:47] on this, please?
[2:01:50] » Thank you, Mayor Leot through through
you to the rest of council. I think it's
[2:01:55] it's um well known that Hesper Road is
really a canvas ripe for redevelopment.
[2:02:03] When you go down Hesper Road, it's a
large, very wide almost highway and all
[2:02:10] you see is parking lots and you see very
um
[2:02:16] cars. You see a field of parking lots
and you see many one and twostory
[2:02:22] buildings set very far back.
Oftentimes it's referred to as one of
[2:02:28] the worst planned road networks in
southwestern Ontario.
[2:02:35] What we have done here tonight and
presented to council, as Mayor Liot
[2:02:39] indicated, has been years of public
engagement. It's been feedback from this
[2:02:45] council and the previous council. It's
been feedback from thousands of our
[2:02:50] residents around what can Hester Road
look like over the next 10 years, 20,
[2:02:57] 30, and up to 50 years.
And what we've presented here tonight is
[2:03:03] a is really a community that's based on
some public spaces,
[2:03:10] some dense buildings, some tall
buildings up to 25 stories. We have
[2:03:16] concerns when we we hear about 25-story
buildings going in neighborhoods. Esper
[2:03:22] Road is prime and ripe to welcome this
kind of development and this kind of
[2:03:28] investment into our community. We're
talking about policies and we're asking
[2:03:35] council to help us shape the policies of
how this community is going to grow over
[2:03:41] the decades to come. It's a very
important decision, but it's one that we
[2:03:46] I think are very prepared for. We
provided information to council. We've
[2:03:51] been providing information for council
over the last number of years. We came
[2:03:56] this spring and presented the draft
proposal. We've done additional
[2:04:01] modifications based on a few additional
comments and we're very pleased with the
[2:04:07] direction and vision that council has
told us to go forth and set policies for
[2:04:12] the growth of our community.
[2:04:17] If there is a property that you feel
might not quite meet that vision, there
[2:04:23] are different mechanisms to address.
But what council is asking you to do
[2:04:28] tonight is to approve the vision for
this community so that investors,
[2:04:34] builders,
property owners know how we're going to
[2:04:39] grow and where we're going to grow.
Thank you,
[2:04:45] » Councelor Schwar.
>> Thank you, Mayor Leot. Um just one
[2:04:51] question but before I do uh these
developers were
[2:04:56] they told me that they were told by
staff that you know we could do an
[2:05:02] amendment to this to our to this plan
which is why I brought it. Um I wouldn't
[2:05:08] have known otherwise. So they were
directed and that's what what I did. But
[2:05:13] my question is can you were talking
about a September 13 meeting. Are we
[2:05:19] able to pause this till then so I can
get you better information to to support
[2:05:25] this? And then and and like had uh Bin
had said um Miss Neely um Miss Neie that
[2:05:34] even um
that this is a fluid document and you
[2:05:39] know amendments or changes are welcome
um from how I'm understanding this. So,
[2:05:45] I'm just wondering, can we wait on until
September 13 and and bring it back?
[2:05:51] Because if we wait too long, um this
will affect this development.
[2:05:56] » So, it's September 15th. We have a
planning and development meeting and
[2:05:59] we're considering well, we have to bring
something else back to council anyway,
[2:06:03] but we're we can't guarantee that that
could be done by the September 15th. I
[2:06:08] personally am not willing to stop the
Hebler secondary plan from going
[2:06:13] forward. We need to vote on that. Get
that done currently. Hardy, did you want
[2:06:18] to speak on councelor Schwar's question,
please?
[2:06:24] » Thank you. Staff are looking for a
decision from council this evening. The
[2:06:28] work that we've done on our secondary
plan for Hesler Road currently is funded
[2:06:34] through our half. half is the um housing
accelerator fund money sponsored from
[2:06:42] the federal government. If we don't have
a decision by council this evening, we
[2:06:46] may be in jeopardy of losing that
funding for this project which would
[2:06:50] then be borne by our taxpayers. So, I
just wanted to ensure that council was
[2:06:55] was aware of that. Thank you.
>> And you had said that there is another
[2:07:00] way of this being brought forward. I
think it was you or or Miss Neely that
[2:07:03] there's another way of bringing this
forward for this piece of property the
[2:07:07] future. Okay.
[2:07:12] » Mayor through you madame mayor. There
are really
[2:07:15] two options. Should council not make
this um revision today. The there are
[2:07:22] two options that this specific site
could move forward. The normal course of
[2:07:28] action is that the developer would make
an application for an official plan
[2:07:34] amendment. I remind council that they
are going to need to make an application
[2:07:39] for a zoning bylaw amendment regardless.
So, um those planning applications could
[2:07:45] come forward through the development
application process. Alternatively, um
[2:07:51] should council desire, it's council's,
um authority to direct staff to go back
[2:07:57] and have a look at this parcel, and that
would not be a development application.
[2:08:01] That would be a city initiated amendment
to the policy.
[2:08:07] » Councelor Kimson.
[2:08:12] » So, this is just speaking to the
amendment.
[2:08:15] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Sorry, I
tried to turn on my mic and turn it off.
[2:08:20] Anyhow, um thank you. Um I guess I'm
just following along what you had
[2:08:25] mentioned and what councelor Cooper had
mentioned about whether or not there was
[2:08:28] the opportunity to revisit this on
September the 15th, recognizing we do
[2:08:34] realize it's in the report right here
that we need to have this approved by
[2:08:38] October 31st. And obviously we're
running out of time. So, I'm not sure if
[2:08:45] that if that's something that
I'm unclear as to whether or not we we
[2:08:51] can potentially do that or if we can't
do that.
[2:08:55] » So, I believe that's just for the
Hespler Road secondary plan that we need
[2:09:00] to get that part done. Correct. Yes.
It's just for that, not for the
[2:09:04] amendment.
[2:09:07] » May I follow up?
>> Mr. Bronberg will follow your followup.
[2:09:17] Go ahead.
>> Oh, sorry. Thank you. Um, can we have
[2:09:20] just a quick recess for something?
[2:09:25] » How about we have Mr. Brownberg respond
to your original to see if I'm correct
[2:09:30] in what I just said.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[2:09:35] » Thank you. So it's really important to
note that the secondary plan will also
[2:09:40] form the basis of our official plan work
which is currently scheduled to start at
[2:09:44] the end of this year. That work um will
also look at policies and asking council
[2:09:51] to adopt pal policies for how the entire
city of Cambridge will grow. There is an
[2:09:58] opportunity there to revisit some of the
um or this specific property through
[2:10:04] that process. In the meantime, if that
doesn't work for a particular property
[2:10:08] owner, they still have, as Miss Neie
indicated, they still have the mechanism
[2:10:13] to go through a a sightspecific
revision, a sightspecific what we call
[2:10:19] an official plan amendment or um in this
case that would also be required to
[2:10:24] still go through the zoning bylaw
amendment. Remember, a secondary plan
[2:10:29] and an official plan are only the
policies of how council envisions this
[2:10:36] community to grow. The zoning bylaw is
what actually provides the rules. And so
[2:10:41] the rules don't align currently if
council approves this official plan and
[2:10:47] the policies with the policies. So, what
Miss Neie was trying to explain is even
[2:10:55] if council were to approve this policy
tonight for a specific property, they
[2:11:02] still have to go through a planning
process.
[2:11:05] Thank you.
>> Okay, we're going to go straight to the
[2:11:09] vote on the amendment rather than take a
recess here. We've been going on for way
[2:11:13] too long and [clears throat] it becomes
non-transparent to the public. I have
[2:11:17] I'm I'm very concerned that the public
is wondering what we're doing when we
[2:11:21] take these recesses and I don't think
it's fair. So, um the amendment is on
[2:11:26] the floor and we will do that vote.
>> Opening voting.
[2:11:35] » Closing voting
that is defeated by uh 7 to2 vote.
[2:11:45] And now the original main motion is back
on the floor, madam.
[2:11:48] » Okay. So, the original motion is on the
floor now. We will go to that vote.
[2:11:54] » The original motion.
>> Yes.
[2:11:57] » Oh, you had an amendment to the original
motion?
[2:12:01] » Okay. Go ahead.
[2:12:05] » Okay. So, I do have an amendment that is
moved by myself.
[2:12:08] » Can I ask you a question first? Has
staff seen this at all?
[2:12:11] » They have. Yes. I've emailed it and it's
right here. Um, I've moved it's moved by
[2:12:16] myself, seconded by councelor Schwary.
Whereas Northview Heights Lookout Park
[2:12:21] provides a valued public vantage point
and visual connection to the surrounding
[2:12:26] landscape and city skyline and future
high-rise and midrise developments
[2:12:31] within the Hesper Road and Canamera
Parkway major transit station area MTSA
[2:12:37] have the potential to impact sight lines
and public view corridors from this
[2:12:42] public vantage point. Now therefore, be
it resolved that the draft Hasper Road
[2:12:48] corridor secondary plan be amended by
adding the following provision. one
[2:12:53] sight line and view protection from
Northview Heights Lookout Park that all
[2:12:58] future development applications
including zoning bylaw amendments and
[2:13:02] site plan approvals located within the
Hesper Road and Canamera Parkway major
[2:13:08] transit station area MTSA be strongly
encouraged to include a visual impact in
[2:13:15] sight line assessment evaluating the
proposed building height massing and
[2:13:20] placement relative to established public
vehicle corridors from Northview Heights
[2:13:25] Lookout Park and that the development
design be strongly encouraged to
[2:13:29] incorporate consideration of these
public views utilizing architectural
[2:13:34] stepping strategic tower orientation and
appropriate setbacks to preserve visual
[2:13:40] permeability and maintain the scenic
integrity of the lookout experience
[2:13:45] where feasible. And I would like to
speak to this.
[2:13:50] Can I ask staff to put that back up on
the floor and go back to the beginning
[2:13:53] part of it, please? So I can absorb that
again.
[2:14:08] [snorts]
[2:14:15] Okay. Normally we go to questions. Uh,
so I'm going to go to questions that
[2:14:21] counselors may have for staff at this
point or of counselor and then we will
[2:14:26] go to comments and I'm going to ask
staff to comment on this and and uh the
[2:14:31] impact that this may have.
Any questions?
[2:14:36] I see none. So go ahead councelor Amanda
with your comment.
[2:14:42] The reason I'm bringing this forward and
I do realize there were a lot of
[2:14:46] opportunities throughout the process to
have this discussion and I have already
[2:14:51] mentioned this as part of my feedback to
date. Um the reason I'm bringing this
[2:14:55] forward is to get this early in the
process. I believe that the secondary
[2:15:00] plan kind of sets the blueprint for the
future and I know we're going to be
[2:15:04] looking at the official plan and the
zoning bylaw. I totally get all that,
[2:15:08] but I I want to start on this right away
because this is a very important view in
[2:15:14] our city. Not just to the North View
Heights neighborhood, but to the
[2:15:18] province of Ontario. I see people visit
that lookout from the GTA who are amazed
[2:15:25] at the view. You know, how buildings are
not blocking the view like they are in
[2:15:29] Missaga. I'm amazed. I've uh you know
even met people from places like
[2:15:34] Northern Ontario who say that it kind of
reminds them of that with the rolling
[2:15:38] hills around the city. You know the
beautiful landscape that we have. People
[2:15:42] from Lake Huron who say the sunsets are
very competitive because of how far you
[2:15:48] can see across the city. So it really is
a beautiful space and I want to protect
[2:15:53] it and um I'm not asking to stop
development. I'm not, you know, I'm
[2:15:59] development is coming to the Hesper
road. It makes a lot more sense on
[2:16:03] Hesper Road than in our heritage core
areas, for example, like, you know, like
[2:16:07] towers and so forth. However, it needs
to be done right because there are still
[2:16:12] things in this area of the city that we
do want to preserve and the view from
[2:16:17] that lookout is one of them. And I
realize the challenges with the MTSA. I
[2:16:22] understand the limitations of what we
can do. However, I do believe if we have
[2:16:27] the right policies in place, we can
position the buildings in such a way to
[2:16:33] preserve those views. And I want to have
that discussion now before we have an
[2:16:37] application before us and then we're
scrambling how to preserve those views.
[2:16:42] So, this is just being proactive and I
want to just get this out for council's
[2:16:47] consideration and um I'll leave my
comments at that. Thank you. So, if I
[2:16:52] could ask you a question on your
amendment, you're just saying to be
[2:16:56] encouraged. You're not trying to
restrict anything here because I notice
[2:17:00] your wording is very soft and saying
encouraging.
