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