[2:17:03] » Thank you, Mayor Dan. That is a great
question. My what I would really prefer
[2:17:08] to put in is shall, but I do understand
the legal implications of that, right?
[2:17:14] especially with the limitations of the
MTSA and how council has very little say
[2:17:20] over that kind of density. So I wanted
to make the motion as strongly as
[2:17:25] possible while you know being legally
compliant. I'll strongly encourage. I
[2:17:29] think gets the point across and in the
future if we can tighten it up, we can
[2:17:34] see what we can do. But I wanted to get
this out in the open so that we can be
[2:17:39] proactive right away and and have
something in place as you know we change
[2:17:43] the zoning in the future and the
official plan and all that.
[2:17:47] » Okay. Councelor, your comments.
>> Actually, I had a question. I wonder if
[2:17:51] there's a seconder for the motion. I
didn't hear that.
[2:17:55] Councelor Schwar.
>> Okay, councelor Kimson, you have
[2:18:00] comments.
>> Um, is it too late for me to ask a
[2:18:03] question?
>> Thank you very Thank you very much,
[2:18:06] Mayor Jan. Just wondering if staff could
comment on what sort of precedent
[2:18:11] something like this might set for um
other areas because I I think of you we
[2:18:16] we talk about we we have so many
incredible views and vistas throughout
[2:18:20] Cambridge and I'm wondering if that's
something that could really prohibit
[2:18:26] some of the work that we've been trying
to do.
[2:18:29] » That's why I said staff will comment
after every counselors have have done
[2:18:34] their comments and will I wanted to see
if there is any any blow back from any
[2:18:40] of this.
>> Thank you.
[2:18:42] » So, councelor Hamilton, you have a
comment
[2:18:44] » or a question?
[2:18:48] » Okay. So, Bin or um
sorry, who's going to get up and comment
[2:18:55] on the impact of potential impact of
this amendment? and also to if you could
[2:19:01] u respond to councelor Kempson's
question.
[2:19:06] » Certainly through you madame mayor.
Maybe I'll start big picture first. Um
[2:19:12] certainly uh it's not uncommon for
municipalities to undertake viewshed
[2:19:17] studies and to identify very special
views that they wish to protect for the
[2:19:22] long term. And in the process of doing
that, a view shed study would undertake
[2:19:28] work such as establishing the
boundaries. How what is the specific
[2:19:33] point from which we're taking this view?
What are the specific things we're
[2:19:37] trying to see through this view? What's
the window that we're looking through
[2:19:42] like that angle? How high or low and how
far does it go into the distance? All of
[2:19:48] those things on a case-byase basis would
be established through a viewshed. So, I
[2:19:53] wouldn't say it would have sort of an
all-encompassing impact. It would be um
[2:20:00] the responsibility of council through
community consultation to identify those
[2:20:04] very special areas that warrant that
level of analysis in in order to then
[2:20:10] implement the protective measures to
preserve those views.
[2:20:14] In terms of the specific motion,
our suggestion would be not that it be
[2:20:24] identified at this point because we're
not able in this moment to identify
[2:20:29] those factors, the very specific point
we're viewing from the very specific
[2:20:33] points we're trying to see. instead to
undertake that work through the capital
[2:20:39] project that will be going on um
commencing soon and going through 2026
[2:20:43] of the official plan work where we can
undertake that analysis and then
[2:20:48] subsequent to that we would implement
those mechanisms through the zoning
[2:20:52] bylaw um phase 2 comprehensive review.
So
[2:20:59] based on what you've said,
um, is there any danger in not
[2:21:07] voting for this tonight? I know you're
saying for future, but what would be the
[2:21:12] danger? You've given us a different side
of this
[2:21:17] » through you, mayor.
Back to the previous discussion. This is
[2:21:22] a policy document. So any major
development that will in fact come
[2:21:27] forward to implement this policy should
council approve the secondary plan is
[2:21:32] not going to have an immediate effect.
We're not going to see cranes popping up
[2:21:36] all over Hespler. There are planning
applications that will be necessary to
[2:21:41] amend the zoning bylaw as uh general
manager Bronberg said. Uh so nothing is
[2:21:49] going to catastrophically impact the
important viewshed in the immediate
[2:21:54] short-term future.
That's why my recommendation would be
[2:21:59] that council take the time to do the
study through the official plan work.
[2:22:04] So how rather than losing this thought
here,
[2:22:09] what would you suggest that councelor
Matt is waiting to speak now, but what
[2:22:14] would you suggest be done so that we can
accommodate this
[2:22:19] in future so it doesn't get lost
through you madame mayor? My
[2:22:24] recommendation would be to separate this
out from the secondary plan decision
[2:22:29] that you're making and to um return it
immediately following perhaps to your
[2:22:34] discretion as a staff direction to
undertake a fuse shed study relative to
[2:22:41] this point through the official plan
work.
[2:22:45] » Councelor Medic, did you want to speak?
And is that
[2:22:48] » Thank you, Mayor Dan. I did have a
couple of questions which I'll just ask
[2:22:51] all at one and thank you very much Bren
this has been very informative. Um my
[2:22:56] question is in terms of a timeline like
um like how long will a lot of that work
[2:23:01] take? And my other question with all due
respect is if an application is filed,
[2:23:07] you know, like this week or next week,
what kind of mechanisms are there to
[2:23:11] have this be part of that process? And
I'm asking that question for the
[2:23:15] residents, right? Because they're
already aware of Ridgeo Forward, how
[2:23:19] we're moving ahead with that, right? And
um you know if we see the corner
[2:23:24] developed at some point it still might
be a long way off but if something if an
[2:23:29] application comes sooner than later what
kind of mechanisms are there in place
[2:23:33] because I don't want this thought to be
lost right
[2:23:36] » through you madame mayor I certainly
appreciate that concern what I will say
[2:23:40] is the language as it's been presented
itself presents a concept but not an
[2:23:46] instruction. So it doesn't give us
sufficient teeth to enforce anything
[2:23:50] anyways even if we are to implement it
as a modification to the official plan.
[2:23:56] In order to secure that viewshed that
detailed work needs to have occurred. So
[2:24:02] between now and that detailed work
occurring there there is that
[2:24:06] incremental risk.
Again though, I'll say I'm not expecting
[2:24:11] the entire corridor to be covered in
cranes uh the moment this policy becomes
[2:24:17] implemented. And so I think perhaps
there's a risk that one or maybe two
[2:24:22] tall buildings get put in place, but not
that the entire important viewshed be
[2:24:27] compromised.
[2:24:30] So, councelor meter, are you all right
if we take all of this and make this as
[2:24:35] a staff direction tonight to go forward
and then we can pass the Hler road thing
[2:24:40] tonight?
>> Thank you, Mayor Daniel. I am generally
[2:24:44] supportive of the Hesper Road secondary
plan and I do want it to continue.
[2:24:48] However, I want some kind of a public
record in place that the developers
[2:24:53] understand as well that if somebody
tries to develop that corner, they know
[2:24:58] the intention. So, I don't know if we
could maybe refer this part of it and
[2:25:02] wait till a certain date in the future
or whatever we have to do, but um I
[2:25:07] think developers need to know that this
is an important view of the community. I
[2:25:11] don't want to be scrambling afterwards
because I've seen that happen quite a
[2:25:15] few times like over the years. Right.
But that's what I'm saying. If we can
[2:25:18] direct staff tonight
>> um
[2:25:21] » to take this away and work on that and
then we can go forward with the
[2:25:26] secondary plan tonight
>> because that's how it could be done.
[2:25:30] Accommodate what you're asking for
>> because you may lose this. I'm just
[2:25:34] saying you may lose this tonight.
>> Well, I I'm willing to vote for it and I
[2:25:38] can always bring it back. So maybe I'll
leave it on the table if it gets voted
[2:25:42] down then it can come back again at a
future. Sagada Parkway didn't pass
[2:25:46] overnight. So, um, we'll see.
>> Okay. Councelor Hamilton.
[2:25:52] » Thank you, Mayor Le. May I just make a
comment on the amendment? Quick comment.
[2:25:56] » Yes, you can. And then I'm calling for
the vote.
[2:25:57] » Sure. Um, I want to thank councelor Meta
for bringing it forward, but ultimately
[2:26:00] I can't accept it. I think what we're
hearing from staff is that the Hesplur
[2:26:04] Road um plan is quite thorough. it's
quite detailed and if we start choosing
[2:26:09] our own unique elements or perspectives
to carve out of that general framework
[2:26:15] um we risk shattering the underlying
unity of what seems to be a very
[2:26:18] thorough and detailed plan. uh otherwise
it's death by a thousand paper cuts. And
[2:26:22] so I appreciate your sentiment, but it
seems like staff already have what
[2:26:25] councelor Hermeta wants in this motion
covered that it would come to council.
[2:26:29] And so rather than breaking it up into
every single one of our unique
[2:26:33] viewpoints and perspectives, I think the
general standpoint that we start of
[2:26:37] start with as a city and move forward
with I think it's quite strong as it is.
[2:26:40] So I can't support the amendment.
Thanks. [clears throat]
[2:26:44] » Thank you. Um, I'm I am going to call
the vote, but I am concerned about all
[2:26:49] of these amendments coming forward and
how disruptive this is to the secondary
[2:26:54] plan. Um, this is very easily done with
the direction to council. Um, we need to
[2:27:01] get on with the secondary plan. There's
there's a lot of work that still has to
[2:27:04] be done. there's people who own
properties who are waiting for us to
[2:27:08] make this decision and going forward
we're losing um every day we're losing
[2:27:13] the time to build more housing in it. So
I'm calling a vote now on the amendment.
[2:27:20] » Opening voting on the amendment.
[2:27:27] Closing voting
that's defeated by a vote of 6 to three.
[2:27:33] The original main motion, Madame Mayor,
is now on the floor and it um is
[2:27:37] unaltered from its original form.
>> Okay, we will call for that vote now.
[2:28:00] Opening voting.
[2:28:06] Closing voting.
[2:28:11] That carries by a vote of 8 to one.
[2:28:21] We're going to take a a recess for
people to have a bi bio break
[2:28:31] about 10 That's
[2:38:24] They're ready.
[2:38:28] The final report for consideration
before we move on to other business is
[2:38:32] 26-01
IFS Bernett Avenue sanitary sewer and
[2:38:37] manhole reconfiguration.
uh Yoga Shaw the general manager of
[2:38:42] infrastructure services will introduce
this report to us.
[2:38:48] » Um this project and the report in front
of you today is uh seeking additional
[2:38:53] funding amount um of 35,15
as outlined within this report from the
[2:39:01] wastewater capital reserve fund. The
primary driver for this project is due
[2:39:06] to ongoing sewer backups into residents
home which requires weekly sewer
[2:39:11] monitoring by the operations team. The
project will redirect wastewater flows
[2:39:16] to prevent wastewater backups within the
system and eliminate ongoing operational
[2:39:21] maintenance and mitigate risk.
[2:39:27] » Okay. Does council have any questions be
of Mr. Y Mr. Shaw before the motion goes
[2:39:33] on the floor.
Okay. So, councelor Meta, you have the
[2:39:37] motion.
[2:39:42] » Mayor Jen, will may the clerk read the
motion? Thank you.
[2:39:50] » So, the motion is moved by councelor
Hermeta and seconded by councelor
[2:39:54] Ernshaw. Um the recommendation is to
award the work under A/01748-40
[2:40:00] Bernett Avenue sanitary sewer and
manhole reconfiguration contract to SUSA
[2:40:04] concrete in the amount of uh $150,000
300 $150,322.50
[2:40:11] and 50 cents plus HST and approve
additional project funding for capital
[2:40:15] project A/01748-40
[2:40:19] Bett Avenue sanitary sewer and manhole
reconfiguration project in the amount of
[2:40:23] $35,15
as outlined within this report from the
[2:40:27] Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund.
>> Now that it's on the floor, does council
[2:40:34] have any questions,
any comments?
[2:40:38] Okay, we'll put that motion uh to the
vote.
[2:40:42] Opening voting.
[2:40:56] Closing voting.
That carries by vote of nine to zero.
[2:41:02] » We will now proceed to other business.
Does any member have any items to bring
[2:41:06] forward?
Councelor Roberts.
[2:41:17] There we go. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Um,
and through you. Yeah. I just want to
[2:41:20] mention the fact that the Willard Park
um playground reconstruction is done and
[2:41:25] it's a fantastic new playground space in
uh Ward 5. Um, and it's just so
[2:41:32] beautiful. I've spent a lot of time
there in the last few weeks and it's
[2:41:35] full of kids, full of energy. I've heard
from so many residents reaching out that
[2:41:39] they're just so happy and the inclusive
nature of it means that kids of all
[2:41:43] abilities um and moms too can get on,
dads can get on and off um and play with
[2:41:49] their children and um yeah, it's just a
really welcome improvement to Willard
[2:41:54] Park. So, I want to thank staff for
their really hard work on it. It's uh
[2:41:57] it's a fantastic space. So, I welcome
everyone to come over to Ward 5 and
[2:42:00] check out the Willard Park playground.
Thank you.
[2:42:03] » Thanks for that. That's a great update
to a capital project. Thanks for that
[2:42:07] information. Somebody else just took
Councelor Meta, did you have another
[2:42:11] business as well?
>> Thank you, Mayor Jen. Yes, I do.
[2:42:14] Construction is complete at the Lion's
Caname Park on the new forest themed
[2:42:20] spray pad featuring accessible waterplay
pathways, shade, seating, and hillside.
[2:42:25] There are also some specifically sorry
specific furniture places sorry pieces
[2:42:31] arriving over the next two months but we
are excited to have this brand new spray
[2:42:35] pad open for the public to enjoy and I
just want to commend staff thank them
[2:42:40] for their hard work. I often wonder how
we um you know have such fantastic fac
[2:42:45] sorry such fantastic facilities for the
amount of money that we spend on them. I
[2:42:51] think they do a phenomenal job and you
know quite often I often think how are
[2:42:55] we going to keep the neighborhood happy
but I've had a lot of great feedback
[2:42:58] with what happened there and I want
staff to be aware of that.
[2:43:03] » Thank you both of you. Um so this
evening we will be considering five
[2:43:08] motions. Four of which had notice
provided at the July 21st council
[2:43:12] meeting. And we have one motion tonight
from councelor Shwer and three from
[2:43:16] councelor Meta. And there will be a
final motion presented for myself which
[2:43:20] will require that we first pass the
motion to suspend the rules. So as a
[2:43:26] reminder again [clears throat] I ask
council to be brief with comments and
[2:43:30] questions to ensure that we can get
through all of the business on tonight's
[2:43:33] agenda. Council Schwear, you have the
first motion regarding reducing costs
[2:43:37] and delays in development approvals to
support housing affordability. Can you
[2:43:41] please read your motion?
[2:43:51] » Thank you, U. Mayor Leot. And if I could
share the reading with Councelor
[2:43:55] Kempson. It's a pretty long motion.
[2:44:02] Thank you.
uh moved by myself, seconded by
[2:44:05] councelor Kimson. Whereas residents are
facing financial pressure as the cost of
[2:44:12] living continues to rise, including
housing, food, utilities, fuel, and
[2:44:17] other essential expenses. And whereas
municipal budgets must prioritize
[2:44:22] efficiency, accountability, and the
responsible use of taxpayer dollars. And
[2:44:28] whereas development applications require
extensive technical studies and reports
[2:44:33] prepared, certified and stamped by
qualified licensed professionals who are
[2:44:38] subject to professional standards,
ethical obligations, liability
[2:44:43] requirements, and regulatory oversight.
And whereas delay delays multiple review
[2:44:50] cycles, additional studies, consultant
reviews, and prolonged approval
[2:44:54] timelines can increase development costs
that may ultimately be reflected
[2:44:59] [clears throat]
in housing prices and affordability
[2:45:01] challenges.
And whereas council has a responsibility
[2:45:05] to ensure development approval processes
are transparent, efficient, accountable,
[2:45:10] and evidence-based while maintaining
appropriate safeguards for public
[2:45:14] safety, public health safety,
environmental protection, and compliance
[2:45:19] with applicable legislation. And whereas
objective performance measures and
[2:45:24] benchmarking are necessary to identify
opportunities for continuous improvement
[2:45:28] in the development approvals process.
Therefore, be it resolved um that staff
[2:45:35] direct the council direct staff to
expand quarterly current quarterly
[2:45:40] report on development activity to
include development approval performance
[2:45:44] metrics including development approval
timelines. The average review and
[2:45:49] approval timelines for the official plan
amendments, zoning bylaw amendments, job
[2:45:54] plans of subdivision site plan
applications and consent applications.
[2:46:00] the res views cycles and completeness
and report on the frequency and nature
[2:46:05] of requests for additional information
after applications have been deemed
[2:46:10] complete. The average number of
resubmissions required per application
[2:46:14] and the principal causes of delays
identifying delays attributable to
[2:46:20] applicants, municipal departments,
external agency agencies, council
[2:46:25] decision on other factors where
reasonably available and be of further
[2:46:30] resolve that staff prepare a report in
Q4 on of 2026 on continuous improvement
[2:46:38] initiatives
outlining Complete continuous
[2:46:42] improvement initiatives undertaken to
improve the planning application
[2:46:46] process. Measurable outcomes achieved
to date.
[2:46:52] Current initiatives underway and future
initiatives to improve efficiency,
[2:46:57] transparency, and delivery costs.
Operating costs outlining the total
[2:47:01] annual cost of development review
functions including internal staffing,
[2:47:06] external consulting services, peer
reviews, legal review costs and
[2:47:11] recoveries obtained through development
application fees. the extent and cost of
[2:47:16] additional studies, peer reviews, and
independent consultant reviews
[2:47:20] commissioned by the city.
An estimated financial impacts
[2:47:25] associated with extended approval times,
including the effect of carrying costs
[2:47:30] and financial costs on residential
development properties where such
[2:47:34] estimates can be reasonably made.
[2:47:40] And be it further resolved that staff
prepare a capital project as part of the
[2:47:44] draft 2027 budget to complete a service
review of the planning process that
[2:47:49] would include a review of the previous
five years outlining the number of city
[2:47:54] commissioned peer reviews. The total
cost of such peer reviews, the subject
[2:47:58] matter of each peer review, whether each
peer review resulted in a material
[2:48:03] change to the proposed development.
Material change shall mean a
[2:48:06] modification to a proposed development,
engineering design, environmental
[2:48:11] mitigation measure, infrastructure
requirement, or planning rationale
[2:48:14] resulting directly from peerreview
findings and the rationale for requiring
[2:48:19] additional studies, peer reviews or
independent consultant reports.
[2:48:23] opportunities to further enhance
efficiency while maintaining appropriate
[2:48:27] safeguards for public health safety,
environmental protection, and
[2:48:31] legislation compliance, including
reliance on certified and sealed reports
[2:48:36] prepared by appropriately licensed
professionals eliminating internal
[2:48:40] review, opportunities to improve
interdep departmental coordination, and
[2:48:44] cost impacts to differing service
standards and performance targets. And
[2:48:49] be it further resolved that the service
review establish measurable performance
[2:48:53] benchmarks and that staff report
annually on development approval
[2:48:57] timelines, review cycle performance,
peer review utilization, surface
[2:49:02] standard compliance and continuous
improvement outcomes. benchmark
[2:49:07] Cambridge's development approval
performance against comparable Ontario
[2:49:11] municipalities where this information is
publicly available including Kitchener,
[2:49:16] Waterlue, Woolwitch, G, Milton,
Burlington, Oakville, Georgetown, Bmpton
[2:49:23] and any other municipality staff deem
appropriate and be it further resolved
[2:49:28] that staff undertake a project specific
review of major growth areas and
[2:49:32] development projects including
Rivermill, Cambridge West, Moffett
[2:49:36] Creek, North Cambridge East Side Lands
north of Middleock Road, Northwest
[2:49:41] Hespler Area Community, Main Street
East, corridor developments, and such
[2:49:46] review shall include where available,
date of initial application submission,
[2:49:51] date the application was deemed
complete, number of review cycles and
[2:49:55] resubmissions, number, purpose and cost
of peer reviews, external consultant and
[2:50:00] thirdparty review costs, total elapse
time from application submission to
[2:50:05] approval, significant sources of delay
and comparison with similar developments
[2:50:09] in comparable municipalities. And
finally, be it resolved that staff
[2:50:14] report back to council in Q2 of 2027 on
the outcome of the service review. The
[2:50:20] end.
[2:50:24] Wow, that's a mouthful.
Um,
[2:50:30] does anybody have any questions before I
bring staff into this? Councelor
[2:50:35] Roberts.
>> Yeah, thanks, Mayor Jen. I guess I'm
[2:50:39] going to need staff to answer it
anyways. Is this this is I mean, it took
[2:50:42] us 10 minutes to read it. Is this
possible for staff to do this work,
[2:50:46] especially some of the tight timelines I
see in there? Um, in addition to the the
[2:50:51] workload they already have.
>> So, Brenn, can I just say something
[2:50:57] to just No, stay stay up there. I guess
my concern is the Q4 for 2026 when we've
[2:51:04] got the election in there and
everybody's working on the budget at
[2:51:06] this point in time. Uh to so to add to
councelor Robert's question, I don't see
[2:51:12] that as viable to be able to be done. So
can you speak to that when you speak to
[2:51:16] hers
[2:51:21] through you madam mayor? A number of the
mechanisms within this can be folded
[2:51:25] into our regular quarterly reporting as
is with information that is readily
[2:51:31] available and we'll do a little bit of
different configuring within our regular
[2:51:35] quarterly reporting and then the matters
that require additional work I believe
[2:51:41] are are addressed through the capital
project planning aspects.
[2:51:48] » So sorry just to follow up. So it is
feasible. Staff can handle this as it's
[2:51:53] written.
>> I'm confident through you, mayor, that
[2:51:57] we can address those quarterly pieces
and and certainly if we find that there
[2:52:02] are barriers, I'll report back on that
to council and express when we will be
[2:52:08] able to address that going forward.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you.
[2:52:10] » So, I'm going to have Mr. Axia clarify
that.
[2:52:14] » Thank you. And through you, mayor. Um
and just because we are going into this
[2:52:18] election period and think about it
through the timing process when when we
[2:52:22] go into elections end of October the
first month of November there's a ton of
[2:52:27] work that happens in that period of time
uh significant amount of work in terms
[2:52:30] of council orientation we head quickly
into the budget process to report
[2:52:35] something back in Q4 uh in terms of an
actual report will be a difficult task
[2:52:41] to the degree that it's been outlined in
this particular report. So yes, we do
[2:52:45] quarterly reports. We can do our best to
try to weave a few things into that.
[2:52:50] Will we be able to accomplish all that's
set out in this particular motion?
[2:52:54] Absolutely not. Uh in the in the fourth
quarter of 2026 because again we're
[2:52:59] going into the election then quickly
into budget.
[2:53:04] » Councelor Ernaw.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. do have a
[2:53:07] question uh uh with respect to the
portion of the motion under the heading
[2:53:13] opportunities to further enhance
efficiency while maintaining appropriate
[2:53:16] safeguards. The first bullet point there
says reliance on certified and sealed
[2:53:22] reports prepared by appropriately
licensed professionals eliminating
[2:53:27] internal review. That sounds to me like
there would be no opportunity for our
[2:53:34] staff
uh to under any circumstances seek a
[2:53:38] peer review. Uh we would be forced to
rely on the uh reports that had been
[2:53:44] provided by the developer only. And
while in many many many cases that would
[2:53:50] be fine, there are going to be some
cases where those reports are of
[2:53:54] questionable validity. And I don't see a
discretion here to permit um in
[2:54:01] extraordinary circumstances the uh
request for a peer review. And I'm just
[2:54:04] wondering if that was intentional, if
I've understood it correctly, or if
[2:54:08] there's an explanation. Thanks.
[2:54:14] » So, Mr. Axia,
>> that's the council to answer.
[2:54:17] » Oh, okay. Counselors, do you want to
respond to that, please?
[2:54:29] Councelor Schwar, can you respond to
that, please?
[2:54:31] » Yes, thank you. So, in this it's it does
say um while maintaining appropriate
[2:54:37] safeguards for public safety, uh public
health safety, environmental protection,
[2:54:42] and legislative compliance.
[2:54:47] » I don't with respect that doesn't answer
my question.
[2:54:53] I'm I'm not sure. So, can you see your
question again, councelor?
[2:54:58] » Yes, thank you. The bullet point says
that there will be reliance on certified
[2:55:03] and sealed reports prepared by
appropriately licensed professionals and
[2:55:07] I understand that to mean professionals
that are uh engaged by the developer
[2:55:12] who's making the application. And then
it says eliminating internal review,
[2:55:18] which to me says that we our staff has
no opportunity to question the veracity
[2:55:23] of the report with which they're
presented. It has to be accepted at face
[2:55:27] value, even if it's inadequate in some
way. That's my question.
[2:55:42] Um thank you Mayor Le and thanks for
your question. So for me what I mean
[2:55:47] about that um when there is for example
there's uh there's consultants that we
[2:55:53] get and the uh developer has has prepaid
for a consultant and has given the
[2:56:00] information to the staff. um the staff
instead of having duplicate reviews or
[2:56:06] or duplicate um duplicate studies they
should be relying on the study that is
[2:56:13] before them and and that was the whole
point even the Melissa Derell was saying
[2:56:18] is you know we shouldn't be having
duplicate studies if a study was done by
[2:56:24] a licensed professional
[2:56:31] do you want Want to follow up with that?
Councelor Ernshaw?
[2:56:37] » It wouldn't be a question so much as a
comment. I think that's dangerous.
[2:56:43] » Yes, I do too. Councelor Cooper,
>> I'm I'm going to wait for comments. Mind
[2:56:48] to comment if we're done with questions.
>> Councelor Kimson
[2:56:53] » already approved this.
[2:57:00] Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And for
you, um I'm wondering if perhaps um
[2:57:06] there would be there would be um the
opportunity to perhaps um
[2:57:14] to ch change the specific wording, for
example. Um because I certainly think
[2:57:19] that the intent was that not that it was
an all or nothing, but in many in many
[2:57:24] cases when something when something
comes through and it has a an engineer
[2:57:29] stamp for example, it has an
architecture stamp, an architect stamp
[2:57:33] for example, um in in those situations
where you have the appropriately
[2:57:37] licensed individual using their their
seal, their technical report, um
[2:57:44] we shouldn't necessarily automatically
default default to the requirement for
[2:57:49] review, but whether or not there is a
way that we can
[2:57:54] decrease the amount of time I guess
would be there. So, I don't know if
[2:57:58] eliminating is necessarily the word and
perhaps that's a little too strong, but
[2:58:02] I'm wondering if that's something where
we could um rework the intent if that
[2:58:07] would make um councelor Ernshaw feel
better.
[2:58:12] Um,
following up on that same thing, when I
[2:58:16] see Reliance and certified and sealed
reports, what do you mean by sealed?
[2:58:21] Like so that nobody gets to see them,
the public doesn't get to see them. What
[2:58:25] do you mean by that?
>> So the idea is when someone would use
[2:58:27] their seal or their stamp.
>> Okay. Because the wording sounds like
[2:58:31] it's an NDA or something here,
>> right? So I I Yes. I guess the idea
[2:58:35] would be like the certified like the
stamped or so that it's it's by an
[2:58:39] individual who has the appropriate
license through their through their
[2:58:45] college, their trade, um their their
professional designation. So essentially
[2:58:49] by putting it forward under their name,
they're they're putting their their
[2:58:54] livelihood, they're putting their stamp
on it, per se. and you you would you
[2:58:59] would like to think that that um that is
coming forward in such in such a way
[2:59:03] that it has a um a level of validity to
it.
[2:59:10] » Are there any other questions before we
go to comments? Councelor Roberts.
[2:59:16] » Yeah, thank you, Mayor Jan. And I I
guess this question is for maybe
[2:59:19] councelor, but would the the two
councilors that are bringing this
[2:59:22] forward be willing to adjust that Q4
timeline to
[2:59:28] next year potentially just given what's
going on with the election and what um
[2:59:33] city manager Axia had spoken about in
terms of the impact on staff over the
[2:59:38] next few months with budget and
everything.
[2:59:41] Well, in addition to that, there may be
new counselors around this horseshoe
[2:59:46] » who will have no idea what this is
about. They've had no onboarding, no no
[2:59:51] workshops, nothing in order to
comprehend what this is even about. And
[2:59:55] I think that's very unfair to be
bringing forward to a new council as
[2:59:59] well. That would be my comment here.
Council Schwar.
[3:00:02] » Um, thank you. Yeah, I'd like to respond
to that. Um I did um speak with staff
[3:00:08] like we've been instructed prior to
bringing this motion forward and the
[3:00:13] dates were provided by them with that
they felt comfortable. Um I don't work
[3:00:18] in that department obviously I don't
know their workload but the dates were
[3:00:23] because of what was felt and I I believe
Miss Neely said that for them it's just
[3:00:29] a matter of this ad adjusting um some
figures or um so it would be something
[3:00:35] that they could easily do and that's why
this those dates were brought.
[3:00:43] However, if u Mr. Bramberg um disagrees.
It's his department. So,
[3:00:51] » well, as the city manager said, those
dates are not not can't be accommodated.
[3:00:56] Councelor Cooper,
>> are we on comments now?
[3:01:00] » Okay. Thank you. Um
I'm I'm I'm very I'm very concerned
[3:01:05] about this. I understand the spirit of
this. Um it's nice. Obviously, we want
[3:01:09] to find um we want to find efficiencies.
We want to speed things up, but I'm I'm
[3:01:15] very concerned about the actual the
depth, the volume of this. Um when our
[3:01:20] frankly our staff are already incredibly
busy. If I was staff right now, I'd be
[3:01:24] cringing at looking at at what is being
asked right now. I feel there's
[3:01:28] definitely an element of um unfairly
questioning staff to an excessive level.
[3:01:33] And obviously they need accountability.
Um, but I feel I I just feel this is
[3:01:39] this is an overreach. Um, to the point
it's almost offensive to staff when we
[3:01:44] we hire quality staff and we trust them
to do a good job and I feel like they're
[3:01:49] not going to be spending their time
doing their job. They're going to be
[3:01:51] spending defending spending time writing
a pause defending what they've done for
[3:01:55] the past four years. Um, and that's why
I'm very con I'm very concerned about
[3:02:00] that. It's um I feel this is just too
much. Um, again, nothing wrong with
[3:02:05] finding efficiencies. I think this goes
way too far to the point of being
[3:02:08] offensive to staff. That's just my
opinion. Thank you,
[3:02:11] » Councelor Kimson.
>> Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And um I
[3:02:18] guess I just would like to get some
clarification on a comment that you made
[3:02:21] about um bringing this motion in today
and how um as as this is towards the end
[3:02:29] of this term, how the next council there
may be different people here and they
[3:02:33] may not wish to follow it. Um however,
we're here today and we have this motion
[3:02:38] and others before us. So does that I'm
not sure how that what you mean by that
[3:02:42] because we are the sitting council of
the day and we are in the position where
[3:02:47] if we choose we can approve or not
approve a motion before us and that is
[3:02:53] something where um you know come
November December if there's others they
[3:02:58] wish to change it they can but for now
we have we have the ability to do that
[3:03:03] am I correct
>> no that's not what I said what I said is
[3:03:07] new counselors would not be able to
understand any reports coming forward,
[3:03:12] accept them or re rework them or
anything because they won't have any
[3:03:16] comprehension of what they're even
about. That's what I'm saying. I'm not
[3:03:21] I'm not saying what you had said.
So, I I realize this council has this
[3:03:27] option here tonight.
I'm saying that you've put dates in here
[3:03:32] that are unachievable according to to um
first off by the city manager, but also
[3:03:39] I don't I don't think that that next
coun the timing is here for the next
[3:03:43] council to be able to work with whatever
information comes forward. That's all.
[3:03:48] Uh if I may follow up, I certainly I I
wouldn't be opposed to um adjusting the
[3:03:53] dates per um city manager Axia um given
given that he is familiar with the
[3:04:00] workflow and that what staff are working
on at this time and if that's something
[3:04:04] that we need to do and that would also
allow for additional time for um
[3:04:08] whatever whoever is here as far as
council goes to become more familiar
[3:04:12] with it. I think that's a reasonable
compromise.
[3:04:19] Thank you and through through you chair.
Um the dates is one aspect of this and I
[3:04:25] will build a bit on what councelor
Cooper had had mentioned as well is that
[3:04:29] this is really diving deep into the
operations and the technical
[3:04:33] requirements that staff professional
staff um are required to do. and it is
[3:04:41] beginning to have uh elected officials
at the policy and governance level come
[3:04:46] directly into the operation to a very uh
deep extent. So that is that is a
[3:04:50] concerning line uh that it's not that we
don't want to have efficiencies. I do
[3:04:56] think we we all need to have
efficiencies um but it is inviting too
[3:05:00] much uh technical expertise that staff
have that council is now diving too far
[3:05:07] into the operation. So I do caution that
as well. Uh and do encourage council to
[3:05:14] uh consider staying at the policy and
governance level.
[3:05:18] » Councelor Hamilton.
>> Thank you, Mayor Le and through you. Um
[3:05:23] and I think council's probably unified
when we say we all want to reduce costs
[3:05:27] and delays in development approvals to
support housing affordability. I think
[3:05:30] we're all on the same boat there. Um,
but I think if the goal is, of course,
[3:05:36] we want to reduce costs and delays in
planning. We know the time is money, we
[3:05:39] all want more clarity, done. I think
we're all in agreement there. But I
[3:05:42] think my challenge is with this, and I
think we're all dancing around it, is
[3:05:45] that this does dive pretty deep into
city processes um asking for quarterly
[3:05:51] reports, another report in Q4, a new
capital project. Um, and of course, as
[3:05:56] councelor um, uh, Ernshaw pointed out
the question around peer review. um not
[3:06:02] necessarily do we need peer reviews all
the time but what safety mechanism would
[3:06:05] we have should we decide hey the
veracity of this report should be
[3:06:09] questioned should we get a peer review
um so I think we all agree the spirit is
[3:06:15] strong but the flesh on this one might
be a little weak so might I suggest to
[3:06:20] the two movers to maybe bring this back
possibly at the September 15th meeting
[3:06:26] maybe diving a little less deep skimming
a little bit more on the surface working
[3:06:29] a bit more with staff in terms of the
timelines not diving into the
[3:06:32] operational components of the the city.
Um, and that might make this a little
[3:06:37] bit more tangible and digestible for
this council or whomever sits around
[3:06:40] this horseshoe uh during the first term
of 2027 cuz I'm not sure if I can
[3:06:46] support it in this form because it is it
is pretty intense. Um, but I understand
[3:06:52] the impetus behind it and I understand
the need for this clarity like that much
[3:06:56] is not lost on me. So, I'm just
wondering if if the mover and the
[3:06:58] secondary would consider that, bring it
back with a little bit less oomph that's
[3:07:03] more digestible.
>> Are you asking for a deferral?
[3:07:06] » Uh, if in the deferral some work on this
could be done, sure. But if if there's
[3:07:13] if the mover and the second aren't
willing to alter the motion, then there
[3:07:16] would be no point of the deferral.
>> You know what I mean?
[3:07:19] » No. No. They they have that opportunity
to work. You're asking to work on it.
[3:07:24] So, you're asking for a deferral till
then? I would ask for a deferral in that
[3:07:27] case. Yes.
>> Okay. Do you have a seconder?
[3:07:29] Councelor Earshaw.
>> Okay. We will vote on the deferral.
[3:07:43] » Opening voting.
[3:07:51] Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
[3:08:08] Councelor Meta now has the second motion
to present tonight regarding Greenfisted
[3:08:12] Drive and Essex Point Drive. I
understand you have res revised wording
[3:08:15] for this motion that was published on
the addendum.
[3:08:19] Um we will ask if there are any
objections from council to put forward
[3:08:22] the motion as revised. And is there a
seconder for this motion?
[3:08:27] » Thank you, Mayor Jen. Yes, there is. It
is moved by myself, seconded by
[3:08:31] councelor Sherryi. And you are right.
The word has changed. The recommendation
[3:08:36] is whereas the residential area near
Green Vista Drive.
[3:08:40] » Can you start over please?
>> Yeah. Um the motion is moved by myself,
[3:08:45] seconded by councelor Sheri
and the recommendation is whereas the
[3:08:51] residential area near Green Vista Drive
and Essex Point Drive has experienced
[3:08:56] significant growth and is home to a
large and growing number of young
[3:09:00] families. And whereas the recently
approved city of Cambridge parks master
[3:09:05] plan identifies a specific area north of
Green Vista Drive as having a lower
[3:09:11] parkland provision service level and
prioritizes it for future park
[3:09:15] amenities. And whereas there is a
pressing need for local accessible and
[3:09:20] active recreational facilities for
children, youth, and families in this
[3:09:25] specific neighborhood. And whereas
design work on capital projects
[3:09:30] A01463-40
[3:09:35] park development sagena subdivision has
commenced that city staff be directed to
[3:09:40] explore the potential for installing
park features that may include a
[3:09:46] playground shade structure seating andor
outdoor courts and the Essex Point and
[3:09:52] Green Vista Drive trail head parks. and
that staff conduct consultation with the
[3:09:58] community residents both online and in
person. And I would like to speak to the
[3:10:03] motion, please.
[3:10:09] So, you jumped in before we got the
approval of council for the revised mo
[3:10:13] motion. So, can I just have a hands up?
Is everybody okay with the revised
[3:10:17] motion?
[3:10:20] Hands up if you're approved. Okay. Okay.
Guess council have any questions on this
[3:10:29] council. Is that for this?
[3:10:34] Council Roberts.
Thank you, Mayor Jan, and through you.
[3:10:37] Um, I just have a question for staff.
So, it says here that design work has
[3:10:41] commenced. Um, so would this be the
appropriate time for this motion to come
[3:10:46] forward? It kind of reminds me of one
that we saw around budget time. So, I
[3:10:50] wasn't sure if it was something that
should be would be more appropriately
[3:10:54] brought up at budget time or since the
project is underway, does it make sense
[3:10:59] for this to be discussed and brought
forward now?
[3:11:03] » So, it's important for council to note
at this point in time that this is an
[3:11:08] approved 2024 capital project in place
for Green Vista and Essex Point Drive
[3:11:13] and it is scheduled to start in 2027.
Motion in front of council direct staff
[3:11:18] to explore certain park amenities during
the project and it directs staff to
[3:11:22] conduct consultation with community
residents as part of the project's
[3:11:27] scope. And Alex, I see you're trying to
get up here to speak to this. No.
[3:11:32] Yes, you are. I want to hear from you. I
want to hear from you.
[3:11:35] » True you, Madam Mayor. You answered that
question, so I don't I didn't need to.
[3:11:40] Thanks.
>> Sorry. Just to follow up. So, the answer
[3:11:43] is this is already happening. we don't
need to be bringing this motion forward.
[3:11:46] Is that what the answer is?
>> Correct. This is an approved capital
[3:11:51] project from 2024 and we are assuming
the lands and so the project is
[3:11:55] scheduled to start in 2027
>> including public consultation.
[3:11:58] » That's right.
>> Thank you.
[3:12:00] » Yep.
>> Thank you.
[3:12:02] » Do you want to withdraw this motion?
>> Thank you.
[3:12:06] » Want to proceed to keep the ball rolling
and to to symbolize to the community
[3:12:11] that it is happening. I've been having a
lot of questions from people just asking
[3:12:15] about the delays of that corner and this
just lets them know that the momentum is
[3:12:20] carrying on and also the public will
have some feedback that they want to be
[3:12:26] able to you know to raise the issues
that they want to see like for example
[3:12:31] whether they want to have basketball
instead of a shade structure or if
[3:12:35] they're fine with a shade structure and
certainly they want to have a playground
[3:12:38] as well. So this is in my view it's just
more routine just to um signal to the
[3:12:44] community that things are happening and
to continue to consult with the
[3:12:48] residents.
[3:13:31] I'm trying to figure out how to deal
with this, Nick, because this this
[3:13:34] motion is like it's already being done.
It's like we're redoing the same work
[3:13:40] all over again and you're asking staff
to redo the same work. So, just trying
[3:13:44] to figure out how to deal with this.
>> Thank you for letting me
[3:13:48] » Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. We heard you.
Councelor Kimson, while we're trying to
[3:13:54] figure this out, did you have a
question?
[3:13:56] » Um, I'll I'll wait for you to try and
figure things out.
[3:14:01] » I don't know if I'm going to get to that
point.
[3:14:09] » Councelor Divine, do you have a
question?
[3:14:10] » Like two minutes.
>> Well, question or comment. Um, I don't
[3:14:16] understand why it's here. I think we I
would ask councelor M to withdraw it if
[3:14:21] this is being done and it's already
being done. I we're flogging a dead
[3:14:26] horse.
I I and be quite honest with you, if it
[3:14:31] comes to a vote, I'll vote against it
because it doesn't need to be here.
[3:14:38] » Do you want to call a point of order on
this?
[3:14:40] » I can. Sure. Call point of order. Sure.
>> Okay.
[3:14:43] » You happy to do that? Okay. I I I don't
think it should be here or it's being
[3:14:48] done. The city staff have worked on
this. They've consulted and
[3:14:54] I I don't think it should be. I really
don't. Sorry.
[3:14:58] » Okay. I approve your point of order.
Motion's off the floor.
[3:15:02] » Thank you.
[3:15:14] Councelor
[3:15:18] Meta, your next motion is on park
amenities for Green Vista Drive and
[3:15:22] Essex Point Drive. Can you please put
your motion on the floor? And who is
[3:15:26] your seconder?
>> Thank you, Mayor Jane. We just dealt
[3:15:29] with that. This is the next one's on the
density transfer.
[3:15:35] » Okay, so it's two different motions. So
you both of them are
[3:15:40] » Oh, I didn't know that was
to this one.
[3:15:46] » Oops, sorry. That's that was me. Sorry.
Apologize for that. The investigation of
[3:15:51] the density transfer. So, who's your
seconder?
[3:15:54] » Thank you, Mayor Jan. Councelor Cooper
would be the seconder.
[3:16:00] » Okay. So the the whereas the city of
Cambridge continually needs to review
[3:16:05] additional proactive planning tools to
manage sorry significant growth while
[3:16:10] protecting its very unique character.
And whereas transfer of development
[3:16:14] rights TDRs can preserve sensitive lands
and heritage areas while directing
[3:16:20] density to more appropriate corridors.
And whereas such frameworks can balance
[3:16:25] intensification with [snorts]
neighborhood character. And whereas the
[3:16:30] 2026 the 2030 council will require
additional planning options to guide
[3:16:36] future growth. Now therefore be it
resolved that council direct staff to
[3:16:41] research transfer of development right
TDR policies across Canada and report
[3:16:47] back to the new council by the end of
2027 with options and best practices for
[3:16:54] consideration.
Now I would like to speak to it.
[3:16:58] » Okay. Okay. Are there any questions?
Councilor Roberts.
[3:17:05] » Thank you, Mayor Jan. And through you,
um, isn't this pretty much the like what
[3:17:10] we just did, the Hustler road secondary
plan, like we were already ensuring that
[3:17:14] intens like the density is going in the
places where it needs to go. And this
[3:17:17] sounds like it might just be moving
things around in places or am I
[3:17:23] understanding it incorrectly?
Um
[3:17:27] » to me like a secondary plan is
>> the tool around this right
[3:17:30] » I think he's talking about through the
whole city so right yes correct um
[3:17:35] » thank you mayor J
comment now
[3:17:39] » this would be comprehensive across the
entire city and it's also a separate
[3:17:44] policy as well
[3:17:48] » do you want to speak more to that or do
you want to do you have a followup
[3:17:51] councelor Roberts
>> I do yeah thank you Sorry. Go ahead. No,
[3:17:56] go ahead.
>> Um,
[3:17:58] » I just really don't understand how this
would work. So, if someone owns a piece
[3:18:01] of land and they apply for
a development application, um, we can
[3:18:07] just say no, you have to move and buy
land somewhere else like I don't really
[3:18:11] understand logistically. Is someone able
to speak to the logistics of how TDRs
[3:18:18] work? And
before we look at digging deeper into
[3:18:23] it,
Um I think think councelor meta can
[3:18:28] speak to that but I think he's just
asking for us to research the policies
[3:18:31] that are out there not to do do anything
with them just come back with a report
[3:18:35] on all what policies are available
councelor am I correct
[3:18:39] » council may this is just to research the
policy but I think I would like to speak
[3:18:44] to it and that might answer some of the
questions and if council has more
[3:18:49] questions then we could dive into that
then
[3:18:52] » if you're okay with that or I can
>> I And we're going to go to the questions
[3:18:56] just for procedural reasons and then
maybe if you if you want to hold if they
[3:19:00] have questions that relate to you can
answer them all at the same time. Is
[3:19:05] that okay?
>> Okay.
[3:19:07] » Okay. Councelor Hamilton.
>> Uh thank you Mayor Leon for you. Um this
[3:19:11] is new to me like the idea of dividing
up density of let's say something like a
[3:19:15] farmland and selling off pieces like
credits to try to earn density in other
[3:19:18] areas. Uh, I don't want to be that guy
always deferring motions tonight, but
[3:19:23] maybe a deferral on the floor so council
can actually understand what TDs are,
[3:19:26] where they've been used, the pros and
cons, whether or not we need them in
[3:19:30] this type of a municipality, whether or
not they're more suited for rural or
[3:19:34] urban. I just don't know what they are.
So, I don't know if I should tell staff
[3:19:37] to, hey, go research these if ultimately
it won't be worth their best interest.
[3:19:41] Or maybe staff can comment on if this
will be ownorous or not.
[3:19:45] » Okay. So I should have gone to him for
the comment if you're putting a deferral
[3:19:48] on the fair because the floor because
that's not fair to the council withdraw
[3:19:53] your deferral while we go I am happy to
withdraw the
[3:19:55] » Okay. So let's go to councelor meta and
let him talk about this.
[3:19:59] » Thank you mayor Jan very quickly before
I say my um speech or can I just answer
[3:20:05] the question briefly since councelor
Hamilton did ask a question. So there
[3:20:10] are different ways to do this for
different reasons. Some municipalities
[3:20:13] do it to save heritage. So Vancouver
would be one such municipality. It is a
[3:20:18] tool to save heritage because you know
the high land values for example that's
[3:20:23] a deterrent to heritage preservation. So
it's a market orientated solution to try
[3:20:28] to address that. Other cities do it so
that you don't get a cannon effect down
[3:20:33] one road that you get a like a variety
of heights so that maybe one building is
[3:20:38] four stories, the next one over might be
15 story. But it's done in a way of
[3:20:42] course where it all fits but it doesn't
have that wall down the street and
[3:20:46] reduce street in Ottawa would be you
know an an example of of that approach.
[3:20:51] So um I will get into my remarks um if
that's good with you mayor Jen. So we
[3:20:57] are facing a defining moment in our
city's history. Growth pressures are
[3:21:02] accelerating across Ontario and like
many municipalities, we are grappling
[3:21:07] with how to accommodate new housing and
density without losing the very unique
[3:21:12] character, heritage and identity of our
neighborhoods. I first encountered the
[3:21:17] mechanics of transfer of development
rights or density transfers at a
[3:21:21] conference. I saw it not just as a
theoretical academic co concept but also
[3:21:27] a pragmatic marketdriven planning tool
that actively empower cities to manage
[3:21:33] growth rather than merely react to it.
As reported in the water region record,
[3:21:40] this tool allows density to be traded or
sold between property owners. It enables
[3:21:46] a prop a project to exceed base density
limits in designated appropriate areas
[3:21:53] while actively safeguarding vulnerable
heritage or lowdensity neighborhoods
[3:21:58] from outofscale development. Put simply,
it is a smart mechanism to lift unwanted
[3:22:04] inappropriate density off a site that
cannot handle it whether due to
[3:22:08] infrastructure limits, environmental
sensitivities, heritage sensitivity, or
[3:22:14] neighborhood fabric. and it safely
transfers it to a location that is
[3:22:18] optimized and zoned for that level of
growth. We need modern tools to match
[3:22:23] modern challenges. Relying on a rigid
one-sizefits-all approach to infill
[3:22:28] development creates unnecessary friction
between residents, council, and
[3:22:33] developers. And by directing staff to
research how other Canadian
[3:22:37] municipalities have successfully
implemented transfer of development
[3:22:41] right policies, we are doing our due
diligence. We are asking staff to study
[3:22:46] options and best practices so that when
the new term of council arrives, it will
[3:22:52] have a fully vetted homegrown toolkit
ready for deployment. And this is just
[3:22:57] another approach in the tool box or
another tool in the toolbox. I know
[3:23:01] we've already got great policies and
we're working on secondary plans and
[3:23:05] things like that, but this is another
tool that we can have in addition to
[3:23:09] that. And I think the more the more
tools that we have, so to speak, you
[3:23:14] know, the more we can respond to
community concerns. So, I encourage you
[3:23:19] as my colleagues and friends to vote in
favor of this motion. Let's give our
[3:23:22] city the foresight that it deserves, or
I should say, let's continue to give our
[3:23:26] city the foresight it deserves. We can't
use 20th century zoning to solve 21st
[3:23:32] century growth challenges. Density
transfers give us a market-driven way to
[3:23:37] steer the growth to the right locations.
while protecting the unique identity of
[3:23:41] our established neighborhoods. And this
isn't about stopping growth. It's about
[3:23:46] putting density where it actually
belongs. Let's make sure our city grows
[3:23:50] smart, not just fast. And I encourage
you as my colleagues and friends to vote
[3:23:55] in favor of this motion. Let's continue
to give our city the foresight it
[3:23:59] deserves. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councelor Met. I actually
[3:24:02] think it's a great motion, but I'm going
to ask Mr. Axia to speak to this from
[3:24:06] the perspective of staff and as a
planning tool.
[3:24:11] » Thank you and through through you mayor.
So uh I I'll refer to the motion and and
[3:24:15] thank you councelor for putting this one
on the floor. Um the the last part of it
[3:24:19] in terms of now therefore be it resolved
council directs staff to research TDR
[3:24:24] policies across Canada and report back
to to the new council by the end of 2027
[3:24:30] with options and be best practices for
consideration. So that's a that's a very
[3:24:34] open-ended that's provides some research
to go do off go off staff and do some
[3:24:38] research come back with information for
council to consider. So it's a very
[3:24:42] open-ended it gives us a lot of time to
do that information and then I still
[3:24:46] think it allows council to have some
good dialogue and debate over the
[3:24:49] information that they receive. So from a
staff perspective uh we're more than
[3:24:53] happy to proceed should council wish to
move forward.
[3:24:56] » Councelor Cooper. Uh yes, as a second I
don't necessarily have a a question or a
[3:25:01] comment just more something I suppose it
is a comment about why this why we're
[3:25:05] doing this. Am I okay with that?
>> Yes. I'm not asking any question. I just
[3:25:10] like to comment on why we Okay, thank
you. Um yes, this is um I've this is
[3:25:15] actually quite new to me. I've been
looking into this though and it's it's
[3:25:18] um it's very interesting. It's this is a
a tool as council meta said that can um
[3:25:24] that can actually avoid um potentially
avoid us going to the OOLT. Um we get we
[3:25:29] get a we get a development um that's
proposed somewhere. This is just a
[3:25:32] scenario. A development is proposed
somewhere and for whatever reason you
[3:25:36] know with her heritage or you know the
neighbors not into it. We want to bring
[3:25:39] it down from 20 to 10 stories. Um it's
either yes or no. It goes off to the
[3:25:43] OOLT. Well, in this case, um the
developer, we can have another option to
[3:25:47] go the developer with where they're
basically taking um their density as
[3:25:51] credits and they can sell it to somebody
else, say over in the Hesper secondary
[3:25:56] plan on Hesper Road for a much more
appropriate area. So, the initial um the
[3:26:01] initial uh development that we want to
keep low for whatever reason stays low.
[3:26:07] The developers happy because they still
get the they still get money. They've
[3:26:10] sold the value that was inherent in that
height. it goes elsewhere to a more
[3:26:15] appropriate area and it becomes it's a
situation that really um fosters a
[3:26:20] win-win situation very potentially keep
us away from the OOLT um when you
[3:26:25] actually look into this this makes a lot
of sense and I don't see any negatives
[3:26:29] to it doesn't mean we have to use it
anybody has to use it but it's there as
[3:26:33] an option and I I urge all of you to
look into and I know staff will um will
[3:26:38] come back with a good report on this but
it's I found it very interesting very
[3:26:42] very Few negatives. Thank you.
>> For someone who said he didn't know much
[3:26:46] about it, you seem to know more than you
could write the report yourself. I think
[3:26:52] I Yeah. When I look at this, I think of
Grand A, you know, the the W five one
[3:26:58] with the uh where we were looking for
the height reduction there. That that
[3:27:02] probably would have solved that problem.
Councelor Meta,
[3:27:05] » you may jan through and I do appreciate
all the feedback and the questions. I
[3:27:10] also want to emphasize that should this
policy pass at some point in the future
[3:27:15] it is a public process and if there are
those kind of tradeoffs that is a public
[3:27:20] process and um some municipalities
actually have what they call a density
[3:27:26] register and or a density bank and I
mean it it's kind of strange it's it
[3:27:31] could be complicated but it's very
practical it has been done and I don't
[3:27:36] claim to know all the answers that's why
I'm saying we need to get staff to
[3:27:40] review this and come back with some
options. Thank you.
[3:27:44] » Okay, I think it's a great motion. Um,
we're going to call for that vote now.
[3:27:53] » Opening voting.
[3:27:59] » Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
[3:28:05] So, moving on to councelor Meta's third
motion regarding community engagement
[3:28:09] expansion planning for Fiddlesticks
Community Center and Parks and the
[3:28:12] Fiddlesticks catchment area. I
understand you'd like to withdraw your
[3:28:16] originally worded motion regarding the
Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association to
[3:28:21] replace it with the newly worded motion
as published on revised agenda today.
[3:28:26] Are there any objections before I have
the clerk respond to anything here
[3:28:32] to the um revised motion?
I see none. Okay. Um can I have the
[3:28:39] deputy? Sorry.
Oh. Oh, councelor Roberts.
[3:28:44] » Yeah, sorry. I don't see revisions like
would they be highlighted in this
[3:28:49] version or
>> Please.
[3:28:52] » Thank you and thank you, Madam Mayor. Um
due to the changes being a bit more
[3:28:56] substantial than just minor like wording
revisions, we replaced it um entirely
[3:29:00] with what the um new version looked like
on the revised agenda.
[3:29:07] » And sorry, was this given to us or this
was just what was on our desk like when
[3:29:10] we came in?
>> No, I could speak to that as well. Um
[3:29:14] but the revised agenda was published um
either today or yesterday with that
[3:29:18] revised wording. That one was the one
from today.
[3:29:22] » Okay. But it wasn't it wasn't clear that
it was revised. Correct. Like
[3:29:27] » I didn't know it was revised till just
the second.
[3:29:29] » Okay. So the deputy clerk is going to
speak to this.
[3:29:32] » Okay.
>> Thank you madame mayor and through you.
[3:29:36] Um so the on the revised agenda it is
indicated that is it is a revised motion
[3:29:42] um from councelor and that came from
discussions with staff and that was
[3:29:47] revised accordingly. Um I also the
document that was in front of you is uh
[3:29:52] late correspondence that was received
from the Fiddle 6 Community Center board
[3:29:56] of directors. Um this will be included
in the minutes so that it is public
[3:30:00] record and just wanted to indicate that
it was distributed to council but it'll
[3:30:04] be included on the minutes. So that was
a document that you received um in front
[3:30:08] of you. And then like I mentioned um on
the publication of the revised agenda
[3:30:12] today was the revised wording um from
councelor Meta based on discussions with
[3:30:17] staff and he's presumably going to read
the revised wording.
[3:30:25] » So councelor Mendo, do you have a
seconder for your revised motion?
[3:30:29] » Thank you, Mayor J.
>> Yes, I do. Council Sheri,
[3:30:36] thank you. So I am going to read this
motion and I would like to speak to it.
[3:30:41] Um okay so where whereas residents of
the Fiddlesticks neighborhood have
[3:30:45] expressed a strong desire for an
expansion of the Fiddlesticks Community
[3:30:50] Center to address growing programmatic
recreational and community needs. And
[3:30:55] whereas the local neighborhood
association board has identified
[3:31:00] operational design and or fiscal
considerations that require further
[3:31:04] analysis and collaborative review before
a capital funding commitment is
[3:31:09] considered. And whereas it is the policy
of this council to ensure that major
[3:31:14] neighborhood infrastructure investments
are guided by robust public input, staff
[3:31:20] expertise, and consensus among community
stakeholders. Whereas planning for
[3:31:26] future capital budget cycles require
timely data-driven reports to properly
[3:31:33] evaluate and prioritize municipal
infrastructure funding requests.
[3:31:38] Therefore, be it resolved that city
council direct staff to initiate a
[3:31:43] comprehensive community consultation and
stakeholder engagement process regarding
[3:31:49] the potential expansion and facility
needs of the Fiddlesticks Community
[3:31:54] Center as well as general park
recreational needs for the entire
[3:31:59] Fiddlesticks catchment area and [snorts]
that staff be directed to invite
[3:32:04] representatives from both the general
resident population of the Fiddlesticks
[3:32:09] Catchman Area, the Fiddlesticks
Neighborhood Association
[3:32:15] Executive Director, and the Fiddlesticks
Neighborhood Association Board to
[3:32:20] participate actively in this review
process. And that staff submit a final
[3:32:25] report to council outlining the
community feedback, facility options,
[3:32:31] other recreational opportunities, and
estimated financial impacts. no later
[3:32:36] than the summer of 2028 to inform
deliberations for the 2029 capital
[3:32:43] budget. That was a typo at the very end
and I would like to speak to it and I
[3:32:48] did make a promise to bring something
forward and that's that's the reason why
[3:32:52] I'm doing it to keep my promise.
>> Councelor Hamilton.
[3:32:57] » Uh thank you mayor get through you. I
just have a question if that's okay. Um
[3:33:03] okay, excellent. Um, I don't know if now
is the time, but I noticed the board and
[3:33:08] the executive director of Fiddlesticks
is here. Would they be able to come up
[3:33:11] and comment on this motion? I know they
have a dele they submitted
[3:33:15] correspondence. Um, I'm just curious to
hear their thoughts on it because their
[3:33:19] correspondence doesn't seem to match
with council meta's account and
[3:33:22] obviously if we're dealing with issues
pertaining to Fiddlesticks, it'd be good
[3:33:26] to hear from Fiddlesticks. Um,
>> I asked them at the beginning of the
[3:33:30] evening if they wanted to and they said
no.
[3:33:33] » So, okay. Yeah, I think they thought
that their letter was sufficient. Did
[3:33:37] you want to speak?
>> Okay. Okay.
[3:33:48] » So, I stood before council in 2002 and
>> please identify yourself.
[3:33:53] » Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Kim Fowler. I am the
executive director of the Fiddlesticks
[3:33:57] Community Center. Uh so back in 2002 I
stood before council and uh was granted
[3:34:04] or this community center was granted the
uh a trust fund and that trust the
[3:34:09] purpose of that trust fund partially was
to save for this addition to the
[3:34:13] community center. So there is nobody in
this room that wants to see an addition
[3:34:18] to this building more than myself and
the board chair and other board members.
[3:34:23] However, this is not the time. There is
a lot going on in the community that is
[3:34:29] not generally public knowledge around
neighborhoods and there is concern that
[3:34:35] this money will not be used. The money
that has been saved to the tune of $1.3
[3:34:39] million by the neighborhood would not
potentially be used in the way it is
[3:34:44] intended. And until there are some
things that are sorted among the
[3:34:48] neighborhood associations as well as the
fact that we are working with city staff
[3:34:54] currently to look at space for all
neighborhoods.
[3:34:58] This is just not the appropriate time in
our view. This is something that I have
[3:35:02] expressed and that was not taken into
consideration and this is something that
[3:35:07] my board had a healthy conversation
about as well.
[3:35:11] » So Kim, I recognize you weren't prepared
to speak tonight. No,
[3:35:15] » you did say you hadn't didn't want to
get up and speak when I first came in
[3:35:18] the room. So, but I have some questions.
Are you willing to take the question?
[3:35:22] » Absolutely.
>> Okay. Councelor Kimson, is this directed
[3:35:24] to Kim?
>> No. Okay. Councelor Schwar, is this
[3:35:28] directed to Kim? No. You're off the hot
seat. Thank Thank you for this. Thank
[3:35:33] you.
>> Okay. Um, Councelor Kimson, do you want
[3:35:36] to put your question on the floor?
>> Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. I
[3:35:41] guess this is a question perhaps for
staff. Um, and as I'm as I'm reading
[3:35:46] this revised motion and looking at it,
um, understanding the work that's
[3:35:51] currently being done with the
neighborhood associations in general,
[3:35:54] and of course, W three, the Preston area
does not have a neighborhood
[3:35:59] association. Um, for for many years,
it's something we've discussed. We
[3:36:04] either have Preston Heights um
neighborhood association ward 1 or
[3:36:08] there's Langs which I guess I should say
is in Ward 3 but central Preston does
[3:36:13] not have a neighborhood association. So
I guess when I look at this and with
[3:36:19] this request looking at future planning
for Fiddlesticks I'm wondering is this
[3:36:24] something that I should be doing for
Central Preston or is that going to be
[3:36:29] covered in the work that's already
ongoing?
[3:36:38] » [snorts]
>> Um, thanks for the question. And there
[3:36:40] is a feasibility study planned for 2027
that includes all of the neighborhood
[3:36:45] associations. So, we've had a lot of
requests from multiple associations
[3:36:50] around the need for space. And so, we've
drafted a statement of work with with
[3:36:55] the neighborhood groups to kind of work
on a project. And so, that's supposed to
[3:36:59] happen in 2027. and it's
all-encompassing of all neighborhood
[3:37:02] groups.
>> May I follow up? Um, so in that
[3:37:08] situation, is that going to include some
sort of consultation with the
[3:37:12] non-organized
group representing Central Preston that
[3:37:16] doesn't actually have a neighborhood
association? Is there going to be a way
[3:37:19] for community consultation as part of
that?
[3:37:23] So the feasibility study is specifically
around the current requests
[3:37:27] [clears throat] coming in and creating a
process that the city can uh apply to
[3:37:32] anyone coming in. There's a there's
other work I think that we need to do
[3:37:35] around neighborhood groups and emerging
groups and uh groups that are changing
[3:37:40] categories. So that's not a part of this
scope, but that is in our future.
[3:37:46] Thank you,
[3:37:51] » Councelor Armeda. Um, if you want to
make a comment, um, and then I'll follow
[3:37:57] up from there.
>> Thank you, Mayor J. I certainly would. I
[3:38:00] would like to make some remarks. So, I I
rise today to table this motion to
[3:38:05] address a critical gap in our city's
recreational infrastructure. Every
[3:38:11] member on this council knows a city is
not just a collection of roads and
[3:38:15] pipes. It is a tapestry of
neighborhoods. And right now the fabric
[3:38:19] of the Fiddlesticks catchment area is
stretching to its absolute limit.
[3:38:24] Fiddlesticks is a rightfully proud
thriving community of over 17,500
[3:38:31] residents. But the demographics have
fundamentally shifted since its
[3:38:35] community infrastructure was first drawn
up. Over 60% of Fiddlesticks households
[3:38:41] are families with children living at
home. And that is a massively higher
[3:38:45] than the citywide average of roughly
47%.
[3:38:49] At the exact same time, we are
experiencing a massive demographic
[3:38:53] crest. Our city's over 50 population is
projected to double in the coming
[3:38:59] decades. Fiddlesticks is facing a unique
generational squeeze. We have strollers
[3:39:05] and aging seniors competing for the
exact same community square footage. And
[3:39:10] the current infrastructure simply cannot
hold them both anymore. And with over um
[3:39:16] 60% of Fiddlesticks homes raising kids,
public spaces are not sorry, they're not
[3:39:21] a luxury. They are an essential
extension of the family living room. We
[3:39:26] need this expansion or uh or either that
or having more recreational facilities
[3:39:31] in our parks in that area. And I'm quite
flexible either way on that. As a
[3:39:36] critical reminder, this request is for
the entire Fiddlesticks Catchman area.
[3:39:41] We are not just I I'm not just talking
about the brick andmortar facility at 71
[3:39:47] Catwin Boulevard, even though it is very
important to me. But this review must
[3:39:51] capture our shared community parks right
across the neighborhood stretching from
[3:39:56] Duncan Ferguson Park to Lions Canamera
Park over to a Wayne Taylor Park and
[3:40:01] even all the way up to Whitmer Park. And
let me be absolutely clear about what
[3:40:06] this motion does and what it does not
do. I'm not standing here today asking
[3:40:10] for a bling check. And I I'm not
standing asking for a capital funding
[3:40:15] either, even though I did kind of want
to get the ball rolling on that and I
[3:40:19] left it open to future budget
deliberations. But anyways, I've heard
[3:40:23] the neighborhood. I've heard the board
and I feel that this at least keeps the
[3:40:28] ball rolling and I applaud staff for the
the work that they are doing and the
[3:40:33] studies across all of the neighborhood
associations.
[3:40:36] But I represent this area. I'm held
accountable by the residents. I did make
[3:40:41] a promise to bring something forward. I
did and I'm keeping that promise by
[3:40:46] doing this and that is why I wanted to
bring something forward to keep my
[3:40:51] promise because I did make a promise to
the residents I would bring something
[3:40:55] forward.
In the magic of this process lies in its
[3:40:59] collaboration and passing the motion. We
are directing staff to bring the
[3:41:03] community to the table by actively
consulting with the general resident
[3:41:07] population alongside the Fiddlesticks
Neighborhood Association executive
[3:41:12] director and board. And we achieve three
critical things. We tap into the decades
[3:41:17] of grassroots operational expertise from
the people who run the programs daily.
[3:41:22] We build an unshakable community
consensus on exactly what facilities and
[3:41:27] park spaces are actually needed. And we
destress the project by identifying
[3:41:32] operational design or any fiscal hurdles
before they ever cost the taxpayer a
[3:41:38] dime.
And you know to a collective relief of
[3:41:42] staff. I'm not asking for a report
tomorrow. And I am flexible on the
[3:41:46] timeline. And if we want to roll this
into the review that's already, you
[3:41:51] know, underway with all of the
neighborhood associations, I'm perfectly
[3:41:55] fine with that. But I want to advocate
strongly for this area of the city and I
[3:42:00] want to make sure Fiddlesticks continues
to be at the forefront. It is my job to
[3:42:05] advocate for them and for the
neighborhood as a whole. So that's why
[3:42:09] I'm bringing this forward and I do have
flexibility on how to proceed. I just
[3:42:14] don't want it to get lost in the
shuffle. I want to be strong and
[3:42:18] advocate for the area. So thank you.
>> Councelor Schwer, you have a comment?
[3:42:25] » Yes. Uh, thank you, Mayor Leot. I just
want to echo uh Councelor Kimson's
[3:42:30] comments. Um, because if this is
something that would involve all the
[3:42:35] neighborhood associations,
uh, review, I would support. Um, but we
[3:42:40] are slowly lacking also in the Preston
area for a neighborhood association. So,
[3:42:46] I'd rather um, this be part of a big
review rather than specific.
[3:42:52] » Councelor Hamilton.
Thank you, Mayor Le and through you. Um,
[3:42:56] and although I appreciate councilor
Meadow's fortitude in sticking to his
[3:43:00] promise and uh the spirit of the motion
is certainly a good one that's steeped
[3:43:03] in bringing the community together,
ultimately the motion pertains heavily
[3:43:06] to Fiddlesticks Neighborhood
Association. And we've just heard from
[3:43:09] the executive director and the board of
Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association
[3:43:13] that's waited three hours to essentially
say that they oppose the motion. Um, and
[3:43:17] when it comes to Fiddlesticks
neighborhood, I trust uh I trust Kim and
[3:43:21] I trust the board and I think they've
done an amazing job uh in bringing that
[3:43:24] neighborhood to life over decades. So,
uh I hear where you're coming from,
[3:43:27] councelor Meta, but I'm afraid I can't
support the motion unless u fiddle
[3:43:31] fiddlesticks neighborhood association is
behind it. Thanks.
[3:43:36] Um, so my comments, um, even if the
board was for it, I wouldn't be able to
[3:43:43] support this because this is a big city
with a lot of, uh, neighborhood
[3:43:47] associations, some of them that are
very, very lacking. I think of Greenway
[3:43:52] Chaplain, for instance, they have no
space. They have no room to do anything
[3:43:57] with. They don't even have green space.
Um,
[3:44:01] I think that we need to listen to the
board here. it's not the right time for
[3:44:06] them. There is a fe there is
consultation coming. There is
[3:44:10] feasibility coming. Um and I I've got to
say you are an amazing representative
[3:44:15] for your residents, councelor Meta. You
always have been. And to try to keep to
[3:44:21] a promise that's commendable, very very
commendable. Um
[3:44:26] I I think you're a great representative.
Uh I just want to put that out there. U
[3:44:31] but I cannot support this motion. Sorry,
councelor Divine.
[3:44:36] » Yes, thank you to the chair. Um,
sometimes the road to hell is paved with
[3:44:42] good intentions.
I think um I understand what you're
[3:44:47] doing, but we have multiple multiple um
groups in the city that um multiple
[3:44:59] neighborhood associations. Some have
homes, some don't. Um, and I think we
[3:45:04] have to be very careful what we do
because the model that's used in this
[3:45:08] city for neighborhood associations is a
great model. It's an absolute great
[3:45:12] model. However, however,
you know, some we have the halves and
[3:45:18] halves not. So, we have to in the end
make sure we we everybody's equal,
[3:45:25] right? Hal has like for example the
[snorts] um HSPA operated at the arena
[3:45:31] they technically don't have a home right
and I I appreciate you bringing this
[3:45:37] forward but I I certainly can't support
it because everybody's got to be treated
[3:45:41] equal with the neighborhood
associations. Thank you. [snorts]
[3:45:45] » Okay, we're going to put the motion the
motion's on the floor. We're going to
[3:45:48] call for that vote.
Opening voting,
[3:45:56] closing voting.
Uh, that's defeated by vote of 1 to
[3:46:01] eight.
[3:46:05] Now, I'd like to present a motion
regarding a provincial data center
[3:46:09] framework and community benefits, which
has been revised to correct an error in
[3:46:13] publishing today on the revised agenda.
and I'll ask the deputy clerk Chris
[3:46:18] Fereso to provide some background on the
publishing of this motion.
[3:46:24] » Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you.
Um, so I just wanted to provide some
[3:46:27] background. This evening's addendum
includes a motion from uh Mayor Liot
[3:46:31] related to data centers. Uh, the one
that was published yesterday that um is
[3:46:35] pages 20 to 24. Um,
Mayor Liot's motion specifically was
[3:46:40] pages 21 to 22. Um, this motion was
included on the public agenda. Uh
[3:46:44] however, along with the motion, staff
inadvertently published draft wording
[3:46:48] that had been prepared by staff while
reviewing different options that may
[3:46:51] arise from this conversation. Um and
that could be found on uh the latter two
[3:46:56] pages of that motion for the addendum
that was published yesterday. I just
[3:46:59] wanted to be clear that the additional
draft wording was not part of the
[3:47:03] mayor's motion and was included in
error. Uh it was prepared as a draft
[3:47:07] working document only. uh based on a lot
of the discussions and things that we
[3:47:11] were seeing around the province and
based on some of AMO's guidance and it
[3:47:15] was not intended for publication or
consideration of council. So the motion
[3:47:20] itself uh was corrected on the revised
agenda that was published today and it
[3:47:24] speaks to the data centers only. The
strike out portion is not uh what was to
[3:47:28] be included. Thank you.
[3:47:34] » Yeah, I have a seconder. Yes, that's
councelor Ernshaw. But we need to have
[3:47:39] uh suspend the rules um which requires a
two-th3 majority
[3:47:44] which we need six members of council to
bring this forward tonight. So we're
[3:47:49] going to put the motion on the floor for
sorry seconder to suspend the rules.
[3:47:55] Council you the sorry coun. Yes.
[3:48:02] » Now voting.
>> Now we're voting on it. Yeah.
[3:48:06] Opening voting on the motion to suspend
the rules.
[3:48:14] » Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
[3:48:20] » Okay. Thank you.
So [snorts] the motion,
[3:48:26] let me just turn to that page.
[3:48:30] Whereas the province of Ontario has
released a proposed data center playbook
[3:48:34] and is undertaking work to establish a
framework for the review and approval of
[3:48:38] data center developments. And whereas
the government of Canada has launched
[3:48:42] Canada's national artificial
intelligence strategy AI for all to
[3:48:47] ensure sovereignty and control over our
data enabled data for innovation and
[3:48:51] economic growth and protect Canadians
from the risks and harms of AI. And
[3:48:57] whereas the municipalities are
increasingly receiving inquiries and
[3:49:01] proposals related to data center
development and require greater
[3:49:04] certainty regarding provincial
direction, infrastructure planning,
[3:49:08] community benefits, and land use
considerations. And whereas council
[3:49:13] recognizes the economic opportunities
associated with digital infrastructure
[3:49:17] while recognizing the need for a
comprehensive municipal framework before
[3:49:22] permitting additional large-scale
facilities. Therefore, be it resolved
[3:49:26] that the city of Cambridge request that
the province of Ontario expedite the
[3:49:29] completion and implementation of its
data center playbook and associated
[3:49:33] approval framework in order to provide
clarity and certainty to municipalities,
[3:49:37] utilities, and the development community
and that the province be requested to
[3:49:42] work in partnership with municipalities,
local distribution companies, including
[3:49:46] Granbridge Energy and industry
stakeholders to establish a public good
[3:49:51] framework for data centers, including
options for community benefit agree.
[3:49:54] agreements, local infrastructure
investments, affordability initiatives,
[3:49:59] energy partnerships, and other measures
that provide direct and lasting
[3:50:03] community be benefits to host
communities. and that as part of the
[3:50:07] upcoming review of the city of Cambridge
official plan, council directs staff to
[3:50:11] evaluate and identify appropriate
locations and policy considerations for
[3:50:17] potentially but not necessarily future
data center development to ensure land
[3:50:21] use compatibility, infrastructure
readiness and alignment with community
[3:50:25] objectives. And that the review include
official plan policies and designations
[3:50:29] hypers scale or otherwise zoning bylaw
permissions, site plan standards,
[3:50:36] infrastructure, servicing,
environmental, economic employment,
[3:50:40] taxation, public health, climate and
national security considerations. that a
[3:50:44] copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Premier Doug Ford, Minister of
[3:50:49] Municipal Affairs and Housing Robert
Flack, Minister of Energy and Mines
[3:50:54] Steven Leche, Minister of Public and
Business Service Delivery and
[3:50:57] Procurement Steven Crawford, Minister of
Housing and Infrastructure of Canada,
[3:51:02] Gregor Robertson, Minister of Artificial
Intelligence and Digital Innovation,
[3:51:07] Evan Solomon, Ontario's Big City Mayors,
OBCM, the Association of Municipalities
[3:51:13] of Ontario, AM O and the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities FCM and all
[3:51:18] Ontario municipalities.
>> A second council.
[3:51:24] » Yes.
>> Uh are there any questions
[3:51:31] councelor Shwary?
>> Thank you. Are we able to add to that
[3:51:37] like request to the province to delegate
more stuff or
[3:51:43] Sorry. You want to add to this? Amend
the motion?
[3:51:46] » No. Like
I want to be able to talk about this not
[3:51:50] to change your motion, but like to
consider other things that perhaps the
[3:51:56] the province can look at. Um
>> so can you give me an idea because it
[3:52:02] might be already included in the wording
because the wording is pretty broad,
[3:52:06] right?
>> Okay. Okay. Like for example, um if a if
[3:52:10] a data center like the one on on 17
Bondro for example, they were given $450
[3:52:18] million to expand the data center and to
boost it up to 60 megawatts. Would there
[3:52:24] be something in in that motion that
before a data center does that, they
[3:52:29] have to come back um to a staff to bring
it back to council uh and also to let us
[3:52:35] know what extra for example water load
or or hydro um things like that and also
[3:52:42] other things of concern that a lot of
people are having. Um I don't know if
[3:52:47] it's a city thing we have to do or or
it's a province. A lot of people are
[3:52:51] complaining about the noise the data
center emits and it's harmful to some
[3:52:56] people's health. I was just wondering if
that would include something like that
[3:53:00] or is that something we do at a city
level?
[3:53:04] » Well, as far as far as the energy grid
that's out of our hands anyway, that's
[3:53:08] part of Grand Bridge. That's why we've
asked for the consultation with those
[3:53:13] entities. Um, and as far as the water,
that would be the region that would be
[3:53:18] able to handle that. Um,
and the noise, I think that's what we're
[3:53:25] looking at here when we send it back to
staff. Correct. Am I a little bit
[3:53:30] » through you, mayor? So, part of the
motion reads to uh provide some feedback
[3:53:35] to uh the pro to the province of Ontario
related to their playbook. So what you
[3:53:41] had just mentioned councelor Shweri
would be some of that feedback that we
[3:53:46] could provide.
>> Okay. So that's what I wanted to do.
[3:53:50] » Yes. So the point of my motion was you
know every so so many municipalities in
[3:53:56] North America and around the world are
getting caught because we don't have any
[3:54:01] guidelines in place. There's nothing out
there to protect the residents. And one
[3:54:05] of my big concerns when we hear that
there's jobs provided, those are
[3:54:09] temporary jobs. The the construction
jobs come and go, right? They're they
[3:54:13] they move on from one community to the
next. They're not permanent jobs. Um and
[3:54:19] uh you know, the jobs that are provided
within the these buildings, there's few
[3:54:24] of them, but there is a spin-off effect
that happens. And that's the same with
[3:54:29] any industry. All industries have
spin-off supply companies that come into
[3:54:34] being, but because we don't have there
won't be a lot of people um working
[3:54:41] here, we lose the impact of having
people buy houses and pay municipal
[3:54:45] taxes that provide for the benefits. So
that's why I put in here about community
[3:54:50] benefits that will provide for parks,
would provide for social issues that we
[3:54:54] may not know that we're going to
encounter. So that's that's why I put
[3:54:58] that in here. So, it's an it's a not a
tax. I I'm not sure what we would call
[3:55:04] it, but I want staff to look at it and I
want it taken to the province so that
[3:55:08] they can look at their playbook, what
sort of tools that we can have in order
[3:55:13] to collect money, not not development
charges, but charges that could have a
[3:55:18] different name that we can utilize for
things like that. So this has been um
[3:55:24] you know I worked with the city manager
on this and OBCM had also put forward a
[3:55:30] motion as well which was passed
unanimously. There's a big concern with
[3:55:34] all the cities all the cities on what's
coming forward. But I don't we don't
[3:55:39] want to restrict businesses that come
from these data centers. They they're
[3:55:44] good. We need them. We can't be left
behind in technology. We have to have
[3:55:49] these or we'll be on the losing end of
them. They're very, very important to
[3:55:52] have. We need growth in this, but they
need to be regulated. And that's what
[3:55:56] the federal government's doing. That's
what the province is doing. And that's
[3:55:59] why we're in this motion, we're asking
staff to bring forward the the um
[3:56:04] official plan amendments, zoning
amendments, that sort of thing, or
[3:56:07] zoning, sorry, new ones, not amendments.
Councelor Kimson.
[3:56:11] » Um, thank you very much, Mayor Jan,
through you. Um, I'm wondering if there
[3:56:17] might be an opportunity, not necessarily
as part of this motion, but an
[3:56:21] opportunity for staff to put together a
workshop for the next term of council on
[3:56:27] data centers. Um, because if we think
back to the beginning of the term, um,
[3:56:32] you had your trip to Europe and then we
had the data center come um, and get set
[3:56:37] up and and no one really thought much of
it. And now we're hearing so much more
[3:56:42] and and we don't know and we're hearing
a lot of hearsay and fodder. So I think
[3:56:46] it's something that would be really
helpful to whoever it is around the
[3:56:49] table as well as members of the
community to learn more about data
[3:56:53] centers, different types of them, how
they work um just for we we know we're
[3:56:58] going to be dealing with them in the
future and that would be certainly
[3:57:01] helpful information.
>> That's actually something that is on the
[3:57:05] horizon. U the city manager had plans
for that already. So certainly your
[3:57:10] point is well taken and that will be
something that comes forward.
[3:57:13] » Thank you.
>> Oh he wants to speak to it.
[3:57:15] » Thank you and through through you mayor.
Uh we have also recently updated our
[3:57:19] website to include a page specifically
regarding data centers to make sure that
[3:57:23] the correct information was all out
there and as new information starts to
[3:57:27] come in we'll make sure that also gets
gets uh collected and posted on our
[3:57:31] website.
[3:57:36] I also didn't want the public to sit out
there and think that we're not doing
[3:57:41] anything about this because we're all
getting emails about this. Every elected
[3:57:45] official in this province is getting
emails about this and we all have
[3:57:49] concerns. We are listening to the public
um about their concerns, but there is
[3:57:55] some wrong information out there. So,
this will clarify that um coming forward
[3:58:00] to the new council. Um, so yeah,
enough said. We'll put the motion on the
[3:58:06] floor.
[3:58:09] » Opening voting.
[3:58:15] Closing voting.
[3:58:20] That carries by vote of 90.
>> So there are no notices of motion. Uh,
[3:58:28] our next order of business is motion to
receive. Councelor Roberts, you have
[3:58:32] that motion.
>> I'm going to put you before
[3:58:36] consideration calls.
>> I do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved
[3:58:40] by myself, seconded by councelor
Ernshaw. Recommendation that all
[3:58:43] presentations and correspondence from
the August 25th, 2026 council meeting be
[3:58:47] received.
>> Okay, we'll take that vote.
[3:58:52] » Opening voting.
Closing
[3:58:58] voting
that carries unanimously.
[3:59:05] » Okay. So, um, our city manager, Rob
Axia, asked to make some closing remarks
[3:59:11] here. So, um, Mr. Axia, if you want to
make those.
[3:59:16] » Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to point
out or highlight, uh, just a couple
[3:59:19] items. Uh first off, uh Cambridge uh
senior staff and participating elected
[3:59:24] officials had a successful and
productive week of advocacy at this
[3:59:28] year's Association of Municipalities of
Ontario conference with delegations that
[3:59:32] focused on key priorities including
health and community care supports,
[3:59:37] critical infrastructure, and modernizing
municipal government. Uh the city was
[3:59:42] able to highlight local expertise,
strengthen provincial uh and municipal
[3:59:45] partnerships and position Cambridge as a
solution focused municipal leader. A
[3:59:50] sincere thank you is extended to
council, the corporate leadership team
[3:59:54] and staff across the organization whose
briefing materials, technical expertise,
[3:59:59] and day-to-day work help to support
these important conversations and
[4:00:03] advance Cambridge's priorities
proincially. I would also like to
[4:00:07] highlight a recent appointment.
Effective September 8th, Keith Clark
[4:00:11] will be appointed as a successful
applicant into the role of deputy fire
[4:00:16] chief. Keith has dedicated more than 22
years of service to the Cambridge Fire
[4:00:20] Department, demonstrating strong
leadership, a commitment to operational
[4:00:24] excellence, and a passion for
firefighter development and public
[4:00:28] safety. We welcome Deputy Chief Clark
into his new leadership role. Thank you.
[4:00:36] Okay, the next order of business is the
consideration of bylaws. And before you
[4:00:39] ask that question, councelor Ernshaw,
they're all good to go.
[4:00:47] » Thank you, Mayor Liot. It's moved by me
and seconded by Councelor Hamilton that
[4:00:51] bylaws as listed [clears throat] on the
agenda dated August 25, 2026 be adopted
[4:00:56] as follows. 18.1
Bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge
[4:01:02] official plan 2012
18.2
[4:01:06] bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge
zoning bylaw 26-00007
[4:01:12] 18.3
bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge
[4:01:16] zoning bylaw 150-85
18.4 4 bylaw to designate the property
[4:01:24] known as 3,250 Beaverdale Road. 18.5
bylaw to designate the property known as
[4:01:32] 197 West River Road.
18.6
[4:01:37] bylaw to designate the property known as
61 Cambridge Street. 18.7
[4:01:44] bylaw to exempt part lot control part of
block 1158M
[4:01:49] hy-en 720 hyphen Sage Drive 18.8
bylaw to amend the city of Cambridge
[4:01:56] official plan 2012.
>> Thank you councelor Ernshaw. We will do
[4:02:01] that vote now.
Opening voting.
[4:02:11] Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
[4:02:16] » Next order of business is the
confirmatory bylaw. Councelor Kimson,
[4:02:20] you have that one.
[4:02:26] » Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. Moved by
myself and seconded by councelora.
[4:02:30] recommendation that the bylaw to confirm
the proceedings of the council of the
[4:02:34] corporation of the city of Cambridge be
passed.
[4:02:38] » Thank you. And the clerk will take that
vote.
[4:02:40] » Opening voting.
[4:02:46] » Closing voting.
That carries unanimously.
[4:02:53] » Councelor Cooper, you have the motion of
the night.
[4:02:58] » Thank you very much.
the adjournment moved by me, seconded by
[4:03:02] council Hamilton, that the council
meeting does now adjourn at 10:05 p.m.
[4:03:10] » Thank you everyone for a very energetic
debate tonight. There was some good work
[4:03:15] done here tonight. Good discussion
around the horseshoe. And we'll see you
[4:03:19] on September 15th for the next Oh, I'm
sorry. I did it again, didn't I? I
[4:03:23] haven't done that in a long time. We're
going to vote on that. We're not going
[4:03:26] to sleep here tonight.
Opening voting,
[4:03:32] closing voting.
Um, that carries a vote of 7 to2. Thank
[4:03:37] you.
>> Oh, okay. Somebody wants to sleep here
[4:03:40] tonight. Okay. Anyway, we'll see you on
the 15th.